B.C. father changes story on speaking out against child’s transition after facing more jail time

• 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

The controversial imprisonment of the B.C. father who was jailed after speaking out about his inability to delay the medical transitioning of his biologically female child came to a head during the first two days of his trial.

In hopes that a plea bargain would be accepted, the father, who we are legally obligated to refer to as C.D., pled guilty to criminal contempt for breaching various publication bans and orders that restrict what he is allowed to disclose publicly about his case.

C.D.’s lawyer, Carey Linde, and Daniel Pruim, the Crown lawyer, brought forward a plea bargain which included a total of 45 days in jail, including time served and 18 months of probation for C.D.

On Tuesday, C.D. took the stand to explain why he had continued to breach the publication bans in speaking out. He said it never had anything to do with transgender issues, or disrespecting the courts. It had everything to do with his duty as a parent to protect his child from undergoing treatments that can cause health issues, including sterility, prior to them reaching the age of 18. He felt it was his duty to warn others about his inability to prevent this from occurring to his child.

Justice Michael Tammen, who is presiding over the matter, showed no signs of being sympathetic to the father’s reasoning. Tammen made it clear that his position is that C.D.’s numerous breaches of the publication bans, including posting interviews with his face, full name, and information about his child, put his child’s privacy at risk.

On day two of the trial, just prior to a lunch break, Justice Tammen made it clear to everyone in attendance that he was considering more jail time for the father, and that he believed that 45 days in jail for the breaches would be “woefully inadequate, and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Suddenly, the maximum sentence of five years no longer seemed implausible to many of C.D.’s supporters present in the courtroom.

When the trial resumed after lunch, Jenn Smith, a friend of C.D. who recently spoke at a protest in support of ending medical transitioning of children, took the stand and stated his belief that “far-right” nutcases had gotten to C.D. and used him for their own gain. Smith argued that this should be considered when the judge makes his decision as to why C.D. chose to speak out.

C.D. took the stand shortly after that, and contradicted what he had explained on day one of the trial and in many interviews he’s done in the past, including this one with Rebel News. His day two testimony was more in line with Smith’s argument in defence of his actions. C.D. explained that he felt he had been used by certain publications, and that maybe even his Christian upbringing had played a role in his belief that his child would be better off waiting until 18 to make such decisions.

Click here to watch my reaction to the first two days of C.D.’s trial and my interview with some of C.D.’s supporters who attended, including Jenn Smith.

We at Rebel News are continuing our legal challenge against the publication bans that C.D. landed in jail for violating, because they also restrict how I can keep you informed on this important case. Please help support our legal challenge by donating at LetUsReport.com.