Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

(lightly edited February 20th, 5 pm)

Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson is being persecuted for allegedly violating court orders that seek to keep a hermetic seal on information about an explosive BC case about a transgender child legally emancipating herself from her father in order to take cross-sex hormones.

This case, as prominent child advocate Jenn Smith has said, is the most important case in Canada right now on the transgender file. But its importance far exceeds transgenderism itself.

I am not overstating the matter when I say that the stakes include the credibility of the legal system itself. Because in the course of hearing this case, the courts have dispensed with objective reality. And when the courts lose contact with reality, they can no longer be relied on to seek truth in the settling of disputes, the interpretation of laws, or the trying of persons accused of crimes.

I say this with considerable grief, because as readers of this blog will know, I love the law; I love good judicial reasoning; I love that the full intellectual prowess of the judiciary is brought to bear on the needs and disputes of ordinary people with, so often, results that rest in the common fundamental humanity that unites us all. We're losing all that, because the courts are sacrificing their own integrity to kowtow to a destructive and delusional cult known as "transgenderism."

How far gone are the courts? Beginning with a decision by Mr. Justice Bowden heard almost exactly a year ago, this child was described to the court as "a transgender boy." Now, there is no such thing as a "transgender boy." Once a judge will believe that there is, all bets are off as to what else they can be made to believe.

What has been done to this child - in short, it's been the grooming and recruitment of a vulnerable girl to trust predatory adults rather than to trust her parents - is also a wrecking ball for all of family law. What is a parental right worth, or the legal protection of liberty in parenting, if teachers, school counsellors, psychologists, or doctors can waltz into a child's life & take over ad litem guardianship to legally oust her parents from her care?

We assume that because these people have credentials and a professional license, that they cannot possibly be harmful for a child. But professional licensing means nothing any more; the regulatory bodies are only protectionist, and they too have fallen victim to the same cult.

It is staggering to consider how much of the legal framework of democratic life is under threat. After all, how much of the concept of parental duty can survive if a parent exercising his duty to perfection loses his legal position as parent when he does so?

If you have not heard about this case or read the decision, you may think I am talking gibberish. So here is the super-condensed version:

a) child of recently-divorced parents exhibits signs of social distress at school, and is talked into identifying as the opposite sex by school counsellors without her parents' knowledge.

b) counsellors get child into the hands of a psychologist and an endocrinologist who put just one treatment option in front of her, and when the father objects, jointly take custody of the child for legal purposes. They hand the girl over to a lawyer who has her own tortured history with sexual identity, and who is on record as believing that parents pose a danger to children who are anything but perfect ordinary heterosexuals. She is quoted to that effect toward the end of this article: https://www.straight.com/life/652381/vancouver-school-boards-lgbtq-policy-sparks-debate

c) this lawyer works tightly with the lawyer for the girl's mother, and with lawyers for the psychologist, the endocrinologist, the hospital, the ministry of education, and for the parent-hating lawyer herself, and as a phalanx, they descend on the court and demolish the case the father's lawyer is able to put forward on short-notice preparation & a shoestring budget.

d) while dizzying the father and his legal team with a never-ending onslaught of procedural shenanigans in front of duped or complicit judges, the parent-hating lawyer engineers the child's legal name & "sex" change.

e) in the BC Court of Appeal, these measures are presented to gullible judges as "irreversible" reasons why they cannot back the child away from her toxic drug regime, and despite being three smart judges, all of them sing from the same song sheet as the court below, and they keep the drug regime in place.

f) the father is not only denied his parental right to protect his daughter from these vultures, but also, he is prohibited from talking to his daughter about his opinions, from talking to anyone about his experiences, and finally, there is a publication ban even on the names of the medical professionals who have done this twisted thing to this child.

g) when the father does talk to the few media who want to interview him (most from outside the country), the phalanx of opposing lawyers complain to a sympathetic judge, Madam Justice Marzari. When one lawyer says she is reluctant to exercise the full force of the court order, which says the father will go to jail if he refers to his daughter as a girl or talks to the press, Marzari says, yes, it would be hard on the child if her father goes to jail. When the lawyer demurs that it would be hard on the father for his own sake, the judge doubles down on saying that the father's fate matters only on the basis that it might pain the child.

This, to me, was the single most self-degrading moment for the courts in all the hearings I heard (and I heard all but the first one). The judge flat-out denied a Canadian man his fundamental humanity, to the point of not acknowledging that he could feel pain.

We treat food animals better than this.

A judge who does not believe in the humanity of men does not belong in a Canadian courtroom. I am normally not a "heads should roll" kind of problem-solver, but there is no prospect of recovery for a judge from an error like this - not in 2019. That she did this immediately after denying a motion that she should recuse herself due to having been president of an organization that lobbies to promote the transcult is further testament of her spectacular lack of self-awareness.

At the very least, she should never hear cases involving men, and male lawyers should refuse to appear before her, especially if they represent male clients.

OK, so that wasn't super-condensed. But it brings us to today where we have:

- a formerly healthy, if suffering due to family breakup, girl now taking testosterone for nearly a year, her voice gone raspy and facial hair growing, along with all the other toxic side effects that are so far invisible,

- the case possibly en route to the Supreme Court of Canada, if the resources can be mustered for the father, while the unwitting public purse pays endlessly for the opposing phalanx of lawyers,

- a father growing increasingly restive from having his ability to tell his story - the story of a parent whose child has been kidnapped - constrained,

- a growing body of support for the father, and public alarm about the power of the transcult's "long march through the institutions," and

- growing frustration with the courts for being both inaccessible, and unresponsive to ordinary people who do manage access, and uncaring about law.

Similar to the Alberta citizens who finally dismantled the environmental activist blockades today in frustration with the federal Liberal government's incoherent paralysis, the father has decided to publicize the case in frustration with the court's inability to apply the law correctly. When institutions fail, the people will do what they have to do to keep society going. He began speaking out last week, and did interviews with some Canadian on-line personalities, among them Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson, Frank Vaughan, and Jenn Smith.

The phalanx of lawyers, no doubt seeing another opportunity to siphon some money from the public purse and to intimidate disobedient parents, began spraying C&D letters at anyone involved, and that resulted in some court appearances by Laura Lynn, Jenn, and the father.

The comedy, if only it were funny, thus continues.

I am writing this post in part to talk about a small part that I played in the case - I applied to intervene in the BC Court of Appeal hearing. I did this because something like 5 trans-promoting organizations were applying to intervene, and having watched all the lower court judges succumb mindlessly to transgender propaganda, I felt the appeal court judges would need an interpreter to cleanse those submissions of their embedded mind games.

I am ideally placed to do this interpretation, having a health care background and having watched the transcult since its infancy make its way into public schools. It was honestly torture listening to lawyers and judges trying to make sense of the medical information before them, and my instinct was to try to help the poor creatures. As for the propaganda, which is just a thin veneer over a gaslighting and parental alienation objective, it is easy enough to decipher: remember pig-latin? You just have to know the code, and the real messages quickly become clear.

I also applied because I have some expertise in the issue of professional malpractice, a possibility the court simply did not factor in. Credentials seem to dull the court's critical thinking faculties, so that it simply never occurred to them to question whether a psychologist or an endocrinologist might be either incompetent, or might have malign intent, even if what they were recommending on the basis of their credentials was nothing less than the mutilation of a child's body.

Given the courts' history of trustingly believing the unlikely parent-hating pathologist Charles Smith in Ontario infant death cases, a guy who was subsequently shown to be literally making stuff up, one would think judges would be suspicious of a couple of medical types who were trying to transition a kid within hours of meeting her for the first time. But the only suspicion the courts seemed to have was reserved for the medical experts who sent in affidavits supporting the father's reluctance to put his daughter on this road while she was still a minor, and while the idea was still pretty new for her.

The appeal court judge who heard the intervener applications heard them all out with deference, except for mine. I got about five minutes in, and he suddenly realized it was almost break time, so he asked me a couple of questions, taking me totally out of sequence relative to my planned notes, although I did get most of my points made in the end.

In the end he granted intervener status to six organizations, four of them representing the transcult, and two representing the rule of law in Canada. He denied my application, as well as that of one of the transcult organizations. Mr. Justice Goepel's decisions on the intervener applications is here: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2019/2019bcca297/2019bcca297.html.

And the points I had wanted to make as an intervener were precisely the traps that the appeal court panel that heard the appeal subsequently fell into. They were made to believe that testosterone is "therapy," when in fact it is poison for girls; they didn't perceive that parental alienation is a feature of trans recruitment, not a bug; and finally, they failed to be properly untrusting of medical and psychological licensing.

They also catastrophically failed the girl when they judged her to have been mature enough to consent to having her body altered to mimic masculinity. A parent activist in Burnaby later shared with me some very useful materials on the topic of maturity, which should have been before the court:

I am also writing about this case because I am alarmed at the courts' conversion into an Inquisition. The courts are unique as an institution because they are designed to detect and correct THEIR OWN errors. The existence of the appeal mechanism recognizes that errors occur, and recognizes also that to protect the courts' credibility, justice must be done even if it means that errors made by judges must be exposed - and really exposed: they must be acknowledged and picked apart in open court.

And courts have made catastrophic errors, often. The increasing remoteness of the appeal process is one of the more alarming aspects of the Access to Justice crisis. The whole wrongful conviction genre stands as proof that judges are tragically fallible (and that all the other parts of the system are too). But the errors are not the problem. It's pretending they didn't happen and sweeping them under the carpet that degrades the institution of the judiciary - because to hide mistakes, they have to become increasingly draconian.

The Court of Appeal did dial back some of the restrictions on the dad. But they failed as an institutional error-correction mechanism because they did not correct the basic mistake that Justices Bowden and Marzari made in believing that the whole transgender phenomenon is not a farce and a delusion of money-making advocates.

They failed on the precautionary principle, because they kept the girl on the drugs while the matter remains in doubt, rather than taking her off them until the father was satisfied.

And they still referred to the girl as "he."

Which is why I think it is now open season on how we refer to judges. We can call them:
Madam Justice Bowden.
Mr. Justice Marzari.
Madam Chief Justice Hinkson.
Madam Justice Goepel.
Madam Chief Justice Bauman.
Madam Justice Groberman.
Mr. Justice Fisher.

Because sex is no longer verifiable in law, there is no way to prove that that's wrong.

For anyone who has read this far, I want to say one other thing: this is not the first case of its kind. There was a nearly identical case in Prince George in 2016, which as far as I recall received little reporting, barring the little article below. There too, the judge fell fully into line with the nonsense about sex being "assigned at birth."

And you think 14 is too young to decide whether to mutilate your body? The kid in Prince George was ELEVEN. And the drug the judge left that girl on was not testosterone. It was Lupron.

The courts are now actively confiscating children and poisoning them. And then keeping everyone quiet about it, and upholding each other's decisions as if each were a brilliant piece of jurisprudence.

Oh, and the title of my blog post? "The latin maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio refers to the fact that no action may be founded on illegal or immoral conduct." The courts are not supposed to lend their credibility to thieving knaves and the like.

A "thieving knave" may be comparatively harmless relative to lawyer Barbara Findlay. It turns out she was the child's lawyer in the 2016 case as well, also overriding the father's objections to his daughter being damaged with drugs. I wonder how many other children she has legally kidnapped.