..
Japanese court rules gay marriage ban ‘unconstitutional’
in landmark decision
17 Mar, 2021 06:58
A reveler holds a rainbow flag during a parade in Tokyo, Japan, May 8, 2016. © REUTERS/Thomas Peter
A Japanese district court has ruled that the government’s refusal to recognize same-sex unions is unlawful, marking the country’s first judicial decision on gay marriage.
The ruling poses a challenge to Japan’s constitution, which defines matrimony as being based on “the mutual consent of both sexes.” The wording has been interpreted as only allowing marriage between a man and a woman, and currently same-sex partners are barred from inheriting each other’s assets. They also have no parental rights to any children their partners may have.
The Sapporo District Court concluded that preventing same-sex couples from receiving the legal benefits of marriage cannot be justified because sexuality, like race and gender, is not a matter of preference. Arguing that the ban was discriminatory, the court ruled rights and privileges granted under marriage should “equally benefit both homosexuals and heterosexuals.”
However, the court rejected a demand for remuneration by the six plaintiffs in the case – two couples of men and one of women. The couples had asked for one million yen ($9,160) each from the Japanese government as compensation for the emotional distress they suffered by not being able to legally tie the knot.
Currently, same-sex partners can only receive partnership certificates which can help with renting property and ensuring hospital visitation rights. The court’s ruling, the first judicial decision on the legality of the marriage ban, has been described as a major turning point for gay rights in Japan. The decision may set a precedent as four other courts around the country consider similar cases.
Although it has a more liberal stance on homosexuality than many of its Asian neighbors, Japan is still far more conservative than the West. In 2019, the country’s supreme court rejected the case of a trans man who wanted to be legally recognized as such without undergoing sex reassignment surgery, which includes sterilization.
Spanish lawmakers legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide,
bringing end to 10-year jail terms
18 Mar, 2021 13:53
Supporters of the law for the regulation of euthanasia in Madrid, Spain © Reuters / Susana Vera
Lawmakers in Spain have voted to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, making it only the fifth country globally to make the practice legal after the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Canada.
The law will come into force in three months' time after the landmark vote passed in the lower house of the Spanish parliament by 202 votes to 141, with two abstentions.
People wanting to end their life must "suffer a serious and incurable disease or a serious, chronic and incapacitating condition," the new law states.
The whole process will take up to 40 days from the patient's first request until a doctor's final approval, and the patient must give their written consent twice within 15 days.
Previously, assisting somebody's death in Spain carried a jail term of up to 10 years.
"Today is an important day: we are heading towards the recognition of human rights. We are heading towards a more humane and fair society," Health Minister Carolina Darias told lawmakers in Congress.
You are heading toward a more godless society! Those strict conditions will disappear quickly as they are in Canada where the government wants to bring in euthanasia on demand - no 40 days, no consenting twice, and no incurable, chronic, or incapacitating disease necessary. A couple days of gaslighting by a family urgently seeking the will to be read, and poof.
God has given us all a specific number of days to live. I can't even imagine the consequences of cutting those days short.
However, outside the building there were reports of protests from religious groups who are against euthanasia.
Supporters of the far-right Vox party were among the demonstrators, while a spokesperson for the party vowed to oppose the law in Spain's Constitutional Court.
The euthanasia debate in majority-Catholic Spain was reignited in 2019 when Angel Hernandez was arrested in Madrid for administering a lethal injection to his terminally ill wife, Maria Jose Carrasco.
Hernandez filmed himself giving a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital to Carrasco, who was suffering with multiple sclerosis and had given her consent for the injection.
He is due to stand trial in a gender violence court this year and the Prosecutor's Office has requested he be handed a six-month prison sentence.
A 2019 opinion poll found that almost 90 percent of Spaniards are in favor of decriminalizing euthanasia.
Good grief!
B.C. father jailed after referring to biological female child as his daughter
Erin Perse
London, UK
Mar 16, 2021 4:18 PM
There is a man in Canada who can only be alluded to as He Who Shall Not Be Named: Robert Hoogland. For the sake of natural justice, it is important to speak this man's name. He is now the Canadian state's prisoner of conscience.
The warrant was issued by a judge for the arrest of a father after calling his biological female child his "daughter," and referring to her with the pronouns "she" and "her." Hoogland was found to be in contempt of court.
Hoogland is a father to a gender non-conforming biological female 14-year-old who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. Hoogland has repeatedly called this person his daughter, though the court has forbade it.
On Tuesday at 10 am Vancouver time, Hoogland surrendered himself to the court in response to the Attorney General of British Columbia's warrant his arrest for contempt. He was then arrested and jailed. The warrant was issued by Judge Tammen on March 4, 2021.
Hoogland opposes his child's undergoing "gender affirmative" medical procedures, and has stated this opposition again and again, in the hope of saving his child from irreversible harm. The Canadian medical system, the legal system, and the child's mother press ahead with social and medical transition of the child.
A summary of the gag order:
"[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."
On December 14, 2020, Hoogland was compelled by Justice Mazari's court to collude in the gender "transitioning" of his fourteen-year-old daughter and told not to call his biological female child his daughter. In response, Hoogland made a Charter challenge engaging his right to freedom of speech.
When he appeared in family court, the judge forced him to sit in the prisoners' dock, said Hoogland's lawyer Carey Lind said, even though he was guilty of no crime. The judge referred to him as "the accused." Lind made an application for the judge to recuse himself on the basis that all of this was prejudicial.
Hoogland told his story. The child had complex problems, but the court blamed them all on gender dysphoria. His marriage to the child's mother had broken up. He said that, in grades 5 and 6, his daughter was "getting into trouble and hanging out with boys," so they arranged for her to see the school counsellor. In grade 7, he noticed she cut off her long hair and started wearing a toupé. He said that she developed intense crushes on two male teachers, and made a suicide attempt.
Hoogland discovered that the school had been showing his daughter SOGI 123, the going sexual and gender identity education materials in British Columbia which amounts to transgender ideology "propaganda videos." In the grade 7 yearbook, the child was referred to by a different name. The school counsellor changed the child's name without telling her parents. The school "socially transitioned" the biologically female child on its own initiative, with the input of a gender ideologue psychologist, Dr. Wallace Wong.
When Hoogland accompanied his child to a consultation with Wong, the psychologist advised the pubescent child to take testosterone. Wong referred the child to the endocrinology unit at the local hospital. Meanwhile, Hoogland was looking for mental health solutions to help the child without drugs.
On the child's first visits to the hospital, a treatment plan was put into action. Both the child, and her mother—Hoogland's ex-wife—signed a consent form which explicitly stated that the "treatment" was experimental, meaning that the endocrinologists recommending the treatment didn't know the long-term health impact.
A gender identity activist lawyer, Barbara Findley, represented the child in court. Justice Boden decided that the child's best interests lay in destroying her long-term health to make her body appear more like that of a male.
Hoogland, in contrast, thinks his daughter's best interests lie in preserving his child's health, in case his child ends up among the estimated 85 percent of children who desist in their belief that they are the opposite sex once puberty ends.
He said, "Here I am, sitting there as a parent, watching a perfectly healthy child be destroyed, and there's nothing I can do but sit on the sideline according to Justice Boden at the time. I can only affirm, or get thrown in jail."
Boden's court held that the father's consent was irrelevant. The judge went a step further, declaring that the girl's parents must affirm their child's "gender identity," and refer to the child as though the fact of her being a gender non-conforming biological female who identifies as transgender means that the child is a boy. If he did not, the parents would be implicated of the criminal offense of family violence.
After the hearing, Hoogland gave an interview to The Federalist saying that people cannot change sex, and that mega-doses of exogenous testosterone would damage his vulnerable, biological female child's health.
Justice Mazari then summarily convicted Hoogland of family violence on the basis that he had declined to use his child's preferred masculine pronouns. Mazari authorized a warrant for Hoogland's arrest in the event that he ever used the correct sex pronouns to refer to his daughter again.
"In the Mazari ruling, it said that I can only think thoughts which are contrary to the Boden ruling. The court was gracious enough that they did not police my thoughts, but everything else they could," he said.
In 2019, Hoogland abided by the court order, hoping to get his daughter off testosterone. However, in January 2020, the highest court in British Columbia declared that the child should continue to take testosterone. It also imposed a conduct order on Hoogland that he must continue to refer to his biological female child by male pronouns.
Hoogland said that "They've created a delusion, and they're forcing parents to live in this delusion."
"What happens when the bubble explodes and the delusion ends… She can never go back to being a girl in the healthy body she should have had… These kids don't understand. What kind of 13 year old is thinking about having a family and kids?" He said, lamenting his child's stolen future.
