The court hears Jordan Peterson’s arguments about why his license should not be threatened by tweets

Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson had his day in court on June 21, challenging the disapproval of his social media posts by his professional regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

The college’s disciplinary committee decided on November 22, 2022, that Peterson must undergo remedial training “regarding professionalism in public statements” in light of comments he made about a range of social and political issues on Twitter and on the podcast “Joe Roger Experience”.

The university’s Investigation, Complaints and Reporting Committee (ICRC) said the nature of his comments constitutes “professional misconduct” and he could lose his license if he doesn’t change his tone to the satisfaction of his training coach.

Peterson’s lawyers argued before a three-judge panel in a Toronto Divisional Court on Wednesday that the ICRC gave insufficient weight to Peterson’s freedom of expression in its decision.

They said the ICRC had taken the comments out of context. They also noted a 2020 decision made by the ICRC regarding similar public comments made by Peterson, which reached the opposite conclusion: that Peterson’s free speech overruled all concerns.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) argued that the “professional misconduct” is in Peterson’s tone and lack of “politeness” rather than the substance of his statements.

CPO’s lawyers said in their written submissions to the court that Peterson did not heed the warning given to him in the 2020 ICRC decision to moderate his “tone”, leading to a harsher decision in 2022.

Peterson’s comments could be a poor reflection of the psychology profession 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 that everyone knows he is a psychologist even if he doesn’t say so, and that his statements were not directly related to his psychology practice.

The CPO argued that its right to uphold the standard of the profession in this case outweighs Peterson’s right to free speech – that it has placed a reasonable limit on his speech, as permitted by law.

Peterson has retired from clinical psychology in 2017 and is now busy as an author and public speaker. He was not present in the Osgoode Hall courtroom on Wednesday, but was represented by his team of lawyers from the firm Henein Hutchison Robitaille.

Peterson refused to take the ICRC-ordered training last year and instead filed for a judicial review on Wednesday.

“My critics have armed the disciplinary process of the College of Psychologists for political reasons. The college wants to send me to a re-education camp – and that should concern everyone. Peterson wrote in an article published in the National Post on Jan. 4.

Peterson’s tweets, comments examined

Several of Peterson’s comments that led to the ICRC’s decision are explained in the comments by lawyers on both sides.

For example, during his January 25, 2022 appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, Peterson discussed the global death toll of children due to air pollution.

He said, “They’re just poor kids, and the world has too many people anyway.” The ICRC said Peterson “appeared to be making demeaning jokes”.

“A normally observant observer would recognize that he was criticizing, not supporting, those who see ‘poor children’ as expendable,” Peterson’s lawyers argued. “In any case, he immediately confirmed that the comment was ‘funny’.”

In the same podcast appearance, Peterson described a former client who filed a complaint against him as “vengeful” and said she came after him with “a pack of lies.”

The ICRC said Peterson “appeared to be preoccupied with demeaning remarks about a former client.”

Peterson’s lawyers said he spoke candidly about a difficult time in his life, including this charge against him. They said he gave no information that would identify his former client.

“She had become dependent on our weekly meetings…so she was angry about being abandoned. And it was really sad because I didn’t want to let my clients down,” Peterson said, as quoted in his attorneys factum.

In a February 19, 2022 tweet, Peterson called Ottawa City Councilman Catherine McKenney’s use of she/they pronouns a “terribly self-righteous moralizing thing”.

“This was not an unnecessary insult to a private individual,” Peterson’s lawyers said. “It was an essential part of a legitimate, if colorful, political debate about the merits of the [Freedom] convoy and of the government response.”

McKenney responded with a shrug emoji “indicating he had little concern about the comment,” the lawyers argued.

In another tweet, Peterson insulted Gerald Butts, the former top adviser to the Prime Minister.

Show comments

The CPO repeatedly emphasized that what matters is the “tone” of Peterson’s comments, not the substance.

Peterson’s lawyers said this disapproval of “tone” doesn’t allow debate on controversial topics, which inevitably get heated at times. Peterson’s conversation with Butts began with a more civilized tone and escalated to the insult, they said.

“The political debate would be unnecessarily hampered if every time a participant lapsed into insults or profanities in the heat of battle, it lost its ‘core’ protected status,” Peterson’s lawyers said in their factum.

“Neither the ICRC nor this Court need approve, approve or accept the contested statements to recognize that they deserve protections far beyond those accorded them by the [CPO’s decision],” they said.

The CPO’s written submissions to the court stated that as a member of the CPO, Peterson must adhere to standards that require “psychologists to refrain from publicly engaging in demeaning or demeaning remarks about others.”

It said this requirement maintains public confidence in the profession “by showing respect for the dignity of everyone.”

The CPO argued that the mandatory training was not designed to prevent Peterson from publicly expressing his views, but rather to allow him to “revise, reflect and improve”. [his] professionalism in public statements.”

Peterson’s lawyers countered that the primary purpose of the decision was to curtail Peterson’s free speech, and that it could have a chilling effect on other professionals.

“Instead of facing investigation or disciplinary action, most will simply make the mistake of remaining silent, and controversial discussions will be suppressed,” they said.

The judges of the Divisional Court reserved their decision.