Show Notes
A review of Federal Court Rulings on medical interventions
with respect to “Trans” Children, and a review of State laws that marginalise
your family values and impose queernormativity through criminal law.
Greeting:
My fellow Australians welcome, I’m John Andrews and you are
watching Advancing Australia.
What if one day your child’s school called you to tell you
that they thought your child was transgender? Well if you live in certain
states in Australia you would be a criminal if you tried to argue otherwise or
attempted to parent them in line with your values and faith. Also what if I was
to tell you that once a child has been set upon this course there is no way to
stop the process of sex change treatment.
Think that’s far-fetched? Listen to this episode.
Introduction:
This is the second show and I have say right at the top of
the show how grateful I am for the support and encouragement that I have
received for starting the show, for speaking out about topics that concern
everyday people but that are unaddressed by the political class.
Also I wanted to thank those that I have been corresponding
with, that have been suggesting topics or disagreeing with some of the
material, thank you but I do know that some of you haven’t like what I have
written back to you and that we do have some disagreement. That’s going to
happen from time to time, that’s natural but I’m not trying to build an
ideological silo, I’m building a right wing movement to push back against the
left-wing framework that our political class, including so-called
conservatives, operate in and I will have more to say on how we do that at
another time.
So thanks again, your support means a lot and also I am not
just on YouTube, you can find other ways to watch the show below, various
platforms that need to be supported but the best way that you can support the
show and our movement is to share the program with your friends or family
members that are inclined towards Right wing politics. Don’t share this with
the Left, we are never going to change their minds, we don’t yet want to argue
with them, that time will come, right now we need to build allies and unite
disaffected voices on the Right of the spectrum in order to push the right wing
parties further to the right, that’s what this is all about.
Also I hope we can have a little fun too, and inspire each
other and reinstall our cultural confidence. Okay that’s enough of an
introduction.
I have just one story for you this episode and it is the
details of the Federal Court’s rulings over children’s treatment for Gender
Dysphoria or Childhood Gender Identity Disorder, what the treatments are and
how they are classified and the Queensland Supreme Court assuming the right to
place an autistic boy on hormone blockers to enable them to change sexes. I
will examine what is happening elsewhere in the world and how that could impact
Australian Law and also the developments that are occurring on the legislative
front both here in Australia and overseas, with regard to the issue of
treatment, parenting rights and even the legality of discussing these issues.
This episode is going to be more complicated than I would
otherwise like to present in this show but it is so important as it shows just
what is going on in the trans movement, in rulings made in your name, in the
name of the crown, and that the law, the case law that has actually run away
and has a life all of its own and it’s going to be a real eye opener for many
of you and that of course is the reason for the show.
Before we go on I just want to say a couple of things.
First that this video is not a critique or examination of
gender theory or any of the other extreme gender ideologies that have
propagated out of the Women’s Studies Departments and Gender Studies
Departments within the Universities. That is a whole other topic. This video
took about 30 hours of research to compile and about 16 hours to write, and it
is by no means comprehensive, or intellectual. I’m just a simple Australian guy
trying to make sense of the world around me.
Also, this video is not an attack on the children involved,
my motivation is to protect children from the effects of the extreme gender
ideologies that are now sweeping though psychology, psychiatry and medicine,
and to protect children that I believe are obviously unable to provide informed
consent around decisions with lifelong ramifications that they have no
possibility of understanding.
Further I must also stress that I am not a lawyer, nothing
in this video or any other document should or could be understood to be legal
advice, this is political commentary for the purposes of political
communication in regard to topics of high importance to myself and, I genuinely
believe, to the Australian public and our culture. I intend this political
communication to build community around these issues.
Definitions:
It is vital to understand what has been defined as treatment
by the courts and by practitioners in this field. To help with these
definitions I’m going to read from a document from an advocacy group. This
group is called the “Inner City Legal Centre”, and it’s important to talk about
them because it speaks to our first show and what we talked about with
government.
The treasurers report states:
“The Inner City Legal Centre continues to receive State and
Federal funding for its core services. Over the 2019/20 financial year, the
Centre received a total of $1,020,710 of Government funding under the
Commonwealth Legal Services Program (CLSP), including $799,601 from NSW
Government and $221,109 from Commonwealth Government.”
This document, of theirs, that I am quoting from is designed
as a resource for children in order to facilitate their sex changes, and it’s
paid for by the NSW and Commonwealth Governments. This is Conservatives,
conserving. Got it?
This is from the:
Inner City Legal Centre, Getting treatment: what to do if
you are trans and under 18.
23rd February 2016
Stage 1 treatment: blockers
If a child’s parents and the treating medical team agree
that the child should start on treatment to delay the onset or progression of
puberty, there is no requirement for court involvement. Treatment can commence
when the child’s treating medical team considers it appropriate.
If there is disagreement, there must be an application
asking the court to make a decision about whether the treatment should be
authorised. In deciding whether to authorise treatment, the court will have
regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, and
will give significant weight to the views of the child in accordance with his
or her age and maturity.
Stage 2 treatment: oestrogen or testosterone
Court involvement is mandatory before a transgender child
can start Stage 2 treatment (oestrogen or testosterone). This is because many
of the effects of stage 2 treatment are only reversible with surgical
intervention. If there is any dispute between the child’s parents and members
of the treating medical team, then the court must consider whether the
treatment should be authorised on the basis that it is in the best interests of
the child.
If there is no dispute, then the court must decide whether
the child is competent to provide their own consent to the treatment. *An
application for a declaration of competence will also ask ‘in the alternative’
(in other words as a plan B) that the court authorise the treatment on the
basis that it is in the best interests of the child is the child is found not
to be competent to the relevant standard.
For a child to be competent to the relevant standard
(Gillick competent) they must have reached ‘a sufficient understanding and
intelligence to understand fully what is proposed’. This test takes its name
from an English case, Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority
[1986] AC 112.
*Although that case relates to treatment of children under
the age of 16, Gillick has been applied in Australian law in relation to
children under the age of 18.
Whether the child is competent will generally depend on
whether they are able to demonstrate that they understand the content of the
treatment, its side-effects, its negative risks, and the physical changes that
it will cause.
Stage 3 treatment: surgery
The legal principles and process are the same as for Stage 2
treatment (although stage 3 surgery is irreversible). The only difference is
that the application is supported by an affidavit from a plastic surgeon,
rather than an affidavit from an endocrinologist.
Those are the definitions of treatment.
In there is the concept of “Gillick competence” and we will
revisit that principle later in the show.
Federal Court:
Now we look to the Federal Court where these issues have
previously been decided, there is some case law here and we are going to look
at the “Jamie” case. There are a couple of others but this one is perhaps the
most relevant in terms of explaining the courts thinking and where things stand
today and how it got to this point.
This is a very complicated case and there is a lot of
material written around the case as well as long, technical judgements and the
case attracted interest and involvement of many parties, including independent
children’s lawyers, and The Australian Human Rights Commission and other
government authorities.
Here are some of the key points around the case as I have
been able to determine them in a simple, factual and easy to understand way:
·
The child, identified only as “Jamie” was a male
born in 2000.
·
In 2007 “Jamie” was diagnosed with Gender Identity
Dysphoria.
·
In 2009 “Jamie’s” parents filed an Initiating
Application to have “Jamie” listed for stage 1 puberty blockers.
·
In 2011 the first decision to allow “Jamie” to
start Stage 1 treatment, a course of puberty blockers is granted, “Jamie” is 10
years and 10 months old.
The judgement reads:
“33. It is generally within the bounds of a parent’s
responsibility to be able to consent to medical treatment for and on behalf of
their child. There are however certain procedures, referred to in the
authorities as “special medical procedures”, that fall beyond that
responsibility and require determination by the court, as part of the court’s
parens patriae or welfare jurisdiction (see Secretary, Department of Health and
Community Services the JWB and SMB (1992) FLC 92-293 ((Marion’s case)). There
was no dispute in this case that the procedures proposed fall within the
definition of special medical procedures.”
And, with respect to the definition of competence to give
consent said:
“90. In considering whether a child is capable of making an
informed decision, the authorities have adopted the principle in Gillick v West
Norfolk A.H.A [1986] A.C.112, where the House of Lords held that a minor is
capable of giving informed consent when he or she “achieves a sufficient
understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is
proposed”.
91. Jamie is still young, and younger than the majority of
children who undertake this proposed treatment. Nevertheless, in the
psychiatrist Dr C’s opinion, Jamie is able to demonstrate an understanding “of
the broad nature of the treatment proposed”, namely that she will receive
treatment with hormones which will affect and delay the development of the
bodily changes of puberty. Dr C said Jamie understands that this will delay the
growth in her penis and testicles, and that there will be a slowed body hair
development and masculine-type bone growth.”
In 2013 “Jamie’s” parents appealed the 2011 decision such
that the decision was set aside. This created the precedent so that parents, in
agreement and with support of the medical practitioners could consent to Stage
1 treatment without the authorisation of the Court.
The parents argued that they had sole responsibility for
“Jamie” and that the courts consent was no longer required to commence Stage 1
treatment as the treatment did not constitute a “special medical procedure”,
which was per paragraph 33 of the 2011 judgement I just read.
To briefly summarise a complex and legally technical 53 page
decision of the full court the judges found that Stage 1 treatment was not a
“special medical procedure” with respect to what the Court was now calling
“Childhood gender identity disorder, a mental disorder within the terms of
DSM-IV”, with respect to circumstances where there is unanimous agreement
between the relevant people involved with the welfare of the child including
the agreement of the child.
DSM is Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, V is the latest edition and has been since 2013, and calls the
condition Gender Dysphoria in Children, DSM-5 302.6.
Further the Court found that stage two treatment of gender
dysphoria (administration of testosterone or oestrogen, what we call cross sex
hormones) was a medical procedure that required court authorisation, unless the
Court found that the child was Gillick competent and thus able to fully understand
and give informed consent to stage two treatment at the time it was to
commence. The Full Court found that it was the Court’s responsibility to assess
whether or not a particular child was Gillick competent.
To restate: The court only need find the child “Gillick
competent” in order to commence Stage 2 treatment, not that the treatment was
justified.
With respect to the consequences of making a wrong decision
the court considered that “the treatment was reversible”.
In fact the Australian Human Rights Commission submitted
that:
“court authorisation should not be required because:
13.4.1 the treatment is reversible;
13.4.2 there are no alternative treatments available;
13.4.3 withholding (or significantly delaying) treatment is
likely to have significant adverse psychological and physical effects.”
In 2015 “Jamie’s” parents appealed the 2013 decision, the
summary of the decision read:
“Where the applicants are the parents of a child diagnosed
with gender dysphoria – where the applicants seek a declaration or finding that
the child is competent to authorise her own stage two treatment – where the
child’s treating medical experts and parents support the child commencing stage
two treatment – assessment of whether 15 year old child is Gillick competent to
consent to medical treatment – finding that the child is competent to consent
and authorised to make her own decision about stage two treatment for gender
dysphoria.”
Just to translate the Court found that “Jamie” was “Gillick
competent”; to quote paragraph 25 of the 2015 decision:
“25. In Gillick, Lord Scarman recognised the underlying
principle in the case law that parental right yields to the child’s right to
make his/her own decisions when he/she reaches a sufficient understanding and
intelligence to be capable of making up his/her own mind on the matter
requiring decision.”
Jamie Judgements:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign.cgi/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2011/248
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign.cgi/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2011/248
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign.cgi/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2015/455
So that’s the timeline of events, this is the case that
really opens up access to these radical treatments; the parents made an
application to start hormone blockers on a 9 year old, that was granted when
Jamie was 10 years and 10 months, that’s just a function of the processes and
hearing dates and time to move within the Family Court.
Then the parents decided that they didn’t need the
permission of the Family Court anymore and then and that they were responsible
as parents, then appealed further and the Court confirmed that “Jamie” was
authorised to make their own decisions in regard to treatment.
