Judge Rules Jordan Peterson Must Undergo 'Re-Education' Punishment to Retain License

Guilty of THOUGHTCRIME.

An Ontario court has delivered a ruling against psychologist and author Professor Jordan Peterson which will have repercussions for free-speech far beyond Canada.

The court has sided with a group of Peterson's colleagues at the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) who demanded Peterson attend a 're-education' programme aimed at "cultivating professionalism" for future public statements.

Peterson who lectured at the University of Toronto Psychology Department as an emeritus professor was found guilty of 'thoughtcrime' by his colleagues due to his Tweets not following their Marxist ideology. Prof. Peterson's anti-communist views have repeatedly brought him into conflict with others in his profession who are almost all far-left ideologues said to both resent Peterson's success, and hate his work exposing the Marxism lie.

Repeated attempts to silence Peterson had previously backfired, only bringing the Professor more fame and fortune. This reportedly angered colleagues, who began to indulge in 'offence archaeology' finally using three Tweets posted by Peterson as reason to revoke his license to practice. Peterson had effectively committed 'thoughtcrime'.

The CPO’s primary bone of contention with Peterson’s statements relates to comments aimed towards a plus-sized model, politicians on different ends of the spectrum, and transgendered actor Elliot Page. The college asserts that these statements represented 'professional misconduct' and were harmful to the profession’s reputation. The CPO demanded that Peterson attend a 're-education' programme and failure to do so would result in his license to practice being revoked.

One of the 'thoughtcrime' tweets

Peterson’s rebuttal to this was blunt. In January, he argued that his critics had weaponized the CPO’s disciplinary process based on their politics. He characterized the disciplinary process as akin to undergoing a stint in a “re-education camp.”

Seeking judicial review in June, Peterson’s legal counsel contended that his political statements were separate from his professional purview. They argued the CPO hadn’t adequately considered Peterson’s free speech rights and that his public statements had been quoted out of context.

However, the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed these claims, asserting that the college’s verdict correlates with the mandate to supervise the profession in defense of the public’s interest, without infringing on Peterson’s freedom of expression rights. This contradiction in terms hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media but free speech advocates have pointed at this as irrefutable evidence that free speech is, in fact, dead in Canada.