...calling his daughter his daughter. On Tuesday, the father of a biological girl who believes she is a boy turned himself into a Canadian court and was subsequently taken to jail after the Attorney General of British Columbia issued an arrest warrant for contempt after the father had insisted on referring to his daughter as his "daughter" and used the pronouns "she" and "her". Robert Hoogland, from Surrey, British Columbia, has a 14-year-old daughter. In February 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the girl receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. "The court also declared that if either of her parents referred to her using female pronouns or addressed her by her birth name, they would be considered guilty of family violence," The Federalist noted. Father Arrested, Jailed For Contempt After Referring To His Daughter As "She" Voicing Dissent In Interviews | The Daily Wire Will the U.S. be far behind with this insanity? I don't think so. Thirty years ago when I was working our city drafted a new "Family Violence" ordinance. We learned that words like, "I'll leave and not support you any longer," were violence. I asked if the words, "I'll take the kids and you'll never see them again," was violence and the lawyers who drafted the ordinance laughed long and loud. Of course not. not my writing. originally posted by patrickt in ThePoliticsForum
This is from Wikipedia (not an unquestionable source, but the cites below can be checked): According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified", including reports on protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies. The credibility checker NewsGuard assessed that The Daily Wire "severely violates basic standards of credibility and transparency", "often misstates facts to advance partisan opinion" and "frequently publishes false and misleading information, particularly in stories about abortion".
He was actually banned from talking about the child to the media and that is why he was jailed for contempt. The high court ordered the dad to not stand in the way of the 15-year-old’s hormone therapy and to try and better understand gender dysphoria, the outlet reported. He was also told to stop speaking to the media about the case and warned that his public attempts to undermine his child’s wishes was a form of family violence, according to the article. https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-childs-gender-in-court-order-violation/
No he was jailed for contempt for talking to the media, this has been going on for a long time with a lot of intransigence from the father. However, the judges still said he must acknowledge and refer to his child as a boy and by the name the teen has chosen. The father can also express his feelings to family, close friends and close advisors, as long as they’re not members of the media and promise not to share the information with others. The judges say the father’s attempts to be involved in the process have been by fuelled by personal stances without any direct involvement with the boy’s medical team, which has tried to contact him to be a part of meetings with his son and the boy’s mother. https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-gender-change-court/
So he wasn't allowed to talk to the media about the restrictions the judge had imposed on him and their family? That's even worse. And I suppose the father is not able to find his own "medical team", and did not choose this "medical team". These aren't regular average doctors just chosen at random. These are doctors who specifically chose to specialize in transgender treatment as their career choice. This is insane and ridiculous.
Suck it up, the father no longer gets to treat his wife and kids as his property but has to defer to medical professionals, oh the horror!
Biased medical professionals, who were intentionally chosen based on the decision they already wanted to make. I've noticed you people play word games to justify your irrational thoughts, and you lie to yourselves. What if this child turns out not to actually really be transgender? Then you people will just brush it off and shrug. Even after the irreversible damage is already done.
No doubt you have evidence to support you claim of bias on the part of the doctors. I’m sure you’ll be presenting that any moment now. Sounds like you are extremely well informed on the subject of medical transition for trans individuals. Could you explain what part of the process this child has undergone is both irreversible and damaging?
as property???? A girl is a girl and the dad knows that. Do you believe that mentally unstable people should be allowed to purchase firearms, or become commercial airline pilots? If not, then why should mentally unstable minors be allowed to mutilate their bodies?
Kaz, you're better than using the dailywire. You're too smart for that source. Anyways, it makes sense to me that you don't do this in public. It's about the kid and the kid needs. The dad doesn't have to like it, but they don't need a private disturbance happening out in public view.
I think there is a big inherent tension between privacy and transparency. If government is imposing policies like this through the court system, especially when it is not something that is clearly spelled out in law, the public does have some right to know about it. There was another story which I posted in this forum that involved tension between privacy and transparency, involving a controversial "medical" issue and a small child: mother threatened with jail if she did not sign consent for child to be circumcised Actually, I think there are a huge number of parallels between these two stories.
Actually it makes a lot of sense. The point is to look out for the child and their well being. Their well being is effected by parents fighting so parents have to play nice when their child is in the room. You can’t do that when one parent is going public about something like this. I’m going to assume the same with the other case as well but Idk for sure.
You're missing the other side of the picture. Yes, of course everyone wants the well being of the child to be looked after. But different sides disagree exactly on what that entails. There is also the big issue here: It's not only about the well being of that specific child but rather the well being of all the other children who are going to be in the same situation, which is at stake. When you have a judge, a single person, deciding what the "best interests" of the child is, and when that decision is controversial, when there is some good reason that exists why that may not truly be in the best interests of the child, and then they try to keep it a secret, away from the eyes of the public, it potentially is doing a great disservice. See, your perspective assumes that the judge was totally right in his decision here and that there's no chance the judge was wrong. Yes, if one assumes that was the case then you could well make the argument it is in the best interests of the child not to have this become a matter of public attention. But it's not so simple as that. This type of thing is very controversial, and even supporters of transgender treatments for children have to recognize that there is a chance this child is making a terrible mistake. I think the public deserves to know. This argument that "it's in the best interests of the child to withhold publicity" is just being used as a shield so the judge can make a decision without criticism. That's not how an open democracy should function. One could argue that by forcing this to be kept behind closed doors, that is preventing the child's well being from being looked after. You are deciding to trust this all in the hands of one appointed person in a powerful position, without chance for public input and curtailing chance for public to be informed on these type of policies.
I can’t say for Canada but that’s not really what I’m talking about. The judge isn’t saying you can’t talk about these things with friends. The judge is saying you can’t be public with these or go to the public because then that takes what is a private dispute and make it go public. I understand your concerns but that’s not invalidating what the judge says on the matter. The institution exists this way for a reason and you’re not touching on that reason.
But there are some valid reasons why this sort of thing should be public. What the judge was deciding here was not the type of thing that everyone in society knows would be decided in that situation. If the judge made the wrong decision, then obviously preventing the public from knowing about it makes that decision all the worse. I understand the issue of privacy in disputes, but the father is like one of the involved parties here. And I think a party to a dispute should have the right to take it public if the judge decides against them. I'm not saying parents should always get to make the decisions for their children, but what they think is in the best interests of their child should carry a lot of weight. The parent has an important role in looking out for the interests of their child. They should be able to stand up for that when others don't, and even be able to take things public.
Even if it causes harm to the child which this action clearly does? Was going public in the best interest of the child? That's a very strong claim and you don't have the evidence to support that. This is more akin to a temper tantrum by the father who didn't get his way.
hmm, so a person born female who wants to mutilate their body is mentally stable..................uh huh there are some things that the avg person can deduce without an "expert opinion" Person who thinks that they can fly and jumps off of a skyscraper= mentally unstable Person who looks down, sees a penis, but thinks they are a girl= mentally unstable
do you need an expert to tell you that it's raining outside? Good lord man, give up your position of all things Democrat all of the time, and use some common sense
