According to a column by Georgetown University law school professor, parents in Great Britain are now subject to prosecution along with fines and even jail time if they won't pay for their child's transgender treatments, including, of course, irreversible trans surgeries.
"As the debate rages in the United States over parental notification and authority in cases involving transgender children, the United Kingdom is embroiled in a controversy over a law that would not only limit parental authority in such cases but affirmatively require parents to pay for such transitioning," he wrote this week.
"Under the interpretation put forward by police, parents who refuse to use the alternative pronouns for their children or refuse to pay for their transitioning could be criminally prosecuted," he added.
Per the UK’s Code for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), conduct that is considered abusive now includes “withholding money for transitioning [and] refusing to use their preferred name or pronoun.”
In other words, parents who have religious or familial objections to their child trying to become another sex (which is biologically impossible, by the way), are required by law to pay for those operations and treatments.
According to the guidance material, this is not even “an exhausted list,” but some of the first “examples” of potentially criminal conduct that comes to mind.
The guideline would suggest that parents with deep-seated religious convictions against transgender status would either have to fund an operation that they consider immoral or face arrest for failing to do so.
To potentially prosecute a parent for refusing to use an adopted pronoun of their child is chilling and wrong.
Despite that fact, a spokesperson for the CPS has doubled down on threats of parental prosecution, telling Fox News in a statement that “domestic abuse is a severe crime and leaves victims with a lasting impact . . . This assists prosecutors to ensure that any victim, regardless of who they are, can get justice for the abuse they have faced.”
"This follows the erosion of free speech and religious rights in Britain, including English courts upholding the criminalization [of] 'toxic ideologies,'" Turley wrote.
Writing in The Institutes for the Laws of England in 1628, Sir Edward Coke noted, "For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man’s home is his safest refuge].” The first Earl of Chatham, William Pitt, would later note: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.”
It seems that the situation has changed regarding the misuse of pronouns or neglecting to support a child's transitioning, as these actions are now being treated as equivalent to physical child abuse. This expanded definition of abuse grants the state more authority and influence over family matters and relationships, Turley argues.
Furthermore, the constitutional expert adds, entrusting law enforcement with discretion on this "non-exhaustive" list undermines the traditional protection of internal family affairs. The critical question remains: what will be the limiting principle as the state continues to broaden the definition of child abuse? It appears that the default assumption in the United Kingdom, represented by Pitt, has been completely flipped on its head.
Western civilization and culture are dying, and the left's outrageous cultural attacks are killing them.