A 60-day prison sentence for calling an activist a "Fat Lesbian" in Switzerland

[OftenWrong]

We can argue back and forth about which of the conditions he breached, but that doesn't take away the fact these are the conditions. 

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

"The orders instruct him ... to call A.B. by the child’s preferred name and gender pronoun"

Seems clear to me. I don't know about you people.

"Following that decision, the Crown asserted the father had repeatedly broadcast or published information that contravened court orders prohibiting him from discussing aspects of the case that could identify the child and other key parties or the child’s medical status."

 

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Following that decision, the Crown asserted the father had repeatedly broadcast or published information that contravened court orders prohibiting him from discussing aspects of the case that could identify the child and other key parties or the child’s medical status."

 

The offense he committed breached multiple conditions set by the court. This doesn't take away the fact he was given a court order not to use improper pronouns.

[QuebecOverCanada]

21 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

"The orders instruct him ... to call A.B. by the child’s preferred name and gender pronoun"

Seems clear to me. I don't know about you people.

Ok that's part of a contention here.

He contravened on other aspects, such as naming him as a minor publicly. If a matter arises legally between you and your minor child, you can't always give out all infos publicly while it's still under litigation.

For this part you quote, I would agree that it would be preposterous that he would be threatened legally. But it isn't what this case is all about.

Edited October 5, 2023 by QuebecOverCanada

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

But it isn't what this case is all about.

Agreed it's not just about the words he used, he being a father trying to stop his kid from making a terrible mistake at a young and impressionable age. But the fact is a court ordered him to use them, or else face punishment of the law.

[QuebecOverCanada]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Agreed it's not just about the words he used, he being a father trying to stop his kid from making a terrible mistake at a young and impressionable age. But the fact is a court ordered him to use them, or else face punishment of the law.

Hold on a second here.

What the court agreed with the parents was that the child's identity would be protected.

I know the father is disparaged with the testosterone intake the child is taking while being a teenager. But it doesn't give him the right to give his child's name to the media and everyone on social media.

[OftenWrong]

19 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Hold on a second here.

What the court agreed with the parents was that the child's identity would be protected.

I know the father is disparaged with the testosterone intake the child is taking while being a teenager. But it doesn't give him the right to give his child's name to the media and everyone on social media.

As I said there were multiple breaches of the court order here, violations of privacy and yes there are bad parents in the world, of course. But that doesn't take away the fact he was ordered to use certain pronouns and not others by the court. As you know court decisions are used to set a precedent for future cases.

Fortunately another judge disagreed and reduced his sentence from 6 months to 45 days. Would be interesting to hear the basis of that second judges' decision.

Even if you agree with the conviction, the sentence is simply over the top. Six months is excessive, and for that we could look at sentencing of other crimes to compare. Much like the case in your opening post.

We give a pass to violent repeat offenders because prisons/ courts are overflowing.

Edited October 5, 2023 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The offense he committed breached multiple conditions set by the court. This doesn't take away the fact he was given a court order not to use improper pronouns.

Why do you keep reporting part of the information?

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 he being a father trying to stop his kid from making a terrible mistake at a young and impressionable age. 

Again.. your angle on this is very odd. He used to send information in interviews, and cause great distress.. you consistently failed to mention that.

[OftenWrong]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you keep reporting part of the information?

Again.. your angle on this is very odd. He used to send information in interviews, and cause great distress.. you consistently failed to mention that.

My point stands that he was ordered not to speak those pronouns. That's a fact and that's what the thread is about.

I didn't report part of anything. You want to talk about the other things he did, which I mentioned earlier anyway, go right ahead. Just don't bother me about it, it's not on topic.

 

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. My point stands that he was ordered not to speak those pronouns. That's a fact and that's what the thread is about.

2. I didn't report part of anything. You want to talk about the other things he did, which I mentioned earlier anyway, go right ahead. Just don't bother me about it, it's not on topic.

 

1. No, your point was that all of that is evidence of woke madness.

2. Ok, I read it again - you did mention that.

[OftenWrong]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, your point was that all of that is evidence of woke madness.

My point was to show this trend in prosecuting people for saying words in other countries is also starting to happen here.

The fact my example relates to wokism is what's bothering you.

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Ok, I read it again - you did mention that.

Are you not conpletely reading posts again before you respond and make accusations? You really need to fix that issue. I don't like to waste time repeating things I've already said, makes for a boring debate. 

You also referred to me as a "chud" earlier. It's childish and unhelpful. If you're going to be insulting at least do it with some wit and intelligence man. Or is that asking too much...

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 

1. The fact my example relates to wokism is what's bothering you.

2. Are you not conpletely reading posts again before you respond and make accusations? You really need to fix that issue. 

3. You also referred to me as a "chud" earlier. It's childish and unhelpful. If you're going to be insulting at least do it with some wit and intelligence man. Or is that asking too much...

1. No, it's the fact that you know how to present evidence then did a bad job of it.

2. Your problem is worse, and you won't even admit that you did anything wrong. I conceded something in my last post, that's called intellectual honesty.

3. No, I said don't BE a Chud, clearly implying that you aren't one.  See ? Small reading errors happen, no biggie...

 

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, it's the fact that you know how to present evidence then did a bad job of it.

2. Your problem is worse, and you won't even admit that you did anything wrong. I conceded something in my last post, that's called intellectual honesty.

3. No, I said don't BE a Chud, clearly implying that you aren't one.  See ? Small reading errors happen, no biggie...

 

You seem to have a problem acknowledging the fact he was ordered to use certain langiage by the court.

I know what you said MH, and that to me is veiled way of childish name calling used by intellectual cowards. I expected better from you, if not in content then at least in your intentions.

At no point did I troll you for cheap "ups" from the others.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. You seem to have a problem acknowledging the fact he was ordered to use certain langiage by the court.

2. I know what you said MH, and that to me is veiled way of childish name calling used by intellectual cowards.

 

3.I expected better from you, if not in content then at least in your intentions.

4. At no point did I troll you for cheap "ups" from the others.

1. I already said that I read that.  

2. No, we have established that colloquial names, even for people who have done nothing wrong, is ok.  I didn't call you a Chud, I said don't be one, ie. Don't Become One 

3. You are not on ignore.  I enjoy engaging with you but you yourself sometimes fall short in my eyes also.  Hence the admonishment.  Feel free to keep me on my toes. Rest assured that once Chudism stops, and it will, then I will stop referring to that fad.

4. No, nor I.

[I am Groot]

On 10/4/2023 at 10:20 AM, bcsapper said:

A young girl was placed under arrest in the UK recently for telling a policewoman she reminded her of her "lesbian gran".  Thankfully she was released without charge, but she was taken down and processed.

Another girl was arrested, charged, and convicted because she posted the lyrics to her friend's favorite rap song on facebook in memorial to them as they had recently died.

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Most definitely there is a movement to do that. You've been shown links. You are entitled to find all the excuses you want to make, but that is the mentality and attitude coming out today.

Hardner is hardcore pro-trans. It's one of those subjects that makes his eyes bulge out of his head whenever anyone disagrees. Islam is another. Any disrespect for Islam enrages him.

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

What terrifies me is that kind of 'do-gooder Ned Flanderesque' vibe that comes with that censorship. It's always for the good that censorship must be applied. Insulting someone, in my opinion, should not be grounds for an imprisonment. This will lead to power trippers/literal tyrans to abuse that power at their advantage when the time comes.

The small, smooth brain types of the Left always believe they're being noble and good and that their policies are to 'help people'. Therefore, anyone who opposes them must not want to help people, and thus want to hurt people. It's a moral stance that removes the need to discuss things by portraying those who disagree as immoral, hateful, evil, etc. Trudeau has been doing it for years.

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Hold on a second here.

What the court agreed with the parents was that the child's identity would be protected.

I know the father is disparaged with the testosterone intake the child is taking while being a teenager. But it doesn't give him the right to give his child's name to the media and everyone on social media.

Theoretically, how does the father talk to the media without doing this? I mean, refuse to them his name? That won't get you any interviews at all. And once he talks about his son/daughter it's going to be pretty obvious what their name is whether he uses it or not.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I already said that I read that.  

2. No, we have established that colloquial names, even for people who have done nothing wrong, is ok.  I didn't call you a Chud, I said don't be one, ie. Don't Become One 

3. You are not on ignore.  I enjoy engaging with you but you yourself sometimes fall short in my eyes also.  Hence the admonishment.  Feel free to keep me on my toes. Rest assured that once Chudism stops, and it will, then I will stop referring to that fad.

4. No, nor I.

My god    Talk about having delusions of adequacy

 

[QuebecOverCanada]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Theoretically, how does the father talk to the media without doing this? I mean, refuse to them his name? That won't get you any interviews at all. And once he talks about his son/daughter it's going to be pretty obvious what their name is whether he uses it or not.

You can't breach confidentiality agreements when it involves a minor in a court case. It's the same story as to why we don't have the names of minors killing people in the news.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 10/4/2023 at 9:34 AM, Michael Hardner said:

It's coming here... can't wait for the provincial NDP to use the notwithstanding clause to mandate a whole lot of stuff that will make Conservatives pass out...

You're a fat lesbian.

[Michael Hardner]

49 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're a fat lesbian.

When I said "Graham, will you please call me a fat lesbian.." that is NOT WHAT I MEANT 

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're a fat lesbian.

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

My god    Talk about having delusions of adequacy

 

Yeah we got all kinds of characters here.

[OftenWrong]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't call you a Chud, I said don't be one, ie. Don't Become One 

Being is not becoming. Being is a state of being. Had you said Don't become one, it's unambiguous. Saying don't be a chud implies the person was one, as in the word be.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are not on ignore.  I enjoy engaging with you but you yourself sometimes fall short in my eyes also.  Hence the admonishment.

Why thank you, I am heartened by this fact. Yes I do have certain failings, hence moniker. But it's so hard to get to your level. Which reminds me I always wanted to ask, when did you stop being a chud?