Jordan Peterson’s bid to avoid having to take a remedial program on “professionalism”
Jordan Peterson’s bid to avoid having to take a remedial program on “professionalism in public statements” or as he called it, social media retraining, was unsuccessful in an Ontario court this week. However, to anybody familiar with judicial reviews in Canada, Peterson’s loss was unsurprising. Fundamentally, in Canada, freedom of expression does not override all other considerations. The court began its judgement by noting an individual joining a regulated profession (like a clinical psychologist) does not lose their right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, they also take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. In other words, it is contemplated in Canadian law, that by joining a certain profession, you may be exchanging limits on your freedom of expression for the right to practice and maintain that license. And while Jordan Peterson argued that his public statements (on Twitter, podcasts and elsewhere) were not in the course of his work as a clinical psychologist and therefore should be outside the authority and/or concern of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, the Ontario court rejected this argument on the basis of Peterson’s broad audience to whom he clearly identifies himself as a clinical psychologist. This explicit declaration, combined with the typical high level of deference the Court provided for the regulator (so as not to second guess their expertise in recognizing and assessing what constitutes a concern to their profession). Thus, the court found it was reasonable for the College to be concerned with Peterson’s conduct as a risk in undermining public trust in clinical psychologists, that ordering Peterson to take a remedial program was of minimal impact and a proportional response, and ultimately that the decision the College made, the process it took to get there and how that decision was communicated was intelligible and reasonable. And that latter word, reasonable, is all it takes to lose on a judicial review.
✔️ Meu grupo VIP no Telegram: Lá eu sempre compartilho conteúdos de extremo valor e altamente exclusivos sobre vendas, negócios e marketing digital. Para fazer parte, basta clicar no link a seguir, é gratuito:
📱 https://t.me/+znOhjqB9nPk2ZDUx
————————————————————————————————————-
RECOMENDAÇÕES DE VÍDEOS PARA VOCÊ ASSISTIR:
1- ✅ AFILIADO SHOPEE Como receber dinheiro das comissões afiliado da Shopee
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQJ8xC_6Da4&t=215s
2 – 👉 Ainda VALE A PENA Ganhar Dinheiro Como AFILIADO em 2022 /2023
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkhRF6nmmzA
3 – 👀 Como COMEÇAR a VENDER na AMAZON por DROPSHIPPING Passo a Passo
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5UrwhMrNo0&t=83s
4- 💊 Marketing de Afiliados Para INICIANTES R$ 266/DIA Metodo (GRÁTIS & Fácil)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT0R8z5ES8Q
———————————————————————————————————-
Melhor método de vendas rápidas sem estruturas complexas (maior overdelivery do mercado):
✅ www.comunidadenest.com.br
————————————————————————————————————-
👉 Contato profissional: [email protected]
