BC Judge Allows 11-Year Old Girl to Continue Treatment to Transition to a Boy

GeorgiaLeeLang025A British Columbia  Supreme Court judge has appointed a lawyer for an 11-year old Prince George girl who is undergoing hormonal treatment to transition to a boy, a process encouraged by the girl’s mother, but opposed by her father. The child’s parents are separated.

Children diagnosed with gender dysphoria are no longer staying in the shadows, as we read about child gender transitions around the world, including the United Kingdom and Australia. Below is an article I wrote in January 2011 entitled “Children Born in the Wrong Body”.

A Family Court Judge in Australia has approved sexual reassignment surgery for a 16 year-old schoolboy who suffers from a mild form of autism. Justice Linda Dessau heard evidence of the boy’s desperation to escape his gender prison and start his life over as a girl. The Court listened to testimony of significant distress, anxiety and depression, including at least one suicide attempt.

The boy’s family, six specialists and his independent lawyer all confirmed the boy’s maturity to make this life-changing decision. The Court also heard that the boy’s father enjoyed dressing in female attire while he was a young man, but had abandoned this practice as he matured.

The protocol for sexual reassignment treatment of children is to give them hormonal drugs which arrests their journey into puberty, thus delaying the development of breasts in girls and the growth of hair and a deeper voice in boys.

Experts believe this initial treatment gives a child the opportunity to decide if they wish to move forward with further hormonal treatment and later surgery. In this case the Court also ordered that the boy’s sperm be collected and stored in the event the female hormones impeded his ability to have children.

Sex change surgery is highly controversial, particularly for children, but it is not without precedent. Six years ago an Australian Court’s decision to permit a 12 year-old girl to begin hormonal treatment was met by public anger. At the age of 17 the Court also approved a double mastectomy as the girl moved through her reassignment treatment.

While it is reported that most people who complete the surgery are happy with their new lives, for others the surgery is anything but positive. The director of Australia’s only sex change clinic has been under fire for several years as a result of former patients suing her, the Clinic, and the Clinic’s other doctors, alleging negligence and errors in diagnosis.

After allegations were made in 2009, psychiatrist Dr. Trudy Kennedy of the Monash Gender Dysphoria Clinic in Melbourne, was forced to close the clinic for a time. It is reported that eight former patients have complaints against Dr. Kennedy and three lawsuits have been commenced.

One former patient who had surgery when he was 21, maintains that he was misdiagnosed as a transexual by Dr. Kennedy. He underwent surgery to reverse the original procedure and says he now lives as a “mutilated freak”. He received a damage award.

Another 66 year-old man settled out-of-court. He had been sexually abused by his mother for seven years and received the sex change surgery in Dr. Kennedy’s Clinic, despite an opinion from a psychiatrist that the surgery would not help him.

Dr. Kennedy believes that the desire to change gender is biologically based and thus, surgery is the only cure. Other experts say that child abuse and psychiatric ailments may cause gender confusion, which should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

Transexualism is generally misunderstood and public education is lacking. Vancouver human rights lawyer barbara findlay Q.C. remarks:

“Transgendered people-both transexuals who are born in
the wrong body and other people who identify as neither,
or both, male and/or female, continue to suffer
horrendous discrimination.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

GUEST POST: Making Sense of Divorce Statistics

In today’s society, couples are led to believe that 50% of marriages end in divorce. How accurate is this statistic, though? In actuality, relationship experts have found the arbitrary figure of “50%” to be misleading. Recent, detailed analysis indicates that more encouraging statistics lie beneath this often referenced yet exaggerated data point. So, what can couples learn from the new research in order to build a healthy marriage?

First, it’s important to note that this “50% myth” is false. In fact, the divorce rate has been declining since 1980. An article published in The New York Times, “The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On,” states that 70% of spouses who tied the knot during the 1990s have celebrated their 15th anniversary, a 15% increase from those who married in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Moreover, couples walking down the aisle from 2000 onward, are experiencing even fewer causes for separation. The current ratio of divorced couples to married couples is measured at 1:3, and if this trend continues, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never end in divorce.

This steady decrease in divorce rates is based on several factors. Here’s a breakdown of why exactly marriages either thrive or fail, and how couples can use this data to improve their chances of maintaining wedded bliss.

Education Level

According to Sharon Pastore of the Main Line Family Law Center, spouses who have both earned degrees are 25% less likely to divorce than those without collegiate training. In fact, of college-educated people who married during the early 2000s, only 11% had divorced by their seventh anniversary (so, don’t take that “Seven Year Itch” stereotype too seriously!).

Age Range

A study launched by the CDC has concluded that those who tie the knot between 20-24 years old, face a higher threat of getting divorced than any other age demographic. This can be attributed to a young person’s tendency toward self-absorption, emotional immaturity, ill-preparation and tenuous grasp on adult responsibilities.

Financial Status

Households that generate an annual income of at least $50K are 30% less likely to divorce than those living within the budget constraints of a $25K annual income, as determined by the Main Line Family Law Center. Lower socioeconomic status often results in marital tension and subsequent separation. However, ironically, the actual divorce process can potentially lead to financial hardship for both parties involved, as well.

Religious Affiliation

On average, divorce rates within the church tend to be lower than among secular environments. The American Family Association Journal surveyed over 50 churches from 2012-2013, and found that only 22% of married congregants had been divorced. Furthermore, if spouses are actively engaged in practicing a religion together, they are 14% less likely to separate than those lacking any faith-based ties.

Geographic Location

The prevalence of divorce can also depend on where people live. For example, in the United States, West Coast couples are more vulnerable to marriage failure. According to The Demographic and Household Estimates for 2005-2009, conducted by American Community Survey, New York City exhibits less divorce than any other U.S. metropolitan area. Why do Big Apple-based marriages stick? NBC New York reports: “It’s difficult to file for divorce in New York which might contribute to the lower rates. New Yorkers also tend to stay single longer, so there are fewer people per capita getting married, thus fewer people getting divorced.”

Part 2 of this Guest Post will identify other relevant factors.

Guest Author:NANDA DAVIS  is a graduate of George Mason University School of Law. She practices family law in Virginia at The Davis Law Practice. Her articles have appeared in several legal publications including Justipedia.  http://www.davislawpractice.com/

The Ghomeshi Verdict: Part 4

GeorgiaLeeLang100Ghomeshi kept trophies to manipulate and prevent women from going to the police.”

You know how some people keep everything they ever got? They call them packrats, and that’s one reason why former CBC golden boy, Jian Ghomeshi, was able to beat the sexual assault charges in late March.

Jesse Brown, the Canadian journalist who first broke the story about Ghomeshi’s dismissal from CBC, has compiled and interviewed an interesting group of additional Ghomeshi victims.

Many of the successful challenges to the alleged victims/witnesses’ evidence at his recent trial were based on Mr. Ghomeshi’s retention of letters and emails from the women in his life.

For example, former actress Lucy DeCoutere’s courtroom downfall was due in part to a letter from her to  Mr. Ghomeshi that he retained for 13 years; a letter that contradicted her evidence at trial. Why would Ghomeshi keep this letter from a woman who was not his girlfriend and whom he had no sexual relationship?

Mr. Brown believes that he kept files on women in case they would later accuse him of violence… a shocking suggestion, but one based on multiple candid interviews conducted by him.

In 2013 Mr. Ghomeshi sent a letter to a woman, 20 years his junior, after she confronted him about non-consensual violence during their sexual tryst. He wrote:

“Dear _______, ….it IS about sex. it WAS…..i have text messages from you saying you want this…the ‘rough sex’…was something you were very interested in…you WANTED it to continue the next day and in subsequent messages and notes…reread our texts and re-examine our conversations if you wish… i wish for good karma into 2013. yours, jian”

When Mr. Brown interviewed the young woman he asked her what had occurred on their date. She described being slammed against a wall, choked from behind, and repeatedly punched in the head. When asked if she expected this behaviour from Ghomeshi she said there had been an online flirtation concerning rough sex and submission, but she had no idea what she was in for. She said, “I didn’t know men hit women like that during sex.”

