A Canadian father jailed for contempt of court after voicing objections to his teenage daughter being prescribed testosterone as part of an experimental gender transition was denied bail and isn't expected to be released until next month.
Sources close to the situation told The Christian Post that Robert Hoogland of British Columbia was denied bail during court proceedings Friday, where his attorney asked that the arrest warrant be voided and that he be released because the detention is unlawful. The warrant was issued earlier this month and Hoogland was arrested last Tuesday for publicly revealing his identity.
Hoogland, who is referred to as "CD" in court documents, has long objected to his daughter undergoing a medicalized gender-transition, which includes taking cross-sex hormones.
According to reports, his daughter has suffered from several complex issues, all of which were attributed to gender confusion. She was referred to an endocrinology unit at a local hospital at the recommendation of psychologist Wallace Wong, a known proponent of transgender affirmation.
The court reportedly chastised Hoogland for breaching an order that required his identity to remain concealed from the public. The father's name appears on a GoGetFunding crowdfunding page, which breached the court order. Hoogland was warned that if his name wasn't removed from the page before his upcoming trial, then it would "not go well for him," a source told CP.
However, the court denied Hoogland's request to be released for two days so that he could remove his name from the crowdfunding page and other sites by using his home computer.
A five-day trial for Hoogland on a similar but separate contempt of court charge is scheduled to begin on April 12. During that trial, Hoogland is expected to be allowed to share his side of the story unrestrained by orders restricting his freedom of speech, according to sources.
While he doesn't want to be incarcerated, Hoogland was aware that because of his efforts to protect his daughter's welfare, it was unavoidable, say those close to the matter.
In a January court decision in Hoogland's case, the presiding justices wrote that his refusal to go along with his child's "gender identity" was "troublesome,” and that it had caused “significant pain” that has “resulted in a rupture of what both parties refer to as an otherwise loving parent-child relationship."
Hoogland had petitioned the court to adjourn the trial on the second criminal contempt of court charge until after judgment on the prior Notice of Application scheduled for April 12.
Last week, his attorney argued that the Canadian government's position to keep him in police custody with the foreknowledge that a trial would not be held specifically concerning the March 16 arrest is an abuse of his liberties under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the legal rights listed in the Constitution Act of 1982.
The attorney working on behalf of the attorney general of British Columbia responded, both in open court and on the record, advising Hoogland’s attorney that there was never any intention to proceed with a trial with respect to the arrest and criminal contempt charges against Hoogland.
Sources told CP that Hoogland’s attorney maintains that the conscious decision to violate his charter freedoms “is the very definition of arbitrary” and for law enforcement “to obtain a warrant from a Supreme Court justice without advising there was no intention to have a trial, is to mislead the court.”
The Christian Post reached out to Hoogland's attorney for further comment but a response was not received by press time.
Canadian media outlets are reportedly prohibited from using Hoogland’s name in their coverage in an attempt to protect his daughter's identity, who is reportedly 15 years old.
In response to Robert Hoogland’s arrest, author and former University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson — who rose to international prominence after his public testimony against bill C-16 which enshrined "gender identity" into the national human rights charter and the criminal code — tweeted last week: “This could never happen, said those who called my stance against Bill C16 alarmist. I read the law and saw that it was, to the contrary, inevitable.”