Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson had his day in court on June 21, challenging the censure of his social media posts by his professional regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
The college’s disciplinary committee decided Nov. 22, 2022, that Peterson must take remedial training “regarding professionalism in public statements” in light of comments he made on a range of social and political issues on Twitter and on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast.
The college’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) said the nature of his comments constitutes “professional misconduct” and he could lose his licence if he doesn’t change his tone to the satisfaction of his training coach.
Peterson’s lawyers argued before a three-judge panel at a Toronto Divisional Court on Wednesday that the ICRC failed to give due weight to Peterson’s free speech rights in its decision.
They said the ICRC took the comments out of context. They also noted a 2020 decision the ICRC made regarding similar public comments by Peterson that came to the opposite conclusion—that Peterson’s free speech rights overruled any concerns.
The College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) argued that the “professional misconduct” is in Peterson’s tone and lack of “civility” rather than in the content of his statements.
CPO’s lawyers said in their written submissions to the court that Peterson did not take the warning given to him in the 2020 ICRC decision to moderate his “tone,” leading to a more stringent decision in 2022.
Peterson’s comments could reflect poorly on the profession of psychology as a whole, the CPO argued, because Peterson identified himself as a psychologist in the podcast interview and on his Twitter page.
Peterson’s lawyers countered that Peterson is so famous everyone knows he’s a psychologist even if he doesn’t say it, and his statements were not directly related to his psychology practice.
The CPO argued that its right to maintain the standard of the profession outweighs Peterson’s free speech right in this case—that it has placed a reasonable limit on his speech as permitted by law.
Peterson has not practiced as a clinical psychologist since 2017, being busy now as an author and public speaker. He was not present in the Osgoode Hall courtroom Wednesday, but had his team of lawyers from the firm Henein Hutchison Robitaille there to represent him.
Peterson refused to undergo the ICRC-ordered training last year and instead filed for the judicial review undertaken on Wednesday.
Peterson’s Tweets, Comments Examined
Several of Peterson’s comments that prompted ICRC’s decision are expounded upon in the submissions by lawyers on both sides.For example, during his Jan. 25, 2022 appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, Peterson discussed the global death toll among children resulting from air pollution.
He said, “It’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways.” The ICRC said Peterson “appeared to be ... making demeaning jokes.”
“An ordinarily attentive observer would recognize he was criticizing, not endorsing, those who consider ‘poor children’ expendable,” Peterson’s lawyers argued. “In any event, he immediately affirmed that the comment was ‘facetious.’”
In the same podcast appearance, Peterson described a former client who filed a complaint against him as “vindictive,” and said she came after him with “a pack of lies.”
The ICRC said Peterson “appeared to be engaging in degrading comments about a former client.”
Peterson’s lawyers said he was speaking candidly about a difficult period in his life, which included this complaint against him. They said he did not give information that would identify his former client.
“She had come to rely on our weekly meetings ... so she was angry about being abandoned. And it was really sad because I didn’t want to abandon my clients,” Peterson said, as quoted in his lawyers’ factum.
In a Feb. 19, 2022 tweet, Peterson called Ottawa City Councillor Catherine McKenney, who uses they/them pronouns, an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing.”
McKenney responded with a shrug emoji “indicating little concern for the comment,” the lawyers argued.
‘Tone’ of Comments
The CPO repeatedly stressed that the “tone” of Peterson’s comments is at issue, rather than their substance.Peterson’s lawyers said this censure of “tone” does not allow for debate on controversial topics, which inevitably becomes heated at times. Peterson’s exchange with Butts started with a more civil tone and escalated to the insult, they said.
“Political debate would be unduly hampered if it lost its ‘core’ protected status every time a participant, in the heat of the moment, lapsed into insult or invective,” Peterson’s lawyers said in their factum.
“Neither the ICRC nor this Court need to agree with, like, or accept the impugned statements in order to recognize that they deserve a protection well-above that placed upon them by the [CPO’s decision],” they said.
The CPO’s written submissions to the court said that as a member of the CPO, Peterson must adhere to its standards requiring “that psychologists refrain from publicly engaging in degrading or demeaning comments about others.”
It said this requirement preserves public trust in the profession “by demonstrating respect for the dignity of all.”
The CPO argued that the mandatory training did not aim to prevent Peterson from publicly stating his opinions, but rather to have him “review, reflect on, and ameliorate [his] professionalism in public statements.”
Peterson’s lawyers countered that the decision’s primary purpose was to curtail Peterson’s freedom of expression, and that it could have a chilling effect on other professionals.
“Rather than face investigation or discipline, most will simply err on the side of remaining silent, and controversial debate will be stifled,” they said.
The Divisional Court judges reserved their decision.
