Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Jordan Peterson says he rejected regulator’s offer to pay legal fees in exchange for resignation

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The free speech advocate said the College of Psychologists of Ontario mistakenly thought he could ‘be bought’ after losing his court appeal challenging that he submit to social media training to keep his license.

Best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson says his regulatory college offered him a deal to “be bought” in which the legal fees owed to them after losing his court challenge could be waived but only if he agreed to quit his job as a psychologist.

Peterson, who gained fame for his vigorous defense of free speech, announced the offer, as he put it, “to be bought” from the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) in an opinion piece posted by the National Post on October 11. He said that lawyers from the CPO told him that “a settlement offer might be possible” if he resigned, but doing so would bar him from being able to practice in the province.

He noted the CPO’s “first offer was (get this — and I still can’t believe it): ‘If Dr. Peterson agrees to resign, we would be willing to forgo the legal costs the court ruled he owes us!’”

Peterson observed that the CPO’s “opening gambit was based on the assumptions (1) that I could be bought and (2) that I could be bought cheaply.”

“The first was truly insulting, as well as preposterous: If cost alone was going to stop me, it would have happened long ago,” he wrote.

“The second was ironically laughable, and an indication of their ignorance regarding what is at stake here: If I was for sale — and I am not — it would be for a hell of a lot more than the court costs that the Supreme Court deemed me liable for when my appeal was rejected.”

Peterson said that he is already in “over my head for a lot more than that on the expenditure side alone.”

“In addition, I have enough stable sources of income now arrayed around me such that the amount in question is not a relevant determinant of my behaviour, as the college tyrannocrats should have realized, had they done an iota of necessary homework.”

Peterson observed that one of the reasons the CPO has begun to negotiate with him over the fees owed is because it is now “backed in a corner.”

Last month, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson agreed to accept the CPO’s social media “training,” saying he was doing so to defend free speech for all Canadians.

This came after a ruling in August by the Supreme Court of Canada, which refused to hear Peterson’s appeal to the CPO regarding the threat of losing his license unless he submit to the social media “training.”

‘God only knows how it will all end’

Peterson is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto and has gotten into trouble from regulatory bodies for repeatedly calling out the “trans-butchery of minor children” as a “crime against humanity.”

He has also been a vocal critic of Canadian health and government officials for promoting COVID mandates and jabs as “safe.”

Regarding the CPO’s offer, Peterson said that after he was ordered by the court to undergo social media “training,” he had asked for the names of those who would be ready to re-educate” him. However, the names of the so-called “social media experts” tasked with the re-“education” were redacted when he received them.

“One problem remained, and a serious one, indeed, practically speaking: the very lines in the document that contained the identifying information of the experts (names, email addresses, professional standing, and telephone numbers) had been redacted,” he wrote.

“Note also that since it is now early October, the college only has about seven weeks to straighten out the mess they created around themselves, without violating their own rules, and to repair me one way or another, in the hopefully permanent manner they are devoutly hoping to manage.”

The CPO’s mandate that Peterson undergo social media “training” must be done by November.

In concluding the opinion piece, Peterson noted, “God only knows how it will all end.”

“But it certainly appears, as of the current moment, that the much-vaunted and much-moralized-publicly-about re-education efforts of the Ontario College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts have been brought to a shuddering and shameful halt, not least because of the utter indefensibility of their own position,” he wrote.

Peterson has warned Canadian professionals to “wake up” to the rise of cancel culture.

“Wake up, citizens: professionals are now required to hold their tongue if they believe anything politically verboten. For all you leaning to the left – sometimes validly: these precedents will eventually be weaponized by those who stand opposed to you,” he posted.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on

logo

By

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

They knew it was a lab leak all along

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Newly Revealed Documents Confirm Lab Leak Coverup

Quick Hit:

The global debate over COVID-19’s origins has taken a dramatic turn after newly uncovered reports indicate that intelligence agencies in Germany had determined with near certainty that the virus originated in a Chinese lab as early as 2020. Despite this revelation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly chose to suppress the findings, aligning with a broader pattern of obfuscation by Western governments and media outlets.

Key Details:

  • German newspapers Zeit and Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Germany’s intelligence agency, the BND, concluded in early 2020 with 80% to 95% certainty that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China.

  • The intelligence was based on a combination of public-domain research and classified investigations under the code name “Saaremaa.”

  • Merkel’s administration allegedly buried the findings, with her successor Olaf Scholz continuing the suppression, ensuring the information remained hidden from the public until now.

Diving Deeper:

Journalist Alex Berenson detailed the shocking revelations in his Substack op-ed, underscoring how “the American media is doing its best to ignore the biggest news this week.” Berenson criticized legacy media outlets for fixating on the five-year anniversary of COVID-19 while sidestepping the implications of newly surfaced intelligence.

According to Berenson, German intelligence reached its high-confidence conclusion after analyzing public materials and conducting covert operations. “The material… indicated that there had been some risky research methods used there [at the Wuhan Institute of Virology], compounded by breaches of laboratory safety rules… [and] so-called gain-of-function experiments, in which viruses occurring in nature are manipulated [to become more dangerous or transmissible],” he wrote.

Rather than alert the world to the evidence, Merkel chose to suppress it. Berenson sarcastically noted, “Who immediately told the world of the findings and demanded a full investigation into what China’s totalitarian government knew and when it knew it? Nah, I’m funning you. Angela stuffed that report in a drawer and got back to doing what she did best, destroying Germany’s industrial base to make Greta Thunberg happy.”

The refusal to disclose this intelligence aligns with a broader pattern of deception from both governmental and media institutions, which spent years dismissing the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Berenson noted that during early 2020, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci and Peter Daszak… were gently steering their fellow scientists towards a conclusion that COVID’s origins were 100 billion zillion percent natural.”

Even after Merkel left office in 2021, Scholz’s government continued to keep the intelligence under wraps. “The BND told her replacement, Olaf Scholz, ‘without the results finding their way to the public’ — as the British newspaper The Telegraph delicately put it,” Berenson wrote. Now that the findings have emerged, the German government has not denied the reports, leaving Berenson to conclude, “There’s about a 100 to 100 percent chance they’re true.”

The final takeaway? “We all sorta knew this already, right? Both the lab leak and the coverup,” Berenson observed. “But there’s knowing and there’s knowing. And it looks like the same American news outlets that spent 2020 and 2021 lying (or, at best, being hopelessly credulous) about China and COVID still aren’t ready to come clean.”

As new evidence continues to surface, the question remains: Will legacy media and world leaders finally acknowledge the lab leak theory as fact, or will they continue to deflect responsibility and protect their preferred narratives?

Continue Reading

Trending

X