Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson may be the highest profile case of a Canadian professional facing discipline for making controversial public statements. But he is not the only one.
For the past two years, B.C. nurse Amy Hamm has been under investigation by the BC College of Nurses and Midwives for purchasing space on a billboard that displayed the message “I ♥ JK Rowling.” Rowling, the bestselling Harry Potter author, has made various statements that detractors say are trans-phobic.
The billboard, and Hamm’s related social media posts, prompted two individuals to file complaints with the B.C. nursing regulator. The contents of the complaints are not available to the public. But Hamm says they claim she is not fit to provide care to transgender patients.
“Regulators have strayed far beyond their mandates of public protection,” said Hamm. “They have no business enforcing ideologies and punishing dissenters. The practice has to end.”
The investigation has included seven disciplinary hearings spread over nearly two years. The college has still not handed down a decision, Hamm says.
Hamm says she is encouraged by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s recent announcement that the province intends to introduce legislation to protect the free speech rights of professionals like her. Some civil liberty advocates agree such legislation — which would be the first of its kind in Canada — is necessary. Others say existing laws already recognize professionals’ free speech rights.
“We don’t know what the final proposal is going to look like, but I support [Alberta’s] initiative,” said Christine Van Geyn, litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a charity that defends Canadians’ constitutional rights.
“Professional regulators do not just have a freewheeling claim to regulate all speech that a member of the profession engages in,” she said.
‘Jordan Peterson Law’
Alberta’s plans come in the wake of Jordan Peterson’s high-profile fight with the College of Psychologists of Ontario over the psychologist’s controversial social media statements. At an Oct. 26 town hall for United Conservative Party members, Premier Smith said they may dub the legislation the “Jordan Peterson Law.”
In 2022, the college’s complaints body determined some of Peterson’s social media statements — including those targeting transgender actor Elliot Page — could be regarded as “disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.” It also said they posed “moderate risks of harm to the public.”
These risks of harm included “undermining public trust in the profession” and leading people to question “Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist.”
The college ordered Peterson to complete a continuing education or professional remedial program. Peterson appealed the ruling, but the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the college’s decision. It said the college had appropriately balanced Peterson’s right to express himself with the public interest.
Lawyer Howard Levitt represented Peterson in an unsuccessful application to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Levitt rejects the claim that Peterson’s statements jeopardized the interests of the psychology profession.
“Dr. Peterson’s utterances that offended people had nothing to do with his rendering psychological advice,” Levitt told Canadian Affairs.
“[The complainants] weren’t his clients, they weren’t his patients, they weren’t people who even knew him. They weren’t even Canadians in all cases but one, and none were Ontarians. So, no one was confusing Dr. Peterson’s political opinion with the profession of psychology.”
Others disagree.
The nonprofit advocacy organization Egale Canada was an intervener in the Peterson case. In a statement supporting the ruling they said:
“The CPO’s mandate extends to regulating its members’ speech when that speech is discriminatory, contains medical misinformation, and/or otherwise causes harm to the public or the profession. This applies particularly in the context of transphobic speech because psychologists belong to the group of professions that act as gatekeepers to gender-affirming healthcare.”
Alberta’s NDP Justice Critic Irfan Sabir declined a request for comment. But he has publicly stated Alberta’s contemplated legislation would interfere with the ability of professional regulators to govern themselves.
Sabir has also suggested the legislation is primarily a political ploy.
“Albertans deserve better than this dog-whistle and divisive politics,” Sabir said in an Oct. 23 post on X. “Instead, we have a premier, and ministers, focused on protecting the freedom of its fringe base to say vile things.”
Public interest
Family physician Dr. Yipeng Ge has also found himself in the crosshairs of regulators over public statements.
Ge was the subject of multiple complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the University of Ottawa, where he was a medical resident, over his social media posts expressing support for Palestine and criticizing Israel.
“Certainly what we’re seeing with [regulatory] colleges … they are overextending the ways in which they are disciplining and investigating people for speech related to Palestine,” said Ge, who was suspended from his residency program in November but reinstated after the University of Ottawa’s professionalism committee reviewed his case.
In an emailed statement to Canadian Affairs, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario said it could not comment on individual physicians. But it noted that its social media policy can “apply to personal use depending on several factors, for example, the connection between the physician’s conduct and their professional role.”
In a recent paper, Van Geyn argued for legislation that requires regulators to establish a connection between a professional’s speech and the “core function” of that person’s work in order to regulate that speech.
“But public comments about social and political or religious issues should be outside of the scope of the regulator,” Van Geyn told Canadian Affairs.
Van Geyn noted that court-made law – known as case law – already requires such a connection to exist. But, she said, there have been “a number of cases” where this law has not been properly applied by regulators.
Elizabeth Osler, chief executive of the Law Society of Alberta, says the province’s legal regulator already does follow case law in this area.
“In rare cases where a complaint made to the Law Society involves freedom of expression, we follow the case law,” Osler told Canadian Affairs in an emailed statement.
The College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta made a similar statement.
“The [college] supports the Government of Alberta’s stance that professionals should retain their right to free speech in the expression of personal opinions.
“We also believe that the public interest requires a balance when such views intersect with professional practice and could impact patient safety.”
Question of rights
Van Geyn also recommended regulators be required to complete training on free speech rights. And she called for regulators’ decisions to be subject to greater court scrutiny.
“A lot of people who are … sitting on these [regulatory] panels, they might be experts in the technical field … but they may not have a deep understanding of the fundamental right to freedom of expression,” she said.
Levitt says Alberta’s contemplated legislation would serve as a necessary guardrail for civil liberties.
“[This type of legislation] would have prohibited the college from disciplining [Peterson] in the first place,” he said.
For his part, Ge says he continues to be the subject of an unjustifiable inquiry.
“[The college hasn’t] outright revoked or removed my medical license, but there’s an investigative process going on as it relates to social media posts,” he said.
“It does not relate to clinical competency or conduct within the clinical setting, which really should be their area of regulation.”
Leave a comment