Jordan Peterson: I am ready for my re-education. Who will be my tutor?

The fact that I have been required to undergo an open-ended course of re-education in social media use by the body that regulates my profession in Ontario, the College of Psychologists and Behavioural Analysts, is both a matter of public record and something that has become relatively well known. Recently, however, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that I had no right to appeal that decision. That decision exhausted the legal avenues open to me concerning this matter.

In consequence, I have accepted the college’s ruling, even though the so-called “social media experts” recommended by that board are members of a profession that does not exist, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that their recommendations for altering my behaviour, whatever they might be, will have any effect whatsoever on improving my ability to function as a professional psychologist. Months ago, I pressed the college on precisely these issues and received precisely the silence that always makes itself manifest when they are called upon to justify their arbitrary and ill-conceived foolishness.

This all means that I have within the last weeks turned myself over to the tender mercies of the college, as the alternative was to forego my license, standing as a clinical psychologist, and reputation, and am currently awaiting their provision of the names of the re-educators. However, I have also reserved to myself the right to publicize the details of this charade as widely and effectively as possible, as there is no bloody way I am going to allow my professional organization to maneuver as they prefer behind closed doors, in the secretive style all petty tyrants prefer. In the meantime, however, I would like to offer—and publicly—a potential solution to this idiot state of affairs, so that the Gordian knot can be cut, and the situation settled in a manner that would be socially and politically practical, useful and appropriate.

For personal (and financial) reasons I would obviously like this catastrophic mess to vanish. I am financially independent. I seriously do not need the trouble, and I have many other means of obtaining whatever attention might accrue to me as the public face of this regulatory conflict. Furthermore, I no longer have an active clinical practice, of the sort that continued licensing allows, although I strive to play a public role that is well-served by the continuation of my professional standing. However, this is not only about me, since all regulated professionals in our fair country find themselves in the same leaky boat I currently occupy. Thus, if I capitulate in any manner — if I simply resign; if I settle in any other way without addressing the public issues that have been raised by the case — then all the engineers, teachers, lawyers, physicians, psychologists etc. in Canada remain at risk for reputation, financial security and livelihood every time they dare open their mouths. This is not good, and many such individuals have prevailed upon me privately not to do so. Why?

Well, how can Canadians possibly remain well-served by those very professionals when they risk everything every time they dare offer their genuine opinions on such matters, say, as the gender identity of a confused adolescent (psychologically), or when they wish to express skepticism about some new wonder drug or treatment pushed forward by the pharmaceutical cabal, walking hand in hand with the very regulators they have captured (medically)? We could consider the political and legal case, as well. Do those unhappy about the latest woke policy initiative, or the manipulation of the law to silence criticism of belief, as in the case of the dreaded “Islamophobia” — famously dubbed “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons” — have a right to speak, as they should and must?

What professionals would dare to raise any such issues, debatable though they may be, safely in present-day Trudeau/Singh Canada? And the Ontario Premier Doug Ford, preferable though he may be to the dreadful alternatives — does he have an opinion on such matters, which are of particular significance, at the present time, to those of a classical liberal or conservative bent (although the tide can so easily turn)? And if you are a progressive, by the way — and daft enough to presume that such out-of-control standards and powers could never be turned against you, when times change — then there is very little knowledge of human history or proclivity rattling around in your unfortunately too-empty skull. The danger of such a reversal, which is highly likely, should be of particular concern to the at-the-moment oh-so-valorized “marginal” — members of the alphabet mob not least among them — who have historically benefited from the relatively radical provisions for free speech that once characterized the typical advanced Western nation. Leftists: do you really want to endanger those very rights?

I could so easily let all of this go — but that would mean ceding not only the vital public square but the specialized professions themselves to the reputation-savagers and political Machievellians, aligned at the moment so tightly with the petty behind-the-scenes anonymous bureaucrats. That is a recipe for tyranny and, therefore, a bad idea. However, there are also dangers aplenty, both personal and practical, in the continued battle. I could, for example, allow my personal animosity toward the college (which is dangerously substantial) to play the determining role in guiding my strategy and conduct. This is also not something desirable or appropriate, either politically or personally. There are bigger issues at stake here than my personal satisfaction, as we have discussed, and the desire for vengeance, although always difficult to discriminate from the wish for justice, is not something that should be allowed to determine personal conduct in such matters.

Thus, there are two routes I must avoid if I wish to remain a moral actor in this play of absurdity. I must refuse to make peace unless some real, obvious and profound changes take place in the complaint, adjudication and professional regulation process. Equally, however, I have to forego the delights of revenge, which under the current circumstances loom as an immense temptation. I have to cease hoping for or involving myself in any action that is merely spiteful, even though my “colleagues” have tormented me beyond my capacity to tolerate for almost a decade — not least with their cowardly and contemptible although understandable silence.