In 2011 the question was whether or not this was a “special
medical procedure”, and it was resolved that it was and that the court
authorised it, then in 2013 it was determined that it wasn’t and it was an
issue of parental consent, then in 2015 it was not an issue of parental consent
but required the child’s consent alone now they were “Gillick competent”. That
is to say at the age of 15 “Jamie” was competent to make life long changes to
their body.
What we see here is the legal system, moving forward with
this issue, granting rights based on legal activism, with very little
opposition or political engagement. Deciding what treatments are available
without political review or dissent, or a thorough review of experimental
treatments that had no longitudinal studies to determine their efficacy in
treating the underlying disorder and with the assumption that phase one
treatment was without side effect and that was reversible.
So when we analyse this case there are a few resources
around including from the “Human Rights Law Centre”. According to their own
website, the Human Rights Law Centre:
Under the heading:
“Our mission
The Human Rights Law Centre uses strategic legal action, policy solutions and advocacy to support people and communities to eliminate inequality and injustice and build a fairer, more compassionate Australia.”
So I’ll just point out that this left-wing NGO is funded to
the tune of $50,000 each, from the Victorian Government, and the Federal
Government, via the Attorney General Department.
So another example of a Liberal, a conservative Government
funding our opponents. You should look up the activities of the Human Rights
Law Centre to see what your tax dollars are funding.
Okay so this is the fundamental concept the holds all of
this together, the concept of “Gillick competence”.
The Human rights law centre says:
“the Court to determine that the child is “Gillick
competent”. The term “Gillick” refers to the English case of Gillick v West
Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 (later held by the High
Court of Australia in “Marion’s case” to be applicable in Australia) where Lord
Scarman held that “the parental right to determine whether or not their minor
child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when
the child achieves a sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or
her to understand fully what is proposed”.”
In the Family Court’s 2015 “Jamie” case the court held that
it’s jurisdiction was justified under the following terms, in the explanation
of the judgment:
To quote from the judgment:
•
“This application is brought under Part VII of
the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
•
Section 69H(1) of the Act provides that
jurisdiction is conferred on the Family Court in relation to matters arising
under this part.
•
Section 67ZC of the Act provides additional
jurisdiction under Part VII of the Act to make orders relating to the welfare
of children. It was inserted by an amendment to the Act in 1995 and reads:
o
In addition to the jurisdiction that a court has
under this Part in relation to children, the court also has jurisdiction to
make orders relating to the welfare of children.
o
(2) In deciding whether to make an order under
subsection (1) in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests
of the child as the paramount consideration.
• Sections 60CB to 60CG of the Act deal with how
the Court determines a child’s best interests.
• The Court has power to make an order under S
67ZC of the Act to authorise medical treatment. In the circumstances of this
case it is not necessary to do so because, for reasons set out below, I am
satisfied that Jamie is Gillick competent.”
So I thought to myself that the time will come when there
are two parents who are at odds on their child’s future. One will have a view
that protects the integrity of the child, the natural order and views on
consent that are within the regular jurisprudence regarding the age of
majority, to make decisions around voting, sexual consent, ability to drive a
motor vehicle, enter into contracts, adopt children, enter into marriage etc.
all of this. And one who is aligned to a radical and unproven gender theory
that seeks to interfere in their child’s natural development.
I ask you to consider on whose side the court is going to
come down upon, the sole parent who has objections to the ideology or the long
term consequences, or who may be sceptical of the long term efficacy of
experimental treatments, or come down on the side of the entire weight of the
aligned forces of the legal profession with its legions of activists, NGO’s,
government agencies, Australian Human Rights Commission, Inner City Legal
Centre, the specialist psychologists in the field with their experimental
treatments, Endocrinologists or the plastic surgeons, the huge slippery slope
of systems and clinics set up to profit on this machine?
This was the question I was going to pose but I have since
found it answered:
Court approves
treatment for transgender teen amid parental dispute
By Michaela Whitbourn September 11, 2020
“A 16-year-old transgender girl whose mother opposed her
transition will be able to access gender-affirming hormone treatment following
a landmark Family Court ruling.
On Thursday Family Court Justice Garry Watts granted
authorisation for the teen, given the pseudonym “Imogen”, to access oestrogen
treatment to aid in her physical feminisation.”
And:
“The law has evolved rapidly in Australia. Prior to 2013, it
was not possible for a parent or child to give valid consent to any of the
three stages and court approval was mandatory.
The Full Court of the Family Court ruled in 2013 that court
approval was no longer required for stage one treatment, but the court had a
role in disputes.
In 2017, the Full Court went further and ruled court
authorisation was not required for stage two treatment but it was not clear
what role the court performed in the case of disputes.”
This 2020 case is known as the “Imogen case”, and the 2013
case referred to here is the “Jamie case” and 2017 case mentioned here is the
“Kelvin case”, which reaffirmed the decisions made in the “Jamie case” with the
decision of 2015.
So we don’t know all of the details because the people
involved are children and they have rights, as children that need to be
protected in so far as their privacy because of the privacy issues we have very
little knowledge of the specifics of the cases but only of the procedural and
technical nature of the cases.
What I find fascinating here is that the court confers
rights on the applicants as children, to privacy, but also confers on them the
rights of adults through the concept of competence. That is to say that they
are competent to make decisions regarding their bodies but not their privacy.
Is that interesting to you?
These cases confer a right to privacy, because they are
children, but does not confer on them their future reproductive rights, as
adults. That is to say that they are competent to make decisions regarding
their future ability to have children, without any understanding of parenthood
but not their privacy, despite being right now an internet native generation.
So when it comes to an area of dispute between parents, the
Court will come down on the side of so called “gender affirming” treatment,
which is to say the medical interventionist approach.
Okay so that’s where things stand with the issue in
Australia and what is happening, the politicians have abandoned the field and
let this run riot, driven by activists, through the courts unchecked.
Legislation in the Federal Parliament could solve this today.
Okay so now we go to the Queensland decision.
Queensland Courts’ Hormone Blocker Decision:
Specifically, with relation to the Queensland case, there
has been no main stream media coverage of the story we are going to discuss,
that I can find, and I would ask you to consider why that might be.
