If big tech continues censoring conservatives, that means our days on these platforms may be numbered. Please take a minute to sign up to our mailing list so we can stay in touch with you, our community. Subscribe Now!
Justice Francesca Marzari, a British Columbia Supreme Court Justice, ruled last week that the father of a 14-year-old transgender boy (biological female) was guilty of “family violence” for refusing to affirm his daughter’s male gender identity.
The father, who is anonymously listed as “C.D.” throughout the court document to protect the identity of “A.B.,” his daughter, is also banned from discussing the ruling publicly in order to prevent A.B. from being “exposed” to hurtful writing or commentary that does not affirm her gender identity.
The ban applies for a one year period but may be extended by the court. It prevents C.D. from “directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publishing or sharing information or documentation relating to A.B.’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies.”
Back in February of this year, as previously reported by The Post Millennial, another B.C. Supreme Court Judge ruled that A.B could receive hormone injections to aid her transition despite not having her father’s consent.
In point 38 of her ruling, Justice Marzari writes:
However, I am not concerned with the truth of what CD has said in those interviews, but with the words having been said at all. The videos are with CD and there is no issue as to their authenticity. . . Had CD given his own evidence that he did not make the statements quoted in the Federalist, I would have preferred his direct evidence over that of the unsworn accounts of his statements in the articles. However, CD does not disavow the statements or quotations attributed to him, and says only that he did not intend to disobey any court orders. Justice Francesca Marzari
“In those interviews, CD refers to AB as female, and expresses both his rejection of the permanence of AB’s gender identity and his opposition to AB’s chosen course of treatment,” wrote Justice Marzari.
On the issue of the father’s parental rights, Justice Mazrari ruled that “CD’s rights as a parent are necessarily guided and constrained by the FLA and orders of this Court. His rights do not include harming his child.”
Concerning C.D.’s Charter right to freedom of expression and belief, Justice Marzari wrote “There is no requirement that CD change his views about what is best for AB. It is only how he expresses those views privately to AB and publicly to third parties that is affected.”
I find that the balance of the values at issues in this case favours the protection of the safety and security of AB. The best interests of the child and the child’s protection from family violence is a paramount consideration in family law matters. Justice Francesca Marzari
For her part, A.B. testified saying “I love my father. I want to have his name as my middle name. When I was born, I was given the middle name “[REDACTED]” as the female version of my dad’s name. But I cannot be around him unless he respects who I am and my gender identity. It messes with my head and I cannot stand his berating me all the time.”
“I am concerned for my physical and emotional safety around my dad, and very worried what he will do.”