Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Jordan Peterson’s appeal against mandatory social media ‘training’

Published

6 months ago

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Dr. Jordan Peterson, a best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist who gained fame for his opposition to compelled speech and gender ideology, has lost his final appeal and must undergo social media ‘re-education’ or risk losing his clinical license.

The Supreme Court of Canada is refusing to hear an appeal by Dr. Jordan Peterson after the College of Psychologists of Ontario mandated he undergo social media “training” or risk losing his license to practice after he challenged the LGBT agenda online.     

On August 8, Dr. Jordan Peterson, a best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist who gained fame for his opposition to compelled speech and gender ideology, had his appeal against the College of Psychologists of Ontario rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada. Peterson had petitioned the court after the regulatory body mandated he undergo social media “training” following complaints related to posts he made on social media opposing gender ideology, specifically the mutilation of children.

 “The court has rejected my appeal regarding the decision of the Ontario College of Psychologists to subject me to indefinite re-education,” Peterson posted on X in response to the dismissal by the nation’s highest court.

“Primarily for publicly opposing the butchers and liars subjecting children to sterilization and mutilation,” he continued. “I am also required to pay whatever court costs the College accrued in relation to my appeal.” 

“I am now bereft of options on the legal front in Canada,” Peterson declared. “I guess it’s on with the show.”  

The court did not give a reason for its decision, and being the nation’s highest court, was Peterson’s last path of recourse after he lost his appeal in a lower court in January.   

The penalty of mandatory training was first imposed by the College last August in response to comments made by Peterson over a number of years in which he criticized the LGBT agenda among other left-wing causes.

“Since at least 2018, the college has received complaints about Dr. Peterson’s public statements,” an Ontario Supreme Court panel said in an August 2023 ruling, Inside Higher Ed reported.   

“Some complaints have been formal, but many were ‘tweeted’ to the college via the social media platform Twitter, and often involved Dr. Peterson’s views on topics of social and political interest, including transgender questions, racism, overpopulation and the response to COVID-19,” the court stated.  

A spokesman for the court confirmed the ruling in an email comment provided to The Canadian Press, adding that the panel on the court “does not provide reasons for its decisions.”  

Upon receiving the penalty from the College, Peterson pledged to challenge the decision in court. In the event his challenges were unsuccessful, Peterson promised to “publicize every single bit” of his mandatory “re-education.”

While Peterson risks losing his clinical license if he refuses the “re-education,” he has noted that he has become “independently wealthy” and successfully independent of his clinical practice, which he “had to fold up in 2017” when he first gained famed for opposing the compelled use of pronouns not in conformity with biological reality.

Although Peterson has been a vociferous critic of Trudeau and left-wing ideology, much of his work is still related to the field of psychology, having authored multiple books and given hundreds of lectures on the importance of urging people, especially young men, to embrace disciple and personal responsibility.     

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
COVID-19 / 1 hour ago

‘That Science Should Not Have Been Done’: Former CDC Director Compares Fauci To Oppenheimer

Business / 2 hours ago

GOP Lawmakers Urge Coast Guard To Defend US Ports Where ‘Chinese Military Company’ Operates

Business / 5 hours ago

Google Dumps EU’s Anti-“Disinformation” Code, Defying Digital Services Act

Business

Google Dumps EU’s Anti-“Disinformation” Code, Defying Digital Services Act

Published on January 22, 2025

By

logo

By Didi Rankovic

Does Google’s bold rejection of EU mandates signal a shifting balance of power between tech giants and censors?

It’s as good a time as any to effectively pull out of the EU’s “voluntary anti-disinformation” deal, which social media companies were previously strong-armed into accepting. And Google has now done just that.

The “strengthened” Code of Practice on Disinformation was introduced during the heyday of online censorship and government pressure on social platforms on both sides of the Atlantic – in June 2022, and at one point included 44 signatories.

One of those who in the meanwhile dropped out is X, and this happened shortly after Twitter was acquired by Elon Musk.

Now, as the “voluntary” code is formally becoming part of EU’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), Google took the opportunity to notify Brussels it will not comply with the law’s requirement to include fact-checkers’ opinions in the search results, or rely on those to delete or algorithmically rank YouTube content.

Accepting these DSA requirements “simply isn’t appropriate or effective for our services,” Google’s Global Affairs President Kent Walker stated in a letter sent to European Commission’s Deputy Director-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Renate Nikolay, reports said.

At the same time, Google is withdrawing from “all fact-checking commitments in the Code” – this refers to the signatories working with “fact-checkers” across EU member-countries. The code also requires tech companies to flag content, label political ads, demonetizing users found to be “spreading disinformation,” etc.

Even though Google’s censorship apparatus does not use third-party “fact-checkers” as it is, the news that the company has decided to defy the EU on this issue is interpreted as yet more proof that social media giants are breaking free from some of the constraints imposed on them by the authorities over the past years.

Meta recently announced that its fact-checking scheme in the US was ending in order to make room for more free speech on Facebook and Instagram, but it remains a signatory of the Code in the EU.

It remains to be seen what decision Meta will make once that agreement becomes part of the DSA – the deadline for which is currently unknown.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

WEF ranks ‘disinformation’ as greater threat to world stability than ‘armed conflict’

Published on January 21, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

Misinformation and disinformation, along with societal polarization, are catalysts that amplify all other global risks, including armed conflict and climate change, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).

On Wednesday, the WEF published its annual Global Risks Report with very few changes from last year’s edition.

For the second year in a row, the number one global risk over the next two years is misinformation and disinformation, which have cascading effects on other leading risks, according to the WEF “Global Risks Report 2025”:

Similar to last year, Misinformation and disinformation and Societal polarization remain key current risks […] The high rankings of these two risks is not surprising considering the accelerating spread of false or misleading information, which amplifies the other leading risks we face, from State-based armed conflict to Extreme weather events

According to the Global Risks 2025 report, polarization “continues to fan the flames of misinformation and disinformation, which, for the second year running, is the top-ranked short- to medium-term concern across all risk categories.”

“Efforts to combat this risk are coming up against a formidable opponent in Generative AI-created false or misleading content that can be produced and distributed at scale,” which was the same assessment given in the 2024 report.

Apart from inflation and economic downturn, there isn’t much of a difference in global risks between 2024 and 2025.

Compare the top 10 short-term and long-term global risks from 2024 with those for 2025 in the images below.

WEF Top 10 Global Risks 2025

WEF Top 10 Global Risks 2024

Rising use of digital platforms and a growing volume of AI-generated content are making divisive misinformation and disinformation more ubiquitous. — WEF Global Risks Report 2025

The Global Risks Report 2025 says that misinformation, coupled with algorithmic bias, leads to a situation where you and I should accept giving up some of our privacy for convenience, which subsequently makes it easier for us to be monitored and controlled:

Despite the dangers related to false or misleading content, and the associated risks of algorithmic bias, citizens need to strike a balance between privacy on one hand and increased online personalization and convenience on the other hand.

While data governance and regulation vary worldwide, it is becoming easier for citizens to be monitored, enabling governments, technology companies and threat actors to reach deeper into people’s lives.

Those with access to rising computing power and the ability to leverage sophisticated AI/GenAI models could, if they choose to, exploit further the vulnerabilities provided by citizens’ online footprints.

What else can we blame on misinformation?

I know! Climate change:

The accelerating spread of false or misleading information […] amplifies the other leading risks we face, from State-based armed conflict to Extreme weather events.

WEF Global Risks 2025

While the term “climate change” is mentioned several times in the Global Risks Report 2025, it does not appear anywhere in the actual list of 33 global risks.

Instead of using the term “climate change,” the full list of global risks uses several climate-adjacent terms, such as:

  • Extreme weather events
  • Pollution
  • Critical change to Earth systems
  • Natural resource shortages
  • Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse
  • Involuntary migration or displacement

The unelected globalists are now lumping terms like the ones above to push their climate policies and agendas, and they even go so far as to claim that misinformation amplifies extreme weather events, which actually might be true, just not in the way they imagined:

For example, on Tuesday WEF president and CEO Børge Brende blamed the California fires, which we may consider to be examples of extreme weather events or biodiversity loss, to climate change while not addressing how the state cut funding to fight fires, how the Los Angeles fire chief said the city failed her agency, or the role of arsonists.

By blaming the fires on just climate change while ignoring the rest, could Brende himself be engaging in disinformation?

Climate change is also an underlying driver of several other risks that rank high. For example, Involuntary migration or displacement is a leading concern. — WEF Global Risks Report 2025

The WEF Global Risks Report 2025 lumps many global risks together with the belief that they are all interconnected.

For example, it says that misinformation and polarization amplify armed conflict, extreme weather events, involuntary migration or displacement, and all the risks in-between.

It’s the same tactic the unelected globalists use when they conflate misinformation and disinformation with hate speech, so they can use one as an excuse to go after the other.

For the WEF and partners, global problems require global solutions with global governance through public-private partnerships – the merger of corporation and state, which is also known as fascism or corporatism.

In the end, the global risks report is just a survey, and the risks may or may not materialize.

In January 2023, the WEF announced the results of a survey of cyber leaders that said a “catastrophic cyber event” was likely to occur within the next two years.

Here we are exactly two years later and that never happened.

For the unelected globalists, misinformation and disinformation are words they throw out to try to crush narratives that don’t align with their own, and they will use any threat, whether real or perceived, to advance their agendas and policies.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X