Father arrested and jailed for calling his biologically female daughter "she": this week in the strange death of Canada

[ZiprHead]

To claim "there's no evidence of X", for any X in this case, presumes a familiarity with the minutiae of this case that certainly cannot come from the (incredibly biased and frankly useless) article linked in the OP.

It presumes nothing of the kind. It states a fact that there's no evidence of it.

Oh, there's probably plenty of evidence of it. It's just that no one here is privy to it.

Viewed from any perspective that tends to decline unsupported invitations to outrage, the case here is a simple one of a bully being held in contempt of court for persistent abuse of a minor.

Viewed from a tribe-affirming leftist perspective only.

Others can see a judge threatening, and then acting on his threat, to criminalise and jail somebody for his use of pronouns.

Which again makes me ask the question of why the judge did so.

 

[Jarhyn]

for his use of pronouns [as a cudgel to abuse his son.]

FTFY.



Thanks for the quote ZiprHead.

 

[Jarhyn]

It strikes me that very few who abuse ever think they are being abusive.

The fact is, there are a lot of bad people out there. Sure most people are mostly good most of the time. But some people are not mostly good. Some people are Ted Cruz the Zodiac Killer, and some people are geriatric turtle-lich abominations. They are real. We have extant examples of such lives.

So, it is apparent that people can absolutely do things to abuse people without thinking it is abuse. Therefore "what is abuse" cannot really be a function of the beliefs and expressed or understood intentions from the perspective of the abuser.

It must be up to the victim to decide what they think is abuse, and up to the society as to whether a bar has been reached for acceptance of that claim.

And here it was. A judgement was made. And violated.

 

[TomC]

He was jailed for contempt of court for publicly discussing the case and for using "she" to refer to his child.

This is the first I recall hearing of the father's violating an order not to discuss the case in public. I totally get that. Judges in family court have a duty to protect the privacy of minors. Once again, I have a different opinion about what's appropriate when a minor is involved. The rules are often just plain different from when everybody's a competent adult.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

It presumes nothing of the kind. It states a fact that there's no evidence of it.

You are logically wrong. There may be no evidence of which you are aware but that does not meant there was no evidence presented to the court. For someone who expects meticulous attention to detail by others, your sloppiness is disappointing.

Viewed from a tribe-affirming leftist rational humane perspective only.

FIFY. But thanks for the irony of your original statement.

Others can see a judge threatening, and then acting on his threat, to criminalise and jail somebody for his use of pronouns.

No one cannot see anything of the sort. You keep repeating that canard that Mr. Hoogland was jailed solely for his use of pronouns. Mr. Hoogland was jailed for failing to obey a court order to not publicly address this issue and to stop referring to his child as "she". Again, for someone who requires meticulous attention to detail by others, your sloppiness is disappointing.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are logically wrong. There may be no evidence of which you are aware but that does not meant there was no evidence presented to the court. For someone who expects meticulous attention to detail by others, your sloppiness is disappointing.
FIFY. But thanks for the irony of your original statement.

Others can see a judge threatening, and then acting on his threat, to criminalise and jail somebody for his use of pronouns.

No one cannot see anything of the sort. You keep repeating that canard that Mr. Hoogland was jailed solely for his use of pronouns. Mr. Hoogland was jailed for failing to obey a court order to not publicly address this issue and to stop referring to his child as "she". Again, for someone who requires meticulous attention to detail by others, your sloppiness is disappointing.

Oh, it was over his use of pronouns... As a cudgel of abuse.

It's that "cudgel of narcissistic abuse" part that makes the case.

 

[TomC]

Oh, it was over his use of pronouns... As a cudgel of abuse.

It's that "cudgel of narcissistic abuse" part that makes the case.

How can you be so certain that it wasn't mainly because the father went public after being told not to do so?

Got evidence?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh, it was over his use of pronouns... As a cudgel of abuse.

It's that "cudgel of narcissistic abuse" part that makes the case.

How can you be so certain that it wasn't mainly because the father went public after being told not to do so?

Got evidence?
Tom

No one here has evidence of anything. The father's story is quite obviously bullshit. The conservative religious right of course lapped it up like the dogs they are.

 

[TomC]

Oh, it was over his use of pronouns... As a cudgel of abuse.

It's that "cudgel of narcissistic abuse" part that makes the case.

How can you be so certain that it wasn't mainly because the father went public after being told not to do so?

Got evidence?
Tom

No one here has evidence of anything. The father's story is quite obviously bullshit. The conservative religious right of course lapped it up like the dogs they are.

Somebody asserted that the father had ignored the judge's order to keep the matter private. Which makes sense to me.
Is there no evidence on that?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

No one here has evidence of anything. The father's story is quite obviously bullshit. The conservative religious right of course lapped it up like the dogs they are.

Somebody asserted that the father had ignored the judge's order to keep the matter private. Which makes sense to me.
Is there no evidence on that?
Tom

No evidence we are privy to. But all child/family courts are private for the protection of the minors. That in itself is an obvious violation to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

 

[TomC]

No one here has evidence of anything. The father's story is quite obviously bullshit. The conservative religious right of course lapped it up like the dogs they are.

Somebody asserted that the father had ignored the judge's order to keep the matter private. Which makes sense to me.
Is there no evidence on that?
Tom

No evidence we are privy to. But all child/family courts are private for the protection of the minors. That in itself is an obvious violation to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

There's no evidence that the judge ordered the parents to keep this matter private?

I doubt that's true.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, it was over his use of pronouns... As a cudgel of abuse.

It's that "cudgel of narcissistic abuse" part that makes the case.

How can you be so certain that it wasn't mainly because the father went public after being told not to do so?

Got evidence?
Tom

God have you ever actually talked to trans people, any trans person at all about the psychological realities of being trans. He was beseeched not to by his own child, because him doing so outed his son. This is not a question in my mind but a certainty.

God... My husband's father dead-naming him is cause enough for the guy not to get a call for 3 months.

It's deeply disrespectful.

That was why the hearing was being heard in the first place. It was abuse because the child charged it so and the father went on about it without even the consideration that the people might have over whether. Thus by doing so made it so.

 

[TomC]

God have you ever actually talked to trans people, any trans person at all about the psychological realities of being trans.

That's a pretty insulting question. The simple answer is yes, quite a few.

Not that it's any of your business, but I've facilitated support groups that included LBGT and supporters.

You can stick your insulting mind reading right up your assessment.

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

You are logically wrong. There may be no evidence of which you are aware but that does not meant there was no evidence presented to the court. For someone who expects meticulous attention to detail by others, your sloppiness is disappointing.

Of course you knew I was talking about the context of this thread, not what evidence may or may not have been presented in the court case itself.

No one cannot see anything of the sort. You keep repeating that canard that Mr. Hoogland was jailed solely for his use of pronouns. Mr. Hoogland was jailed for failing to obey a court order to not publicly address this issue and to stop referring to his child as "she". Again, for someone who requires meticulous attention to detail by others, your sloppiness is disappointing.

"Not publically address the issue" is not the reason given for his arrest. It is an instrucytion in the gag order but it is made explicit he was arrested for the pronoun usage.

 

[ZiprHead]

No evidence we are privy to. But all child/family courts are private for the protection of the minors. That in itself is an obvious violation to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

There's no evidence that the judge ordered the parents to keep this matter private?

I doubt that's true.
Tom

You're really having a reading comprehension problem here. You want to try reading the bolded part again?

 

[ZiprHead]

"Not publically address the issue" is not the reason given for his arrest. It is an instrucytion in the gag order but it is made explicit he was arrested for the pronoun usage.

So he says, and you believe him. Why do you believe him and not the better reasons given for his arrest?

 

[laughing dog]

You are logically wrong. There may be no evidence of which you are aware but that does not meant there was no evidence presented to the court. For someone who expects meticulous attention to detail by others, your sloppiness is disappointing.

Of course you knew I was talking about the context of this thread, not what evidence may or may not have been presented in the court case itself.

Using the justified true belief, given your history of histrionics, emotional rhetoric, exaggeration, straw men and mischaracterizations, there is no way to "know" even in the context of thread.

"Not publically address the issue" is not the reason given for his arrest. It is an instrucytion in the gag order but it is made explicit he was arrested for the pronoun usage.

Pardon me for assuming that you had actually done some due diligence and educated yourself on your new cause celebre. From

A Canadian man was arrested this week after violating a court order that banned him from speaking publicly about his son’s gender transition.

(https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-childs-gender-in-court-order-violation/) Your biased linked article mentions several time he has given interviews in print and on video to the public.

 

[Metaphor]

"Not publically address the issue" is not the reason given for his arrest. It is an instrucytion in the gag order but it is made explicit he was arrested for the pronoun usage.

So he says, and you believe him. Why do you believe him and not the better reasons given for his arrest?

There were not other reasons given for his arrest, nor do I know what you mean by 'better'.

The gag order gives several conditions:

"[1] AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information.
"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) CD shall not directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to AB’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies."

laughing dog first made the claim he was jailed for violating both conditions but if he has evidence of that he has not produced it.

On a closer reading, the gag order is worse than I thought. It not only restricts the father's speech whilst talking to his daughter, but also while talking about his daughter to other parties, whether his daughter is present or not.

 

[Metaphor]

Using the justified true belief, given your history of histrionics, emotional rhetoric, exaggeration, straw men and mischaracterizations, there is no way to "know".

You knew it, laughing dog.

You are incorrect - even your linked OP includes it as a reason.

Where?

 

[ZiprHead]

There were not other reasons given for his arrest, nor do I know what you mean by 'better'.

The gag order gives several conditions:

"[1] AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information.
"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) CD shall not directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to AB’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies."

laughing dog first made the claim he was jailed for violating both conditions but if he has evidence of that he has not produced it.

On a closer reading, the gag order is worse than I thought. It not only restricts the father's speech whilst talking to his daughter, but also while talking about his daughter to other parties, whether his daughter is present or not.

Those are standard privacy issues, varying on the merits, that are used in all child/family courts in the US. And again I ask, why do you believe the orders posted by the father are the real orders that were given?