They are already arresting people for standing and silently praying, the least violent form protest. They arrest thousands each year for social media postings.
So continuing wrong think is a natural extension to mind crime laws.
UK Doesn't have free speech laws or modern privacy laws (personal data somewhat, but the government is excluded)
I think they're referring to Catholics protesting outside abortion clinics with designated "safe access". In law these are areas you're not allowed to harass, film, engage patients or doctors.
These goons and their placarded, photographed "silent prayer" are attempting to force a loophole to ensure they can still get to people.
Whatever your thoughts on abortion, it's clear that their prayers are not the reason they were arrested.
> When she stood in front of the building by herself, Vaughan-Spruce reportedly did not carry a poster, candles for a vigil, or graphic pictures that might be deemed disturbing to local residents, according to the video
> When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station.
The article you link to talks about a different person, who was arrested for holding a sign saying "Praying for freedom of speech."
No. It was protest by a seasoned pro-life protester outside an abortion clinc designated as a protected public place. She might be protesting the law, she might be protesting abortions, but she was protesting in an area where it's been forbidden.
She's been to court, been acquitted, had other charges dropped and since then been told to jog on again since, so make of the laws what you will… But the original reply here was suggesting people were being arrested for praying, which barely represents a fraction of reality.
I feel the same thing is happening in my country, Canada. And no I'm not just referring to recent politically charged event ls during the pandemic.
Stuff like hearings against Judge Donald McLeod after he criticized racial bias in immigration and law enforcement. Or hearings against justice of the peace Julie Lauzon after she wrote a news article critical of the bail system.
This kind of standard where the government arrests or charges people for undermining them is a path to unfettered corruption, overwhelming state power free of criticism and the undermining of democratic institutions.
I pray these laws fail and are overwritten and those responsible for them are remembered as enemies of the state
( full disclosure: I despise Peterson, and think he is an arrogant[1], dishonest grifter )
Except it wasn't court-ordered media training. The College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, ordered him to take a course on not to be such an {expletive} when speaking publicly as a 'Psychologist'. Peterson filed for Judicial review and
> "Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.
"The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression,"
...
Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected.
"Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote.
"Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity." [0]
[1] "I think I've done demonstrably more than any psychologist has ever produced to increase the prestige and trust of the practice of psychology around the world," Peterson said."
I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson either. . . But come on, it doesn't take much to see that the decision is bull
Do we really believe psychologist losing his license because he said stuff on YouTube outside the scope of his professional practice is
"minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression"
Does anyone actually buy that.
I don't like Peterson, I'm not going to bother watching his dribble to get context
But I don't think your position that this has no effect on freedom of speech is realistic. The precedent is clear, all members of regulated professions, doctors, lawyers etc better watch what they say in the public sphere or have their right to practice taken away.
I think a lot of Canadians agree with doing this. Which is fine, I mean run the nation any way the people want.
But I don't think anyone could , with a straight face say this isn't policing speech.
And Peterson is maybe an example of someone we don't like but it's not limited to him, how about Justice McLeod who spoke out against racism in the government?
A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech?
>A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech?
In this particular case, I don't think that what he is being asked to do is unreasonable, nor an assault on Free Speech. I highly recommend reading the (15 page) court ruling), which lays out the background and the Courts' reasoning. [1]
To be clear, he is NOT losing his license. He has to take coaching program on professionalism in his public statements when he identifies as a Psychologist. He was repeatedly warned to be more professional in his public statements, and reminded it wasn't so much the content of his opinions, but the unprofessional way he expressed them. He can be a professor emeritus, and well cited clinical psychologist, and a Twitter Troll, but not at the same time.
He is free to express himself, but if he speaks as a Psychologist, he's expected to not "express professional opinions in a way "may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional."
If he fails to do so, this could result in professional misconduct charges, and at some point losing his license to practice clinical psychology.
From the Court Case:
> The Panel recognized Dr. Peterson’s “right to freedom of expression” but expressed concern about the significant “impact risks” in this case given that “public statements that are de-meaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the
impacted and other communities more broadly.”
> Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or par-
ody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.”
> The Panel is concerned that making public statements that may be inconsistent with the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College poses moderate risks of harm to the public. These potential harms include undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. Public statements of this nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist.
e.g.