Not in the ABC; SBS; The Guardian; SMH; news.com.au; Daily
Telegraph; Nothing. Only the Courier Mail in Brisbane.
The only mainstream media article that I can find was
published on Friday 29th January in The Australian, By BERNARD LANE, titled:
Puberty blocker drugs surge at Brisbane kids’ gender clinic
I was a subscriber to the Australian but I am not at the
moment so I can’t get you those full details, maybe someone can email me the
text of the article but it does say, in part that:
“Queensland’s gender clinic has seen a 330 per cent rise,
with an 85-fold spike in those taking controversial drugs to block puberty.”
So whether that is now 85 children in Queensland on this
dangerous hormone disrupting treatment or 170, or some other multiple of 85 we
just don’t know right now but within activist circles I find glowing coverage
of the Supreme Court’s decision, for example:
A court in Australia
has ruled that a 13-year-old trans girl can start puberty blockers “without
delay,” even though her father did not give his consent.
EMMA POWYS MAURICE JANUARY 17, 2021
The Article reads:
“The landmark ruling from the Supreme Court of Queensland
allows the teen to seek gender-affirming treatment with her mother’s
permission, rather than requiring consent from both parents or guardians.
The ruling by Justice Ann Lyons is the first of its kind in
Queensland, with decisions regarding treatment consent for children with gender
dysphoria only made in the Federal Court in the past.”
You’ll note the activist language in the article like
“gender-affirming treatment” where-as I might refer to it as child mutilation.
Okay so what we are seeing is a movement away from the
Federal Court that claimed jurisdiction on these issues to the Queensland
Supreme Court, this could be an attempt to ensure that these are no longer
Federal Issues but State issues.
What are the specifics of the case?
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-389.pdf
The case revolves around a boy, dubbed “A” who identifies as
a girl, whose Father is no longer in their life, and their expressed desire to
change sex, at age 13. Remember that 13 years old.
From the ruling itself we can read on paragraph 7:
““A” has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and despite
a history of school disruption, she is reportedly an above average student of
around a B standard. She is currently being home schooled through the School of
Distance Education. Her previous school functioning has been challenging and
she has had what are described as “massive meltdowns” in the past. The material
indicates that from the age of four, “A” would declare that she was something
other than her male gender and began to declare she was a girl and not a boy,
and had been born in the wrong body. She is uncomfortable wearing boys’ clothes
and prefers girls’ clothing, preferably in the colour pink. When she was at
school, “A” had socially transitioned to a female uniform and used her chosen
female name on the school roll and on her bus pass. The state school she
attended provided affirming and daily support from a guidance officer in
relation to her female identity. “A”’s treating team have recommended a
reversible treatment which will block her puberty as a male. The affidavit of
“A”’s mother indicates that by her fourth birthday, “A” had begun to identify
as a girl and uses “she/her” pronouns, although no formal name change has been
undertaken.”
On paragraph 25 of the ruling we note that the child is not
competent to give consent:
“Dr C notes the definition of capacity in the Guardianship
and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) and the definition of Gillick competency and
whilst she believes “A” has the capacity to understand the information provided
around the proposed treatment, she does not believe that “A” fully understands
what is proposed and is not persuaded that she is currently Gillick competent.
Dr C notes however that “A” is anxious to commence the treatment and wishes to
prevent further progression of puberty. She states that she has met with “A”’s
mother who is supportive of the commencement of Stage 1 treatment and
understands the risks and effects of the proposed treatment.”
The court has made its decision in lieu of the Father, per
paragraph 26:
“Dr C states that she understands that there has been no
contact with “A”’s father since the parents’ separation three-and-a-half years
ago and is reported to be non-affirming of “A”’s gender, which has been the
source of family conflict. She states that the gender service has not been in
contact with the father due to concerns about the safety of both “A” and her
mother, due to a history of reported domestic violence.”
So this boy was 10 when their parents separated, there was a
finding of violence within the relationship, they are presently estranged from
the Father, there is no contact, and so the State has stepped into the
situation, as the Father, to support the decision of the Mother to exercise
legal responsibility over the child in terms of consent for Stage 1 treatment
as per the document we read earlier.
Role of the state, is that our state, what we want the state
to do?
In the ruling the Court addresses the issue of jurisdiction.
“Does this Court have Jurisdiction to Grant the Relief
Sought?
27. This application is bought in the parens patriae
jurisdiction of this Court. There is no doubt that the jurisdiction is
exercised to protect children who are unable to look after their own interests
and the court is placed in a position to act as a parent of the children. It
must exercise its jurisdiction in the manner in which a wise, affectionate and
careful parent would act for the welfare of a child.”
So that is the Queensland case, this is what drew my
attention to the issue and is the reason that I made this video essay; a 13
year old boy on puberty blockers.
The question Conservatives must ask: “Is this what we want
the state to do? Is this the role we would have for the State if we were having
serious conversations around these issues?” I don’t think so.
Let’s now examine what is happening on the legislative front
in the States and Territories.
Queensland:
Gay conversion
therapy set to be outlawed in Queensland this week
Lydia Lynch, August 11, 2020
“Gay conversion therapy is expected to be outlawed in
Queensland this week when new laws pass State Parliament.
The legislation will stop health service providers using
therapy that attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or
gender identity.”
'I acted as straight
as I could so it would stop': Gay conversion outlawed
Lydia Lynch and Toby Crockford, August 14, 2020
“New laws were passed by the Queensland Parliament on
Thursday to ban health service providers using therapy that "attempts to
change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity".
This is how the legislation has been sold. What does the
legislation look like?
Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/bill.first/bill-2019-069
213F Meaning of conversion therapy
(1) Conversion therapy is a treatment or other practice that
attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender
identity.
(2) Conversion therapy does not include a practice that—
(a) assists a person who is undergoing a gender transition;
or
(b) assists a person who is considering undergoing a gender
transition; or
(c) assists a person to express their gender identity; or
(d) provides acceptance, support and understanding of a
person; or
(e) facilitates a person’s coping skills, social support and
identity exploration and development.
(3) Also, conversion therapy does not include a practice by
a health service provider that, in the provider’s reasonable professional
judgment, is necessary to—
(a) provide a health service in a manner that is safe and
appropriate; or
(b) comply with the provider’s legal or professional
obligations.
213G Meaning of gender identity
(1) Gender identity, of a person, is the person’s internal
and individual experience of gender, whether or not it corresponds with the sex
assigned to the person at birth.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the gender identity, of
a person, includes—
(a) the person’s personal sense of the body; and
(b) if freely chosen—modification of the person’s bodily
appearance or functions by medical, surgical or other means; and
(c) other expressions of the person’s gender, including
name, dress, speech and behaviour.
213H Prohibition of conversion therapy
(1) A person who is a health service provider must not
perform conversion therapy on another person. Maximum penalty—
(a) if the other person is a vulnerable person— 150 penalty
units or 18 months imprisonment; or [$20,000 $133.45/unit]
(b) otherwise—100 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.
[$13345]
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is a misdemeanour.
(3) In this section— vulnerable person means—
(a) a child; or
(b) a person who has impaired capacity within the meaning of
the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 for making decisions about a
particular treatment offered by a health service provider; or
(c) a person with an impairment that is likely to
significantly limit the person’s ability to understand a particular treatment
offered by a health service provider.
That is the legislation and for the purposes of
understanding I’ll just mention that “Misdemeanour” essentaily means, under 3
of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code), An indictable offence must
be prosecuted on an indictment (a written charge by a person authorised to
prosecute criminal offences) before a judge and jury in the District or Supreme
Court.
ACT:
LGBTQ conversion
therapy banned in Canberra as Sexuality and Gender Identity Conversion
Practices Bill passes
By Peta Doherty and Tahlia Roy Thursday 27 August 2020
“A bill seeking to ban LGBTQ conversion therapy in Canberra
has been passed in the ACT Legislative Assembly, with Labor MLA and Uniting
Church minister Gordon Ramsay choking back tears in the chamber.
The Sexuality and Gender Identity Conversion Practices Bill
means from early next year conversion practices used on protected persons will
attract up to a 12-month jail term or a fine of $24,000.
It also provides for civil penalties, giving the ACT Civil
and Administrative Tribunal the power to issue orders against people complained
about, and order redress and compensation.”
Let’s look at the Legislation:
SEXUALITY AND GENDER IDENTITY CONVERSION PRACTICES ACT 2020
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/sagicpa2020518
SEXUALITY AND GENDER IDENTITY CONVERSION PRACTICES ACT 2020
- SECTION 3 contains the definitions of words, including the definition of
Gender Identity, used in the ACT comes from
DISCRIMINATION ACT 1991
http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/act/consol_act/da1991164/
http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/act/consol_act/da1991164/notes.html#dictionary
"gender identity "means the gender expression or
gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related
characteristics of a person, with or without regard to the person's designated
sex at birth.
Note: Gender identity includes the gender identity that the
person has or has had in the past, or is thought to have or have had in the
past (see s 7 (2)).
SEXUALITY AND GENDER IDENTITY CONVERSION PRACTICES ACT 2020
Part 1 Preliminary
5 Offences
against Act—application of Criminal Code etc
Other legislation applies in relation to offences against
this Act.
Note 1 Criminal Code
The Criminal Code, ch 2 applies to all offences against this
Act (see Code, pt 2.1).
The chapter sets out the general principles of criminal
responsibility (including burdens of proof and general defences), and defines
terms used for offences to which the Code applies (eg conduct, intention,
recklessness and strict liability).
Note 2 Penalty units
The Legislation Act, s133 deals with the meaning of offence
penalties that are expressed in penalty units.
6 Objects
of Act
The objects of this Act are—
(a) to affirm that—
(i) all people have characteristics of
sexuality and gender identity; and
(ii) no combination of those
characteristics constitutes a disorder, disease, illness, deficiency,
disability or shortcoming; and
(b) to recognise and prevent the harm
caused by sexuality and gender identity conversion practices.
Part 2 Sexuality and
gender identity conversion practices
7 Meaning
of sexuality or gender identity conversion practice
(1) In this Act:
sexuality or gender identity
conversion practice means a treatment or other practice the purpose, or
purported purpose, of which is to change a person’s sexuality or gender
identity.
(2) However, sexuality or gender identity
conversion practice does not include a practice the purpose of which is to—
(a) assist a person who is undergoing a gender transition; or
(b) assist a person who is considering
undergoing a gender transition; or
(c) assist a person to express their gender identity; or
(d) provide acceptance, support or understanding of a person;
or
(e) facilitate a person’s coping skills,
social support or identity exploration and development.
(3) Also, sexuality or gender identity
conversion practice does not include a practice by a health service provider
that, in the provider’s reasonable professional judgment, is necessary to—
(a) provide a health service in a manner
that is safe and appropriate; or
(b) comply with the provider’s legal or professional
obligations.
8 Offence—performing
conversion practice on protected person
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person performs a sexuality or
gender identity conversion practice on another person (the recipient); and
(b) the recipient is a protected person.
Maximum penalty: 150
penalty units, imprisonment for 12 months or both. [$24,000 / $160/unit]
(2) A person commits an offence against
subsection (1) whether or not the recipient, or a parent or guardian of the
recipient, consented to the practice.
9 Offence—removing protected person
from Australian Capital Territory for conversion practice
A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person removes another person (the
recipient) from the ACT; and
(b) the recipient is a protected person;
and
(c) the removal is for the purpose of a
sexuality or gender identity conversion practice being performed on the
recipient.
Maximum penalty: 150
penalty units, imprisonment for 12 months or both.
Adlib:
• Crime to
leave the territory to talk to your child
• This act
hilariously legislates away the DSM-V standard for “Gender Dysphoria in
Children” by hilariously stating, in Part 1, 6(a)(ii) “no combination of those
characteristics constitutes a disorder”. So if it’s not a disorder why does it
need treatment?
• Go
camping with your kids in Yass – criminal offence
• The most
mild of all of the Australian State Laws
Victoria:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-04/victorian-gay-conversion-bill-what-is-it/13116998
Here is what we know
about Victoria's gay conversion bill
ABC Radio Melbourne By Matilda Marozzi
4/2/2021
The article says:
“A bill banning LGBTIQ+ conversion practices looks set to
pass the Victorian Upper House today despite concerns from the Opposition,
religious leaders, and health professionals who believe the law may have
"unintended consequences".
Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes said the legislation reflected
the "overwhelming view" of Victorians and came about because the
Government listened to survivors of conversion "therapy".”
And it goes on:
“Nathan Despott is a survivor of 10 years of conversion
practices and a steering committee member at the Brave Network, a support group
for LGBTIQ+ people of faith.
He said the bill was one of the most thorough he had seen in
LGBTIQ+ legislation.
"It is precise and nuanced. It targets harm where it
occurs, it does not stop conversations," he said.”
Further:
“Some medical professionals, including the Australian
Medical Association (AMA) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of
Psychiatrists (RANZCP) are also concerned the bill will have "unintended
consequences.
RANZCP chair Kerryn Rubin stressed it was was "strongly
in favour" of the bill but was worried the wording was not specific
enough.
"The wording of the bill is so vague that current
evidence-based, exploratory-style treatments … could be drawn into this and
viewed as a conversion practice," Dr Rubin said.
"Often these things don't get clarified until there are
test cases.
"My concern is for many practitioners that will mean
they don't want to be a test case, so they will say 'look, I'm actually not
going to work with this group of people because I am too concerned about the
potential ambiguities'."”
https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/591143bab1.pdf
Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition
Bill 2020
Part 1—Preliminary
Division 1—General
1 Purposes
The main purposes of this Act are—
(a) to denounce and prohibit change or suppression
practices;
(c) to prohibit engaging in change or suppression practices,
including through creating offences in relation to engaging in change or
suppression practices and certain related activities; and
3 Objects of this Act
(1) The objects of this Act are—
(a) to eliminate so far as possible the occurrence of change
or suppression practices in Victoria; and
(2) In enacting this Act, it is the intention of the
Parliament—
(a) to denounce and give statutory recognition to the
serious harm caused by change or suppression practices; and
(b) to affirm that a person's sexual orientation or gender
identity is not broken and in need of fixing; and
(c) to affirm that no sexual orientation or gender identity
constitutes a disorder, disease, illness, deficiency or shortcoming; and
(d) to affirm that change or suppression practices are
deceptive and harmful both to the person subject to the change or suppression
practices and to the community as a whole.
5 Meaning of change or suppression practice
(1) In this Act, a change or suppression practice means a
practice or conduct directed towards a person, whether with or without the
person's consent—
(a) on the basis of the person's sexual orientation or
gender identity; and
(b) for the purpose of—
(i) changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender
identity of the person; or
(ii) inducing the person to change or suppress their sexual
orientation or gender identity.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice or
conduct is not a change or suppression practice if it—
(a) is supportive of or affirms a person's gender identity
or sexual orientation including, but not limited to, a practice or conduct for
the purposes of—
(i) assisting a person who is undergoing a gender
transition; or
(ii) assisting a person who is considering undergoing a
gender transition; or
(iii) assisting a person to express their gender identity;
or
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice includes,
but is not limited to the following—
(a) providing a psychiatry or psychotherapy consultation,
treatment or therapy, or any other similar consultation, treatment or therapy;
(b) carrying out a religious practice, including but not
limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism;
(c) giving a person a referral for the purposes of a change
or suppression practice being directed towards the person.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice or
conduct may be directed towards a person remotely (including online) or in
person.
8 Extra-territorial application
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a person engages in conduct outside, or partly outside,
Victoria; and
(b) there is a real and substantial link between the conduct
and Victoria.
(2) This Act has effect in relation to the conduct as if it
had been engaged in wholly within Victoria.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), there is a real and
substantial link with Victoria if—
(a) a significant part of the conduct occurs in Victoria; or
(b) the conduct occurred wholly outside Victoria, but the
effects of the conduct occurred wholly or partly in Victoria.
How does the act deal with “injury” and what are the
punishments?
injury has the same meaning as it has in section 15 of the
Crimes Act 1958
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/
S. 15 def. of injury substituted by No. 6/2013 s. 3(a).
"injury" means—
(a) physical injury; or
(b) harm to mental health—
whether temporary or permanent;
S. 15 def. of harm to mental health inserted by No. 6/2013
s. 3(c).
"harm to mental health" includes psychological
harm but does not include an emotional reaction such as distress, grief, fear
or anger unless it results in psychological harm;
S. 15 def. of serious injury substituted by Nos 58/2008 s.
10(2), 6/2013 s. 3(b).
"serious injury" means—
(a) an injury (including the cumulative effect
of more than one injury) that—
(i) endangers
life; or
(ii) is
substantial and protracted; or
Part 2—Offences relating to change or suppression practices
Division 1—Offences
10 Offence of engaging in one or more change or suppression
practices that cause serious injury
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally engages in a change or suppression
practice directed towards another person (B); and
(b) the change or suppression practice causes serious injury
to B; and
(c) A is negligent as to whether engaging in the change or
suppression practice will cause serious injury to B.
Penalty: In the case of a natural person, level 5
imprisonment (10 years maximum) or a level 5 fine (1200 penalty units maximum)
or both;
[$198,264 / $165.22/penalty unit]
11 Offence of engaging in one or more change or suppression
practices that cause injury
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally engages in a change or suppression
practice directed towards another person (B); and
(b) the change or suppression practice causes injury to B;
and
(c) A is negligent as to whether engaging in the change or
suppression practice will cause injury to B.
Penalty: In the case of a natural person, level 6
imprisonment (5 years maximum) or a level 6 fine (600 penalty units maximum) or
both;
[$99,132 / $165/penalty unit]
Okay so those are the legislative responses to the rapid
growth in trans identification and treatment that we have in three different
jurisdictions.
What does this mean?
If your child shows even the mildest inclinations towards
the interests or behaviours of the opposite sex the schools and the counsellors
and the medical industry will become involved in that. If you try and dissuade
your child from that course you will be engaging in criminal behaviour.
Once you are criminally negligent toward your child, it’s
not a huge leap to expect that you will lose contact with that child or lose
your parental rights or parental responsibilities in regard to your child or
children and that you may see your spouse, under terror of also losing their
child, in a situation where they are forced to agree with the state by entering
your child into these very new and experimental hormone therapies and
surgeries, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
We saw this at the end of 2019 in Texas with the court
battle over parenting of a child within a divorce and the state sided with the
radical gender theorists despite video footage on social media of the boy
saying he was a boy and wanted to stay a boy.
When a case like this comes to a state with these laws
you’re going to keep your mouth shut or be a criminal. Even if you are not
found guilty, if you have the $100,000’s of dollars that you need to defend
yourself, the process is the punishment.
Not only that, Psychiatrists have concerns such that they
won’t even treat people who have severe medical disorders for fear of
prosecution under this law.
Tavistock and Gillick Competence
Remember earlier in this topic when I mentioned the
precedent and law that provided the justification for the Federal Court to
intervene in affirming sex reassignment treatments, that the court only need to
find the child could consent?
That was the concept of “Gillick competence”, that "The term “Gillick” refers to the English case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 (later held by the High Court of Australia in “Marion’s case” to be applicable in Australia) where Lord Scarman held that “the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves a sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148
Puberty blockers:
Under-16s 'unlikely to be able to give informed consent'
1 December 2020
“Children under 16 with gender dysphoria are unlikely to be
able to give informed consent to undergo treatment with puberty-blocking drugs,
three High Court judges have ruled.
The case was brought against Tavistock and Portman NHS
Trust, which said it was "disappointed" but immediately suspended
such referrals for under-16s.
The NHS said it "welcomed the clarity" the ruling
would bring.
One of the claimants, Keira Bell, said she was
"delighted" by the judgment.
Ms Bell, 23, from Cambridge, had been referred to the
Tavistock Centre, which runs the UK's only gender-identity development service
(GIDS), as a teenager and was prescribed puberty blockers aged 16.
She argued the clinic should have challenged her more over
her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.
In a ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice
Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said: "It is highly unlikely that a child
aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of
puberty blockers.
"It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could
understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration
of puberty blockers."
They added: "In respect of young persons aged 16 and
over, the legal position is that there is a presumption that they have the
ability to consent to medical treatment.
"Given the long-term consequences of the clinical
interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet
innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these
as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to
commencing the clinical treatment."
The second claimant, known only as Mrs A, is the mother of a
15-year-old girl with autism, who is awaiting treatment at the clinic.
Speaking to the BBC prior to Tuesday's ruling, she said:
"My fear is - it's not that she transitions - it's that she gets it
wrong."
She said it was "frightening" there was so little
exploration of why a child might be feeling they were the wrong sex before
puberty blockers were given.
"It is distressing to have to wait and to try and
convince someone that your identity warrants medical intervention. However, I
think the downside of getting it wrong, the outcomes of getting it wrong, are
also catastrophic."”
The article goes on, I’ll link it in the description for you
to read but really we get the point of these two tragic cases.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf
“Evidence base to support the use of Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria
69. The claimants submit that the treatment of PBs for GD is
properly described as (i) experimental (ii) a treatment with a very limited
evidence base, and (iii) as a highly controversial treatment. The claimants
rely on witness statements from a number of undoubted experts in various
relevant fields and from academic institutions in the United Kingdom, the USA,
Sweden and Australia who refer to the controversial nature of the treatment and
its limited evidential support.
70. It is not however the court’s role to judge the weight
to be given to various different experts in a judicial review. In our view,
more important is the evidence from the defendant and the evidence base it
relies upon for the use of PBs. In the USA the treatment of GD is not an FDA
approved use and as such PBs can only be used “off-label”. That does not prevent
clinicians, whether in the USA or the United Kingdom, from using PBs for this
purpose, as long as their use falls within the clinician’s professional
expertise. Professor Butler explained that it is very common for paediatric
medicines to be used off-label and that this factor does not render the
treatment in any sense experimental.
71. However, the lack of a firm evidence base for their use
is evident from the very limited published material as to the effectiveness of
the treatment, however it is measured.”
And:
“SECTION D: THE LAW
129. Fourthly, however, that does not mean that every
individual under 16 can achieve Gillick competence in relation to the treatment
proposed. As we discuss below, where the consequences of the treatment are
profound, the benefits unclear and the long-term consequences to a material
degree unknown, it may be that Gillick competence cannot be achieved, however
much information and supportive discussion is undertaken.”
And:
“SECTION E: CONCLUSIONS
139. It will obviously be difficult for a child under 16 to
understand and weigh up such information. Although a child may understand the
concept of the loss of fertility for example, this is not the same as
understanding how this will affect their adult life. A child’s attitude to
having biological children and their understanding of what this really means,
is likely to change between childhood and adulthood. For many children,
certainly younger children, and some as young as 10 and just entering puberty,
it will not be possible to conceptualise what not being able to give birth to
children (or conceive children with their own sperm) would mean in adult life.
Similarly, the meaning of sexual fulfilment, and what the implications of
treatment may be for this in the future, will be impossible for many children
to comprehend.”
And:
“143. The difficulty of achieving informed consent in these
circumstances is further exacerbated by the lack of evidence as to the efficacy
of PBs in treating GD and the long-term outcomes of taking it. We entirely
accept that the fact that a treatment is experimental, or that the long-term
outcomes are not yet known, does not of itself prevent informed consent being
given. Otherwise no experimental treatment could ever be consented to. However,
the combination here of lifelong and life changing treatment being given to
children, with very limited knowledge of the degree to which it will or will
not benefit them, is one that gives significant grounds for concern.”
The main point here is that the concept of “Gillick competence”
to consent, which is the fundamental foundation upon which all of these
decisions have been made here in Australia.
The December 2020 UK High Court’s Tavistock Judgement
directly called into question the fundamental legal basis for “Gillick
competence” consent to hormone blockers, particularly as it pertains to those
under 16, such as the “Jamie” case in the Federal Court where a 15 year old boy
was found to be “Gillick competent” and able to control their own treatment.
The conclusion of the court in the Tavistock decision
regarding the lack of evidence on the success of these experimental treatments
relate to the earlier case I mentioned of the “A” the 13 year old in
Queensland.
I have some analysis from a UK law firm, from their website.
https://www.capsticks.com/insights/gillick-competence-learning-from-bell-v-tavistock-and-portman
“We represent clients from a diverse range of organisations
(both public and private sectors) which includes all forms of NHS
organisations, governmental and regulatory bodies, local authorities, social
housing and registered providers, insurers, defence organisations, private
healthcare providers, charities and primary care providers.”
They write:
“How did the Court decide the issue of Gillick competence
for decision making about puberty blockers?
Applying those criteria, the Court held that the relevant
information that a child would have to understand, retain and weigh up in order
to be Gillick competent in relation to puberty blockers for gender dysphoria,
was:
1. the
immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms;
2. the fact
that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blockers go on to cross sex
hormones (CSH) and therefore that s/he is on a pathway to much greater medical
interventions;
3. the
relationship between taking CSH and subsequent surgery, with the implications
of such surgery;
4. the fact
that CSH may well lead to a loss of fertility;
5. the
impact of CSH on sexual function;
6. the
impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and
life-long relationships;
7. the
unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blockers; and
8. the fact
that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain. The Court
doubted that a 14 or 15 year old would be able to do this, and that 13 year
olds would be highly unlikely to do so. The Court advised that in cases where
clinicians propose this treatment, the benefits of seeking a declaration from
the Court should be considered.”
[ad lib Parenthood,
sexual reproduction, and sexuality within a loving relationship, sexual
satisfaction and closeness that develops between people, a child can have no
idea of that in so far as they can consent to destroy the potential for that in
their lives]
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/18/high-court-puberty-blockers-appeal-nhs-tavistock/
I have an article from Pink News, again which is an advocacy
publication for homo and queernormativity, it says:
NHS wins right to
appeal cruel High Court puberty blockers ruling that restricts healthcare for
trans kids
VIC PARSONS JANUARY 18, 2021
“The NHS has been granted permission to appeal a High Court
ruling that said transgender under-16s cannot give informed consent to puberty
blockers.
The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which runs GIDS, the
only gender clinic for trans youth in England and Wales, said it would appeal
the ruling when it lost the judicial review in December 2020.
The Tavistock’s appeal has now been granted, it was
confirmed Monday (18 January), and will be heard before 22 March, 2022.”
So the Tavistock decision is going to be subject to appeal,
it’s not over yet but I must say that a brick has fallen out of the wall, the
whole edifice may tumble.
Conclusion:
Activist language:
Gender affirming
Assigned gender rather than observed gender.
Question still remains of how we got here, without any
public debate, how we let the medical industry run experiments on children,
without anyone intervening to ask if this is a “do no harm” approach, or indeed
if these children may not even be worse off after treatment as we saw in
Tavistock.
The Tavistock decision shows that the long term consequences
of experimental treatments are unknown.
We are creating a culture of silence with State Parliaments
imposing criminal sanctions for discussing this issue, Victoria being the worst
with legislation proposed to reach beyond the State’s borders. Is that legal?
Judges and rulings are proceeding along the presupposition
that Stage 1 and Stage 2 treatments are wholly or partially reversible (and
dependent upon surgery to reverse in the case of men developing breasts) but
the Tavistock decision, and a growing body of evidence that is coming out of
longitudinal studies show this is not the case and that these experimental
procedures actually have their own dangers.
We can see now that once a child receives a diagnoses a sort
of railroading or pipelining occurs where they are put on a track to surgery
with little challenge, to the point that states have deemed that illegal except
for within a clinical setting.
Why are these issues being herd in the Queensland Supreme
Court when it admits that the Federal Court has greater experience in this
regard, the Family Court was specifically set up for children.
These issues have now been decided by the courts, absent
political leadership and now the States have criminalised discussing the issue
so further developments on the legal front will remain solely the purview of
the Courts.
Hope:
This is not a total black-pill, there is hope, today on the
SBS website I found this article:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/south-dakota-votes-to-restrict-medical-treatments-for-transgender-youth
South Dakota's House
of Representatives has passed a law that would bar doctors in the state from
providing anyone under 16 with puberty-blocking drugs.
“South Dakota's House of Representatives on Wednesday voted
in favour of a law that would see doctors jailed for giving puberty-blocking
drugs to transgender children, the latest in a slew of such bills sweeping the
United States.
The bill, which still has to clear the Senate, would bar
doctors in the state from providing anyone under 16 with the drugs, which can
temporarily stop the body from producing the hormones that lead to puberty, a
reversible process.”
That is fake news, blocking puberty is not a reversible
process it can lead to osteoporosis, lung damage other issues that’s not the
topic today.
The article goes on,
“Fred Deutsch, a
South Dakota Republican Representative, described the procedures ahead of the vote
as "criminal acts against vulnerable children who are too young to
understand the impact".
It follows the introduction in South Carolina of measures
that could see the licences of doctors who treat trans children revoked, one of
a series of such measures in conservative US states.
Lawmakers in Missouri are considering a law that would see
parents who allowed such treatments reported to child welfare, while Republican
legislators in Texas, Georgia and Kentucky have proposed banning gender
reassignment treatment for minors.”
So this proposed law will still have to pass the Senate in
South Dakota and could be vetoed by the State’s Governor but here is a model
for action, for a legislative solution to this issue, indeed even for a debate
because as we have had no debate, no discussion on what we as a society expect
our responsibilities are to these vulnerable children, how we are to protect
our children from those radical ideologues that would experiment on them and
mutilate them for profit. It’s not acceptable and it has to change and this, I
hope, is the start of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment