Last month, the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued an order that a father (referred to by the pseudonym “Clark”) may not refer to his 14-year-old daughter (pseudonym “Maxine”) as a girl or by her original name, whether in public or in private. Doing so has been ruled to constitute “family violence” because Maxine identifies as a boy. According to a separate protection order, police may immediately arrest Clark if they suspect he violated this Orwellian order.

Justice Francesca Marzari ruled that any attempt to persuade Maxine that she is a girl constitutes “family violence” because it would cause her “psychological abuse in the form of harassment or coercion.” Since she is receiving “treatment” for gender dysphoria (the persistent identification with the gender opposite her biological sex), any encouragement to reconsider that “treatment” is considered violence.

Clark “shall be restrained from: attempting to persuade [Maxine] to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing [Maxine] by his birth name; and referring to [Maxine] as a girl or with female pronouns whether to [Maxine] directly or to third parties.” The order will last for one year.

In addition to these gag provisions, the order prohibits Clark from “directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to [Maxine]’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies,” besides the Court, legal counsel, medical professionals, or any person authorized by Maxine or the Court.

The order also prevents Clark from allowing anyone besides his lawyer “to access or make copies of any of the files” relating to this ruling and order.

According to Canadian law, “The inclusive definition of ‘family violence’ recognizes that the risk of harm extends beyond the infliction of physical violence … I note that in particular, the definition encompasses psychological abuse in the form of harassment or coercion, and unreasonable restrictions or preventions of a family member’s personal autonomy. In the case of a child, both direct and indirect exposure to such harm may constitute family violence.”

“This Court has already determined that it is a form of family violence to [Maxine] for any of his family members to address him by his birth name, refer to him as a girl or with female pronouns (whether to him directly or to third parties), or to attempt to persuade him to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria. [Maxine] says that the evidence establishes that [Clark] has done all of the above, and has continued to do so even after the Court found that these actions were contrary to [Maxine]’s best interests and constitute family violence,” Marzari wrote.

The Supreme Court justice also faulted the father for speaking to the media and publishing posts about Maxine’s status as a female on social media. Her ruling cited two articles in The Federalist quoting Clark, which reveal the father’s determination that his daughter “is a girl. Her DNA will not change through all these experiments they do.” The order went on to cite angry comments on the Federalist articles.

“I find that [Clark]’s sharing of [Maxine]’s private information has exposed his child to degrading and violent public commentary. [Clark] has nevertheless continued to support the media organizations posting this commentary with additional interviews, and has expressed a desire for further opportunities to do so,” Marzari wrote. “I find that [Clark] is using [Maxine] to promote his own interests above those of his child, by making [Maxine] the unwilling poster child (albeit anonymously) of [Clark]’s cause.”

“In conclusion, I find that [Maxine] is an at-risk family member who is highly vulnerable. I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of [Maxine]’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against [Maxine]. Finally, I find that [Clark]’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it,” Marzari ruled.

After issuing the order, she proceeded to issue a second protection order making the father subject to immediate arrest without a warrant.

“Any Peace Officer, including any R.C.M.P. Officer, having jurisdiction in the Province of British Columbia, who has reasonable and probable grounds believes that the Respondent … is in breach of the terms of this order may immediately arrest that person and bring him before a Judge of the Supreme Court promptly after the arrest, to be dealt with on an inquiry to determine whether he has committed a breach of this order or is in contempt of court,” the second order states.

In other words, not only can this father not refer to his daughter as a girl or by her original name in public or in private, but if a police officer thinks he has done so, he may be immediately arrested. The father cannot even show other people the court documents issuing these orders.

These orders are horrifying on multiple levels. First, Maxine is still a minor. At age 14, she does not enjoy the autonomy to drink alcohol (the drinking age in BC is 19), to join the military (you may enlist with parental consent at age 17), or make binding contracts, but her self-identification as a boy is not only taken seriously, but protected by the force of law.

Second, researchers have determined that transgender identity is a social contagion, especially among young women. Teenage girls have teamed up to support their anorexia, sharing videos of rapid weight loss as “thinspiration” and deceiving their parents to protect their unhealthy obsession. Researcher Lisa Littman found that girls with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) act in similar ways, protecting the gender identity that is now considered “hip.”

Indeed, one psychiatrist even testified that children come to him seeking transgender drugs because transgender identity has become a fad. “Dr. Steve … I want to be transgender, it’s the new black,” one child told him.

A great many transgender people have later regretted their transitions, lamenting the irreversible damage they have done to their own bodies. “I am a real, live 22-year-old woman, with a scarred chest and a broken voice, and five o’clock shadow because I couldn’t face the idea of growing up to be a woman, that’s my reality,” admitted Cari Stella. Many former transgender people, like Walt Heyer, traced their cross-sex identity back to psychological damage in childhood.

Third, this ruling and order chills parental rights and makes parents afraid to speak up against transgender identity. Last year, a Christian couple in Ohio lost custody of their 17-year-old daughter because they would not affirm her transgender identity. According to courts in Canada and the U.S., transgender identity is more important than the rights of parents to guard, protect, and teach their own children.

Transgender identity is being championed for children at younger and younger ages. Some as young as 4 years old have been referred to gender clinics. Planned Parenthood encourages teaching transgender identity to preschool children. In 2017, a California school held a “gender reveal” party for kindergarteners, traumatizing the young children. Other schools pledged that they will not let parents opt out their kids, or even notify them, before transgender instruction.

This issue will not end with a gag order preventing a Canadian father from talking about his 14-year-old daughter. Threats to parental rights have already moved south of the border, and governments will push Orwellian laws forcing parents to refer to boys as girls and girls as boys. Americans must speak out about the biological reality of sex.

Follow Tyler O’Neil, the author of this article, on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.