WATCH: B.C. student with Down syndrome becomes basketball legend
A student with Down syndrome scored a dramatic buzzer-beating three-point shot this past week inspiring his school, province and country.
An annual snowball fight held at the University of British Columbia has been postponed due to a bombardment of snow, according to CTV. Unfortunately, a snowstorm has forced the organizers to move the event to Thursday at 12:30 p.m., according to a recent Facebook post.
UBC’s Point Grey campus had classes cancelled as well as other post-secondary schools in the area as a result of the storm.
The snowball fight known at the “Serious Snowy Showdown” will take place at the Main Mall between the Sauder and chemistry buildings on Thursday.
“Whether you breezed through syllabus week, took an extended vacation or are already submitting papers—we think it’s time for a break between classes. What better way to celebrate an early snowfall than one of our favourite campus traditions!”
Organizers are expecting thousands to show up for the “ultimate battle,” and joked on their Facebook event that this will be the perfect opportunity to “rally against that person in lecture who states things in the form of questions, provide some payback for the friend that ‘forgot’ your secret Santa gift or stand up to the roommates that stole your leftovers from the fridge.”
Tomorrow at 12:15 p.m. all who want to partake are asked to line-up on either side of the Mall. The next 15 minutes are for making your ammunition, and the first snowballs fly at 12:30.
Notorious trans activist Jessica Yaniv appeared in a British Columbia court today where she faced two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon violating the Firearms Act. During recess, Yaniv falsely accused this reporter of taking photographs of her in the women’s washroom.
I entered the woman’s washroom, noticed that Yaniv was there, and quickly exited. Police responded to Yaniv’s false claim by searching my phone, only to discover that I had not done what Yaniv had claimed. He yelled at me that he was going to charge me with “voyeurism.” I was also verbally harassed by Yaniv’s mother, Miriam.
Before the hearing, Yaniv successfully had Keean Bexte of The Rebel News kicked out of the courthouse.
Yaniv requested a publication ban. The hearing was then moved to another room where Yaniv cited “harassment” as the reason for requesting the ban. The presiding judge did not agree to the ban. “There is no power in the criminal code for me to do that. I am rejecting your application.” Justice Jette said.
Yaniv told the judge that she was “in-between lawyers” and needed more time. She requested a new court date and one was granted for February 10, 2020.
Yaniv was arrested in August by RCMP after appearing on popular YouTuber Blaire White’s channel. On a live stream, she displayed the functionality of a taser and claimed to be fully aware of its illegality.
Notorious trans activist Jessica Yaniv is due to appear in a British Columbia court today. Yaniv is facing two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon violating the Firearms Act.
She appeared last month which led to this court date being established.
Yaniv was arrested in August by RCMP after appearing on popular YouTuber Blaire White’s channel, brandishing and demonstrating the functionality of a taser at one point in the debate, and claiming to be fully aware of its illegality.
Yaniv faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison.
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.