https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/transgender-teen-can-proceed-with-hormone-treatment-despite-fathers-objections-b-c-court-rules/wcm/4e33e7a0-55ae-4d10-874c-8c4b069545d3
Quote
The judge went on to make the following declarations: that A.B. be referred to as male and identified by his chosen name in all legal proceedings,
So basically the court said a parent or parents have no say if a child wants to take hormones to transition their gender. And the parents can be charged with a crime if they "misgender" their own child.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
The judge went on to make the following declarations: that A.B. be referred to as male and identified by his chosen name in all legal proceedings,
So basically the court said a parent or parents have no say if a child wants to take hormones to transition their gender. And theparents can be charged with a crime if they "misgender" their own child.
What an incredibly bad ruling by the BC Supreme Court.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
The judge went on to make the following declarations: that A.B. be referred to as male and identified by his chosen name in all legal proceedings,
So basically the court said a parent or parents have no say if a child wants to take hormones to transition their gender. And the parents can be charged with a crime if they "misgender" their own child.
The BC Supreme Court is enabling confusion in children.....shameful.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
The judge went on to make the following declarations: that A.B. be referred to as male and identified by his chosen name in all legal proceedings,
So basically the court said a parent or parents have no say if a child wants to take hormones to transition their gender. And the parents can be charged with a crime if they "misgender" their own child.
The BC Supreme Court is enabling confusion in children.....shameful.
And basically saying that leftist dogma on gender supersedes parental rights.
I've seen this a lot with the left. I remember them giving condoms to kids in school even when parents didn't want them to. And they also have allowed kids to get abortions without parental consent
[size=150]Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will raise their baby as 'gender fluid' and will avoid any stereotypes, according to friends[/size]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/8536859/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-will-raise-their-baby-as-gender-fluid-and-will-avoid-any-stereotypes-according-to-friends/
Great idea, raise your kid to have gender dysphoria issues when 50% of gender dysphoric kids will attempt suicide before age 20. It would actually be safer to give them drugs and alcohol.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
:smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:
Only in Canada...
:001_rolleyes:
Peer pressure..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMXlt66cU3U
Quote from: "Bricktop"
:001_rolleyes:
It's beginning to happen here as well.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
:001_rolleyes:
It's beginning to happen here as well.
If it weren't for Trumps court appointees I could very well see it happening in the US too.
Nobody here likes Trump or his appointees. It's a leftist ruled nation which takes pride in losing at the Eureka Stockade because it spurned the union movement which doesn't really exist anymore except in adherence to socialist dogma.
We here have been mostly stripped of our free will, rugged individuality, and the means to stop the onslaught.
The only things we have going for us are distance, village mentality, large land, little population, and the same barbaric and antiquated yet deflated sense of the aussie battler.
Asia will take us coastal wise one day. Hard or soft power.
We're already cooked. It's just a matter of when the US withdraws.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
:001_rolleyes:
It's beginning to happen here as well.
If it weren't for Trumps court appointees I could very well see it happening in the US too.
But, what about a lower court ruling?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
:001_rolleyes:
It's beginning to happen here as well.
If it weren't for Trumps court appointees I could very well see it happening in the US too.
But, what about a lower court ruling?
I could easily see that happening. Surprised it hasn't yet. probably will at some point.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
:001_rolleyes:
It's beginning to happen here as well.
If it weren't for Trumps court appointees I could very well see it happening in the US too.
But, what about a lower court ruling?
I could easily see that happening. Surprised it hasn't yet. probably will at some point.
And when a lower court makes a ruling, it's the law of the land until a higher court strikes it down correct?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
:001_rolleyes:
It's beginning to happen here as well.
If it weren't for Trumps court appointees I could very well see it happening in the US too.
But, what about a lower court ruling?
I could easily see that happening. Surprised it hasn't yet. probably will at some point.
And when a lower court makes a ruling, it's the law of the land until a higher court strikes it down correct?
Yes unfortunately. And of course that always takes time. This is what is happening a lot in the US right now. In many ways unelected leftist activist judges are running the US.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
:001_rolleyes:
It's beginning to happen here as well.
If it weren't for Trumps court appointees I could very well see it happening in the US too.
But, what about a lower court ruling?
I could easily see that happening. Surprised it hasn't yet. probably will at some point.
And when a lower court makes a ruling, it's the law of the land until a higher court strikes it down correct?
Yes unfortunately. And of course that always takes time. This is what is happening a lot in the US right now. In many ways unelected leftist activist judges are running the US.
I am going to derail this thread temporarily. I just read a post by Gaon on VF. He claims Trump's remain in Mexico executive order was in effect. I thought a lower court struck it down?
Quote from: "seoulbro"
I am going to derail this thread temporarily. I just read a post by Gaon on VF. He claims Trump's remain in Mexico executive order was in effect. I thought a lower court struck it down?
I did a pretty thorough search. From what I can tell there is at least one lawsuit pending but no court has struck down the policy YET
I'm sure some unelected asshole leftist judge will stop it soon enough. They always do. I hope it goes to the SCOTUS quickly.
This is a good policy and an important fix for our ridiculous asylum laws. 95% of asylum seekers get a court date and don't show, disappearing forever into the country. Its time to shut this ruse down.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
I am going to derail this thread temporarily. I just read a post by Gaon on VF. He claims Trump's remain in Mexico executive order was in effect. I thought a lower court struck it down?
I did a pretty thorough search. From what I can tell there is at least one lawsuit pending but no court has struck down the policy YET
I'm sure some unelected asshole leftist judge will stop it soon enough. If so I hope it goes to the SCOTUS quickly.
This is a good policy and good fix for our ridiculous asylum laws that are easily flouted by huge numbers of illegals seeking asylum under false pretenses.
It seems to be modeled on Australia's asylum policies.
Okay thanks. I thought I read a lower court shot down the remain in Mexico policy.
While digging round I found the policy
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/24/migrant-protection-protocols
And Here is the pending suit, and the five most important aspects
https://psmag.com/news/five-takeaways-from-the-lawsuit-over-trumps-plan-to-keep-asylum-seekers-in-mexico
1. ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED IF THEIR LIVES MIGHT BE IN DANGER IN MEXICO, THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES
2. MULTIPLE OF THE ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE ALREADY FACED VIOLENCE IN MEXICO, REPORTEDLY
3. MEXICAN CARTELS MIGHT BE HUNTING FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE ASYLUM SEEKERS
4. ONE ASYLUM SEEKER REPORTS FACING ANTI-LGBT PERSECUTION IN HONDURAS, AND MIGHT ALSO BE TARGETED IN MEXICO
5. ASYLUM SEEKERS FACE GREAT DIFFICULTY ACCESSING LEGAL COUNSEL IN MEXICO
Sorry for the all caps, that's the way they appeared in the article.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/24/migrant-protection-protocols
And Here is the pending suit, and the five most important aspects
https://psmag.com/news/five-takeaways-from-the-lawsuit-over-trumps-plan-to-keep-asylum-seekers-in-mexico
1. ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED IF THEIR LIVES MIGHT BE IN DANGER IN MEXICO, THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES
2. MULTIPLE OF THE ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE ALREADY FACED VIOLENCE IN MEXICO, REPORTEDLY
3. MEXICAN CARTELS MIGHT BE HUNTING FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE ASYLUM SEEKERS
4. ONE ASYLUM SEEKER REPORTS FACING ANTI-LGBT PERSECUTION IN HONDURAS, AND MIGHT ALSO BE TARGETED IN MEXICO
5. ASYLUM SEEKERS FACE GREAT DIFFICULTY ACCESSING LEGAL COUNSEL IN MEXICO
Sorry for the all caps, that's the way they appeared in the article.
This is the UNHC definiion of a refugee.
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.
Number 4 may meet be considered a refugee, but the rest do not.
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/24/migrant-protection-protocols
And Here is the pending suit, and the five most important aspects
https://psmag.com/news/five-takeaways-from-the-lawsuit-over-trumps-plan-to-keep-asylum-seekers-in-mexico
1. ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED IF THEIR LIVES MIGHT BE IN DANGER IN MEXICO, THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES
2. MULTIPLE OF THE ASYLUM SEEKERS HAVE ALREADY FACED VIOLENCE IN MEXICO, REPORTEDLY
3. MEXICAN CARTELS MIGHT BE HUNTING FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE ASYLUM SEEKERS
4. ONE ASYLUM SEEKER REPORTS FACING ANTI-LGBT PERSECUTION IN HONDURAS, AND MIGHT ALSO BE TARGETED IN MEXICO
5. ASYLUM SEEKERS FACE GREAT DIFFICULTY ACCESSING LEGAL COUNSEL IN MEXICO
Sorry for the all caps, that's the way they appeared in the article.
This is the UNHC definiion of a refugee.
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.
Number 4 may meet be considered a refugee, but the rest do not.
Yep just because mexico is dangerous does not mean they should be let in the US. If that were so than everyone in mexico would be an eligible refugee.
As to the LGBT one-- Does the Mexican government have criminal laws against LGBTs?or is this just the population may be hostile? One constitutes refugee status, the other I believe would not.
--
The asylum scam has to be addressed. 95% of asylum seekers come into the US and never show up for court and then just disappear into the country. I am virtually certain some leftist activist judge will put a TRO on this.
Because of constitutional misinterpretation, In many ways un-elected lower court judges have more power than the elected president :sad:
Checks and balances, I guess.
Quote from: "Blurt"
The judicial, legislative and executive branches are all supposed to be co-equal. An unelected lower court judge being able to stop a president is not co-equal, it has no constitutional foundation, and it is wildly out of balance giving far greater power to the judicial side. It really should only be the supreme court that can stop a president BUT, even then, that makes the judicial branch more powerful than the executive branch. (this heightened power was not given by the constitution, but rather seized in Marbury vs. Madison)
The people who don't like Trump are perfectly happy with this situation now, but one day unelected lower court conservative judges may start thwarting everything a democrat president does. It will be interesting to see if there is more complaint than now if that ends up happening.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Blurt"
The judicial, legislative and executive branches are all supposed to be co-equal. An unelected lower court judge being able to stop a president is not co-equal, it has no constitutional foundation, and it is wildly out of balance giving far greater power to the judicial side. It really should only be the supreme court that can stop a president BUT, even then, that makes the judicial branch more powerful than the executive branch. (this heightened power was not given by the constitution, but rather seized in Marbury vs. Madison)
The people who don't like Trump are perfectly happy with this situation now, but one day unelected lower court conservative judges may start thwarting everything a democrat president does. It will be interesting to see if there is more complaint than now if that ends up happening.
Who appoints lower court judges Wazzzup?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Blurt"
The judicial, legislative and executive branches are all supposed to be co-equal. An unelected lower court judge being able to stop a president is not co-equal, it has no constitutional foundation, and it is wildly out of balance giving far greater power to the judicial side. It really should only be the supreme court that can stop a president BUT, even then, that makes the judicial branch more powerful than the executive branch. (this heightened power was not given by the constitution, but rather seized in Marbury vs. Madison)
The people who don't like Trump are perfectly happy with this situation now, but one day unelected lower court conservative judges may start thwarting everything a democrat president does. It will be interesting to see if there is more complaint than now if that ends up happening.
Who appoints lower court judges Wazzzup?
The presidents do that too. Trump has been appointing judges, but there are a lot of Obama and Clinton appointees still out there.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Blurt"
The judicial, legislative and executive branches are all supposed to be co-equal. An unelected lower court judge being able to stop a president is not co-equal, it has no constitutional foundation, and it is wildly out of balance giving far greater power to the judicial side. It really should only be the supreme court that can stop a president BUT, even then, that makes the judicial branch more powerful than the executive branch. (this heightened power was not given by the constitution, but rather seized in Marbury vs. Madison)
The people who don't like Trump are perfectly happy with this situation now, but one day unelected lower court conservative judges may start thwarting everything a democrat president does. It will be interesting to see if there is more complaint than now if that ends up happening.
Who appoints lower court judges Wazzzup?
The presidents do that too. Trump has been appointing judges, but there are a lot of Obama and Clinton appointees still out there.
Judges in the USA are partisan and I think that's wrong..
Taiwan is divided along pan green and pan blue lines, but judges put their political loyalties aside when they are appointed.