The ominous case of Jordan Peterson: A warning for us all

If you are concerned about the unfolding situation concerning our 'Hate Speech' legislation, it might be pertinent to acknowledge a profoundly concerning situation unfolding in Canada. Dr Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto, is facing professional discipline for expressing his political opinions publicly. This potential revocation of his license amounts to a gag order on his right to free speech. Canada is ahead of the curve with enforcing leftist ideologies and unless we are vigilant, we and other countries in the 'free' Western hemisphere are heading in the same direction.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Dr Peterson's opinions, this is an alarming encroachment by the government into the realm of free expression that strikes at the heart of liberal democracy. The Canadian government and professional organisations tell citizens what opinions they can voice. Such an incursion is the essence of tyranny disguised as tolerance and runs entirely contrary to the principles of an open society.

Dr Peterson's case is not merely an isolated incident but part of a broader trend toward authoritarian control of speech and thought in Canada. As with Jordan Peterson, professionals in regulated fields must express certain ideological positions, even if they fundamentally disagree. This coerced compliance of speech is more characteristic of a totalitarian state than a free democracy.

The justifications are paper thin – claims of ‘professionalism’ and ‘ethics’ hide the underlying ideological motives. And the consequences are severe, with professionals facing career-ending punishments for expressing dissenting opinions.

This dangerous precedent should alarm Irish citizens who care about human rights and democratic principles. Today, Dr Peterson is being silenced; tomorrow, should Ireland follow suit, it may be any of us sanctioned for our political opinions. Freedom of speech is meaningless if it only applies to popular or government-approved ideas. True liberty requires tolerating the expression of all non-violent speech, especially controversial and objectionable statements. As stated previously, we defend free speech with free speech.

As Irish citizens, we must identify and resist encroachments on our rights, no matter how minor they may seem initially. The descent of Canada into tyranny by increments is sounding alarm bells, as is also happening in America. Such developments demand proactive vigilance from all who wish to preserve an open society where individuals can speak their minds without fear of state retribution.

The defence of our civil liberties requires constant effort. Our present complacency will inevitably lead to their erosion and collapse. Though thousands of miles away, Dr Peterson’s case is the proverbial canary in the coal mine, signalling democracy itself may be under threat in Canada and eventually Europe. We disregard such ominous developments at our peril.

Unfortunately, Canada is not alone in this authoritarian shift. Around the world, once-free societies are increasingly clamping down on controversial speech to protect marginalised groups. This overtly well-meaning desire for social harmony manifests in tyrannical policies that undermine fundamental human rights.

For example, in New Zealand, proposed hate speech laws would criminalise even peripherally offensive comments about protected groups. People could face up to three years in prison for speech deemed “insulting” or “threatening” by authorities. This vague and subjective definition gives the government broad powers to punish dissenting views.

In Scotland, a man was arrested for making an ‘offensive’ video about Nazis that authorities claimed was “grossly offensive”. He faced prison time for a silly and ill-conceived internet video. The perception of offence trumps the freedom of expression.

And here in Ireland, our government recently passed a far-reaching Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill that holds tech companies responsible for any content deemed “harmful” to users. This legislation will inevitably lead to pre-emptive censorship as companies scramble to avoid liability. The list of “harms” covered is vast and includes vaguely defined terms like “cyberbullying” and “disinformation”.

Most alarming is the global prevalence of compelled speech – forcing people to express government-mandated ideas and prohibiting criticism of protected groups. French President Emmanuel Macron proposed a law requiring all schoolchildren to be taught “environmental education” in the name of combating climate denial. This ideological indoctrination leaves no room for critical thinking or scientific debate. By its very nature, science is subject to constant revision, otherwise it loses all empirical credibility.

Canadian medical professionals, such as Peterson, are already experiencing the consequences of compelled speech concerning gender identity issues. Health professionals must use preferred pronouns and affirm gender identities even when they contradict their medical judgment or conscience. Peterson maintains that this coerced speech is unethical and degrading, amounting to “Newspeak”, as described by Orwell in 1984.

When governments compel speech, they attack the inviolable freedom of our conscience. Forcing people to parrot sanctioned ideas against their will is the hallmark of authoritarian societies, not democracies that protect diversity of thought, the bedrock of democratic principles.

And yet, such policies are spreading rapidly through Western democracies in a regressive effort to enforce uniformity of opinion. Those targeted, like Dr Peterson, are made examples to deter others from dissenting. But appeasing the censor’s club emboldens it to demand further concessions. Peterson, an accomplished clinical psychologist, has had his licence temporarily revoked. Yet he bravely contests his compulsory 're-education' and plans to embrace a public show trial, regardless of the consequences.

We all live in a precarious time for our cherished freedoms. The Irish public should awaken to the creeping authoritarianism hidden behind idealistic veneers like "equity" and "anti-hate" and instead reaffirm our commitment to fundamental liberties – like freedom of speech, thought and conscience – that form the bedrock of our still democratic Irish Republic.

Leo Varadkar, like Trudeau of Canada, enjoyed early participation in the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Young Global Leaders program, which offered valuable networking and political influence. Selected in their 30s as up-and-comers in their fields, they rubbed shoulders with heads of industry, academics, and civil society groups under the WEF's umbrella.

Critics contend the WEF represents an insular ideology favouring corporate elites over the interests of ordinary citizens, and Trudeau and Varadkar's policies and priorities reflect the WEF's vision and values. Both leaders have embraced the WEF's environmentalism, with carbon pricing schemes and vocal support for sustainability goals. They mirror the WEF's enthusiasm for public-private partnerships, collaborating with industry on significant infrastructure projects during their tenure. Their willingness to incorporate business interests into policymaking aligns with WEF founder Klaus Schwab's stakeholder capitalism model.

Any member of the cabinet with WEF ties is tainted by the WEF's radical social policies, pushing for the 4th Industrial Revolution or "Great Reset'" which is the antithesis of democracy and the incarnation of a globalist agenda dismissive of middle and working-class concerns.

A watchful Irish public should treat as suspect any policy directions where domestic needs are subject to global priorities. Varadkar or Simon Coveney do not deserve the benefit of our collective trust unless they disavow their WEF affiliations.

If the Canadian and Irish leaders share economic policy perspectives, assuming they share the ideological shift towards constraining free speech and freedom of expression is safer. The Irish 'Hate Speech' Bill, soon to be resurrected, should fill us with alarm. We disregard these hard-won rights and independence at the cost of our still-open society. I am watching the unfolding crisis in Canada with deep concern. So, let us speak our minds before censorship creeps into our constitution under the guise of tolerance.