How might that difficult endeavour proceed? We might start our inquiry by concentrating on policy matters. It is incumbent upon the college in question, and all such professional bodies in Canada, to update the manner in which they accept and pursue publicly submitted complaints. At the moment, anyone anywhere can submit a complaint through the far-too-handy electronic portal, and for any reason. That apparently simple but truly revolutionary and fundamental technological transformation is a key part of the problem. It has become simply too easy for activist types, many of whom are truly pathological Dark Tetrad actors, to cause trouble, at no risk to themselves, given the provision of such easy and universally accessible means of doing so. Hence the political weaponization of such regulatory boards, which has become a genuine and dangerous social problem. What then to do?

First, we could place some minimal demographic limitations on who has the right to submit a formal complaint, requiring that they be genuine current or former inhabitants if not of the province where the college in question has jurisdiction at least the country of Canada, so that only citizens or landed immigrants have a say. I cannot see at all how anyone reasonable could object to this. Are we really going to allow the speech and action of Canadian professionals to be allowed at the mercy of any random citizen of the world? It takes virtually no thought to understand how badly such a policy could go wrong.

Second, it should be that complaints will only be pursued if they are levied either by current or former clients of the professional in questions, with exceptions, carefully judged, for the legal representatives of such clients, or (perhaps) family members.

Third, the professional organizations must develop and abide by explicitly formulated policies concerning what complaints will simply not be entertained. Is it too much to insist that any acts of speech or conduct that are lawful, when undertaken outside the domain of immediate client service, should remain comprehensively beyond the questioning of these professional organizations? The colleges under consideration were not set up to police speech on social media, or elsewhere, and certainly and absolutely not to regulate discourse pertaining to political figures or general social issues associated with the culture war. Certainly, my right — and the right of all professionals (and all Canadians) — to criticize our dear leaders must remain intact, for the most obvious of reasons.

It might be noted with regard to such things that half of the now seventeen or so complaints levied against me, given the five (!) proffered last week, due to some comments I made about one Kamala Harris, are precisely of that sort: criticisms of Trudeau and his minions, of city councillors carping about the trucker convoy, of the nonsense purveyed by climate-change apocalypse mongers, of the opinions and statements of celebrities involved in the trans and so-called body-positivity movements. These are purely political issues, of the sort that professionals attuned to social issues might appropriately be considering and commenting upon, entirely independent from anything pertaining to the specifics of their professional activity. We simply do not want to interfere with that right and responsibility. If we do so, we deprive the public forum of the thoughts of the most educated and able in any and all professional domains. How can that possibly serve the public good?

The College of Psychologists of Ontario could therefore levy a public statement such as the following, in keeping with such considerations:

“We have to update the manner in which we receive and adjudicate complaints about the behaviour of the members of our College in light of the rapid technological transformations that have characterized the world in the last decade. Going forward, we will in consequence restrict our investigation of complaints, however received, to inhabitants of our province of responsibility, Ontario (including former residents served by professionals in our jurisdiction). We will therefore not investigate any complaints levied by third-party or more distantly involved actors, restricting our involvement to genuine clients of our members, or their legal representatives, or, under some limited circumstances, their family members, particularly if they are guardians. We will also not pursue any complaints pertaining to political viewpoint or expression of idea, however expressed or formulated, unless there is demonstrable evidence that such attitude or behaviour directly compromised the treatment of a particular and identifiable client of the professional in question — and that such compromise is being reported by someone directly served as a client, or their valid representative.”

I would add to that some formulation approximating the following, as well, regarding an appropriate statute of limitations: “Finally, as we do not require the professionals who come under our jurisdiction to maintain their professional records for more than seven years, we will not consider complaints from actions undertaken before that period except under circumstances where clearly criminal behaviour is involved.”

This effort should not only be undertaken by the College of Psychologists but by all similar regulatory bodies, who have been subject to the same ideological capture and weaponization all across Canada. I believe that the formulation of such guidelines would put an end to such problems, or at least constitute a very positive move in that direction. That would solve the public problem. The private problems? There are four.

First, the personal stress experienced by myself and my family. The furor that erupted around my well-considered comments regarding Bill C-16, which added protections for “gender identity” under the Canadian Human Rights Act, made it impossible for me to continue my clinical practice, in good conscience. I remain very unhappy about that. I knew my clients very well, some for decades, often as well or better than their own family members. Having my practice disintegrate was, to put it mildly, a very unpleasant experience, for them, for me, and for my family. The continued social upheaval around my court battles have been constant and damaging. This should require no further explanation.

