..
It's just my opinion, but it seems like ordering one of the most successful social media persons in the history of social media to undergo social media training, is somewhat akin to Chinese reorientation courses.
Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds
social media training order
CBC News · Posted: Aug 23, 2023 2:00 AM PDT |
Jordan Peterson, who has gained international fame for his bestselling self-help books and lectures, has refused to pay to undergo a media training course ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
(Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)
An Ontario court ruled against psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson Wednesday, and upheld a regulatory body's order that he take social media training in the wake of complaints about his controversial online posts and statements.
Last November, Peterson, a professor emeritus with the University of Toronto psychology department who is also an author and media commentator, was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements.
That followed numerous complaints to the governing body of Ontario psychologists, of which Peterson is a member, regarding his online commentary directed at politicians, a plus-sized model, and transgender actor Elliot Page, (formerly the adorable Ellen Page) among other issues. You can read more about those social media posts here.
The college's complaints committee concluded his controversial public statements could amount to professional misconduct and ordered Peterson to pay for a media coaching program — noting failure to comply could mean the loss of his licence to practice psychology in the province.
Peterson filed for a judicial review, arguing his political commentary is not under the college's purview.
Peterson says he stands behind statements
Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.
Now that is astonishing on both counts.
"The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," the decision written by Justice Paul Schabas reads, in part. You can read the entire decision here.
Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected.
Again, astonishing!
"Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote.
"Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity."
In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, before the decision was released, Peterson said that he stands by what he has said, and wished the college luck in its "continued prosecution.
"They're going to need it," he wrote.
Peterson told CBC News in January that he had no intention of giving up his fight with the regulatory body, accusing the college of attempting to stymie his speech and discipline him for his political opinions.
He added he no longer treats patients and his career is instead focused on social and political commentary. Similarly, he doesn't regularly lecture at U of T.
However, Peterson has said he wants to retain his licence.
"I deserve it. I earned it. I haven't done anything to justify suspending it, and I don't want to give the hyenas their bones," he said earlier this year.
The college, in a statement released after the decision was issued, said it is committed to carrying out its mandate of protecting the public interest by regulating the practice of psychology.
Does the "Practice of Psychology" include comments on Twitter? The College is way overstepping its jurisdiction.
"The College will review today's decision and undertake next steps in accordance with our mandate and any appropriate legal processes," the statement reads.
Peterson, seen here speaking to a crowd in Sherwood Park, Alta., in 2018, has said he wants to retain his licence, though his career is now largely focused on social and political commentary. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)
Peterson's case was watched closely by free speech advocates and regulators in other professions. It featured interveners including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and LGBTQ+ advocacy group Egale Canada, which said in a statement from Executive Director Helen Kennedy that communities her organization represents often face discrimination and barriers when accessing healthcare.
What does that have to do with someone commenting on Twitter?
"Today's ruling that as a professional regulatory body, the College of Psychologists of Ontario has the mandate to regulate degrading and demeaning speech by its members, is a step in the right direction in ensuring that 2SLGBTQI (yes, that's Canadian, were all inclusive) individuals can access healthcare safely and without discrimination," Kennedy wrote.
Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) Executive Director Noa Mendelsoh Aviv, meanwhile, said in a statement that the CCLA doesn't endorse Peterson's views, but still argued in court that professional regulatory bodies shouldn't be policing speech that is not directly connected to professional practice.
"Freedom of expression is a right that no individual gives up just because they join a regulated profession," she said.
Peterson rose to prominence through his polarizing YouTube videos critiquing liberal culture and his successful self-help book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
Pro-Life Leader Convicted of Misgendering Drag Queen
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | August 17, 2023
NEW YORK, August 18 (C-Fam) A Mexican tribunal found former congressman Rodrigo Iván Cortés guilty of gender-based political violence for referring to transgender congressman Salma Luévano as a “man who self-identifies as a woman.”
Which is true, but, apparently, illegal to say so.
Shouldn't she be sued for impersonating a bishop, or mocking the church?
Luévano appeared in the Mexican Congress last year in mock bishop’s clothing to present a bill to punish “hate speech” by churches. In a video statement, Rodrigo Iván Cortés said the trans-identifying politician was “a man who describes himself as a woman, who demands respect, but it is exactly what he does not give, he asks for what he does not give, with tremendous disrespect.”
Luévano, who obtained a seat in Congress thanks to quotas requiring LGBTQI legislators, sued Cortés for political gender-based violence against him in Mexico’s electoral tribunal and won the initial lawsuit earlier this year.
The court said that Cortés’ statement “caused digital violence, symbolic violence, psychological violence, and sexual violence” against the trans legislator. Among the factors weighing against Cortés the court cited the “asymmetric relation” between the two, because Cortés “is a privileged white man, with more economic means, and a Catholic.” The court also said the sentence was reached by applying a “gender-perspective” and an “intersectional focus” with a view to “transform social reality.”
OMG! Telling the truth about someone is violent in ways we never even heard of before. Now you must avoid the truth if you want to stay out of court in Mexico. Here, if Cortes was a brown atheist he would have been OK, but being a white Catholic makes him guilty.
'Transform social reality' - It seems to me that transforming reality results in unreality.
Cortés, who is the President of the Frente Nacional por la Familia, Mexico’s best known pro-life and pro-family organization, challenged this ruling as unfounded and illegal. The electoral tribunal, an administrative tribunal of sorts with jurisdiction over political disputes, should not have had entertained the lawsuit because he was a “civilian” and not a politician, he said in interviews online.
On final appeal, last week, the Mexican electoral tribunal upheld the initial sentence against Cortés and condemned the well-known pro-life and pro-family leader to publish a court-authored apology every day for a month and to pay over $1200 in fines. The tribunal banned his tweets from social media platforms and ordered that he be subject to training on gender-based violence.
Cortés will also be listed as an offender for violence against women on a registry that would prevent him from physically entering the Mexican House of Representatives. A bill currently pending in the Mexican congress would also prohibit anyone on this gender offender registry from running for office.
“The real purpose of this conviction is to silence me from saying what every concerned citizen needs to hear—that these actions and proposed laws are driving forward a radical agenda in Mexico, which poses a very serious threat to the wellbeing of our society, especially our children,” Cortés said.
“I remain committed to the peaceful expression of truth, the defense of our fundamental freedoms, and the protection of our children,” he emphasized.
“I reject violence on all grounds,” he emphasized, against the accusations that his statements were a form of gender-based violence. “One need only watch the videos of unrest in our Congress to see clearly that it is not me and my organization that is bringing chaos and disorder into Mexico’s political institutions.”
After having exhausted all domestic remedies, Cortés plans to appeal the ruling of the electoral tribunal to the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.
The Mexican court that condemned Cortes is not isolated. The Biden administration and other Western governments are at the forefront of promoting censorship and control of speech around the world through policies to address technology-facilitated gender-based violence.
Canada's far-left government is working in this direction also.
Cortés is being represented by the American-based nonprofit law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom.
Now this is a surprise and it's not surprising that it is raising some criticism. Most sports where trans women are being banned from women's events are athletics. But chess is not athletic, it's a mental game. The attempt to ban trans women here is suggesting that men may be smarter than women. It will be interesting to get the results of their analysis.
Int'l Chess Federation bans transgender women from competing
in competitions for women
By Adam Schrader
temporarily ban transgender women from competing in women’s events pending further analysis.
File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo
Aug. 17 (UPI) -- The International Chess Federation, the governing body for the game, has updated its rules to temporarily ban transgender women from competing in women's events pending further analysis.
The organization, known by its French acronym FIDE, quietly updated its handbook this week to state that a player who has changed their gender from male to female "has no right to participate in official FIDE events for women until further FIDE's decision is made."
"Such decision should be based on further analysis and shall be taken by the FIDE Council at the earliest possible time, but not longer than within two years period. There are no restrictions to play in the open section for a person who has changed gender," the handbook reads.
The handbook also notes that a player who holds any women's titles but whose gender has been changed to a man would lose those titles, which will be renewed if the person changes back their gender. Players who changed their gender from male to female can retain their titles.
FIDE further said it has the right to "inform the organizers and other relevant parties" about a player's gender change to prevent players "from possible illegitimate enrollments in tournaments."
"FIDE recognizes that this is an evolving issue for chess and that besides technical regulations on transgender regulations further policy may need to be evolved in the future in line with research evidence," the handbook reads.
The ban is raising questions about why competitions are separated by gender at all.
The Center for Trans Equality said in a statement posted on the platform formerly known as Twitter that the new policy "relies on ignorant anti-trans ideas" and is "insulting to cis women, to trans women and to the game itself."
"It suggests that males are somehow strategically better," Richard Pringle, a sociology professor at Monash University in Australia told The Washington Post. "It's not just transphobic, it's anti-feminist too."
Pringle added that the ban was "likely a political decision rather than an issue of fairness."
============================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment