[Godstud]

That's not what actually happened.

Legal dispute between trans child and father takes new turn over freedom of expression
A B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered the father to stop publicly discussing the case after finding some of his actions exposed his child to significant harm

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

[Ter]

Just check out the comments that we see in threads here -- we have users that believe it is right and proper to silence people who oppose their radical social agenda.

And by extension, that the judge tries to silence the father by threatening to have him jailed if he discusses the matter or uses the wrong pronouns when referring to his daughter.
But that is what it has come to in Canada. Let us be reminded that in Canada, any woman can have an abortion done legally till the day she is supposed to give birth. What else can you expect from a country that allows that ?

[Godstud]

@Ter As expected, you ignored my post showing that your original post was completely in error. Why is that?

[Verv]

@Ter As expected, you ignored my post showing that your original post was completely in error. Why is that?

You regularly bow out of other discussions. I'll never criticize you for it, though, because time is valuable.

I think the genereal consensus would be that your highlighted portion where the father speaks his opinion causes harm and is 'family violence' is merely a silly pretense for silencing him.

[Godstud]

The sources most of you cited @Verv, were incorrect.
They were attributing the Judge punishing the man for simply saying the wrong pronoun, which was complete bullshit.

@Verv You're laughably wrong about "bowing out" of conversations, but I can tell why you might think that. I simply sometimes tire of casting pearls before swine, especially when you can't even argue your point without making Ad Hominems.

I think the genereal consensus would be that your highlighted portion where the father speaks his opinion causes harm and is 'family violence' is merely a silly pretense for silencing him.

Canada does not share the same freedom of speech laws as the USA, and it's always good for Americans to remember that. Canada has laws against hate speech, which Americans can't understand,b ecause being civil to each other seems to be beyond some of them.

[Verv]

Canada does not share the same freedom of speech laws as the USA, and it's always good for Americans to remember that. Canada has laws against hate speech, which Americans can't understand,b ecause being civil to each other seems to be beyond some of them.

If hate speech is not protected, there is no free speech.

... Theoretically, I think you could come up with a list of words that are considered purely to be slurs, right, and you could say that any idea, no matter how reprehensible, is free to be communicated as long as these slurs are not used... and you could still have a 'free exchange of ideas' that amounted to free speech, right... But we know that this is not what is actually happening in Canada or Britain. So this is besides the point.

But I wanted to add this caveat to it because it would perhaps provide something interesting for people to talk about since I do not expect that there will be any sort of substantial argumentation coming from the Left here.

[Godstud]

If hate speech is not protected, there is no free speech.

That's a nonsense statement. Not everything is simply black and white, and you know that. Free speech even in the USA is not truly free, as you can be charged with slander and defamation. There are limits, and caveats, to all freedoms, so pretending that any kind of limits means there isn't a freedom, is inherently dishonest, and kind of ridiculous.

You read an inflammatory post by a few right-wing hack news outlets, that totally misinformed you about what happened, and then have the gall to complain that there won't be an argument from people about what is, essentially, "fake news"?

Cmon, @Verv. You can troll better than that.

[Verv]

That's a nonsense statement. Not everything is simply black and white, and you know that. Free speech even in the USA is not truly free, as you can be charged with slander and defamation. There are limits to all freedoms, so pretending that any kind of limits means there isn't a freedom, is inherently dishonest, and kind of ridiculous.

... Actually, I very specifically stated hate speech, and made zero comments about slander or libel or crowded theaters.

You really took this where you wanted to go with it.

Tell me: why should "hate speech" be illegal? Or, is that not a position you take...? You are just here to talk about slander and libel..?

[Godstud]

Hate Speech is well defined in Canadian law. There is good reason for it to be against the law, as unlimited speech can cause violence and harm to people. Many people recognize this. Some do not, because they are more concerned about their individual rights, than the rights of others.

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peaceis guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Marginal note:Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Marginal note:Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Marginal note:Definitions

(7) In this section,

communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)

identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)

statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... n-319.html

Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite ... ns/201825E

[Pants-of-dog]

I said "he risks prison", which is exactly what JP predicted would happen if the wrong pronouns would be used. The judge clearly told him that if he uses the wrong pronouns again, he risks prison.
I support JP in criticizing this law.

No.

He risks prison if he discusses his child’s medical conditions with anyone and this includes using the wrong pronouns.

You are ignoring a wide pattern of abusive behaviour and focusing on one way it manifests in order to show your support for an ideologue.

[ness31]

A totally fucked up situation for everyone involved

[Godstud]

The judge clearly told him that if he uses the wrong pronouns again, he risks prison.
I support JP in criticizing this law.

JP totally mischaracterized this law(Bill C-16)... a law designed to prevent people from calling for violence or harm agains transgender people, not for being able to prosecute people for using the wrong gender pronoun.

Bill C-16 – No, its Not about Criminalizing Pronoun Misuse
First – It adds the words “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This will prevent the federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction – like banks – from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

The federal government is late to this game – most of the provinces and territories already include gender identity and gender expression in their provincial Human Rights Codes.

In 2002 the Northwest Territories were the first government in the Canada to explicitly prohibit discrimination against trans people by including gender identity in their Human Rights Code. In 2012, Manitoba added gender identity to their human rights legislation. In that same year, Ontario and Nova Scotia added both gender identity and gender expression to their human rights laws. Prince Edward Island as well as Newfoundland and Labrador followed suit in 2013. In 2014 Saskatchewan made provisions for gender identity, and in 2015 Alberta joined the club, adding both gender identity and expression to their Human Rights Code.

The other five provinces and territories—British Columbia, Québec, New Brunswick, Nunavut Territory, and the Yukon—have implicit protection, having interpreted their Human Rights Codes as including gender variance under existing prohibited grounds.

Bill –C-16 is just the federal government catching up on long overdue human rights protections for individuals within its fairly limited jurisdiction.

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.

The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code. So surely this must be what Peterson is getting at? Criminalizing something? Well, lets take a closer look.

It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.

Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-n ... un-misuse/

Are Jordan Peterson’s Claims About Bill C-16 Correct?
The U of T professor has made claims about going to prison for his beliefs and criminalizing free speech. Here's what the legislation says.
Cossman says it seems Peterson is trying to argue that the misuse of pronouns could constitute hate speech.

“I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says.

Our courts have a very high threshold for what kind of comments actually constitutes hate speech, and the nature of speech would have to be much more extreme than simply pronoun misuse, according to Cossman.

“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.”
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jord ... 6-correct/

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that the father is not being charged with hate speech laws, so JP is wrong on that score too.

[Drlee]

When it comes to treating young people who believe they are the opposite sex, who either suffer from gender dysphoria or self-identify as transgender, physicians have been instructed by their professional associations to provide "affirmative care." Transition-affirming therapies are virtually untested and inflict lasting harms: decreased sexual function, increased health risks, and sterility, just to name a few. Instead of providing parents with medical information and evidence-based studies, parents are told that these risky treatments will prevent their child from committing suicide, blurring the line between “informed consent” and “coercion.”

So this guy desperately tried to rescue his daughter from the clutches of the demented babbitt quacks and their "treatments" and "therapies" and the state threw him in jail for it, that sounds about right.

You really have to come up with a new word Sivad. You have used the "B" word to death. Now that I have said that.

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.

[Godstud]

Just to make my stance on this perfectly clear, I don't think anything but psychological care should be given to "transgender teens". Medical care should not be a part of this "treatment". I think medical treatments should be left until they are adults(18 years old), when they can decide for themselves on the best way to proceed. The courts should do their best to protect the children from what might be their immature reasoning or perhaps their parents misguided good intent(either way).

[Sivad]

https://www.sheila.media/doctors-are-now-giving-8-year-old-girls-testosterone-claiming-theyre-transgender/

This is a link for the text that you quoted and did not cite.

This text is from a panel put together by the Heritage Foundation.

This group is a conservative think tank and not medival professionals.

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.

You often cite conservatively biased sites instead of objective sources.

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

Yes, white guys are so oppressed.

Sometimes I just can't believe you're a real person. White people can have their rights violated same as any other group, 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.

[Godstud]

White people can have their rights violated same as any other group, 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.

The right to free speech is not a human right. It is a right granted by the state(Canada, in this case), and as such, there are limits to it, particularly if that speech can be seen as potentially causing harm.

Canada, is not violating his rights. Can you specify what 'parental rights' actually are?

You are correct in that "race" has no part in this.

[Sivad]

The right to free speech is not a human right. It is a right granted by the state

I'm not getting into a big philosophical discussion because you don't know shit about it and you don't care to learn. Suffice it to say your opinion is stupid and ignorant and only a fucking idiot would put any stock in it.

Can you specify what 'parental rights' actually are?

Feel free to google it.

You are correct in that "race" has no part in this.

Yeah, PoD is always wrong about everything, that goes without saying, but the fascinating thing about PoD is that not only is he always wrong but every thought he communicates lacks all validity. The guy is walking talking fallacy, I've never seen anything like it.

[Godstud]

I'm not getting into a big philosophical discussion because you don't know shit about it and you don't care to learn.

All you can do is insult because you have no fucking argument. Don't expect being treated politely if you cannot do the same.

It's not a philosophical argument, since most parental rights granted by the state are pretty specific.

Feel free to google it.

Defend your position. One person's parental rights are the not the same as another's. They also tend to vary according to who you talk to, or where you live.

Parental Authority: Rights and Responsibilities
Under parental authority, parents have these rights and responsibilities toward their children:

custody
supervision
physical and psychological protection
health and safety
education
providing food
caring for them
https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/ ... es-parents

Of course, this is in Canada.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

From the judgment:

(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.

[...]

[74] In conclusion, I find that AB is an at-risk family member who is highly vulnerable. I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against AB. Finally, I find that CD’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it.

So yeah, the court has decided that "misgendering" is family violence and this decision is separate from the father sharing personal information.

Also, the irony of talking about a highly vulnerable adolescent being harmed by her father's words, while being completely at ease with pushing her and others to get an experimental treatment with permanent effects, including possible sterility.