CARPAY: Progressive intolerance hurts the cause of diversity
The free society is undermined by the progressive, politically correct claim that the many Canadians who hold traditional or religious views about sexuality are “hateful.”
Diversity is harmed by the notion that only post-modernist beliefs about sexual behaviour can be expressed in the public square.
Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu has attempted to clarify her stance on social issues to CTV’s Question Period.
During an interview in the program, Gladu stated that “she would stand up for the rights of all Canadians. The LGBT community has made clear that they want leaders and the prime minister to march and indicate that they support their rights, and I’m going to support the rights of every Canadian.”
Gladu then went on to express her support, once more, for same sex marriage and gay pride parades—saying that she would be marching in one on June 27. “It’s important that every part of the community feels loved and accepted, and I think as Canadians that we should stop dividing ourselves and pitting one group against another, we have to stand up for everyone’s rights and freedoms.”
When Gladu was asked about the abortion debate, she said that she was pro-life, “although, at this stage in my life the chances of me getting pregnant is basically zero.” Despite this, Gladu made it clear that abortion services should be available to all Canadians.
Gladu’s position on abortion and LGBT rights will starkly differentiate herself from Andrew Scheer, who often faced scrutiny for his less-than-clear position on these issues. Scheer, for instance, refused to participate in gay pride marches. Like Gladu, Scheer was also a pro-lifer, which due to poor management, sky-rocketed into a hot campaign topic.
Gladu announced her bid to become the leader of the Conservative Party on Jan. 9. She is, so far, the only female candidate in the leadership contest.
The B.C. Court of Appeal has delivered a verdict today regarding the right of a child to receive treatment for gender dysphoria without parental consent.
The case first came to public attention in January 2019 when the father was told that his child, who was 14-years-old at the time, could begin hormone treatment without parental approval under BC’s Infant Act. The father sought a court injunction to prevent the doctors from commencing therapy. Since then, the names of all individuals involved in the case have been put under publication ban, including the names of the doctors who were involved in the diagnosis and treatment of the youth.
Previous court decisions granted the child the ability to proceed with hormone treatment to conform to the male gender with which the child identifies. Additionally, the father was subject to a protection order that prevented him from referring to his child as female or discussing the case publicly.
The father violated that court order by continuing to give media interviews, providing identifying documents, and continuing to call the child his daughter. The court was asked to refuse the father further audience because of this breach but declined to do so “without in any way countenancing [the father’s] alleged conduct in this litigation.”
There were numerous intervenors in the appeal, most of whom supported the child’s position. Because the child had already begun hormone therapy, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the issue moot. While the judges agreed that it was not appropriate to reverse the earlier decision on medical treatment, since irreversible physical changes had already taken effect, they would rule on the issues to provide guidance for future cases.
BC’s Chief Justice Bauman, and Justice Fisher wrote the unanimous decision, with Justice Groberman concurring.
The previous order, restraining the father from continuing to deny the chosen gender of his child and declaring his actions to be a form of “family violence,” was dismissed. The trial judge was deemed to have made “bald assertions” in granting the order which went beyond consideration of “the best interests of the child.”
In granting the father success, overturning the protection order, the court said “[w]e do not see authority to declare certain conduct as ‘deemed’ to be family violence for either present or future applications.”
In regards to granting the youth the right to continue treatment, the verdict confirms that BC’s Infant Act allows a child to make informed medical decisions without parental consent. That said, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge went beyond the scope of the issue of whether or not the medical consent was valid.
The judge had made declarations about specific medical issues that were best left to the appropriate physicians and caregivers.
In this case, the Court of Appeal found that the child had been vigorously assessed to confirm the appropriate treatment and to verify that the child was capable of understanding the consent form and consequences of pursuing that treatment. As such, they confirmed the order granting the child the ability to continue receiving the chosen medical care.
On the question of whether or not the father had engaged in “family violence,” the court rejected the granting of a protection order, calling it “unfortunate.”
They further stated, “it is our view that raising the issue of family violence in the context of this case caused the parties to become increasingly polarized in their positions, thus exacerbating the conflict and raising the stakes in the litigation. We see none of this to be in [the child’s] best interests.”
Most significantly, the court determined that, without minimizing the pain the child felt at being misgendered, the father was “entitled to his views and he is entitled to communicate those views.” While the judges found the father’s conduct to be “disrespectful” and “hurtful” they did not find it to be a form of violence.
Because the case involved the relationship between a parent and child, the court felt that a conduct order, rather than a protection order, was necessary. If the father fails to comply it could affect the outcome of future family court applications.
Nevertheless, it was determined that the father “has the right to his opinion and belief about [his child’s] gender identity and choice of medical treatment.” The conduct order restricts the ability to discuss his child’s dysphoria with media outlets or in other public venues but allows him the ability to maintain his personal beliefs about the child’s medical condition.
The facts of this case revolve around the father’s parental role, which is why the conduct order under the Family Law Act was deemed necessary. The father was criticized and urged to engage with the medical professionals overseeing the child’s care, something he had failed to do in the past.
The ruling will give guidance for other cases involving disputes between parents and children regarding gender dysphoria. Primarily, the verdict says that medical professionals have an obligation to thoroughly assess what treatment is in a child’s best interests and an equal responsibility to ensure the child fully understands the consequences of treatment before proceeding without parental consent.
In this case, all judges involved in the numerous legal disputes came to the conclusion that the physicians had acted competently.
Allegations have surfaced regarding Tiffany Michell Moore, who rose to infamy and internet memehood after her shocking public freakout in GameStop about a year ago. Many remember the meltdown Moore had when misgendered by a cashier in the gaming store. The self-proclaimed “trans activist” was met with much online backlash, even from the trans community who widely agreed that the misgendering was surely accidental, as Moore objectively appeared as male. The video has been shared millions of times across the internet.
Since then, Moore has become somewhat of an e-celeb, and the social media posts that have followed the GameStop incident have many concerned for the safety of the 4th grade son in the picture. Moore has proclaimed to the world via Instagram that her son is also transgender, referring to him as a “gentlethem” and “non- binary.” It’s unclear if a medical transition is in the expected future, but the possibility is unnerving.
Other points of criticism over Moore’s posts include unabashed boasting about drug use, smoking amidst her son’s asthma and respiratory issues, as well as posing for a photo with her son brandishing a fetish collar. Her alleged boyfriend also appears in the photo. Many claim that most of the videos posted on Moore’s Instagram reveal her to be under the influence of drugs.
Moore’s criminal record is quite long, including arrest for armed robbery. Her plethora of mugshots can be seen across the internet, all of which were taken before her alleged transition and GameStop freakout. The mother of Moore’s child doesn’t appear to be much more of a fit parent either, having no custody over their son and allegedly struggling with meth and a lengthy criminal record herself.
Some are even questioning the validity of Moore’s transition entirely, with many citing that there is little to no physical change between before and after photos. Speculations are going around that being “trans” is moreso a fetish for Moore, keeping in mind the fetish collar and repeated social media posts referring to her own genitals as a “girldick.” This is a common phrase used by crossdressers and fetishists. While there is nothing wrong with a person safely engaging in their own sexual interests, it is highly problematic to play those fetishes out in public or near a child.
I’ve chronicled these allegations in further detail in a new video on my YouTube channel, which will be embedded below. I sincerely hope that things are not as bad as they seem and that the child involved in this situation is not in the danger that is seemingly apparent in these posts. I also hope that similar to the reaction of condemnation that the trans community had for Jessica Yaniv, there is an outcry that this type of behaviour is not representative of trans people. Again, similarly to the Jessica Yaniv story, public figures within the community such as this serve to only reinforce negative and harmful stereotypes that have plagued not only trans people but LGBT people as a whole for centuries.
Moore responded late Tuesday afternoon to the allegations in an Instagram video, saying “How dare you criticize my parenting?”
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has announced it is representing another esthetic salon against Jessica Yaniv at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
The She Point Beauty Salon, owned and operated by women of the Sikh religion, has become the newest target for Yaniv’s litigation after declining Yaniv a Brazilian wax. Yaniv then demanded a leg wax, but was also refused on the same grounds. In their Tuesday morning Press Release, the Justice Centre notes that leg waxes are performed in private with the client undressed or nude from the waist down. Citing religious and safety reasons, the salon refused Yaniv service.
The interaction occurred in August 2019, with the claim being filed at the BCHRT in October—the same month Yaniv lost a number of other identical complaints at the Tribunals. The complaints, made against mostly immigrant-owned aesthetic salons, were advanced due to some of the salon’s refusal to provide waxing services to Yaniv’s male scrotum. Other salons were asked to provide services to other parts of Yaniv’s body, but declined. All did so on grounds related to safety and/or religious restrictions on intimate-area touching between unrelated, unmarried males and females.
The Tribunals found that Yaniv’s gaggle of discrimination claims against the esthetic salons were “vexatious, calculated” and, in part, motivated by racial animus against persons from South Asia and the Sikh, Hindu, and Muslim faiths. The complaints, which varied in cost-demands of up to $500,000, were dropped to fanfare and global praise of the BCHRT.
Yaniv was subsequently ordered to pay $2,000 each to three of four clients represented by the JCCF for improper conduct. On November 8th 2019, the JCCF filed an enforcement order against Yaniv with the Vancouver Law Courts to ensure the estheticians would be paid their money via possible collections action. Yaniv’s appeal to the Tribunal to retry the case was denied.
“Women have a constitutional right not to be compelled to touch biological males in an intimate or highly personal manner if they are not comfortable doing so,” says Jay Cameron in the JCCF Press Release, the lawyer who represented five other aestheticians in Yaniv’s 2019 claims. “Like male genital waxing, our client does not offer male leg waxing services to the public, and we intend to vigorously defend against this targeted harassment on behalf of our client.”