B.C. father gets 6 month prison sentence after speaking against trans child's hormone treatments

• By Drea Humphrey

A B.C. publication ban is unreasonably silencing our reporting

A father of trans child was jailed for speaking out against their child's gender transition. The government issued a publication ban to stop journalists form reporting on the case. Rebel News fought that publication ban in court.

469 Donors
Goal: 500 Donors

Donate

It appears a shocking new precedent has just been set by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. On Friday, Justice Michael Tammen sentenced a B.C. father to a whopping six month prison term, plus a $30,000 fine, payable to Ronald MacDonald House Charities.

The six month term meant that the father is to spend another 134 days behind bars, in addition to time served awaiting his trial without bail.

The stiff sentence came after the B.C. father, known simply as C.D. because of a publication ban, plead guilty to contempt of court for breaching orders that restricted how much he could inform the public about his case, A.B. vs. C.D.

The A.B. vs. C.D. case was about the father's inability to prevent the medical transitioning, and almost certain sterilization, of his child without his consent.

The case has gained international attention due to it’s unprecedented nature, which included a now expired protection order issued by Justice Francesca Marzar that restricted the father from referring to his biologically female child, who now identifies as a transgender boy, as a “she”, because doing so would be considered “family violence.”

Many of the bans that were designed to silence C.D. from speaking out about key details regarding the case also silence Canadian press from informing the public about matters of public interest. For example, the names of the doctors involved in the child’s medical transitioning by use of cross sex hormone treatments, which are linked to long term health issues and permanent sterility.

That’s why we at Rebel News have hired a lawyer to help us have the orders varied, and ask you to help support that legal challenge at LetUsReport.com.

C.D. partook in various media interviews, some which were in breach of the bans for reasons he repeatedly explained as being what he believed was best for his child. He state his goal was to warn other parents about key players and systems like the controversial gender theory school curriculum called SOGI 123 that he believed influenced his child’s rapid onset gender dysphoria.

Justice Tammen showed no mercy with such reasoning in his court room.

Justice Tammen also made it known that the final statement provided by C.D. — which came shortly after the justice made it known he felt the 45 day jail time that was proposed from both counsels was, in his opinion “woefully inadequate — helped mitigate the length of his sentence.

Click Here to watch the full report on how Justice Tammen ruled on this matter, and see some of the reactions from C.D’s supporters.

The publication bans that this father felt so convicted to breach, to the point of being imprisoned in an effort to prevent other parents going through similar things — like the B.C. mom who filed an injunction after discovering her child had been scheduled to have both breasts removed without her consent — show no sign of stopping anytime soon.

Just prior to the court room being dismissed, the crown lawyer suggested that another publication ban be issued to prevent media from mentioning the names of out of country news sources like Mass Resistance, and The Federalist, who have also interviewed the father and allegedly refused to take down publications even though they may identity the child.

Although, Justice Tammen did not issue such and order on Friday, he did say he agreed with one. Imagine that!

While I believe the child does deserve privacy, and should not be named in publications, freedom of press must also be weighed in such decisions.

If a Canadian court were to forbid journalists like myself from clearly reporting on how international media outlets that are not bound by Canadian publication orders have now become key factors in an unprecedented conviction of a father whom I’ve closely reported on, where does the silencing line get drawn?

Please help join our costly, but important, fight to have the publication bans in this case varied in a more fair and balanced manner, one that protects both the child, and freedom of press in Canada by donating at LetUsReport.com.

Editor's Note: 

MassResistance has issued a statement to Rebel News addressing the claims made by Smith in the video about the organization. A written statement from Brian Camenker describes MassResistance as an "international pro-family organization that helps people fight the radical agendas of the Left."

The statement explains that MassResistance published documents pertaining to the “C.D.” case to expose the "frightening extent of the permanent “sex-change” damage that a “gender clinic” was putting C.D's 13-year-old daughter in, and the clinic’s official declaration that she was “competent” to sign a consent form to do this without the parents’ permission." 

MassResistance claims C.D. provided these documents to them and asked the organization to post them, stating that "after we did so, he thanked us and made public statements supporting what we did. He also spoke on camera discussing those documents. People across Canada have thanked us for exposing this and informing them. The idea that the father’s decision to do this somehow “hurts” the daughter is an invention of the courts and the LGBT lawyers. We’ve never seen such a ban enforced anywhere else in the world in this situation. But one person criticizing our decision does not want anyone to be able to see them." 

MassResistance also submits that Smith has accused MassResistance organizer Arthur Schaper of "mesmerizing the father into doing all this by contaminating [the father’s] brain with right-wing propaganda.”

According to Camenker, "that is patently absurd." Camenker rejects Smith's labelling of the group as “right-wing grifters” and denies using C.D.'s plight to make money, asserting that in "in spite of that negative feedback, however, we feel that the time and effort we’ve spent supporting the father is critically important, and we will continue to pursue this."