Prisoner of Conscience: Robert Hoogland

The “Tolerant Left” is showing its true colors in Canada, as a father tries to protect his daughter from state-sponsored child abuse. I recommend reading this article by The Post Millennial. It describes how Mr. Hoogland has sacrificed his very freedom to protect his daughter from possible life-long harm. It also describes the soulless transition industry, whose goal seems to be destroying the well-being of countless children in the name of profit. Shame on them. Here are some excerpts:

There is a man in Canada who can only be alluded to as He Who Shall Not Be Named: Robert Hoogland. For the sake of natural justice, it is important to speak this man’s name. He is now the Canadian state’s prisoner of conscience.

The warrant was issued by a judge for the arrest of a father after calling his biological female child his “daughter,” and referring to her with the pronouns “she” and “her.” Hoogland was found to be in contempt of court.

Hoogland is a father to a gender non-conforming biological female 16-year-old who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. Hoogland has repeatedly called this person his daughter, though the court has forbade it. The transition has been underway for more than two years.

According to the article, the child had experienced various mental health issues from about the age of 13.

When Hoogland accompanied his child to a consultation with Wong, the psychologist advised the pubescent child to take testosterone. Wong referred the child to the endocrinology unit at the local hospital. Meanwhile, Hoogland was looking for mental health solutions to help the child without drugs.

On the child’s first visits to the hospital, a treatment plan was put into action. Both the child, and her mother—Hoogland’s ex-wife—signed a consent form which explicitly stated that the “treatment” was experimental, meaning that the endocrinologists recommending the treatment didn’t know the long-term health impact.

A gender identity activist lawyer, Barbara Findley, represented the child in court. Justice Boden decided that the child’s best interests lay in destroying her long-term health to make her body appear more like that of a male.

The article claims that an estimated 85 percent of children… desist in their belief that they are the opposite sex once puberty ends. This claim is disputed, and hard statistics don’t seem to exist. An NBC article from 2019 cites several studies. At the lower end, we’re told that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

Is it acceptable to perform a procedure upon a child when there’s a 2% risk that it will lead to irreversible damage? I don’t think so. In my opinion, only life/limb threatening emergencies should justify the performance of such a procedure.

In a sane world, a troubled child should be offered counseling. In severe cases, mild medication should be prescribed. Only when she has fully reached adulthood, some time in her twenties, should hormone replacement, or surgery, even be considered. At that point, she can make her own decisions.

What about Mr. Hoogland’s freedom of speech? How can we describe a regime that jails people for “misgendering” as anything other than a tyranny? I hope China throws this case back in Canada’s face, when the latter accuses China of “human-rights abuses.” Nice going Canada; you have just moved into a glass house.

I do wish Mr. Hoogland the best, and I hope his daughter survives this ordeal. Whatever the outcome, Mr. Hoogland can take comfort in the fact that he’s doing the best he can to protect his daughter against an evil state apparatus.

This entry was posted in Aspergers and health, human sexuality and morality and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *