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

[ZiprHead]

We don't know what the cultural or historical usage in Canada. So, you still have no evidence that does not depend on your pedantry.

Common usage is not pedantry.

This isn't a common usage case. This is a legal case.

 

[Metaphor]

We don't know what the cultural or historical usage in Canada. So, you still have no evidence that does not depend on your pedantry.

Common usage is not pedantry.

Insisting that your interpretation of legalese employs common usage and insisting on what that common usage is, is just more pedantry. And all to avoid admitting you no evidence outside of your pedantry to support your interpretation as correct.

It is no more pedantry than assuming the common usage of every other word in the same sentence.

But since nobody has explained how my interpretation is wrong, other than your vague assertions that words might have completely different meanings in Canadian English compared to Australian English, I take it to mean the clause says what it says.

 

[laughing dog]

Insisting that your interpretation of legalese employs common usage and insisting on what that common usage is, is just more pedantry. And all to avoid admitting you no evidence outside of your pedantry to support your interpretation as correct.

It is no more pedantry than assuming the common usage of every other word in the same sentence.

Now it is meta-meta pedantry.

But since nobody has explained how my interpretation is wrong, other than your vague assertions that words might have completely different meanings in Canadian English compared to Australian English, I take it to mean the clause says what it says.

My questions were not vague (at least not to anyone familar with the English language) and they invoke actual understanding and practice in North America. You have yet to provide evidence outside of pedantry to buttress your argument. Your double standard is glaring.

We (which includes you) don't know the precise meaning of the court order because we have not seen the entire text of the court order, let alone any relevant explanation of any technical terms or explanations of common usage in Canadian law. Continue to with your self-congratulations. I suspect you are convincing very few (if any) readers.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

He's standing up against the state. It's not as if that "little girl" on her own restrained him and deprived him of his freedom.

Everyone knows there are limits to free speech.

Yes, and they vary from place to place. Different governments impose different limits. And some people challenge them and get punished. My point was that he was standing up to the state, not just to a "little girl".

 

[ZiprHead]

Everyone knows there are limits to free speech.

Yes, and they vary from place to place. Different governments impose different limits. And some people challenge them and get punished. My point was that he was standing up to the state, not just to a "little girl".

IMO, he's abusing the child.

 

[TomC]

Everyone knows there are limits to free speech.

Yes, and they vary from place to place. Different governments impose different limits. And some people challenge them and get punished. My point was that he was standing up to the state, not just to a "little girl".

IMO, he's abusing the child.

This is kinda the problem.
Your opinion cannot be well informed, because you don't know much about the circumstances or family dynamics. It's not possible for you to know.

But you'll make this sort of assertion, without any qualifier at all.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Everyone knows there are limits to free speech.

Yes, and they vary from place to place. Different governments impose different limits. And some people challenge them and get punished. My point was that he was standing up to the state, not just to a "little girl".

IMO, he's abusing the child.

Or he’s trying to protect his child from making a horrible and irreversible mistake. It’s one of the things parents do.

 

[Jarhyn]

IMO, he's abusing the child.

This is kinda the problem.
Your opinion cannot be well informed, because you don't know much about the circumstances or family dynamics. It's not possible for you to know.

But you'll make this sort of assertion, without any qualifier at all.
Tom

My opinion can be well informed. And my well informed opinion on trans people is that repeatedly outing them to their friends and family and everyone else is abusive.

That is what he was doing

Therefore he was doing abuse to the child. Abuse as a verb against child. He was abusing the child.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Everyone knows there are limits to free speech.

Yes, and they vary from place to place. Different governments impose different limits. And some people challenge them and get punished. My point was that he was standing up to the state, not just to a "little girl".

IMO, he's abusing the child.

Well, those two are not contradictory. A person might both stand up to the state and abuse their child. I was saying he did the former, not that he did not do the latter. Regarding the latter, do you think the reason he was punished was child abuse? It looks like he was convicted of family violence, but part of that was speaking up publicly against the child's transition.

 

[ZiprHead]

IMO, he's abusing the child.

Well, those two are not contradictory. A person might both stand up to the state and abuse their child. I was saying he did the former, not that he did not do the latter. Regarding the latter, do you think the reason he was punished was child abuse? It looks like he was convicted of family violence, but part of that was speaking up publicly against the child's transition.

I don't know anything about violence but mental abuse is still abuse, and can sometimes be worse than actual violence.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

IMO, he's abusing the child.

This is kinda the problem.
Your opinion cannot be well informed, because you don't know much about the circumstances or family dynamics. It's not possible for you to know.

But you'll make this sort of assertion, without any qualifier at all.
Tom

My opinion can be well informed. And my well informed opinion on trans people is that repeatedly outing them to their friends and family and everyone else is abusive.

That is what he was doing

Therefore he was doing abuse to the child. Abuse as a verb against child. He was abusing the child.

It is true that the courts banned the publication of the child's real name. However, that was against the child's own choice (source: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-gets-to-decide-when-a-14-year-old-wants-to-change-gender ). The judge who jailed the father seems to have been focused on the father's claims that she is a girl (in public or to her) because of how the child would suffer upon hearing them (reading them, etc.), not on the outing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

IMO, he's abusing the child.

Well, those two are not contradictory. A person might both stand up to the state and abuse their child. I was saying he did the former, not that he did not do the latter. Regarding the latter, do you think the reason he was punished was child abuse? It looks like he was convicted of family violence, but part of that was speaking up publicly against the child's transition.

I don't know anything about violence but mental abuse is still abuse, and can sometimes be worse than actual violence.

Fair enough. Which actions of the father do you reckon are instances of child abuse?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

OK, either you are stupider than you appear, or you are deliberately making this situation out to be outrageous despite knowing that it's not.

Either way, I am now bored with you, and so am unsubscribing from your increasingly hysterical and pointless thread about a person being punished in law for doing something that's both unlawful and immoral.

Have fun!

Since bilby cannot or will not answer my question, can anyone else?

How can the gag order be read in such a way that would mean CD's private conversations about his daughter are not being proscribed by the State?

1. The State does not have that right. This is outrageous. But in practice, some states impose those restrictions, even though that is unethical.
2. The gag order seems to (very clearly) encompass private conversations with third parties. If it is not meant to include them, the judge misspoke.

It appears the judge did misspeak, unless she else lied or got confused when talking about her own order.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/2...uilty-family-violence-calling-trans-daughter/

While forbidding Clark to speak to the public about his daughter’s case, Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” “There is no requirement that [Clark] change his views about what is best for [Maxine],” she explained. “It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.”

 

[laughing dog]

1. The State does not have that right. This is outrageous. But in practice, some states impose those restrictions, even though that is unethical.
2. The gag order seems to (very clearly) encompass private conversations with third parties. If it is not meant to include them, the judge misspoke.

It appears the judge did misspeak, unless she else lied or got confused when talking about her own order.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/2...uilty-family-violence-calling-trans-daughter/

While forbidding Clark to speak to the public about his daughter’s case, Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” “There is no requirement that [Clark] change his views about what is best for [Maxine],” she explained. “It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.”

You have not presented any evidence to show the judge misspeaking.

But I do thank you for your link. From your link

While the main thrust of Marzari’s ruling focused on Clark’s public statements, Marzari also ordered that Clark be enjoined from “exposing” Maxine to any materials that might “question whether [her] gender identity is real or the treatments [she] seeks are in [her] best interests.” This order arose from the fact that, in mid-March, Clark invited his daughter to watch a video of a small-time Canadian conservative commentator with him.

The video contained a section discussing Maxine’s case, which she quickly recognized. She told her father she “did not want to watch the video, and went to [her] room.” This incident, according to Marzari, was a clear case of an “attempt to persuade [Maxine] to abandon treatment,” and, hence, of family violence.

Hoogland clearly violated the court order of not going public. There are plenty of ways for Mr. Hoogland to express his concern that do violate the court order. For some reason, he is unwilling or incapable of doing so. And, in violating the court order, he is causing his child emotional harm when the child is going through a very difficult and trying time as it is.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't know anything about violence but mental abuse is still abuse, and can sometimes be worse than actual violence.

Fair enough. Which actions of the father do you reckon are instances of child abuse?

Outing the child by giving public statements to sympathetic to the father media outlets. Who knows what else he has said to the child.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know anything about violence but mental abuse is still abuse, and can sometimes be worse than actual violence.

Fair enough. Which actions of the father do you reckon are instances of child abuse?

Outing the child by giving public statements to sympathetic to the father media outlets. Who knows what else he has said to the child.

But the child wanted to go public. The court did not allow it. At any rate, that does not seem to be why the father got punished (or at least, not the only reason if it was one), but rather, that the father's public denial of the child's gender identity (i.e., his public disagreement with the child on the matter) is considered "family violence" due to the potential psychological impact (regardless of what third parties actually do).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You have not presented any evidence to show the judge misspeaking.

I did. Her interpretation of her gag order does not match the meaning in English. That is evidence that she misspoke, though it is not conclusive. For example, she may have lied or gotten confused somehow.

Hoogland clearly violated the court order of not going public. There are plenty of ways for Mr. Hoogland to express his concern that do violate the court order. For some reason, he is unwilling or incapable of doing so. And, in violating the court order, he is causing his child emotional harm when the child is going through a very difficult and trying time as it is.

Actually, the child wanted to go public, as you can see in the other link I posted. The court did not allow the name to be published, but that is not the child's choice.

But it is true that the child will suffer for being told that she is a girl. For that matter, it may well be that a child will suffer if, say, she is told that her religion is false.

 

[ZiprHead]

Outing the child by giving public statements to sympathetic to the father media outlets. Who knows what else he has said to the child.

But the child wanted to go public. The court did not allow it. At any rate, that does not seem to be why the father got punished (or at least, not the only reason if it was one), but rather, that the father's public denial of the child's gender identity (i.e., his public disagreement with the child on the matter) is considered "family violence" due to the potential psychological impact (regardless of what third parties actually do).

He defied an order to not speak to the media. Any other reason offered is speculation.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

He's standing up against the state. It's not as if that "little girl" on her own restrained him and deprived him of his freedom.

Everyone knows there are limits to free speech.

Outing the child by giving public statements to sympathetic to the father media outlets. Who knows what else he has said to the child.

But the child wanted to go public. The court did not allow it. At any rate, that does not seem to be why the father got punished (or at least, not the only reason if it was one), but rather, that the father's public denial of the child's gender identity (i.e., his public disagreement with the child on the matter) is considered "family violence" due to the potential psychological impact (regardless of what third parties actually do).

He defied an order to not speak to the media. Any other reason offered is speculation.

Not to mention, yes, public denial of a gender identity is family violence, for the same reason it would be illegal were I to tell everyone and sundry as a nurse that someone had to have their balls cut off due to a testicular torsion.

The nurse only knows because of their obligation to provide treatment, similarly the parent only knows because of a similar obligation for providing care.

What they find out about the private information of those people is still private. I see no reason to treat the situation of (person who is not you) (gaining access to privileged information as a function of who they are, as a functionary assisting you with your health and wellness)(disclosing privileged information) any different just because the thing they didn't choose to do was be born to this parent vs be driven to this hospital.

It is dumb that this even needs to be explained. It's dumb that this needs to be explained to the father of this boy. It's dumb that it needs to be explained to the posters here. It's dumb that the posters here can't be arsed to stand with the son and at least not abuse him the way his father did.

Now instead of the father calling him a girl, it's random assholes all over the world calling him a girl, just because he wasn't born with testicles.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, the child wanted to go public, as you can see in the other link I posted. The court did not allow the name to be published, but that is not the child's choice.

If you had bothered to read your own link, you’d realize how moot your comment is:

This order arose from the fact that, in mid-March, Clark invited his daughter to watch a video of a small-time Canadian conservative commentator with him.

The video contained a section discussing Maxine’s case, which she quickly recognized. She told her father she “did not want to watch the video, and went to [her] room.” This incident, according to Marzari, was a clear case of an “attempt to persuade [Maxine] to abandon treatment,” and, hence, of family violence……

What Marzari found particularly egregious, however, was not Clark’s private interactions with his daughter but his “continued willingness to provide interviews to the media … in which he identifies [Maxine] as female, uses a female name for [Maxine] … and expresses his opposition to the therapies [Maxine] has chosen.” According to the court, this willingness placed Maxine at “a significant risk of harm.”.....
This harm was not so much feared because Maxine’s anonymity might be breached (it is worth noting that Maxine previously sought to have the press publish her real name), but because Clark’s “family violence of a public denial of [Maxine’s] gender identity” was regarded as likely to cause Maxine distress. Marzari argued that such a denial about such a “deeply private aspect of [Maxine’s] innermost thoughts and feelings” was likely to lead to a variety of dangers, “including self-harm.”