A court decision is due Wednesday, Aug. 23, on whether Jordan Peterson will be forced to undergo social media training.
The Ontario Divisional Court is expected to release its decision that day on whether the College of Psychologists of Ontario can force Mr. Peterson, a psychologist, to undergo social media training.
The training was ordered in response to public complaints about his online conduct.
He added: “I tweeted and otherwise expressed my opposition to trans surgery butchery, @JustinTrudeau and his minions, and the lying climate apocalypse-mongers.All that’s looking pretty good from my end. And if I can’t express such opinions in Canada, I will let the world know.”
The college’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ruled the nature of his comments constituted “professional misconduct” and that he could lose his licence if he didn’t change his tone to the satisfaction of his training coach.
Mr. Peterson refused to undergo the ICRC-ordered training. Instead, he decided to challenge the decision in court.
The judicial review happened in June, where Mr. Peterson’s lawyers argued the ICRC failed to give enough weight to Mr. Peterson’s right to free speech in its decision.
They also argued the ICRC took comments out of context.
The college argued the “professional misconduct” was in Mr. Peterson’s tone and lack of “civility” rather than the content of his statements. They also argued his comments could reflect poorly on the profession of psychology as a whole, since he identified himself on Twitter as a psychologist.
Mr. Peterson’s lawyers countered that he is so famous everyone knows he is a psychologist, and his statements were not directly linked to his psychology practice.
Mr. Peterson has not practiced as a clinical psychologist since 2017 because of his busy schedule as an author and public speaker.
The college also argued the mandatory training did not aim to prevent Mr. Peterson from publicly stating his opinions, but rather to have him “review, reflect on and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements.”
Mr. Peterson’s lawyers countered that the decision’s primary purpose was to curtail his freedom of expression and warned 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.