The pain was so bad she considered going to the hospital, but Mr. Ghomeshi pleaded with her to give him another chance. He also admitted he was raised in a violent family. She spent another evening with him where he “behaved”, but later she accused him of manipulating her. That’s when he aggressively responded “I have text messages…you WANTED it.”

Investigative reporter Jesse Brown confirmed that he spoke to 23 victims in total and at least three of them described similar scenarios. Ghomeshi would engage in email conversations with his “dates” about BSM (bondage, sadism and masochism) but suggest it was all fantasy. He told them that sexual experimentation was healthy and when they resisted, taunted them as not being “ready” for a guy like him. He asked for nude photos demanding explicit, pornographic poses.

Mr. Ghomeshi kept emails and photos as “trophies”, evidence he would rely on if needed. Mr. Brown reports that his tactics have effectively muted many of the women who would like to speak out, but will not.

Ghomeshi has another trial in June 2016 with another victim. Let’s hope justice prevails….

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

The Ghomeshi Verdict: Part 3

GeorgiaLeeLang016While some have tried to characterize this decision as gender discrimination, the truth is these witnesses can blame no one but themselves for the Court’s devastating critique of their characters.”

The allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi came from three witnesses, each of whom was thoroughly discredited. That the Crown did not abort their case mid-trial is astonishing to me. I can only imagine the conversations between the Crown lawyers and their embarrassment as they presented their case.

The third witness/victim was referred to as S.D. She was a professional dancer and met Mr. Ghomeshi after a performance in Toronto. They had one dinner date and then met after one of her shows and took a walk to a local park. S.D. told the police that it was after dark when they sat on a park bench and kissed. She said she felt his hands and teeth on her neck. She said it was “not right”, “rough”, and unwelcome. She socialized with Mr. Ghomeshi at public events two or three times after that evening and then had no further relationship with him.

Her evidence at trial was problematic. It was imprecise and inconsistent. An excerpt from the trial illustrates this:

“ He had his hand-it was sort of-it was sort of his hands were on my shoulders, kind of my arms here, and then it was-and then I felt his teeth and his hands around my neck…It was rough but-yeah, it was rough.”

Question: “Were his hands open, were they closed?

Answer: “It’s really hard for me to say, but it was just-I felt his hands around my neck, all around my neck…And I –I think I tried to-I tried to get out of it and then his hand was on my mouth, sort of smothering me.”

When asked about her report to the police and the lack of detail she said she was still “trying to figure it out”. When asked if she had spoken to one of the other witnesses before providing her evidence to the police she said she had not. However, under cross-examination she admitted that she had.

Most damaging to S.D. were the Court’s findings that she and witness Lucy DeCoutere had joined forces to bring Mr. Ghomeshi “down”. S.D. and Ms. DeCoutere had exchanged 5,000 emails in a 12-month period. The Court described the strong bond forged between the two women as they discussed witnesses, court dates, and meetings with the Crown. They initially hired the same lawyer and shared a “publicist”, an unusual professional adjunct for a sexual assault victim.

S.D. was adamant that she cut off all further contact with Mr. Ghomeshi and tried to “keep her distance”. What she failed to disclose until the trial was that she and Mr. Ghomeshi had another date at her home where she admitted they “messed around”, describing the sexual acts she engaged in on that occasion. She was forced to admit she had deliberately lied and tried to conceal her continuing relationship with him.

She explained she didn’t think it was important and invoked the Bill Clinton defence “we did not have sexual relations”.  It didn’t work for Bill and clearly undermined her testimony.

The Court also learned that six months after the alleged assault she sent Mr. Ghomeshi an email inquiring whether he “still wanted to have that drink sometime?” Not exactly the sentiment of someone trying to keep their distance from an alleged sexual offender.

Of course we know that Mr. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, thanks to the tenacity of his lawyer, Marie Henein. The Court commented on her skillful cross-examination of the three witnesses:

“The cross-examination dramatically demonstrated that each complainant was less then full, frank and forthcoming in the information they provided to the media, to the police, to Crown Counsel and to this Court.”

The sad truth is that once a witness perjures her or himself their credibility is lost. The Court said the “volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence left the Court with reasonable doubt.”

While some have tried to characterize this decision as gender discrimination, the truth is these witnesses can blame no one but themselves for the Court’s devastating critique of their characters.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Ghomeshi Verdict: Part 2

GeorgiaLeeLang025Mr. Justice Horkins reviewed the definition of “sexual assault” in the Criminal Code, and remarked that it covered a broad spectrum of offensive activity from uninvited sexual touching through to vaginal penetration. The Court acknowledged that based on the descriptions of events recounted by each witness, taken at face value, their circumstances fell within the broad definition of sexual assault.

The second complainant was Lucy DeCoutere, a sometime actress whose credits included episodes of the television series, “Trailer Park Boys”. She met Mr. Ghomeshi in 2003 at the Banff Film Festival. They hit it off and agreed to meet again later in Toronto. Ms. DeCoutere described an enjoyable dinner date that ended at Mr. Ghomeshi’s home. What happened next formed the basis for two charges against Mr. Ghomeshi.

After Mr. Ghomeshi showed Ms. DeCoutere around his pristine apartment he suddenly kissed her, pushed her against the wall, and with his hand around her throat, choked her and then slapped her. She said she was shocked but tried to pretend she was not alarmed or frightened. She stayed a while longer as he played his guitar and they listened to music…. and then he kissed her good night and she left.

They spent more time together that weekend and when she returned home to Halifax she sent him flowers, thanking him for being such a good host. She also sent him a handwritten “love letter” that read, “What on earth could be better than lying with you, listening to music and having peace?” She also said she wished they had spent the night together and that she “loved his hands”, an odd statement from a woman who had had been choked with those hands.

They connected next in June 2004, again at the Banff Film Festival and sang karaoke together, a duet of Britney Spears’ “Hit Me Baby One More Time”. Ms. DeCourtere said it was “hilarious”, but the irony did not escape the Court’s attention. She failed to mention to the police investigators that after the Banff Festival she sent a photograph to Ghomeshi of herself and him singing, with the caption” “Proof that you can’t live without me.”

Curiously, in her police interviews and in the 19 media interviews she did, she never mentioned that she and Ghomeshi had been kissing before and after the alleged assault. The first time she reported this was at the trial. She was adamant in her report to the police that she had no further relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi, admitting that she did see him in “passing” at industry events, but kept her distance.

But there was more… a lot more. Before travelling to Banff in 2004 she emailed Ghomeshi telling him she wanted to “play” with him in Banff and that perhaps they would have a “chance encounter in a broom closet”. Mr. Ghomeshi was decidedly non-committal, responding, “I’d love to hang but can’t promise much.” Ms. DeCoutere was insistent, writing that she would “beat the crap out of him” if they didn’t hang together in Banff.

Ms. DeCoutere only approached the police with her story after she heard that Mr. Ghomeshi had been fired from CBC, but it appeared she was more interested in publicity than justice. She engaged the services of a publicist and the hash tag “ibelievelucy” became very popular, even attracting the attention of actress Mia Farrow. She confided in a friend saying, the trial was going to be “theatre at its best”…”Dude, with my background I literally feel like I was prepped to take this on, no shit”….”this does not freak me out. I invite the media shit.”

She also engaged in a flurry of email traffic with another of the complainants, expressing strong disdain and animosity for Mr. Ghomeshi, stating that she wanted to see him “f______’ decimated and that it was time to “flush him”.

Her deception and suppression of evidence under oath concerned the trial judge who opined, “It is difficult to have trust in a witness who engages in the selective withholding of relevant information.”

Ms. DeCoutere clearly did not expect that 13 years later, Mr. Ghomeshi would produce the “love letter” she wrote him after the allegedly violent encounter of 2003.   Part 3 of the Ghomeshi Verdict will review the evidence of the third victim, while Part 4 will explore why Mr. Ghomeshi retained letters and emails from a dozen or more women who were captivated by his charm…and celebrity.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ghomeshi Verdict: Part 1

BarristerIn the aftermath of ex-CBC celebrity Jian Ghomeshi’s acquittal on sexual assault charges, you could feel sympathy for the misunderstood victims and their placard-waving supporters. Yes, you could…but you shouldn’t.

The ever-changing testimony of the three women who alleged that Mr. Ghomeshi assaulted them presented a field day for any lawyer with a rudimentary ability to cross-examine. For Mr. Ghomeshi’s highly skilled advocate, Marie Henein, it was “easy pickings” and here’s why.

The witness referred to as L.R. met Mr. Ghomeshi at the CBC Christmas party in 2002 where she was hired as a waitress. After a brief flirtation, he invited her to come to the CBC studio to see him tape his show. She attended several times alone and their sexual interaction was limited to kissing. One time as they sat in his car, he suddenly “pulled her hair”, which puzzled her, but did not impact their continuing relationship.  On the last occasion she came to the studio with a girlfriend. The three of them went out for drinks after the show, and later Mr. Ghomeshi suggested they go to his home. L.R. agreed, while her girlfriend declined.

L.R. and Mr. Ghomeshi were in the living room when suddenly “out of the blue” he came up behind her, grabbed her hair and pulled it.

He then punched her in the head several times and pulled her to her knees. The force of the blow was significant. She said it felt like walking into a pole or hitting her head on the pavement. L.R. thought she might pass out. She testified that as quickly as the violence started, Mr. Ghomeshi’s apparent rage subsided and he told her he would call her a taxi to take her home. L.R. admitted that she felt that he threw her out “like trash.”

Unfortunately for L.R., her evidence at trial contradicted what she told the police, recorded in a written witness statement, and did not jive with her media interviews before the trial. The discrepancies included:

L.R. said that Mr. Ghomeshi’s cute, bright yellow Volkswagen “bug” gave her a sense of comfort that he was a kind, nice guy. The only problem was that he did not purchase the vehicle until seven months after their “relationship” ended. And yet she was “so sure”.

The day after L.R.’s police interview, she called the investigating officer to let them know that she had now remembered that the assault in the car was not just hair pulling.  She said he also slammed her head against the car window. At trial she reversed herself, and denied she acted out the head-slamming scene for the police. A police video played in court proved otherwise.

In her initial police interview she did not tell the police that before the alleged assault at Mr. Ghomeshi’s home, they were kissing, a fact she revealed at trial. The import of this additional evidence served to turn an assault into a more serious sexual assault.

L.R. was adamant that after the second incident she ceased all contact with Mr. Ghomeshi. But it simply wasn’t true. She sent him multiple emails and a photograph of herself wearing a red string bikini. She never mentioned any of this to the police or the prosecution and was ambushed at trial with her glaring omissions.

Not surprisingly, L.R.’s evidence was rejected by the trial judge, William B. Horkins, who wrote in his Reasons:

“L.R. has been exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information from the police, from the Crown and from the Court. It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth. Her value as a reliable witness is diminished accordingly.”

However, L.R.’s difficulty with telling the truth, the whole truth, is eclipsed by the evidence of the two other women, whose evidence will be the subject of Parts 2 and 3 of The Ghomseshi Verdict.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

American College of Pediatricians Say Gender Switches in Kids is Child Abuse

GeorgiaLeeLang025The American College of Pediatricians, a conservative Judeo-Christian group of pediatric professionals, has declared that “fiddling” with children’s genders is a form of child abuse. The College’s statement includes the following:

“1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sexual differentiation (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V). The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. 

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer. 

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries. What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang