B.C. father who transitioned to a woman wants daughters to call her ‘Momma’

A B.C. man who transitioned to a woman doesn’t want her children to call her ‘Dad’ or ‘Daddy’ anymore.

The person, identified in a court ruling as S.P., prefers that her three young daughters call her ‘Momma’ instead.

S.P. is not about to get her wish immediately.

S.P. and the girls’ mother, identified as C.P., were ordered by a judge to retain a psychologist with experience in transgender issues.

The psychologist is to prepare recommendations to the court on a number of issues, like the appropriate parenting arrangement.

The psychologist will also render an opinion about how S.P. will be referred to.

“She has made it clear to the children that she wishes to be referred to as ‘Momma’ and not by a name that reflects a different gender,” B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker wrote in his reasons for decision that settled a number of things related to the breakdown of the marriage.

As Walker recalled, the marriage failed when the man transitioned to a woman.


https://www.straight.com/life/1314551/bc-father-who-transitioned-woman-wants-daughters-call-her-momma


How on earth did this even ever go to court, seriously?
A court has no right to enforce a ruling to make the ex-wife or the children refer to this Transwoman to their liking

Maybe Ben can explain to me how if the Judge was to force a ruling of the ex and the children is freedom of choice and speech?

Domestic relations (divorce) court, custody matter. Custodial issues go beyond mere possession of the kids, and extend to such things as religion, child health and welfare, education, etc.

What happens if a court rules in favour of 'Momma' how will it be enforced, if the ex wife and children refuse point blank to call this person Momma, will they be arrested - contempt of court maybe?

Original Quill wrote:Domestic relations (divorce) court, custody matter.  Custodial issues go beyond mere possession of the kids, and extend to such things as religion, child health and welfare, education, etc.

The court has no right to force the ex or the children to refer to the biological father in the way he wishes.
This is not a custodial issue either, hence your point once again is abusrd
This has gone to the Supreme court

Vintage wrote:What happens if a court rules in favour of 'Momma' how will it be enforced, if the ex wife and children refuse point blank to call this person Momma, will they be arrested - contempt of court maybe?

This is the problem surrounding Bill C16 in Canada Vintage
It basically makes it an offense to misgender someone
It had all the right intentions to protect Transgender people, but by doing so made misgendering basically a potential criminal offense
Which is ridiculous

You should look it up Vintage

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Domestic relations (divorce) court, custody matter.  Custodial issues go beyond mere possession of the kids, and extend to such things as religion, child health and welfare, education, etc.

The court has no right to force the ex or the children to refer to the biological father in the way he wishes.

Yes it does. The court can simply remove the children from the non-complying parent, restrict visitation, etc.

phil wrote:This is not a custodial issue either, hence your point once again is abusrd
This has gone to the Supreme court

Custodial issues are the conditions under which the child or children are raised. This is a rather extreme issue, but nonetheless it fits the definition.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will overturn or amend the custodial order. But, as domestic matters are complicated and are best determined by experts, I see a strong possibility that the Supreme Court will decline jurisdiction.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

The court has no right to force the ex or the children to refer to the biological father in the way he wishes.

Yes it does.  The court can simply remove the children from the non-complying parent, restrict visitation, etc.

phil wrote:Bollocks. This has nothing to do with removing the children. This has gone to the supreme court. For a decision over how the children adn the ex wife should refer to the new identity of the husband

Custodial issues are the conditions under which the child or children are raised.  This is a rather extreme issue, but nonetheless it fits the definition.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will overturn or amend the custodial order.  But, as domestic matters are complicated and are best determined by experts, I see a strong possibility that the Supreme Court will decline jurisdiction.

Its got fuck all to do with custodial issues here.
Again its the supreme court you idiot
Its one person thsi fuckwit trying to impose his beliefs onto the children and the ex-wife
That is denying them their freedom of expression and enforcing his beliefs onto them
Hence it has nothing to do with custodial rights but imposing a view how others should address and see this person
Its the worst form of Totalitarianism. Enforcing a view against the will of people

If the judge were to rule that they must call this person Momma, he or she will have violated their inalienable right to free speech.

Rights can be violated; governments can even take them away. But that doesn't mean we aren't born with them.

Ben Reilly wrote:If the judge were to rule that they must call this person Momma, he or she will have violated their inalienable right to free speech.

Rights can be violated; governments can even take them away. But that doesn't mean we aren't born with them.

It means you were never born with them
These rights were given to you, being as they are enshrined in law
As seen here and with Bill C16. There would not be a violation in law
The violation would mean and require the ex and the children to refer to the person in questioin by their prefered pronouns.

Hence nobody is born with an inalienable right and as seen here the law enables such a violation of the very basic principles that you speak of regarding freedom of expression

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If the judge were to rule that they must call this person Momma, he or she will have violated their inalienable right to free speech.

Rights can be violated; governments can even take them away. But that doesn't mean we aren't born with them.

It means you were never born with them
These rights were given to you, being as they are enshrined in law
As seen here and with Bill C16. There would not be a violation in law
The violation would mean and require the ex and the children to refer to the person in questioin by their prefered pronouns.

Hence nobody is born with an inalienable right and as seen here the law enables such a violation of the very basic principles that you speak of regarding freedom of expression

You were born with them, and it is immoral for anyone to deny you of them.

Otherwise there would be nothing wrong with slavery, so long as the government said it was okay.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


It means you were never born with them
These rights were given to you, being as they are enshrined in law
As seen here and with Bill C16. There would not be a violation in law
The violation would mean and require the ex and the children to refer to the person in questioin by their prefered pronouns.

Hence nobody is born with an inalienable right and as seen here the law enables such a violation of the very basic principles that you speak of regarding freedom of expression

You were born with them, and it is immoral for anyone to deny you of them.

Otherwise there would be nothing wrong with slavery, so long as the government said it was okay.

In which era were you born onto such rights?

Hence your view is irrational

If rights were created, then nobody was born onto such rights. They were born into an era, when ssaid rights existed for people. Even then as seen. These rights are not protected and it favours the view of a minority. Hence the tyranny of a minority.

Would you like a lessoin in this in history Ben?

Here is an example of why nobody is actually born with rights. As they can be easily taken away or never had in the first place.

Lets take the Jews as an example of where under the far left, far right and autocracy. With the later in Russia. Ensured that Jews were never born with rights. Even more so with Jews as a nation they are still denied this basic right fo slef determination. The only people that others call into question. The very nation state of Israel.

What rights were Jews born into in Europe through History Ben?
Lets start with this

Ben Reilly wrote:If the judge were to rule that they must call this person Momma, he or she will have violated their inalienable right to free speech.

Rights can be violated; governments can even take them away. But that doesn't mean we aren't born with them.

That's a good argument...for the US. But British Columbia is Canada. I don't know how the Supreme Court of Canada interprets the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms on this this specific question:

Wiki wrote:Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the political opposition.

As Victor often says, the adjective reasonable can change the meaning of a law drastically. Would a lower Domestic Court order fall into a "reasonable limit" category of restricted speech? And keep in mind, the best interests of children is the standard of adjudication, at least under the Uniform Child Custody Control Act ('UCCCA'). That might throw the whole debate of Trans-rights v. Feminism right out the window.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


It means you were never born with them
These rights were given to you, being as they are enshrined in law
As seen here and with Bill C16. There would not be a violation in law
The violation would mean and require the ex and the children to refer to the person in questioin by their prefered pronouns.

Hence nobody is born with an inalienable right and as seen here the law enables such a violation of the very basic principles that you speak of regarding freedom of expression

You were born with them, and it is immoral for anyone to deny you of them.

Otherwise there would be nothing wrong with slavery, so long as the government said it was okay.

In which era were you born onto such rights?

Hence your view is irrational

If rights were created, then nobody was born onto such rights. They were born into an era, when ssaid rights existed for people. Even then as seen. These rights are not protected and it favours the view of a minority. Hence the tyranny of a minority.

Would you like a lessoin in this in history Ben?

Rights have nothing to do with history, or indeed the law or other people's opinions.

phildidge wrote:Here is an example of why nobody is actually born with rights. As they can be easily taken away or never had in the first place.

Lets take the Jews as an example of where under the far left, far right and autocracy. With the later in Russia. Ensured that Jews were never born with rights. Even more so with Jews as a nation they are still denied this basic right fo slef determination. The only people that others call into question. The very nation state of Israel.

What rights were Jews born into in Europe through History Ben?
Lets start with this

What part of "it's possible to violate people's rights, but that doesn't mean they don't have those rights" is so hard for you?

And there is Bill C16 for you. The erosion of the freedom of expression
You have to be forced in how you refer to the gender of a person. Even though how the new trans cult group conform to gender stereotypes
Transsexuals and biological women are having their rights thrown under the bus by people who simple invent a view of who they are like people who are goths, rockers, Mods, etc.

Constantly people are seeing the freedom of their expression erdoded. To enforce a view onto society. This is nothing like accepting gay rights. This is enforcing people to be compelled to speech

That is totalitarianism

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:Here is an example of why nobody is actually born with rights. As they can be easily taken away or never had in the first place.

Lets take the Jews as an example of where under the far left, far right and autocracy. With the later in Russia. Ensured that Jews were never born with rights. Even more so with Jews as a nation they are still denied this basic right fo slef determination. The only people that others call into question. The very nation state of Israel.

What rights were Jews born into in Europe through History Ben?
Lets start with this

What part of "it's possible to violate people's rights, but that doesn't mean they don't have those rights" is so hard for you?

How hard is it for you to understand these rights only exist by the reality of people creating them?
In times whne people had these rights. Others never had these rights based on prejudice
Hence in law their rights were never violated. It was excepted in law to be allowed to violate them
Hence it took the modern view point to enshrine peoples rights into international law and even then they are still not protected

Human rights are nothing more than a social construct. Created by humans in order to bring about the well being and equality of people
You have to be the most pig ignorant idividual I have evern known on human history

So question to ben
What peoples rights do the Kurds have?
What self determination do they have, even thoug the vast majority of the Un voted against them having self determination?:

Is this a violation of rights or the UN determining who has rights?

Hence people are never born with rights
Rights have always been determined by people for right or wrong

Is that wrong?

Absolutely, but to say people are born with rights, is in essence a failing to understand rights are by reality created and taken away

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

In which era were you born onto such rights?

Hence your view is irrational

If rights were created, then nobody was born onto such rights. They were born into an era, when ssaid rights existed for people. Even then as seen. These rights are not protected and it favours the view of a minority. Hence the tyranny of a minority.

Would you like a lessoin in this in history Ben?

Rights have nothing to do with history, or indeed the law or other people's opinions.

Really?

So they just magically appeared out of thin air then?

What rights did apes have 10 million years ago?

I haven't read the whole thing I admit and don't know the ages of the children but what parent would take this so far,
must be one selfish *******. If you feel you are in the wrong body its not your child's problem, you don't force them to accept the changed you, surely you have to hope that acceptance comes, especially with younger children who may find it surprisingly easy or absolutely confusing..

Vintage wrote:I haven't read the whole thing I admit and don't know the ages of the children but what parent would take this so far,
must be one selfish *******. If you feel you are in the wrong body its not your child's problem, you don't force them to accept the changed you, surely you have to hope that acceptance comes, especially with younger children who may find it surprisingly easy or absolutely confusing..

+1

The selfish kind of person that places their needs above their own children Vintage

If rights were created by governments, then how did anybody know to fight for them?

People didn't just find out they had freedom of speech thanks to the government and go "oh, neat!"

They fought their governments, in many cases, so that the government would recognize the rights they knew their governments were taking away from them.

You can't be given a right, you can only have it taken away.

Much like I can't be given a third leg, but I can have one of my two legs taken away.

And this is the best way I can think to prove that we're all born with rights.

If we weren't, and Didge were arrested for no reason at all and jailed, and a judge said that was legal, I would expect Didge to go along with it. After all, the government said that everything was legal.

If Didge, like everyone else, was born with the right to not be falsely imprisoned, I would expect him to fight for his right to be free.

Ben Reilly wrote:If rights were created by governments, then how did anybody know to fight for them?

People didn't just find out they had freedom of speech thanks to the government and go "oh, neat!"

They fought their governments, in many cases, so that the government would recognize the rights they knew their governments were taking away from them.

You can't be given a right, you can only have it taken away.

Much like I can't be given a third leg, but I can have one of my two legs taken away.

Absurd reasoning

So if if you find out that its okay to hang a homosexual. Did they learn this or did this come naturally?

Your view is that a view comes naturally right?

Your view is based around a right taken away right?

The right was never there to start with.

Through animal history and stil evident today. Animals take what they need to take

They dont stop and have a moral conscience to do they in the vast majority of situations

Which is the point here, the formulation of a conscious ethical morality

The reality is most slaves never held a view of freedom as a right. Its why you see many animals that have been enslaved become subservant to the surroundings of the walls that cage them. Its he same with many prisoners. They become institionalised. The very freedom you speak of would become hell to many who have served 20 years. To them being a part of society is part of the society they are living in

In the many aspects of history. Hardly any have been evef fought over freedom. They have been fought over changing laws and rules that made them suffer hardship. In the one place where slaves did overturn t/heir rulers. It was taken from the French revolution with Haiti.

Hence nobody actually ever has rights. Its a belief instilled into people. That is not a right, its a belief that others see of others that they are denied themselves.

The question you should ask is whether you are truely free. When in reality humans and all animals are slaves to the system they live in

Ben Reilly wrote:And this is the best way I can think to prove that we're all born with rights.

If we weren't, and Didge were arrested for no reason at all and jailed, and a judge said that was legal, I would expect Didge to go along with it. After all, the government said that everything was legal.

If Didge, like everyone else, was born with the right to not be falsely imprisoned, I would expect him to fight for his right to be free.

Many slaves though history went along with the laws that enslaved them. Not all of course but many did. That is what happens when you are ruled over by someone who has control over you. It has nothing to do with laws but control. Showing the weakness of your argument. It has everything to do with control and power. Many powers in history were able to control societies this way and crush any view of freedom.

One of the most prolific societies that did this was the Spartans. That with a population of 10,000 controlled 10 times their numbers of slaves. Its never about rights, but who holds control. People only begin to follow a dream from one they wish to have themselves. Hence MLK. He wished to eradicate to the controls that restricted blacks in society. To look to a time to where black people were treated equally. That was not a view of freedom. That was a view to be treated equally.

Ben Reilly wrote:And this is the best way I can think to prove that we're all born with rights.

maybe we should be but we aren't really

our 'rights' extend only as far as the law allows no matter which area of the world you are born in

Vintage wrote:I haven't read the whole thing I admit and don't know the ages of the children but what parent would take this so far,
must be one selfish *******. If you feel you are in the wrong body its not your child's problem, you don't force them to accept the changed you, surely you have to hope that acceptance comes, especially with younger children who may find it surprisingly easy or absolutely confusing..

I think that's an option that is still on the table. The Court has left the matter in the hands of a psychologist. S/he may well feel it's not the child's issue. The standard is the welfare of the children, and to make them carry that burden, the psychologist may well feel, is not in their best interests.

There is a third option...

If the courts attempt to order those children not to refer to their father as "dad or daddy",  they could always call him something like  "Yo ! Dickhead !"

Or, as a potential fourth option, they could simply stop calling him anything..

'Wolfie wrote:

There is a third option...

If the courts attempt to order those children not to refer to their father as "dad or daddy",  they could always call him something like  "Yo ! Dickhead !"

Or, as a potential fourth option, they could simply stop calling him anything..

+1

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And this is the best way I can think to prove that we're all born with rights.

If we weren't, and Didge were arrested for no reason at all and jailed, and a judge said that was legal, I would expect Didge to go along with it. After all, the government said that everything was legal.

If Didge, like everyone else, was born with the right to not be falsely imprisoned, I would expect him to fight for his right to be free.

People only begin to follow a dream from one they wish to have themselves. Hence MLK. He wished to eradicate to the controls that restricted blacks in society. To look to a time to where black people were treated equally. That was not a view of freedom. That was a view to be treated equally.

Where did that dream come from?

From his knowledge that he was born with rights that were being denied to him and the rest of the black population of the United States.

How is being treated unequally not denying someone a freedom?

If I let Quill post as often as he likes, but restrict you to 20 posts a day, am I not denying you a freedom and thus treating you unequally?

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

People only begin to follow a dream from one they wish to have themselves. Hence MLK. He wished to eradicate to the controls that restricted blacks in society. To look to a time to where black people were treated equally. That was not a view of freedom. That was a view to be treated equally.

Where did that dream come from?

From his knowledge that he was born with rights that were being denied to him and the rest of the black population of the United States.

How is being treated unequally not denying someone a freedom?

If I let Quill post as often as he likes, but restrict you to 20 posts a day, am I not denying you a freedom and thus treating you unequally?

Really? Show me the quotes by MLK to back your assertion and claim?

You are simple ,making up gibberish.

He saw others have rights and rightly believed he and all ablacks in America should be entittled to the same rights equally as white Americans.

Oh and if you restricted me to less posts a day. There is very little I could do about this, being that this is your site. YOu would not be denying me a freedom, but restricting this freedom.

You cannot even get that part right

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

People only begin to follow a dream from one they wish to have themselves. Hence MLK. He wished to eradicate to the controls that restricted blacks in society. To look to a time to where black people were treated equally. That was not a view of freedom. That was a view to be treated equally.

Where did that dream come from?

From his knowledge that he was born with rights that were being denied to him and the rest of the black population of the United States.

How is being treated unequally not denying someone a freedom?

If I let Quill post as often as he likes, but restrict you to 20 posts a day, am I not denying you a freedom and thus treating you unequally?

Freedom is often viewed as equality. There is that aspect of it. As song writer Kris Kristofferson notes: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to do...; and this is because: Nothin', it ain't nothin' honey, if it ain't free...

Again, these aren't rights, but arguments born in negativity.