Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
There’s a Minister of Middle Class, without an official definition of what Middle Class actually is in Canada….so why not?
Minister of Middle Class Prosperity - Wikipedia
(The creation of the cabinet post was widely criticized and mocked due to not appearing to have a clear mandate, and the minister failing to define what the middle class was when challenged.)
"disinformation" is one of those words the left has created and vilified because it's an easy label to slap on anything they don't like. Facts that aren't 'on narrative'? DISINFORMATION!!! Delete and ignore! We've labeled them so now you have to!
Yeah but wait, their facts - Yes but you need to understand them in CONTEXT! When you understand the CONTEXT the way we do then they're misinformation!!! "But they're still facts, you can't call an actual fact misinformation". "Yes - because CONTEXT!!! And we decide the context!! and in the context of how WE see the world the facts are wrong"
With that philosophy everything you like is facts and everything you don't is disinformation
Yeah but wait, their facts - Yes but you need to understand them in CONTEXT! When you understand the CONTEXT the way we do then they're misinformation!!! "But they're still facts, you can't call an actual fact misinformation". "Yes - because CONTEXT!!! And we decide the context!! and in the context of how WE see the world the facts are wrong"
With that philosophy everything you like is facts and everything you don't is disinformation
If Bill C-11 (the online streaming act) and further online censorship legislation passes, expect similar attempts to steer online conversations by the federal Heritage department and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Instead of corporate overlords choosing what to show you online, it could very well be the government that assumes the role.
apple.news
Unfortunately for us, the Canadian government is jockeying for similar controls on social media. But unlike Twitter, which is run by Silicon Valley tech workers, the Canadian government is obligated to take direction from whatever political party happens to be in charge at the time.
The Liberal government’s proposed online harms legislation would likely have the effect of surveilling and censoring the internet. Justification for government suppression of misinformation has been bolstered with the help of expert panels and consultations with interest groups by Minister Pablo Rodriguez.
The Department of Canadian Heritage has already pumped millions of dollars into digital content creation and the countering of online disinformation through the ambiguously named Digital Citizen Contribution Program. The program has funded numerous projects, some of which had the goal of identifying misinformation, as well as limiting the impact of “misleading social media posts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
(Additional marketing contracts show that $600,000 was spent in 2021 on social media influencers to promote government messaging.)
The idea of a government-funded entity deciding what is and is not misleading enough in the ever-evolving realm of COVID policy is perplexing, especially if it goes beyond targeting outright misinformation and starts limiting discussion on matters of individual opinion. Individual opinions should be left to public debate, not public funding.
nationalpost.com
Diversity quotas are coming to the CBC’s programming budget in 2023, thanks to a decision by Canada’s broadcast regulator to give itself the green light to intrude on journalistic independence — as long as it’s in the name of identity politics.
The CRTC mandates the CBC to dedicate at least 30 per cent of its spending on independent English programming (television shows and documentaries commissioned by the network) to producers who self-identify as Indigenous, official language minorities, visible minorities, disabled or LGBT. This will rise to 35 per cent in 2026.
(The CBC’s French side will have lower diversity spending thresholds, starting at 6.7 per cent in 2023 and scaling up to 15 per cent in 2026.)
The CRTC is also requiring that the CBC track the identities of new hires and promotions of staff. Demographics of showrunners, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers and editors will have to be tallied. Community groups for the above identities will also have to be consulted for programming feedback….because it’s 2015-ish? More at the above link.
Jamie Sarkonak: Twitter Files offer a glimpse into Liberal Canada's future of censorship — National Post
Unfortunately for us, the Canadian government is jockeying for similar controls on social media
Unfortunately for us, the Canadian government is jockeying for similar controls on social media. But unlike Twitter, which is run by Silicon Valley tech workers, the Canadian government is obligated to take direction from whatever political party happens to be in charge at the time.
The Liberal government’s proposed online harms legislation would likely have the effect of surveilling and censoring the internet. Justification for government suppression of misinformation has been bolstered with the help of expert panels and consultations with interest groups by Minister Pablo Rodriguez.
The Department of Canadian Heritage has already pumped millions of dollars into digital content creation and the countering of online disinformation through the ambiguously named Digital Citizen Contribution Program. The program has funded numerous projects, some of which had the goal of identifying misinformation, as well as limiting the impact of “misleading social media posts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
(Additional marketing contracts show that $600,000 was spent in 2021 on social media influencers to promote government messaging.)
The idea of a government-funded entity deciding what is and is not misleading enough in the ever-evolving realm of COVID policy is perplexing, especially if it goes beyond targeting outright misinformation and starts limiting discussion on matters of individual opinion. Individual opinions should be left to public debate, not public funding.
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
www.parl.ca
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
www.parl.ca
Jamie Sarkonak: CRTC diversity quotas trample journalistic independence at CBC
Funding for TV shows and documentaries commissioned by the network tied to producer's identity
The CRTC mandates the CBC to dedicate at least 30 per cent of its spending on independent English programming (television shows and documentaries commissioned by the network) to producers who self-identify as Indigenous, official language minorities, visible minorities, disabled or LGBT. This will rise to 35 per cent in 2026.
(The CBC’s French side will have lower diversity spending thresholds, starting at 6.7 per cent in 2023 and scaling up to 15 per cent in 2026.)
The CRTC is also requiring that the CBC track the identities of new hires and promotions of staff. Demographics of showrunners, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers and editors will have to be tallied. Community groups for the above identities will also have to be consulted for programming feedback….because it’s 2015-ish? More at the above link.
Let’s use racism to combat racism , seems like a winner.If Bill C-11 (the online streaming act) and further online censorship legislation passes, expect similar attempts to steer online conversations by the federal Heritage department and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Instead of corporate overlords choosing what to show you online, it could very well be the government that assumes the role.
Jamie Sarkonak: Twitter Files offer a glimpse into Liberal Canada's future of censorship — National Post
Unfortunately for us, the Canadian government is jockeying for similar controls on social media
Unfortunately for us, the Canadian government is jockeying for similar controls on social media. But unlike Twitter, which is run by Silicon Valley tech workers, the Canadian government is obligated to take direction from whatever political party happens to be in charge at the time.
The Liberal government’s proposed online harms legislation would likely have the effect of surveilling and censoring the internet. Justification for government suppression of misinformation has been bolstered with the help of expert panels and consultations with interest groups by Minister Pablo Rodriguez.
The Department of Canadian Heritage has already pumped millions of dollars into digital content creation and the countering of online disinformation through the ambiguously named Digital Citizen Contribution Program. The program has funded numerous projects, some of which had the goal of identifying misinformation, as well as limiting the impact of “misleading social media posts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
(Additional marketing contracts show that $600,000 was spent in 2021 on social media influencers to promote government messaging.)
The idea of a government-funded entity deciding what is and is not misleading enough in the ever-evolving realm of COVID policy is perplexing, especially if it goes beyond targeting outright misinformation and starts limiting discussion on matters of individual opinion. Individual opinions should be left to public debate, not public funding.
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canadawww.parl.caGovernment Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canadawww.parl.caDiversity quotas are coming to the CBC’s programming budget in 2023, thanks to a decision by Canada’s broadcast regulator to give itself the green light to intrude on journalistic independence — as long as it’s in the name of identity politics.Jamie Sarkonak: CRTC diversity quotas trample journalistic independence at CBC
Funding for TV shows and documentaries commissioned by the network tied to producer's identity
The CRTC mandates the CBC to dedicate at least 30 per cent of its spending on independent English programming (television shows and documentaries commissioned by the network) to producers who self-identify as Indigenous, official language minorities, visible minorities, disabled or LGBT. This will rise to 35 per cent in 2026.
(The CBC’s French side will have lower diversity spending thresholds, starting at 6.7 per cent in 2023 and scaling up to 15 per cent in 2026.)
The CRTC is also requiring that the CBC track the identities of new hires and promotions of staff. Demographics of showrunners, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers and editors will have to be tallied. Community groups for the above identities will also have to be consulted for programming feedback….because it’s 2015-ish? More at the above link.
That would be illegal in any private business.If Bill C-11 (the online streaming act) and further online censorship legislation passes, expect similar attempts to steer online conversations by the federal Heritage department and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Instead of corporate overlords choosing what to show you online, it could very well be the government that assumes the role.
Jamie Sarkonak: Twitter Files offer a glimpse into Liberal Canada's future of censorship — National Post
Unfortunately for us, the Canadian government is jockeying for similar controls on social media
Unfortunately for us, the Canadian government is jockeying for similar controls on social media. But unlike Twitter, which is run by Silicon Valley tech workers, the Canadian government is obligated to take direction from whatever political party happens to be in charge at the time.
The Liberal government’s proposed online harms legislation would likely have the effect of surveilling and censoring the internet. Justification for government suppression of misinformation has been bolstered with the help of expert panels and consultations with interest groups by Minister Pablo Rodriguez.
The Department of Canadian Heritage has already pumped millions of dollars into digital content creation and the countering of online disinformation through the ambiguously named Digital Citizen Contribution Program. The program has funded numerous projects, some of which had the goal of identifying misinformation, as well as limiting the impact of “misleading social media posts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
(Additional marketing contracts show that $600,000 was spent in 2021 on social media influencers to promote government messaging.)
The idea of a government-funded entity deciding what is and is not misleading enough in the ever-evolving realm of COVID policy is perplexing, especially if it goes beyond targeting outright misinformation and starts limiting discussion on matters of individual opinion. Individual opinions should be left to public debate, not public funding.
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canadawww.parl.caGovernment Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canada
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-11 (44-1) - Third Reading - Online Streaming Act - Parliament of Canadawww.parl.caDiversity quotas are coming to the CBC’s programming budget in 2023, thanks to a decision by Canada’s broadcast regulator to give itself the green light to intrude on journalistic independence — as long as it’s in the name of identity politics.Jamie Sarkonak: CRTC diversity quotas trample journalistic independence at CBC
Funding for TV shows and documentaries commissioned by the network tied to producer's identity
The CRTC mandates the CBC to dedicate at least 30 per cent of its spending on independent English programming (television shows and documentaries commissioned by the network) to producers who self-identify as Indigenous, official language minorities, visible minorities, disabled or LGBT. This will rise to 35 per cent in 2026.
(The CBC’s French side will have lower diversity spending thresholds, starting at 6.7 per cent in 2023 and scaling up to 15 per cent in 2026.)
The CRTC is also requiring that the CBC track the identities of new hires and promotions of staff. Demographics of showrunners, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers and editors will have to be tallied. Community groups for the above identities will also have to be consulted for programming feedback….because it’s 2015-ish? More at the above link.
Conrad Black: Defamatory charges against Jordan Peterson should be 'thrown out like a dead mouse' — National Post
This proceeding is a disgrace, an outrage and an affront to every thinking and civilized person in Canada
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre defends Jordan Peterson's right to free speech — Toronto Sun
'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it,' Poilievre says, quoting Voltaire
Rex Murphy: Jordan Peterson's foes need their heads examined — National Post
The College of Psychologists of Ontario should scrutinize itself
Poilievre says in Canada because of “the cancel culture and the woke movement, we’ve seen at university campuses and in the media and now increasingly in big, powerful corporations, and most recently with a professional licensing body, we’re seeing the idea that someone can lose their job, their status, their ability to study because they express something that is contrary to the government line. Now, I don’t believe that is the Canada we want.”
Poilievere ends by pointing to section 2(b), titled Freedom of Expression, in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“2(b) or not 2(b)? That is the question,” said Poilivere. “And the answer is that, as Voltaire has been quoted as saying, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.’”
Jordan Peterson has had an impeccable professional reputation throughout his 20 years as a research psychologist at Harvard University and the University of Toronto. He has immense clinical experience and his pioneering work in bringing psychology to a vast worldwide internet audience, including 15-million people all over the world who follow him on three different social media platforms, has made serious psychology much more accessible.
The complaints against him (Jordan Peterson) were brought by people with whom he says he had zero clinical contact and have nothing to do with his function as a clinical psychologist.
The latest of a dismal sequence of outrages and oppressive acts officiously imposed upon the very distinguished and widely admired academic, clinical psychologist and public intellectual, Jordan Peterson, is an intervention by the College of Psychologists of Ontario purporting to require Peterson to undergo a lengthy course of “media training,” in order that he might conduct his online communications “more appropriately.” This is a stupefying insolence from a professional body intent on pettifogging and harassing an extraordinarily successful colleague.
Instead, many of the complaints involve Peterson’s criticism of the Trudeau government, in each case a perfectly civilized expression of reasonable dissenting opinion, more learned certainly, but no more abrasive than the comments of opposition politicians and media critics of the government. In particular, Peterson is attacked for retweeting Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, for criticizing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former chief of staff, Gerald Butts, as well as the prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and an Ottawa city councillor, and objecting to the threat of the Ottawa police to take custody of the children of some of the Freedom Convoy protesters last winter.
Peterson has very correctly rejected this request that he submit to re-education and will be required to appear at a disciplinary hearing where coercive measures will doubtless be invoked against him under threat of the revocation of his clinical licence in Ontario, with the resulting damage to his reputation, as well as a suspension of his right to practise as a psychologist within Ontario.
In a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau, Peterson explicitly blames on Trudeau this movement to empower the regulatory bodies governing the medical, legal and psychological professions with the ability to terrify their members over their “own conduct and the increasingly compulsion-based and ideologically pure policies that you (Trudeau) have promoted and legislated.
I simply cannot resign myself to the fact that in my lifetime I am required to resort to a public letter to the leader of my country to point out that political criticism has now become such a crime in Canada that if professionals dare engage in such activity, government-appointed commissars will threaten their livelihood and present them with the spectacle of denouncement and political disgrace. There is simply and utterly no excuse whatsoever for such a state of affairs in a free country.”
It wasn’t until six years ago, when he had a disagreement over grammar (the trans pronoun business) and his own University of Toronto issued menacing letters to him, that — suddenly — his professional qualifications, his very presence on the U of T campus, all came into question and were put in jeopardy.
Who knew that she and he, zhe and zher could raise such a storm?
From that shameless campus assault on thought and debate, Peterson rocketed to world status. It provided the explosive.
This near solitary professor, wandering unknown the green swards of the U of T lawns, grew into the most celebrated champion of all of that used to be seen as the sacred concepts of western democracy and genuine liberal philosophy: Free speech. Free thought. Open debate. Defence of the humanities. Calling on universities to untangle themselves from fashionable ideological imperatives. Academic independence.
Like him or not, he has been the catalyst, the prime mover in what is the highest stakes debate of our day.
The CPO, obviously, has not taken in any of Peterson’s impact or even given the slightest acknowledgement of the arguments and debate he has fostered.
It is, by choice, ignorant of the consideration that he is the foremost, most celebrated, member of the guild it presumes to rule. It also ignores the thousands of testimonies of the good he has done, and the immense positive response to the messages he has offered. Instead it has given favour to a dozen choice objections to his, extra-clinical, perspectives.
It has treated, as mothers treat babies in swaddling clothes, these political complaints. He criticized the prime minister for example, and (horror) he retweeted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, a vileness not to be tolerated!
Dropping all irony, what does the CPO council think they are at? What are their qualifications, their motivations, for blistering or attempting to blister the reputation and standing of the only member of their association the world even knows? Who gathers crowds in their thousands to listen to a “clinical psychologist,” and draws millions to his internet lectures? And who are they to insist on social media training for the greatest media personality their profession has even seen?
Conrad Black: Defamatory charges against Jordan Peterson should be 'thrown out like a dead mouse' — National Post
This proceeding is a disgrace, an outrage and an affront to every thinking and civilized person in Canada
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre defends Jordan Peterson's right to free speech — Toronto Sun
'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it,' Poilievre says, quoting Voltaire
Rex Murphy: Jordan Peterson's foes need their heads examined — National Post
The College of Psychologists of Ontario should scrutinize itself
Poilievre says in Canada because of “the cancel culture and the woke movement, we’ve seen at university campuses and in the media and now increasingly in big, powerful corporations, and most recently with a professional licensing body, we’re seeing the idea that someone can lose their job, their status, their ability to study because they express something that is contrary to the government line. Now, I don’t believe that is the Canada we want.”
Poilievere ends by pointing to section 2(b), titled Freedom of Expression, in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“2(b) or not 2(b)? That is the question,” said Poilivere. “And the answer is that, as Voltaire has been quoted as saying, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.’”
Jordan Peterson has had an impeccable professional reputation throughout his 20 years as a research psychologist at Harvard University and the University of Toronto. He has immense clinical experience and his pioneering work in bringing psychology to a vast worldwide internet audience, including 15-million people all over the world who follow him on three different social media platforms, has made serious psychology much more accessible.
The complaints against him (Jordan Peterson) were brought by people with whom he says he had zero clinical contact and have nothing to do with his function as a clinical psychologist.
The latest of a dismal sequence of outrages and oppressive acts officiously imposed upon the very distinguished and widely admired academic, clinical psychologist and public intellectual, Jordan Peterson, is an intervention by the College of Psychologists of Ontario purporting to require Peterson to undergo a lengthy course of “media training,” in order that he might conduct his online communications “more appropriately.” This is a stupefying insolence from a professional body intent on pettifogging and harassing an extraordinarily successful colleague.
Instead, many of the complaints involve Peterson’s criticism of the Trudeau government, in each case a perfectly civilized expression of reasonable dissenting opinion, more learned certainly, but no more abrasive than the comments of opposition politicians and media critics of the government. In particular, Peterson is attacked for retweeting Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, for criticizing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former chief of staff, Gerald Butts, as well as the prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and an Ottawa city councillor, and objecting to the threat of the Ottawa police to take custody of the children of some of the Freedom Convoy protesters last winter.
Peterson has very correctly rejected this request that he submit to re-education and will be required to appear at a disciplinary hearing where coercive measures will doubtless be invoked against him under threat of the revocation of his clinical licence in Ontario, with the resulting damage to his reputation, as well as a suspension of his right to practise as a psychologist within Ontario.
In a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau, Peterson explicitly blames on Trudeau this movement to empower the regulatory bodies governing the medical, legal and psychological professions with the ability to terrify their members over their “own conduct and the increasingly compulsion-based and ideologically pure policies that you (Trudeau) have promoted and legislated.
I simply cannot resign myself to the fact that in my lifetime I am required to resort to a public letter to the leader of my country to point out that political criticism has now become such a crime in Canada that if professionals dare engage in such activity, government-appointed commissars will threaten their livelihood and present them with the spectacle of denouncement and political disgrace. There is simply and utterly no excuse whatsoever for such a state of affairs in a free country.”
It wasn’t until six years ago, when he had a disagreement over grammar (the trans pronoun business) and his own University of Toronto issued menacing letters to him, that — suddenly — his professional qualifications, his very presence on the U of T campus, all came into question and were put in jeopardy.
Who knew that she and he, zhe and zher could raise such a storm?
From that shameless campus assault on thought and debate, Peterson rocketed to world status. It provided the explosive.
This near solitary professor, wandering unknown the green swards of the U of T lawns, grew into the most celebrated champion of all of that used to be seen as the sacred concepts of western democracy and genuine liberal philosophy: Free speech. Free thought. Open debate. Defence of the humanities. Calling on universities to untangle themselves from fashionable ideological imperatives. Academic independence.
Like him or not, he has been the catalyst, the prime mover in what is the highest stakes debate of our day.
The CPO, obviously, has not taken in any of Peterson’s impact or even given the slightest acknowledgement of the arguments and debate he has fostered.
It is, by choice, ignorant of the consideration that he is the foremost, most celebrated, member of the guild it presumes to rule. It also ignores the thousands of testimonies of the good he has done, and the immense positive response to the messages he has offered. Instead it has given favour to a dozen choice objections to his, extra-clinical, perspectives.
It has treated, as mothers treat babies in swaddling clothes, these political complaints. He criticized the prime minister for example, and (horror) he retweeted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, a vileness not to be tolerated!
Dropping all irony, what does the CPO council think they are at? What are their qualifications, their motivations, for blistering or attempting to blister the reputation and standing of the only member of their association the world even knows? Who gathers crowds in their thousands to listen to a “clinical psychologist,” and draws millions to his internet lectures? And who are they to insist on social media training for the greatest media personality their profession has even seen?
The CPO is a regulatory body that has to look out not only for it's members, but the patients said members will interact with, just like all other medical boards.
JP has two choices; follow through with the COP request, or give up his license.
Not that he's been actually practicing for a while.
So really what's the big deal? He's still a "doctor", he just can't actually sit with patients anymore.
The reality is JP is a mouthpiece to the Right; an "educated intellectual" who they can throw out there when accused of being anti-education (like they are; I mean they used to be anti-academia for the longest time and still are, unless you're like JP and are "anti" with them). He's a tool, nothing more.
And yes, I HAVE listened to his arguments, which boil down to nothing but word salad to confuse the ACTUAL points he makes. And when he DOES make a point, it's nowhere near valid or even correct to the conversation at hand.
Then there is his opinions in general which, well.... at least he's no longer being obsessive over Elliott Page.
"And who are they to insist on social media training for the greatest media personality their profession has even seen?" Because he's NOT the greatest media personality for their profession and that people see as such IS the point. And they are the regularity board who have a RIGHT to monitor and deal with their members as they deem fit.
Jordan Peterson has had an impeccable professional reputation throughout his 20 years as a research psychologist at Harvard University and the University of Toronto. He has immense clinical experience and his pioneering work in bringing psychology to a vast worldwide internet audience, including 15-million people all over the world who follow him on three different social media platforms, has made serious psychology much more accessible.
The complaints against him (Jordan Peterson) were brought by people with whom he says he had zero clinical contact and have nothing to do with his function as a clinical psychologist.
What is the big deal indeed? Where does the authority of the COP start and stop?
How far into the lives of its members should this COP be able to inflict themselves? Jordan Peterson, as I’m assuming a member of this COP is not allowed to have political opinions contrary to the COP itself?
This sounds familiar. Does this mean that this Peterson is also a racist misogynistic what-have-you with unacceptable views then?
Tool or not, he’s not allowed to voice opinions contrary to….whomever is deciding what his views and opinions should be?
Honestly, I’ve probably heard this guy speak about something at some point, but nothing memorable at the moment, but he’s sure making someone nervous or upset.
I’ll have to pull up a Wiki & a couple YouTube’s to get a taste ‘cuz I only know about him peripherally. Unless he is advocating genocide or something (he might be, I really don’t know yet), then why isn’t he allowed to speak or have an opinion?
Hate to say it, but I’ll have to do a Wiki on Elliott Page too. Sounds vaguely familiar.
Is whatever this Jordan Peterson doing online in Social Media (if he hasn’t actually been ‘practicing’ his trade or profession as you’ve mentioned) have any bearing on the College of Physicians of Ontario??
Elliot Page. From the Umbrella Academy. That was an Awesome Series!! OK. He was fantastic in that roll!!
en.wikipedia.org
Jordan Peterson. In 2016, Peterson released a series of YouTubevideos criticizing the Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16), passed by the Parliament of Canada to introduce "gender identity and expression" as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Peterson argued that the bill would make the use of certain gender pronouns "compelled speech", and related this argument to a general critique of political correctness and identity politics. He received significant media coverage, attracting both support and criticism.
en.wikipedia.org
Peterson's lectures and conversations, propagated mainly through YouTube and podcasts, soon gathered millions of views. By 2018, he had put his clinical practice and teaching duties on hold, and published his second book: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Promoted with a world tour, it became a bestseller in several countries. In 2021, he published his third book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, resigned from the University of Toronto, and returned to podcasting.
So, since 2018, the Ontario College of Physicians, with his (Petersons) Practice & teaching duties on hold, have what say on what he says and does? Doesn’t that seem like an Orwellian overreach?
If you’re any kind of public figure, you should avoid this Twitter like Trump avoids Taxes or Trudeau avoids Trucker Convoys.
Elliot Page - Wikipedia
Jordan Peterson. In 2016, Peterson released a series of YouTubevideos criticizing the Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16), passed by the Parliament of Canada to introduce "gender identity and expression" as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Peterson argued that the bill would make the use of certain gender pronouns "compelled speech", and related this argument to a general critique of political correctness and identity politics. He received significant media coverage, attracting both support and criticism.
Jordan Peterson - Wikipedia
So, since 2018, the Ontario College of Physicians, with his (Petersons) Practice & teaching duties on hold, have what say on what he says and does? Doesn’t that seem like an Orwellian overreach?
Not nervous, but upset, yes. If my phycologist doctor said half the shit he did, I'd want him to be looked at as well.
It's not that he can't have an opinion but rather it falls under the "opinions have consequences" thing. His basic continual misogynistic attitude is a great place to start. And then there's his opposition to Bill C-16.
Controversial professor Jordan Peterson retires from tenured position at U of T
U of T and professors respond to Peterson’s claim that equity initiatives hurt meritocracy
thevarsity.ca
That's an interesting article to show the 'start' (not really) of his popularity.
Elliott Page was Elen, but Peterson famously called her out for Cutting her breasts off and called the doc who did it "criminal" - which they were not. And it went worse... the video he posted about it was just insane/inane rambling that boiled down to "I don't like the choice this person made! They should be making babies!"
Since he still has his license, yes. Because as a licensed member, it reflects back to the CPO as a whole. All this is, is them saying "If you want to keep your license you need to adhere to our standards, and rules, and if you don't, then we take your license". But he's making it into a deal that it's not (which is no real surprise).
Now I don't know for sure if he's been practicing or not; I am admittedly assuming. Considering everything he's been doing since he got kicked out of UoT, likely he has no real patients, but keeps on the right wing circuit of mouth pieces.
I've never seen it but I've heard he's a good actor, yeah.
The creepiest thing out of this was when JP said in a video that during sex he was thinking about Elliot's situation. I mean... really?
Yeah, because he doesn't want to be respectful of people who aren't hetero and masculine white males.
Peterson's lectures and conversations, propagated mainly through YouTube and podcasts, soon gathered millions of views.Jordan Peterson - Wikipedia
They have, by many. Even my cousin has read his 12 rules book and suggested it as a to read thing. As much as I respect my cousin though; hell no.
He put them on hold, and the the UoT stopped his teaching in 2017, though he still had tenure. Now, he doesn't even have that.
Yeah, sadly to the deadening of brain cells to anyone who listens to him. His circular nonsense is just... ugh.
As a licensed psychologist, yes. He still has his license to practice despite being removed from teaching and stopping his practice. But he could, theoretically, start again. If he wants to do that, then, he needs his license. To keep it, he needs to either follow the CPO, or if he doesn't, then he loses it.
The CPO is the governing body for psychologists in Ontario, with a mandate to “protect the public interest by monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology,” according to its website.
Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements | Globalnews.ca
Peterson said all of the complaints at issue are political and don't have anything to do with his clinical practice.
globalnews.ca
Interesting that, according to this article, JP "The National Post reported, however, that in 2018 Peterson agreed to a plan to improve his clinical practice. The newspaper said there are few details of what constituted professional misconduct in that instance, but the complaint had to do with the way he communicates with patients, the quality of his service, and psychologist/patient boundaries."
No; doctors all over are subject to the boards of their license for things all the time. The only reason this is different is because JP THINKS it's different, and he's being a manbaby at being held accountable for his bullshit media presence.
JP thinks himself some sort of modern day philosopher and if you listen to him he tries to sound like it too. But he's not and never will be.
An interesting article (though I hate that JP gets so much attention someone wrote a book on him)
Why Jordan Peterson Is Always Wrong
Jordan Peterson is one of the most famous public intellectuals in the world. But his pronouncements in favor of capitalism and hierarchy collapse at the slightest bit of scrutiny.
jacobin.com
As it is, I expect him to "not comply" with this as much as he "died" over the whole Elliot Page/Twitter thing.
That would seem to be a reasonable take away. However - while that might very well be true it is still also true that someone should be able to express their personal political opinion there without fear of being attacked by a gov't body just for having that opinion.
Since 2018, Peterson’s Practice & Teaching Duties at the University of Toronto have been on hold. He’s got a couple of best selling books & a podcast, so he really doesn’t need his license that the Ontario COP is threatening…..but it’s sure a warning for others that still need their licenses and are still under the potential thumb of the Ontario COP or other censoring parties that wish to decide what is acceptable thoughts and opinions compared to their own.
And he may not need the license today, but what if tomorrow he decides that he wants to give up the public spectacle and go back to being a simple psychiatrist or teacher? He earned the license, he should be allowed to keep it if he wants regardless of his politics.
Which is part of my thought on the issue; that he's making more of a big deal of it than it needs to be.
As it should, or rather, the thoughts and opinions as laid out by their regulations.
Think about it Ron, you're someone needing a psych doctor. Someone not as popular as Peterson throws out tweets that are, say, racist, or anti-GLBT, or misogynistic; you honestly think that the patients will have faith in that doctor, or the CPO in general, seeing stuff like this and not seeing it dealt with? Considering psychology is all about the mental state of people, psychologists should HAVE to be held to a higher standard about what they say/do publicly when it concerns patients.
Well some people think that basic human rights should be a big deal But i get that you only feel that way about ones you like.
Are you seriously suggesting it's against the regulations and law to dislike justin trudeau? Or to think that mask mandates are a bad idea? Where is that law written?
Elliot Page. From the Umbrella Academy. That was an Awesome Series!! OK. He was fantastic in that roll!!
Elliot Page - Wikipedia
Jordan Peterson. In 2016, Peterson released a series of YouTubevideos criticizing the Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16), passed by the Parliament of Canada to introduce "gender identity and expression" as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Peterson argued that the bill would make the use of certain gender pronouns "compelled speech", and related this argument to a general critique of political correctness and identity politics. He received significant media coverage, attracting both support and criticism.
Peterson's lectures and conversations, propagated mainly through YouTube and podcasts, soon gathered millions of views. By 2018, he had put his clinical practice and teaching duties on hold, and published his second book: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Promoted with a world tour, it became a bestseller in several countries. In 2021, he published his third book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, resigned from the University of Toronto, and returned to podcasting.Jordan Peterson - Wikipedia
So, since 2018, the Ontario College of Physicians, with his (Petersons) Practice & teaching duties on hold, have what say on what he says and does? Doesn’t that seem like an Orwellian overreach?
If you’re any kind of public figure, you should avoid this Twitter like Trump avoids Taxes or Trudeau avoids Trucker Convoys.
This isn't a "Bad" review of Peterson per say, but he goes in depth into how JP's use of words - his word salad - can confuse simple issues or rephrase matters to appear in ways that don't make sense.
Overall it was an interesting video to watch though you'd have to be interested in Religion and curious about JP to watch it.