The second is the damage to my reputation. I want the college to admit to their error, and clear my public record, as they are duty-bound to do, if the suggestions that I am putting forward are deemed reasonable. I remain unwilling to regard any of the actions they have taken against me as warranted, past and present, and I would like their agreement with that sentiment made explicit and public, with the requisite apology offered. This reputation blackening has had very dire effects on my life. My immediate neighbours are now, for example, skeptical of me, to the degree that my son, who once had a house on the street he grew up on — my street — found it sufficiently uncomfortable there to pack up and move. My wife and I are considering similar action, which would require leaving our home of twenty years. This is only one example of multiple severe social and personal costs.

The third is the financial consequences. I am in the fortunate position of being able to bear the burden of fighting this extensive, many-year’s-long battle, but it has not come cheap. If the college made a mistake — or many mistakes, which is a more accurate summation — how is it just that proving precisely that has or should cost the many hundreds of thousands of dollars that it has cost?

The fourth, and final, is the future. I am tired, to say the least, of having to defend myself for months at extreme psychological and practical cost anytime anyone anywhere spends the ten minutes necessary to express their pique on the electronic complaint submission form made oh-so-accessible to the malevolent trolls of the world by the careless and willfully blind actors of the college. Perhaps the procedural changes I described earlier would guarantee my future freedom from continued pursuit.

It is not obvious to me how the latter private concerns, which are in some manner unique to my case (although also experienced by any professionals who have run up against the arbitrary and punitive constraints on attitude and behaviour imposed by their regulatory bodies) should be addressed by the College, while the public concerns are being dealt with. Annoying and stressful as it is to have been made subject to the culture war in the current manner, the public issues need to take precedence, and it seems to me that I could forego a certain amount of private satisfaction if the policy changes I am suggesting were implemented. I suppose that is a matter for further negotiation. At minimum, I want my record cleared, and publicly so, and to be provided with some certainty that the counterproductive prosecution to which I have been submitted will cease (as the changes in regulation would in fact go a long way to guaranteeing).

Why am I making all this public — and, the related question: why should Canadians concern themselves about any of this? To begin with, one in five are actually employed in professions that, like mine, are regulated. So if those individuals are concerned about how what they say and do outside the strict confines of their interactions with those they serve professionally might become the means of their painful demise, my case should be of interest. In addition, Canadians are not served well by the propagation of relatively low-level bureaucrat-dominated extra-judicial boards with enough power to deprive both them and the professionals they serve of their charter rights.

There will come a time in the life of all but the most fortunate of persons when the counsel of a lawyer, physician or psychologist who dares to tell the truth will make a crucial, even existence-sustaining difference. It would be a terrible shame if under such conditions the professional in question felt compelled either to lie, or to remain silent. It is difficult to over-stress the importance of nothing but the truth and the whole truth under such conditions. Finally, Canadians should ask themselves: do you want to live in a country where your Charter rights can be abrogated at the whim of some unelected and fundamentally unaccountable committee, operating in the background, essentially anonymously, and possessed by some current ideological whim or idiocy?

Instead, perhaps the College of Psychologists in Ontario and the other regulatory boards could admit to being taken by surprise by the technological transformations of the last decade — an arguably forgivable sin and reconsider the details of their complaint process, specifying more carefully the circumstances under which investigation will proceed. This would be a necessary minimum to bring the current unnecessary idiocy surrounding my case to an end, on the public side. And with regards to my more private concerns? I have no idea if any of those can or even should be addressed. The justice of that is not obvious to me, personally involved as I am. Perhaps it will be necessary for me to live with the consequences of my public pronouncements, for better or worse, given the strangeness of the current political and cultural moment, as I have for the last nearly ten years. At the moment, in any case, I await the full details of a potential agreement from the distinguished members of my professional organization, and have done my best in the present missive to outline what those might be, determining to keep all of this public, as I have from the onset of these troubles.

The college’s actions tore my life apart, destroying my clinical practice and severely threatening my reputation, a good part of my livelihood, and my finances. Fortunately, and with a great deal of help, I was able to put something alternative together. Not everyone is so lucky. Not only that: the good-thinkers there were not satisfied with all that. They continued — and continue — to pursue me. It is impossible to describe how stressful and terrible this has been, and what impulses of rage and revenge these actions have brought forward within me. Their power has been used in a unconscionable manner, and one that threatens the freedom of all Canadians. A much less reasonable man would have been brought to despair or worse long ago by the machinations of the invisible actors, behind the scenes, motivated by their ideology and vengefulness to misuse their power. Despite all this, I have put forward what I believe to be a reasonable pathway forward — one that the college could adopt, to its own improvement, and as an example to the professional colleges and their equivalent across the country. Hopefully they will have the good judgement and equally good will to take the wise way forward.

National Post