Alberta Moves to Protect Professionals’ Freedom of Expression
Alberta gave some beleaguered professions a Christmas present last month in passing its Regulated Professions Neutrality Act. This legislation protects regulated professionals’ freedom of speech. Minister Amery claims that “this new piece of legislation is one of the most consequential affirmations of freedom of expression in this Assembly in recent times.”
A lawyer or a nurse should have substantial freedom to take political stands or post what they like on social media on their own time without reprisal from their regulatory colleges. But a couple of recent stories demonstrate that this isn’t always the case.
Jordan Peterson’s Example
Take Jordan Peterson.
If you’ve listened to Jordan Peterson, you know he likes to speak his mind. That sometimes gets him into trouble. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, subject to the authority of the College of Psychologists in his clinical practice. The College has nothing to do with post-secondary degrees or universities in the way you might usually think of a college. This type of college is a regulator that ensures its members (all clinical psychologists) meet its standards of competent and ethical practice.
For example, if a psychologist shares a patient’s private information or engages in an activity that puts a client at risk, that psychologist may be punished by the college. There are similar colleges for other professions, such as doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers, or teachers. Each of these regulators can hear complaints from members of the public regarding any of their members.
In 2022, Jordan Peterson posted several tweets about overpopulation, gender ideology, and obesity that prompted complaints to the College of Psychologists. Although the College found that some of his remarks were acceptable, they deemed some of his comments to be “disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.” Because they thought his comments would reflect badly on the College, they required Peterson to undergo social media coaching. If he failed to comply, he could lose his license to practice psychology. He appealed this decision to an Ontario court but lost. In the end, he took the re-education course provided that he could publicize its content to demonstrate the absurdity of what the College wanted him to think.
Amy Hamm’s Example
Another example is Amy Hamm, a nurse from British Columbia. Hamm made some comments on social media questioning transgenderism and defending women’s rights to women’s only spaces. For example, no biological men on women’s sports teams, or in women’s prisons. She raised these issues publicly as a regular citizen, off the clock. She didn’t make these comments while providing care as a nurse; she didn’t go around getting into arguments with patients. There were no complaints from patients about how she did her job as a nurse.
But members of the public did complain about her social media posts. The College of Nurses in British Columbia said that Amy Hamm had engaged in professional misconduct due to her “discriminatory” statements. First, she got a two-week suspension as a nurse and had to do social media training. Then they wanted her to sign a statement of so-called “facts,” which she believed were untrue – facts that suggested she had done something wrong by disagreeing with gender ideology. Following a verdict that she was guilty of professional misconduct, Hamm was fired by her employer, where she had worked as a nurse for 13 years.
In an article for the National Post, Hamm wrote this: “I stand proudly in defence of the truth, and I lament and denounce a profession that has been subverted by a quasi-religious, metaphysical belief system that infringes upon the rights of women and girls, and harms youth. My conscience does not permit me to lie, or to lie down, in the face of gender ideology. Punish me harder, if you must. The truth always wins in the end.”
Both Peterson’s and Hamm’s stories illustrate how professional regulations are over-policing their members and infringing on their freedom of expression.
Preserving Professionals’ Rights and Freedoms
Now, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ protection of freedom of expression only limits the government. The Charter doesn’t protect the freedom of expression of a private individual against his neighbour, his church, or his employer. It’s not a shield that you can use to say whatever you want without reprisal from anyone.
But even though these regulatory colleges are not the government, government regulation gives them much of their power. For example, the government gives law societies a monopoly on the credentialing of lawyers and punishes those who practice law without a licence. And because the government heavily regulates the regulators, and these regulatory bodies are created by government legislation, they are subject to the Charter. They should respect their members’ freedom to express opinions while not on the job.
Because regulators aren’t doing this, though, the Alberta government passed the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act. The law forbids colleges from disciplining their members for personal expression, such as posting on social media, participating in a demonstration, or having private conversations with friends.
But the law also does more. It requires regulatory “neutrality,” forbidding colleges from having diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that favour certain groups over others. It bans mandatory re-education, like that foisted upon Peterson and Hamm. And it instructs the courts to use a different approach to deciding legal cases in this area, effectively telling them to give less deference to the regulator and more attention to protecting freedom of expression.
This legislation is an important step to ensure that professionals are free to practice their careers in the courtroom, the hospital, or the classroom and still have all the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. And this is all the more important for professionals in the political minority, ensuring they have the freedom to voice their dissenting views in the public square without fear of reprisal.
