https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=jW7fNR-cElw
Because one of the things the college did, which is just beyond comprehension as far as I’m concerned, is pursue these complaints that were put forward by people distributed all over the world, who then claimed in writing falsely to be my clients, when in fact they were never my clients, and not only were they not my clients, they had nothing to do with anyone who was ever a client of mine. And so I figured at least the court would say, well, of course you have the right to police professionals because you’re a professional governing body, but they didn’t even do that. They just basically said, well, of course, you have the right to freedom of speech, except when it comes to, let’s say, political opinions. So then what right do you have at all? And it’s terrible, Michaela, because I know perfectly well from talking to many physicians, physicians in particular, but also lawyers and psychologists, that no one in Canada, arguably, and this is also extremely strange, it’s surreal, there’s no one in Canada except me that’s actually in a position to fight this, because it’s hyper-expensive, and I don’t know if my insurance will cover it. It’s hyper-expensive, it’s stressful, it’s complex, it’s time-consuming, it could involve the suspension of my license, and there’s not really anything that can be done to me that’s a threat. I’m not serving as a clinician. I don’t have a practice anymore, because that became impossible, even though I love doing it. I’m also not very happy about that. So I’m like the person who can do this, and Canadians have no idea to what degree professionals in Canada are now required not to say what they think or to lie outright. So for example, therapists are required by law to lie about, let’s say, the gender identity of minors. And so for me, especially on the therapy side, if you’re required by law and by your professional organization to lie cowardly, you’re done as a therapist, because the only thing you’ve got as a therapist is honesty, that’s it. Honesty is what’s curative. So, you know, it’s just part of how surreal the world is, and particularly how surreal Canada is. It’s hard to fathom. It is hard to fathom. Can I read just a couple of sentences from the decision so people have an idea of what’s in here? It’s linked below, people can read the entire thing. But there’s parts, like this is how it begins. When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. That’s just one sentence after another. That’s how it starts. Yeah, yeah, perfect. That’s a great thing to highlight, you know. It’s like, well, you have this fundamental right, but, well, but what? What rules? There’s what? There’s a rule, eh? There’s a rule, is that right? That the College of Psychologists has, that I can’t criticize Justin Trudeau on Twitter. That’s a rule, is it? And if someone anywhere in the world complains about the fact that I’ve criticized Justin Trudeau, let’s say, that all of a sudden, that’s a rule, even though it wasn’t a rule. And of course I get to criticize Justin Trudeau, not only because he richly deserves it in every way you can possibly imagine, but because that’s actually what freedom of speech means. So I have no idea what the court means by, you know, abiding by the rules. So the rules are whatever the bloody College of Psychologists determines constitutes a rule after the fact, given their complete freedom to make manifest any rules they want. It’s beyond comprehension. But I have freedom of speech. It’s like, do I now? What do I get to talk about? Apparently I can’t even talk about the weather. You know, here’s another fact. This is literally the truth. People can submit a complaint to the College of Psychologists from anywhere in the world. And so someone in the States submitted a complaint about the last conversation I had with Joe Rogan, where I expressed my doubts about the validity of economic predictions based on climate science. The complainants submitted the entire transcript, right? A three hour conversation as evidence of my unprofessional behavior. And the college, which did not have to pursue that complaint, went forward with it. So like, okay, I talked to Joe for three hours. Apparently everything I said in that three hours was unprofessional and a disgrace to the profession. So like, well, what am I supposed to do about that? The answer is, well, we’re gonna appeal the decision. I will take this to the Supreme Court. I don’t think that any judges will have either the wisdom or the courage to rule about this properly, except at the Supreme Court level. And I’m not particularly optimistic about that either. I’m not optimistic about that either. I don’t see how you can win this without overturning colleges in general. And I don’t, like, that’s not a good look for the colleges to lose this. So won’t the Supreme Court, I know they’re not supposed to be pressured, but won’t they, what’s the benefit for them for ruling in your favor? Other than withholding freedom of speech. Well, the benefit would be that they support, well, they would support the most fundamental principle of a free society, right? It’s like, why do you have the right to freedom of speech? Well, the answer is, is because there’s no difference between free speech and thinking, no difference between free speech and dialogue, and no difference between free speech and problem solving and negotiation. And so, and therefore peace. If you eliminate that, people can no longer think, they can no longer adapt, they can no longer negotiate, they no longer even know how to orient themselves in the world. And so, in principle, the advantage for the Supreme Court is that they rule in favor of the most fundamental principle upon which civil democracy itself is predicated. Now, I don’t think we have the right to free speech in Canada. I think this decision today demonstrates that, obviously, I saw the same thing with the Law Society in Canada, partly was why I’m not surprised at this ruling, I’ve been through this before, and I see that Canada’s walked down that idiot path for at least 30 years. So, our country is in, well, this is where I start to get doubtful. It’s like, either I’m wrong, or the country is in trouble. Now, to tell you the truth, I would rather be wrong, but I’ve thought it through. It’s like, okay, what did I do exactly? None of my clients complained, that has nothing to do with this. And I expressed my political opinions, which I have a right to do, which I believe were correct. I think that, and Canadians agree with this now, the last poll indicated that Canadians believe that Justin Trudeau is the worst Prime Minister we’ve ever had. Well, that was sort of my point a year ago, you know? And so, if I can’t say that, and yet a majority of Canadians believe it to be true, and believe me, a lot more of them are gonna believe that, a lot more are gonna believe that in the relatively near future, in what sense do I have anything even approximating freedom of speech? And if I can’t have that opinion, and therefore, in principle, no one can, then what do we do when we’re stuck with a Prime Minister, let’s say, who everyone has decided is the worst Prime Minister the country’s ever had?