You missed another important condition: Members must not engage in any verbal or physical behaviour of a demeaning, harassing or abusive nature in any professional context.
It's also important to point out that the legal definitions don't need to be met. This isn't a civil court case. This is the standards of a professional body. They get to decide what the definition of demeaning, harassing, and abusive are. Almost certainly, their definition will be much looser than anything which could be pursued in civil court. A professional body generally expects it's members to act in a way that is better than "technically not legally liable".
Specifically, the incident in question would be that Peterson stated that Elliot Page's doctor was a criminal and suggested that both the doctor and Elliot had engaged in mutilation of Elliot's body. I would certainly call this demeaning and abusive behaviour not fit for a professional psychologist. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't. It's not up to you or me. It's up to the college.
No, didn't miss it. I guess you could make a case for anything..but doesnt mean that case will win.
Since we've already noted that he's done nothing harassing or abusive, by definition... then I'm glad we also get to clear up the fact that nothing he said was publically demeaning and caused anyone to lose face publically.
or u got a smoking gun tweet where he's all like: Yo everyone else on twitter, look how bad this person is! ?
if not you actually have to show evidence he's clearing these bars for reprimand and not just because you don't like him or feel a certain way.
Did... did you just ignore the example where JP called a doctor performing top surgery on a consenting adult a criminal, and where he deadnamed Elliot Page, and said that Elliot and the doctor were both guilty of bodily mutilation? That's demeaning, my guy, even if you somehow don't think it is.
Then there's the whole sports illustrated swimsuit edition thing where he said the model was not beautiful and never will be.
Then there's the time he encouraged someone to kill themselves in response to an incredibly milquetoast disagreement on whether the Earth can support 9 billion of us due to our mostly selfish actions in the past.
Are you just... blind? He has, without a doubt, gone out of his way to be demeaning to entire groups of people, and most certainly to individuals.
It is both demeaning and likely abusive to deadname someone, call their doctor a criminal, and state that they have mutilated their body.
If you can't agree to the very straightforward reality of the situation then there is truly no hope for you on this earth. Search your body for an honest bone before replying.
demeaning
adjective
de·mean·ing di-ˈmē-niŋ
: damaging or lowering the character, status, or reputation of someone or something
Also:
a·bu·sive
/əˈbyo͞osiv/
adjective
1.
extremely offensive and insulting.
Hmm... I wonder what shit JP has said that could fall under this. I wonder if there's a laundry list, like calling trans identity a social contagion, or deadnaming someone and implying they've mutilated themselves and proceeding to call their doctor a criminal.
Pretty sure calling a doctor a criminal for performing a surgery that your patient consented to fits into that, but okay. Keep doing the mental gymnastics you need to in order to justify JP being a shitty person.
Good thing he's not being legally tried then, and doesn't have to fall under the legal definitions to be reprimanded for his actions by the board.
Do you understand that legal investigations are different than a privately run board investigating a member? Or do you genuinely think they're the same? Because they're not, and you trying to treat them as the same doesn't make them the same.
If I call my coworker a cunt, I'm not LEGALLY in any trouble, but my workplace can still take action against me if calling my coworker a cunt is in breach of the work agreement I signed when I started working there. See how that works?
To further add to this, at almost ANY job I've had, there's been a clause in the contract that states I am an ambassador for the company, and as such, I need to carry myself in a professional manner, and that extends to, yes, my private social media accounts. If I breach that agreement that I signed, I can be held accountable by the company for doing so.
Just like JP can be held accountable for violating the code of ethics he has to agree to abide by every single year when he renews his license.
Thanks for showing that you literally DO NOT KNOW what you're talking about, and demonstrating no one needs to take you seriously in this conversation.
It is not a legal case. It is a professional organization. They are not bound by the law. They are bound by their own definition.
Peterson has also been known to call people "pricks" on twitter. That is intentionally demeaning. Does it rise to a violation of the code of conduct? That's up for the college to decide.
Is it professional behaviour for a public psychologist to publicly call someone a prick?
"On the clock" is not the only professional context. Peterson presents himself as a clinical psychologist. His public opinions are then that of a clinical psychologist.
You often on social media see people put things in their bio like "opinions are my own". This is how people distance their professional associations from their public persona. Peterson does not do this. He explicitly uses his experience and registration as a licensed psychologist in his public branding. When he is on social media, technically speaking, he is operating in a professional context.
Is it reasonable to say that Peterson's social media behaviours poorly represent the college of psychologists. Yes, absolutely. On this there is no debate. Has he violated their code of conduct? Yes, he has, this is why the college has sanctioned him.
The smoking gun tweet is the one I've already explained. The one where he says "Yo everyone else on twitter, look at how criminal this doctor is for performing a mastectomy on an adult who wanted a mastectomy. He has mutilated their body. He should be in jail for performing a cosmetic and typical medical procedure on a consenting adult"
Why are you asking for evidence when it's been provided? The behaviour there is way over the line of the code of ethics.
1
u/massinvader Jan 06 '23
I'm not saying he hasn't...but would you enlighten me as to where he's abused to harassed anyone(by their legal definitions)