Judge Finds Father Guilty of ‘Family Violence’ for Not Using Transgender Teen’s Preferred Pronouns - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#15002567
I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against AB.
:roll: You really ignore that caveat.

As mentioned , previously, and evidenced by right-wing talking points, it's more about how the father did it, than anything.
#15002581
How is that a caveat? It says the father has committed violence against his daughter in public and in private, so he must be restrained by court order from inflicting any more violent harm.

The judgment states explicitly that any of these are family violence:
Attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria
Addressing AB by his birth name
Referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties
#15002585
If you don't understand the intent of the law, I can't explain it to you.

The father had stated such things, publicly, that the judge deemed could be harmful to the welfare of the child. It's that simple. You don't have to agree with it.
#15002593
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:"Referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties" constitutes family violence.

Please defend this.

I'm a violent offender by Canadian law. :lol:


Yes.
And if you look earlier in this thread, you will see that liberals like POD refuse to acknowledge this because JP predicted this would happen. It is blatant runaway political correctness.
#15002600
@Ter and @Kaiserschmarrn That's a complete mischaracterisation of the law(as JP also did), and your sources were almost all incorrect, or simply propaganda.

RTA

In a recent decision, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered the father to stop publicly discussing the case after finding some of his actions, including interviews with conservative media outlets, exposed his child to significant harm and constituted “family violence.”
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/le ... expression

It's really that simple, and your attempts to make it simply about misuse of a gender pronoun is, inherently, dishonest. Cmon, guys/gals. I know you can do better than that.
#15002653
Drlee wrote:Mark this day with a stone. I mostly agree with every word Sivad said. I would insert the odd 'might' or 'may' but I agree in with this post.


Actually, you agree with an unnamed panelist that Sivad quoted but did not credit.

————————

Sivad wrote:It was a panel discussion hosted by Heritage but all the panelists are independent scholars, and they were all MDs or PHDs and one was both an MD and a PHD.

All sources are biased, I would love for you to cite what you consider an "objective" source so I can laugh at your ass.


And you quoted the excerpt that the Heritage Foundation has been promoting, because of their openly homophobic and transphobic stance.

Once again, you quote conservative pundits instead of actual science.

You should look up actual studies by scientists and then see if your ideas are ac verified.

... in this case the oppression isn't race based, the state is violating his rights as a parent and by restricting his speech the state is also violating his rights as a human being.


How so?
#15002727
Ter wrote:Yes.
And if you look earlier in this thread, you will see that liberals like POD refuse to acknowledge this because JP predicted this would happen. It is blatant runaway political correctness.

Yeah, it looks like Peterson is correct about the way this is going, but wasn't he talking about a different law back then?

Godstud wrote:@Ter and @Kaiserschmarrn That's a complete mischaracterisation of the law(as JP also did), and your sources were almost all incorrect, or simply propaganda.

Well, my source is the judgment where the propaganda reads as follows:
[93] The protection order is required to be prepared by the Registry. However, I will summarize the substance of the order here:
a) CD shall be restrained from:
i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria;
ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and
iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

b) [deals with personal information]

Godstud wrote:It's really that simple, and your attempts to make it simply about misuse of a gender pronoun is, inherently, dishonest.

It's not dishonest to point out and object to the most ridiculous part of the judgment and Canadian law that makes judgments like this possible. The use of pronouns, names, etc. had already been judged to be family violence in a previous ruling and in this judgment is also dealt with separately from the dissemination of personal information. There's now a precedent in Canadian law that anything other than full support for social transition and affirmative treatment is family violence. Why are you and others so keen on distracting from that point?
#15002728
You continue to ignore my source. Well, I choose to ignore yours in return, and as it's simply a wikipedia post with no actual source you are willing to present, I'll continue to do so. I see no relevance to it, and as stated, your claims are bullshit when it comes to the characterization of Bill C-16. Join the JP crew of clueless reactionary idiots.
#15002731
The situation was such, as it was the rampant media attention and right-wing rags that the father went to, that it constituted abuse. The judge was correct.

Provide your source, next time. You also cherry-picked.

Forgot this part?
66] AB also seeks protection from his father’s public discussion of his case, including his gender identity and his private medical records. I have found that CD has and continues to publish and share AB’s personal information. In this case, the personal information CD is sharing is related to AB’s gender identity, an area of great sensitivity and vulnerability for AB. He is doing so without AB’s consent, and over AB’s objections.

[67] Furthermore, the people and organizations CD chooses to share his views with are those that AB views as being fundamentally opposed to his right to choose his gender identity. What is worse is that in the course of doing so, CD has also publically shared information and made lighthearted comments about AB’s depression and suicide attempts.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc ... SC0604.htm

You are trying to simplify it to meet your own agenda.
#15002733
Godstud wrote:Provide your source, next time.

I did, in my very first post in this thread. :lol:

Godstud wrote:You also cherry-picked.

I addressed this silly charge already and will just repeat myself:

It's not dishonest to point out and object to the most ridiculous part of the judgment and Canadian law that makes judgments like this possible. The use of pronouns, names, etc. had already been judged to be family violence in a previous ruling and in this judgment is also dealt with separately from the dissemination of personal information. There's now a precedent in Canadian law that anything other than full support for social transition and affirmative treatment is family violence. Why are you and others so keen on distracting from that point?
#15002734
I provided the actual reason for it, but you ignore it, because it doesn't fit your agenda. It is only because of the other factors that this happened. It's not exclusively gender pronoun use, and you fucking know it.

I am sorely disappointed in your lack of reasoning on this issue, @Kaiserschmarrn. Very sub-par.
#15002735
No, you are just making it up. As I said in my previous post, the decision re family violence had already been made in a prior hearing, summarised in the linked judgment as follows:

[10] Mr. Justice Bowden granted AB’s summary trial application, dismissed CD’s application for an interlocutory injunction, and made a series of declarations and final orders that are relevant to the matter before me, including:

1. It is declared under s. 37 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA] that it is in the best interests of AB that:
(a) he receive the medical treatment for gender dysphoria recommended by the Gender Clinic at BCCH;
(b) he be acknowledged and referred to as male, both generally and with respect to any matters arising in these proceedings, now or in the future and any references to him in relation to this proceeding, now or in the future, employ only male pronouns; and
(c) he be identified, both generally and in these proceedings by the name he has currently chosen, notwithstanding that his birth certificate presently identifies him under a different name.

2. It is declared under the Family Law Act that:
(a) AB is exclusively entitled to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria and to take any necessary legal proceedings in relation to such medical treatment;
(b) Pursuant to para. 201(2)(b), AB is permitted to bring this application under the Family Law Act and to bring or defend any further or future proceedings concerning his gender identity; and
(c) Attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing AB by his birth name; referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act.

3. AB is permitted to apply to change his legal name from that on his birth certificate to his chosen name and the consent of his mother or father for such change is not required.

4. AB is permitted to apply to change his gender pursuant to s. 27 of the Vital Statistics Act, without the consent of his father or mother.

5. In these proceedings, including all applications associated with the proceedings, the names of the applicant young person, his father and his mother shall be anonymized. The applicant young person shall be referred to as AB, his father shall be referred to as CD and his mother shall be referred to as EF
#15002737
Yes, you cherry-pick one sentence but ignore the rest. I used YOUR fucking source, too, so you're doubly wrong. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your right-wing, JP inspired agenda is obvious.

I am sure this would have still resulted in a similar outcome even without Bill C-16.
#15002746
So we have established that the father was indeed found guilty of family violence for not using transgender teen's preferred pronouns as the title of this thread states. That's what the judgment also states several times.

Furthermore, the prior judgment by Justice Bowden where he declared that referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns, etc. was family violence did not deal with the dissemination of personal information or the father talking to the media. That is, the ruling on family violence stands on its own and was used, in part, to justify the protection order in the linked judgment.

As a side note, I'm not sure whether a protection order could have been made at all without the family violence ruling, as the judge states:
[15] AB seeks a protection order pursuant to s. 183(2) and s. 182(3)(a)(i) and (e) of the FLA. Section 183(2) gives the court jurisdiction to make a protection order if the court determines that family violence is likely to occur against an at risk family member, and s. 183(3)(a)(i) provides that the protection order may restrain a family member from communicating with that at risk person or another specified person.


Godstud wrote:Your right-wing, JP inspired agenda is obvious.

I don't know why you keep talking to me about Peterson.

I am sure this would have still resulted in a similar outcome even without Bill C-16.

I think that's right. The problem is not restricted to any one particular law but this is more likely part of an overall trajectory in Canadian law.
#15002973
The decision on pronouns is about pronoun usage. Neither of the rulings gives any indication that the family violence designation has anything to do with what critics in this thread have brought up.

An alternative interpretation of the father's actions is that he is desperate to prevent state-sanctioned harm to his daughter. And while he may not have made the best decision at any given time, his motives are not nefarious (e.g. his personal benefit) or meant to harm his child.
#15002985
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The decision on pronouns is about pronoun usage.
:roll: Only if you purposefully don't look further, and ignore everything else that was said... which you did.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The evidence clearly indicates a pattern of parental neglect, forbidding access to medical treatments, and using the child’s situation for his own personal benefit.
QFT
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

So @skinster will indeed on watching rape videos[…]

Who needs a wall? We have all those land mines ju[…]

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]