CANADA
- Canadian Father Sentenced for Trying to Protect Daughter from Transgender Medical Procedures – 2021 British Columbia
- “STOP SOGI!” – Legal Action Commencing – CultureGuard
OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS
This is the criminal code section 163.1 from the Canada Justice Laws website :
This outlines the laws that schools are breaking regarding showing of the pornographic books and materials, and grooming to children under the age of 18yrs.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-163.1.html
UNITED STATES
- Senate Bill No. 107 – Approved by Governor September 29, 2022 – VIEW SOURCE
Several states in the US have enacted, or are contemplating, laws that regard “gender affirming care” as criminal abuse which means parents and practitioners who seek to medically transition children can be penalised. The purpose of this bill is to bend the rules which would normally allow those states to prosecute residents who go to another state for the purposes of circumventing these laws. In this sense, California becomes a “sanctuary” for those who want to mutilate and sterilise children without threat of criminal penalty. Read more at “Newsom Signs Bill Making California “Sanctuary State” For Children Seeking ‘Gender Affirming’ Surgery – Without Parental Consent”
SB 107, Wiener. Gender-affirming health care.
(1) The United States Constitution generally requires a state to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Existing law authorizes, upon the demand made by another state, the extradition of a person charged with committing an act in this state that results in a crime in the demanding state, as specified. Existing law sets forth procedures by which a person may enforce a judgment for the payment of money and child custody orders issued by the court of a state other than California. Existing law authorizes a California court or attorney to issue a subpoena if a foreign subpoena has been sought in this state. Existing law generally prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient, enrollee, or subscriber without first obtaining an authorization, unless a specified exception applies, including that the disclosure is in response to a subpoena.
This bill would prohibit a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from releasing medical information related to a person or entity allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care in response to a criminal or civil action, including a foreign subpoena, based on another state’s law that authorizes a person to bring a civil or criminal action against a person or entity that allows a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. The bill additionally would prohibit law enforcement agencies from knowingly making or participating in the arrest or extradition of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state’s law against providing, receiving, or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care in this state, as specified.
(2) Existing law, known as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, provides the state exclusive jurisdictional basis for making an initial child custody determination, and permits a California court to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction in specified circumstances. Existing law permits a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in another state is a more appropriate forum.
Existing law permits a California court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the petitioner has wrongfully taken the child from another state or engaged in similar reprehensible conduct, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a court from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child if there is evidence that the taking or retention was a result of domestic violence.
The bill would prohibit the enforcement of an order based on another state’s law authorizing a child to be removed from their parent or guardian based on that parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. The bill would prohibit a court from finding that it is an inconvenient forum where the law or policy of another state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined, and the provision of such care is at issue in the case before the court. The bill would authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care. The bill would additionally prohibit a court from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child, if the taking or retention was for obtaining gender-affirming health care or mental health care. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable.
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs G.G.
No. 16-273 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
LEGAL ARGUMENT ……………………………….. 6
I. THIS COURT SHOULD REJECT THE DEPARTMENTS’ DIRECTIVE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE CONCEPT OF A DIFFERENTIAL “GENDER IDENTITY.” …………………………………. 6
II. THIS COURT SHOULD GIVE NO EFFECT TO THE DEPARTMENTS’ INTERPRETATION
BECAUSE IT REPLACES SCIENTIFIC REALITY WITH AN ARTIFICIAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCT BUILT UPON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, FRAUD AND HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION. ………………. 20
AUSTRALIA
- MATERIAL WILL BE POSTED HERE SOON, CHECK BACK
IRELAND
ENGLAND
- 2020 : Keira Bell vs Tavistock : High court ruled that children under 18 can not connect to puberty blockers.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/high-court-rule-case-over-024530907.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_v_Tavistock
The court accepted that gender dysphoria existed and acknowledged that it could cause extreme distress which may be alleviated by PBs. However, it found that in order for a child to have the requisite competency to consent to PB treatment the child or young person would need to understand, retain and weigh up the following 8 factors:
- the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms;
- the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blockers go on to cross sex hormones and therefore that s/he is on a pathway to much greater medical interventions;
- the relationship between taking cross sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery;
- the fact that cross sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility;
- the impact of cross sex hormones on sexual function;
- the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships;
- the unknown physical consequences of taking puberty blockers; and
- the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.
The court concluded that it was ‘highly unlikely’ that a child aged 13 or under would ever be competent to give legally-valid consent, and ‘very doubtful’ that a child aged 14 or 15 could properly understand and weigh up the long term risks and consequences. For young persons aged 16 and 17, the court acknowledged the legal presumption of consent, but nonetheless said there may be cases in which questions over competency should be raised by clinicians.
ASIA
- MATERIAL WILL BE POSTED HERE SOON, CHECK BACK
AFRICA
- MATERIAL WILL BE POSTED HERE SOON, CHECK BACK
SOUTH AMERICA
- MATERIAL WILL BE POSTED HERE SOON, CHECK BACK