A Canadian constitutional rights group has expressed “grave concerns” about the case of a BC father who was arrested this week on contempt of court charges after opposing his transgendered child’s chemically-induced transition.

The case, styled as AB v. CD and EF to protect the identities of those involved, has been ongoing since February 2019, when the father, referred to in court documents as “CD”, opposed the idea that his then-14-year-old child, identified as AB, could properly consent to hormone therapy. AB was born as a biological female but identifies as a transgender male. 

While CD does not approve of the child’s decision, AB’s mother – CD’s ex-wife – does. According to court proceedings, CD’s opposition to the transition is rooted in concerns about AB’s well-being and the permanent physiological effects gender transitioning could cause.  

According to the BC Prosecution Service (BCPS), CD was arrested Mar. 16 on a court ordered warrant. BCPS Communications Counsel Dan McLaughling told True North that CD was taken into custody after the BC Supreme Court granted a warrant based on “allegations that CD had committed further breaches of the court order.” CD will be appearing in court for a hearing on the matter on Friday, March 19, 2021.  

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms was an intervener in the proceedings, though the group isn’t involved in the contempt case.

“We have ongoing grave concerns about the state’s imposition of ideology and gender orthodoxy in this case and others like it to override parental rights and freedom of expression, and concerned and dissenting medical opinions,” said JCCF litigation director Jay Cameron. “Anytime the state attempts to become the enforcer of ideology or dogma it asserts infallibility and overturns the marketplace of ideas and the constitutional rights of Canadians. That is not the proper role of the state. Oppression is always sure to follow.”

In March 2020, the BCPS underwent a review on whether or not criminal contempt proceedings were appropriate in this matter after CD allegedly repeatedly breached a court order requiring him not to publicly discuss the details of the case, which is currently under a publication ban due to the child’s age.

 “You must not do that, sir, you are in breach of the court order,” said BC Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen.

“I mean, the reason I do it [broke the ban], or did it, is because I am taking the best interests of my child at heart,” said the father.

CD was also ordered by a court to only refer to his child by their chosen male name and use male pronouns both publicly and privately under threat of being charged with “family violence.”