Latest / Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show! / No Free Speech In Canada, Jordan Peterson Denied In Court

Transcript

No Free Speech In Canada, Jordan Peterson Denied In Court · Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show!

• 0:00
  So before we start, I should give you a quick spoiler alert. Every
• 0:04
  institution in Canada is run by woke lunatics. Here's the headline, Jordan Peterson
• 0:11
  forced to undergo re education from Ontario College of Psychologists to retain his license.
• 0:19
  So here you have the most famous psychologist in the world being reprimanded by a
• 0:24
  little group of tinpot dictators in the Ontario College of Psychologists. And I'm sure
• 0:31
  it makes them feel extremely proud of themselves in their tiny authoritarian hearts. And
• 0:36
  of course it goes without saying that, of course this is political. Of
• 0:39
  course it is, because you could be just a full on communist revolutionary with
• 0:44
  Stalin tattooed on your forehead and a T shirt that says I hate kulaks,
• 0:49
  talking about exterminating the bourgeoisie. You could go on the CBC and say it
• 0:55
  and nothing is going to happen to you because it's Canada. But once about
• 1:00
  a line of the woke orthodoxy, well guess what one step is too far?
• 1:04
  So what's the background here. So psychologist and former University of Toronto professor
• 1:08
  doctor Jordan Peterson was ordered by the Ontario College of Psychologists to undergo a re
• 1:15
  education training program over a social media posts and Jordan Peterson took them to court
• 1:21
  to prevent this this re education and disturbingly, Jordan Peterson has lost his legal
• 1:27
  challenge to the Ontario College of Psychologists because apparently the Canadian Charter of Rights and
• 1:36
  Freedoms means nothing, and judges are not bound by law. They are completely
• 1:40
  free to just make whatever arbitrary judgment they would like. And let's go to
• 1:45
  the court documents themselves to view a list of Jordan Peterson's various crimes against humanity.
• 1:51
  A tweet on January second, twenty twenty two, in which doctor Peterson
• 1:55
  responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stay, You're free to
• 2:00
  leave at any point. So pointing out the obvious hypocrisy, let's see on
• 2:05
  Joe Rogan, he spoke about a vindictive client whose complaint about him was a
• 2:09
  pack of lies. Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Doctor Peterson said,
• 2:15
  it's just poor children and the world has too many people on it.
• 2:17
  Anyways, that's obviously sarcasm. In pointing out hypocrisy, it's probably not useful
• 2:23
  to show it out of context. He said that an Ottawa city councilor who
• 2:28
  uses They then pronounced was a quote appalling, self righteous, moralizing thing.
• 2:34
  He said that Ellen Page had her breast removed by a criminal physician. He
• 2:38
  commented on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition cover with a plus size model, tweeting
• 2:44
  quote, sorry, not beautiful, and no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going
• 2:49
  to change that. Yeah, but they're sure going to try, aren't they.
• 2:52
  Now here's the first paragraph in the overview. It says, when individuals
• 2:57
  join a regulated profession, they do not use their charter right to freedom of
• 3:00
  expression. Okay, great, so they don't lose their charter rights. Excellent,
• 3:05
  Well what's this all about? Then, let's continue. At the same
• 3:08
  time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of
• 3:14
  their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. So it seems to
• 3:20
  me you can either have your charter right to freedom of expression or a regulatory
• 3:25
  body may limit your freedom of expression. It doesn't seem like you can really
• 3:30
  have both, does it, Because one is freedom of expression and one isn't.
• 3:37
  And if that sounds like our WELLI and doublethink to you, Well,
• 3:39
  welcome to Canada. So let's just get to the heart of the reasoning behind
• 3:45
  the Court at denying Jordan Peterson's case. Says the ICRC, which is the
• 3:51
  Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee i CRC of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
• 3:59
  It says that they identified language used by doctor Peterson which it was concerned
• 4:03
  was degrading or demeaning or otherwise unprofessional. This concern is entitled to deference.
• 4:12
  It was not necessary to engage in whether doctor Peterson's comments were supported by facts
• 4:19
  or were his honest opinion, as the concern arises from the nature of the
• 4:26
  language used, not the validity of his opinions. Let me repeat that,
• 4:30
  not the validity of his opinions. Again, doctor Peterson is speaking as a
• 4:36
  regulated professional psychologist. What might be protected by the laws of defamation, such
• 4:43
  as the defense of fair comment, is not the point, No, I
• 4:46
  guess the point is finding a way to punish somebody even if what they're saying
• 4:50
  is true. So, in short, what this says is they're not ruling
• 4:55
  against him because of what he said, it's because of how he said it.
• 5:00
  So here's another spoiler alert. AMP In Canada, you don't have free
• 5:04
  speech. So let's just get to the last point here in the court document.
• 5:10
  The panel concluded reasonably that doctor Peterson's behavior raised a moderate risk of harm
• 5:16
  harm to the public, which the panel had articulated in its decision, and
• 5:23
  concluded that it was very concerned that the recurrence risk was high in this case.
• 5:29
  It therefore concluded its chain of analysis by deciding that quote, it would
• 5:33
  be appropriate and in the public interest to require doctor Peterson to complete a SCARP
• 5:40
  to address his professionalism in public statements. So what is a Scirpet's a specified
• 5:46
  continuing education or remedial program. So that is an outcome available to the ICRC
• 5:54
  after considering a complaint or report. It is an education or remedial program the
• 6:00
  ICRC orders the members to complete to address conduct or practice concerns. Now,
• 6:04
  I was watching a video from the Canadian Constitution Foundation and they were explaining that
• 6:10
  that process is actually open ended. You have to complete it to the satisfaction
• 6:14
  of that body. It can go on forever, it can go on for
• 6:16
  the rest of your life, according to what I heard, and you also
• 6:20
  have to pay for it yourself. This is extremely onerous. This seems like
• 6:25
  just the sort of punishment that could be used to silence people. But let's
• 6:29
  see what the Canadian Constitution Foundation has to say. The Canadian Constitution Foundation is
• 6:35
  disappointed in the result of the judicial review of a case between public intellectual doctor
• 6:42
  Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The dispute is over professional
• 6:47
  penalties in the form of mandatory training imposed on doctor Peterson by the College.
• 6:54
  This order for training was a result of public statements doctor Peterson made on social
• 7:00
  media. The comments did not relate to the practice of psychology. The complaints
• 7:03
  were made by members of the public, not by any individuals who doctor Peterson
• 7:10
  ever treated as a patient, So just random people. So what did Peterson
• 7:15
  himself have to say about this? This was from January third, twenty twenty
• 7:18
  three. About a dozen people from all over the world submitted complaints about my
• 7:25
  public statements on Twitter and rogan over a four year period, out of the
• 7:30
  fifteen million who followed me on social media, claiming that I had harmed people,
• 7:35
  not them, with my views. So about a dozen people from all
• 7:41
  over the world, who have nothing to do with Jordan Peterson or any of
• 7:45
  his clients, complained that his views were harming not even themselves. Other people
• 7:51
  somehow that's enough to get you into re education training because somebody somewhere thought that
• 7:58
  something you said might harm somebody somewhere for some reason. So you can see
• 8:05
  how if you're not super famous like Jordan Peterson, and you rely on that
• 8:11
  psychologist license to house and feed yourself and your family, this could certainly have
• 8:16
  a chilling effect, a chilling effect on what on your ability to express yourself
• 8:22
  publicly. And as we're learning from this judgment from this court in Canada,
• 8:26
  it doesn't even matter what you say, it's just whether or not they decide
• 8:30
  that they don't like how you said it. Let me repeat, it was
• 8:33
  not necessary to engage in whether doctor Peterson's comments were supported by facts or were
• 8:39
  his honest opinion, as the concern arises from the nature of the language used,
• 8:45
  not the validity of his opinions. And in case you had any questions
• 8:50
  about the ideological capture of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, well let's take
• 8:56
  a look at their equity, diversity and Inclusion page. Of course they've got
• 9:00
  one of those here. It says the College of Psychologists of Ontario is committed
• 9:03
  to continuing its work on issues of equity diversity and inclusion as they relate to
• 9:09
  our organizational practices and processes. This web page is intended to be a dynamic
• 9:16
  resource which will change as the environment evolves, and the college addresses matters meaningfully
• 9:22
  and proactively. So it's going to be a dynamic resource which will change as
• 9:28
  the environment evolves. What does that mean? That means they have no principles.
• 9:33
  That means that whatever the next woke fat is, they're going to jump
• 9:35
  on it immediately. I mean they wouldn't want random people from around the world
• 9:39
  who have nothing to do with them complaining that they're causing harm. They might
• 9:43
  have to go in for retraining. Anyway, Let's get back to this article
• 9:48
  quote. We hope that doctor Peterson will appeal this result, which will have
• 9:52
  long lasting impacts beyond his case. The right to freedom of expression must be
• 9:58
  given more weight than the court gives it here, and the mere assertion of
• 10:01
  risk of harm is not enough. While controversial and inflammatory, there is no
• 10:07
  suggestion that any of the people doctor Peterson made comments about were harmed in any
• 10:13
  way, and indeed they were not the source of the complaints. Complaints were
• 10:18
  made by members of the public who simply did not like what doctor Peterson said
• 10:22
  or worse, how he said it. This is not a sufficient basis for
• 10:26
  action by the regulator when weighed against doctor Peterson's constitutional right for freedom of expression,
• 10:35
  and that quote was from CCF Litigation director Christine van Guyne, and Peterson
• 10:39
  himself said this. So the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled debt CP Ontario can
• 10:46
  pursue their prosecution. If you think you have a right to free speech in
• 10:50
  Canada, you're delusional. I will make every aspect of this public and we
• 10:54
  will see what happens when utter transparency is the rule, bring it on.
• 11:00
  So I guess we'll have to watch and see what happens from here. But
• 11:03
  one thing I can say pretty confidently is that I don't think Jordan B.
• 11:07
  Peterson is going to bend the knee anytime soon, nor should he, and
• 11:11
  you should absolutely support him in this if you have the slightest concern about ever
• 11:16
  being able to speak your mind freely in Canada anyway, That's all I got
• 11:20
  to say about that. Please subscribe Mike and share sharing really helps me out.
• 11:24
  I thank you for that. I will see you next time.