I don’t know if Canadians have the interest or the patience to submit themselves yet another time to another chapter of the interminable saga of the conflict that I have been embroiled in for what seems like forever with the relatively newly renamed Ontario College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts. I know I’m sick and tired of the whole affair, having moved out of the country in no small part in consequence of the prejudice, ideologically-motivated shenanigans, false morality and petty power mongering of that august body.
I ran afoul of the worthies who run that incomprehensible organization for reasons that are not sufficiently clear to me and appear to be even more opaque to them. I’ll summarize the situation as best I can, nonetheless, so that we are all on the same page, insofar as that is even possible. I was charged by my professional organization, responsible for ensuring the public is properly served by psychologists, with something approximating unprofessional conduct for my behaviour on social media — particularly on X, when it was still Twitter. Here is a summary of my crimes (and I say crimes because the legal cost of breaking these rules is high, the punishment severe — loss of my professional license and the disgrace associated with that — and lawyers and the courts are almost certain to be involved).
I objected to an actress who was subjected to the entirely barbarous and unforgivable although voluntary removal of her breasts advertising that fact proudly to her multitude of fans, many of whom were exactly the kind of star-worshipping and therefore highly influenceable young women maximally susceptible to the dangerous social contagion that is camouflaged under the evil rubric of “gender affirming care.” Since I made that objection, none other than the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has decided that there is a fundamental and inalienable difference between men and women. Furthermore, that country and many others (including the Netherlands where the horror originated) have concluded that there is little evidence that such “care” produces anything but terrible harm, and have banned such procedures for minors. In addition, incontrovertible evidence has emerged that the organizations who pushed for the widespread adoption of such appalling treatment and described it as a moral and scientific necessity were corrupt, unqualified, manipulative and even sadistic ideologues pushing a pathological falsehood.
No crime there, apparently, on my part, let’s say, with the wisdom of retrospection — although in Canada a nurse, Amy Hamm of British Columbia, recently had her life destroyed (that is, she was sanctioned by her professional college and then fired by her employer) for having the temerity to support the world’s most famous author, J.K. Rowling, in the latter’s insistence that trans activists and their idiot movement of narcissists and psychopaths pose a genuine danger to sanity, women and society.
What else was deemed evidence of my guilt? I criticized our dearly departed leader, Justin Trudeau, for his progressive idiocy, and threw in a former staff member of his and an Ottawa city councillor for good measure. They all richly deserved the criticism and much more and had worked diligently and for a long time to earn it.
I pointed out on the world’s most famous podcast that the economic models of doom that the climate apocalypse mongers have been foisting on the public and demoralizing young people for decades with were a pack of antihuman lies, founded on shaky climate “models,” which (1) do not indicate an emergency even by the admission of the modellers themselves and pointing out (2) that models are hypotheses, not data. That criticism is looking pretty good now, too, as Germany suffers tremendous economic decline in consequence of the green idiocy; as the U.K. and the U.S. have abandoned much of the Net Zero moralizing; as even Canadians, shocked by Trump, have realized that we will languish and perish without the fossil fuels the bloody deluded greens have worked so hard and so utterly counterproductively to demonize. So no crime there, either, ladies and gentlemen.
Finally, although there were perhaps a scattering of other “missteps,” I pointed out that valorizing a morbidly obese model whose health and beauty was insisted upon (or else) by the dangerous mob known as the “body positivity” movement (and on the cover of Sports Illustrated, no less) was not an idea in keeping with any sane notion of beauty, athleticism or health. In a time where a substantial proportion or even a majority of the population is suffering from severe metabolic disease, brought about by a diet far too high in sugar or the carbohydrate equivalent, that looks like a deadly accurate observation, as well, rude though it might be.
For pointing out these simple and once self-evident truths I was removed from Twitter (although reinstated by Elon Musk) and sentenced by the College in question to a course of re-education of unspecified duration and expense at the hands of a social media expert, whose expertise was far from established, who was going to teach me God only knows what. I appealed my sentence to the higher courts of Canada, on the grounds of free speech, which has terrifyingly little protection in our fine country, and lost. Those concerned about such niceties for themselves and their children are advised to take note.
It is also important that none of these complaints had anything to do with my conduct with my clients as a practicing psychologist, and none of the accusations upheld by the College were brought forward by people who had any direct or even second-party contact with me.
In the aftermath of their pyrrhic victory — the rejection of my appeal — the College then added a whole other set of demands to the original order, many of which violated their own policies, including: that I attend the retraining sessions in person, at a law office in downtown Toronto, instead of participating virtually (a ruling designed for maximum inconvenience and hypocrisy, given that the authorities in question conduct much of their own business virtually, and that they knew full well I travel continually). Furthermore, I was to agree to keep all the proceedings as well as the identity of the hypothetically expert retrainer confidential. A transcript would be produced, of the retraining sessions, and I could get a copy, but only if I agreed not to make any of it public. Finally, I was not provided with the contact information of said trainer, even though it is a condition of the College that a malefactor being disciplined has the responsibility to do exactly that. I might also point out that arranging all this took far more than the few months allotted for the exercise — again, by the College’s own policies. I presume that has something to do with the right of the accused to a timely intervention, as well as ensuring a quick response on his or her part. I was ready to go, as I indicated, and very publicly — but the College was not.
Being exactly the sort of recalcitrant offender that I am — and someone very likely to reoffend in the future, as far as the College was concerned — I rejected their machinations, on the grounds that the “confidentiality” they were insisting upon was there, to the degree that it existed at all, to protect me, and not them, and that I was willing to forego that protection entirely, convinced as I was and am of the absolute corrupt idiocy of this whole endeavour. The proof? I want it all public, so that people who are interested can decide for themselves what is going on (ideally, in the College’s estimation, behind closed doors, which is precisely the operating principle of the arbitrary authoritarian). I also rejected their conditions for the intervention, including the in-person attendance at the offices of a somehow involved third party. This tied their tails in knots for months. Why? Because they knew perfectly well that making any of this truly public would cause no end of scandal, given the essential validity of my initial comments, the impossibility of the retraining exercise, and the strange status of the expert retrainer.
In the last weeks, in any case, the College has re-established contact, after months of unnecessary delay, which occurred in violation of their own order and guidelines. They have made me an entirely new offer, all the while insisting that this was their intent all along, which it most clearly was not.
All they really want, it turns out, is one two-hour session, which will not involve any “social media” training. This will be conducted by a man — one Harry Cayton — a citizen of the U.K., who is neither social media expert, according to the College and is definitely not a psychologist. So who and what is he? His field of expertise, such as it is, remains opaque and mysterious, and his suitability to be involved in such an affair, entirely unspecified, although his website portrays him as
“an internationally recognized advisor on professional regulation and governance.”
If that is the case, and he has true expertise, why not make the discussion public? If I am the intransigent fool, and he is the wizard to set things right, why not bless everyone interested with his wisdom, and allow them to participate in the restructuring of my psyche and eventual enlightening? Why the concern with confidentiality?
The brief and apparently harmless and oh-so-reasonable meeting now insisted upon ever-so-benevolently by the College can also now apparently be undertaken remotely, even though that was initially out of the question. Furthermore, the target in question — me — is only to be “coached,” no doubt ever so gently, and will be encouraged to “review, reflect on, and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements.”
That’s an exact quote, and it reflects ever so ironically and comically the blatant stupidity and carelessness in concept, word and deed at work here. It is not my “professionalism,” boys and girls, but my apparent lack thereof, that is to be ameliorated. That’s a crucial distinction, and the error is telling, in my estimation. Words matter, which is why I choose mine carefully, and am willing to make them public. Not only did the College get the intent wrong, in their last written missive, but they literally reversed it. A trained psychologist of a certain psychoanalytic bent might regard that not as a mere mistake, but as precisely the kind of Freudian slip that reveals the deeper truth, as such slips are wont to do.
It is in fact (and so perversely) precisely my professionalism, manifest in my willingness — nay, duty — to say what I thought that the College indeed wishes most devoutly to “ameliorate” by this re-education, which is now described so softly as “coaching.” After all, we’re all friends here, right, working together for the same aim.
I think not, and up yours.
What is really going on here, and why should Canadians care? I am essentially being offered a very particular form of bribe by my professional betters: “Dr. Peterson, we have backed down on every demand, excepting two, which no reasonable person would deny us. You will now therefore be subject only to a minimal intervention and, if you agree to make the proceedings confidential, all this maddening trouble will just go away.”
The troubled, weak and even damaged and sick part of me is inclined to throw in the towel. This has been a horrible experience: a decade long, stunningly, even internationally, public, fractious beyond compare, very difficult for my family, and exceedingly expensive — almost three quarters of a million dollars to date. I could be free, with a stroke of my pen and a few admittedly painful hours. Is that not what a reasonable person would do? The College is certainly endeavouring to provide a deal, much different than their original demands, designed to make any continued refusal reflect badly on me, particularly among those already inclined to be skeptical of my claims to moral virtue.
But I know in the depths of my soul — and I take such things with dead seriousness — that it is a grievous error to kowtow to petty tyrants, no matter how well cloaked in moralism and well-meaning. In fact, I believe that it is imperative above all else, perhaps, not to falsify thought and words, even by omission. It is this that I have learned in consequence of my decades of studying just how the forces of oppression and malevolence prevail. God granted Abraham even the redemption of Sodom and Gomorrah if 10 men good and true could be found in the environs of those doomed cities. We are all called upon to be one of those 10.
In consequence, I had my lawyers (with their blessing, note) inform my professional body in writing that their request for confidentiality is unacceptable. I will record whatever proceedings are mandated, all bureaucratic protestations to the contrary, just as I have continually claimed and insisted. Then, the public — the very people hypothetically being protected by the College — can decide for itself, if it cares, who has something to reveal and who has something to hide.
Why, though, should anyone care?
Because these proceedings are arbitrary, unjust, incompetent and insane; because if these camouflaged self-righteous confused bureaucrats can corner and silence me, given all my resources and reach, they can silence anyone — and that is exactly and precisely the point. If I capitulate, and allow all or even any of this to take place in secrecy, all those who occupy positions of authority merely to enjoy the arbitrary power will be emboldened. That will not be good for Canada, as a country — the Canada where my son and his family still live, and where I plan still to spend much time — or for its far-too-asleep and complacent citizens.
And it is precisely the fact that I was unwilling to be silenced to begin with that was my true crime, all protestations by the midget authoritarians to the contrary. Nothing has changed, despite the niceness of the most recent offer.
Do your worst, you contemptible bastards — but don’t be thinking that you will have the advantage of invisibility. It is corruption, not peace, order and good government, that thrives in the darkness.
We’ll see who blinks.
National Post