- referring to former clients as "vindictive" and sprouting "a pack of lies",
- by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing
thing’ …Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.”
> referring to the physician who performed Elliot Page’s surgery as a “‘criminal’ appears to be in- flammatory and unprofessional.”
- refering to people as a 'prik', or an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”,
- speaking about air pollution and child deaths, and stating “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways",
>"looked at cumulatively, these public statements may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.
> regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.
So it's not what he said it's how he said it? I think most people from democratic societies would see repressing speech based on such nebulous standards as worse.
You could target anyone this way for any slip of the tongue. This is a watch what you say society and I think you should be careful, you sound a bit heated and unprofessional maybe a regulatory agency might come knocking at your door.
I think also it's largely only Canadians who view it as defensible and Canada is increasingly being seen as a nation that does not respect speech rights by people on both the left and the right.
Go in the street and talk to 5 random people. Very few people left or right view Canada's government as exercising legitimate and responsible power. I think Maintaing the illusion seems to be a thing for a members of the older generation who spend all their time watching the CBC.
The monarchy royal family can probably be considered as UK institutions/values, so get ready to be arrested for offense to the king if you don't agree with monarchy...
> The documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”
Members of the current (and well previous several) regime(s) can probably be called extremists, then...
I think this is actually pretty positive, this will always be the de facto law anyway and now they've made it de jure which is if nothing else more honest than the counties that don't.
I don't like it one bit to be clear but I can't really expect any system to behave when faced with what they believe is their own destruction.
Some group or act that people really believe is a threat to national security and the has a real chance of causing a revolt against the established order will find themselves facing down a government who's loaded their battle short and willing to compromise anything to snuff it out. Making such a thing part of the actual law I think gives assurances to the people when it's invoked that the government hasn't completely broken down and still intends to hold themselves to the law where otherwise people might assume that acting extrajudicially broke the seal.
The obvious problem is the meaning of interest; how it is defined in law and interpreted practice.
There's been some fairly significant extra-legal overreach from the Met in the past 12 months. Giving them something like this won't make things better.
I think it is fair to say pluralism is at least nominally a value of the United Kingdom. This proposal seems to be an attempt to undermine pluralism, by proposing to prohibit attempts to undermine values of the United Kingdom. This seems hypocritical because attempting to make such a proposal would be forbidden if the proposal was law.
Their country is dumb and can’t even stop colonies from rebelling and making an ass of the king or dumping some tea. What a bunch of loser idiots. Extradite me for treason you silly nannies.
Many Anglo nations, not just the UK, but also Australia and to a lesser extent, Canada, have had a terrifying shift into authoritarianism through these means, where crimes have clauses denying due process and laws are written in such a way as to be open to interpretation and use of arbitrary punishment.
The UK state is dying and that's the reason it's acting so aggressively. It feels cornered, it's starving and pressuring its people is how it's trying to get back some of the control it used to have. It's a lot like an old insane farmer who tries to get its sheep, who are already in a very poor shape, to perform by beating them up.
37 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadSo continuing wrong think is a natural extension to mind crime laws.
UK Doesn't have free speech laws or modern privacy laws (personal data somewhat, but the government is excluded)
Do you mind sharing a source supporting this claim?
These goons and their placarded, photographed "silent prayer" are attempting to force a loophole to ensure they can still get to people.
Whatever your thoughts on abortion, it's clear that their prayers are not the reason they were arrested.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/22/those-arrests-for-s...
https://news.yahoo.com/british-woman-arrested-praying-silent...
> When she stood in front of the building by herself, Vaughan-Spruce reportedly did not carry a poster, candles for a vigil, or graphic pictures that might be deemed disturbing to local residents, according to the video
> When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station.
The article you link to talks about a different person, who was arrested for holding a sign saying "Praying for freedom of speech."
She's been to court, been acquitted, had other charges dropped and since then been told to jog on again since, so make of the laws what you will… But the original reply here was suggesting people were being arrested for praying, which barely represents a fraction of reality.
Stuff like hearings against Judge Donald McLeod after he criticized racial bias in immigration and law enforcement. Or hearings against justice of the peace Julie Lauzon after she wrote a news article critical of the bail system.
This kind of standard where the government arrests or charges people for undermining them is a path to unfettered corruption, overwhelming state power free of criticism and the undermining of democratic institutions.
I pray these laws fail and are overwritten and those responsible for them are remembered as enemies of the state
I don’t like what you’re saying, so here’s how I’m going to make your life hell until you start saying what I expect you to say.
Except it wasn't court-ordered media training. The College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, ordered him to take a course on not to be such an {expletive} when speaking publicly as a 'Psychologist'. Peterson filed for Judicial review and
> "Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.
"The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression,"
...
Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected.
"Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote.
"Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity." [0]
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court...
[1] "I think I've done demonstrably more than any psychologist has ever produced to increase the prestige and trust of the practice of psychology around the world," Peterson said."
Do we really believe psychologist losing his license because he said stuff on YouTube outside the scope of his professional practice is
"minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression"
Does anyone actually buy that.
I don't like Peterson, I'm not going to bother watching his dribble to get context
But I don't think your position that this has no effect on freedom of speech is realistic. The precedent is clear, all members of regulated professions, doctors, lawyers etc better watch what they say in the public sphere or have their right to practice taken away.
I think a lot of Canadians agree with doing this. Which is fine, I mean run the nation any way the people want.
But I don't think anyone could , with a straight face say this isn't policing speech.
And Peterson is maybe an example of someone we don't like but it's not limited to him, how about Justice McLeod who spoke out against racism in the government?
A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech?
In this particular case, I don't think that what he is being asked to do is unreasonable, nor an assault on Free Speech. I highly recommend reading the (15 page) court ruling), which lays out the background and the Courts' reasoning. [1]
To be clear, he is NOT losing his license. He has to take coaching program on professionalism in his public statements when he identifies as a Psychologist. He was repeatedly warned to be more professional in his public statements, and reminded it wasn't so much the content of his opinions, but the unprofessional way he expressed them. He can be a professor emeritus, and well cited clinical psychologist, and a Twitter Troll, but not at the same time.
He is free to express himself, but if he speaks as a Psychologist, he's expected to not "express professional opinions in a way "may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional." If he fails to do so, this could result in professional misconduct charges, and at some point losing his license to practice clinical psychology.
From the Court Case:
> The Panel recognized Dr. Peterson’s “right to freedom of expression” but expressed concern about the significant “impact risks” in this case given that “public statements that are de-meaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.”
> Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or par- ody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.”
> The Panel is concerned that making public statements that may be inconsistent with the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College poses moderate risks of harm to the public. These potential harms include undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. Public statements of this nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist.
e.g.
- referring to former clients as "vindictive" and sprouting "a pack of lies",
- by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing thing’ …Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.”
> referring to the physician who performed Elliot Page’s surgery as a “‘criminal’ appears to be in- flammatory and unprofessional.”
- refering to people as a 'prik', or an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”,
- speaking about air pollution and child deaths, and stating “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways",
>"looked at cumulatively, these public statements may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.
[0] http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/
[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23924...
So it's not what he said it's how he said it? I think most people from democratic societies would see repressing speech based on such nebulous standards as worse.
You could target anyone this way for any slip of the tongue. This is a watch what you say society and I think you should be careful, you sound a bit heated and unprofessional maybe a regulatory agency might come knocking at your door.
I think also it's largely only Canadians who view it as defensible and Canada is increasingly being seen as a nation that does not respect speech rights by people on both the left and the right.
Go in the street and talk to 5 random people. Very few people left or right view Canada's government as exercising legitimate and responsible power. I think Maintaing the illusion seems to be a thing for a members of the older generation who spend all their time watching the CBC.
When social commitment drops the gov will arrest you, but the gov won't do anything when the problems started. Only when they are nearly over.
Members of the current (and well previous several) regime(s) can probably be called extremists, then...
I don't like it one bit to be clear but I can't really expect any system to behave when faced with what they believe is their own destruction.
Some group or act that people really believe is a threat to national security and the has a real chance of causing a revolt against the established order will find themselves facing down a government who's loaded their battle short and willing to compromise anything to snuff it out. Making such a thing part of the actual law I think gives assurances to the people when it's invoked that the government hasn't completely broken down and still intends to hold themselves to the law where otherwise people might assume that acting extrajudicially broke the seal.
There's been some fairly significant extra-legal overreach from the Met in the past 12 months. Giving them something like this won't make things better.