Hoogland gave interviews to several Canadian commentators. The broadcasts were suppressed by digital platforms, and he was threatened with contempt of court proceedings.
"What kind of father would I be if, in ten years time she's detransitioning, and she asks me 'why didn't you do anything to stop this? None of you stuck your neck out for me back then.'" He said.
The case continues, as does his child's medical "transition."
Before surrendering to the court, Hoogland felt compelled to visit his childhood homes, and shared some of his thoughts with this writer.
"Perhaps saving children is a dream . . . but I don't think so! As I was driving I saw children walking their dogs, I saw children playing together, and I saw a generation that needs their parents more than ever! I visited all my family homes... places where I grew up as a child. I remembered how much I loved my own parents and how much I needed their protection."
I find it moving that he is willing to go to such lengths to protest what is being inflicted on his daughter in the name of gender identity ideology. His self-sacrifice will hopefully help many other children from being drawn into this terrible industry.
Astonishing! The Tavistock hides the negative effects of puberty blockers for 10 years:
The Canadian state has taken a drastically wrong turning by institutionalizing transsexual medical procedures for children, then imposing draconian constraints on free expression to conceal the full horror of what it is doing to a generation of children. It seems unwilling to consider the implications of the decision in Keira Bell v Tavistock in the UK.
In December, the high court handed down the decision in Keira Bell's judicial review of the state's gender identity clinic, the Tavistock. It held that children of 16 and under were incapable of giving informed consent to puberty blockers.
In the judicial review hearing, the court asked the Tavistock why it had no long-term data on the outcomes for the children to whom they gave puberty blockers. It responded that it had a 2011 study, but it was unpublished pending peer review.
The Tavistock then published the data the day after the High Court handed down its judgement, and not in a peer-reviewed journal.
The data confirmed that, between 2011-2020, a rapidly increasing and disproportionate number of girls were referred to the gender clinic with a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria."
The clinic had known for nine years that puberty blockers were both ineffective for psychological distress, and harmful to physical health. It chose to keep that information from patients, public, and apparently from the court itself.
The court heard evidence that the Tavistock clinic gave children materials which said "as far as we are aware the blockers will not harm your physical or mental development."
The Tavistock's study into puberty blockers confirmed that the allegations of Keira Bell and Mrs. A were well-founded.
The study showed that of the 44 children given puberty blockers, only one did not progress to wrong-sex hormones. The Tavistock has claimed that the two "treatments" are not linked, and that taking blockers does not inevitably place children on the medical pathway to wrong-sex hormones and surgery. That claim has been disproven. Blockers are primers for surgery, with lifelong health impacts, not simply a benign "pause button." They cause long-term damage.
The study also found that medical experiments with puberty blockers did not improve the children's mental health. In fact, the children on puberty blockers felt worse on taking them.
Preliminary findings which showed that after a year on blockers, there was a significant increase in those answering the statement: "I deliberately try to hurt or kill myself," were not replicated across the duration of the study.
The children given blockers also lost critical bone density and height which they can never recover, leaving them vulnerable to osteoporosis and broken bones.
The study was nine years late, in which time thousands of children were primed for "gender affirmation" surgeries, and lumbered with iatrogenic osteoporosis and stunted growth.
It remains to be seen whether the court pursues the matter of the Tavistock's suppression of vital data which could have spared all of those vulnerable children the lifelong effects of puberty blockers.
All of this begs the question of why Justin Trudeau and Minster David Lametti continue to push Bill C16, knowing full well where it leads: destroying the health of vulnerable children for the sake of a delusion.
Keira Bell's case is international news, and shows anyone who cares to listen what awaits the victims of the trans "healthcare" industry. Bell described the Tavistock as having "a complacent and dangerous culture" which caused her irreversible harm. Its activities have effectively been shut down by the court ruling.
Rob Hoogland's child may not have the same experience as Keira Bell, who, now in her early twenties, regrets that she may be unable to become a mother. She hopes that it will no longer be standard practice for gender clinics to withhold from girls that "treatment" means they may never be mothers.
However, with a four-in-five chance of desisting, and incontrovertible evidence that "gender-affirming" medical experiments harm the body and fail to help mental wellbeing, what reasonable adult could now argue that she should stay on that path?
We watch the Hoogland case develop with interest, and hope that his arrest and imprisonment may precipitate a watershed moment in drawing national attention to the atrocity of pediatric transitioning.
The way Hoogland's child is described herein is intended to conform with Canadian laws against hate speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment