The Pronoun Wars Continue

[smac97]

We've had a few threads (such as this one) discussing recent trends toward people choosing their preferred pronouns, and also legislation that compels compliant use of such pronoun.  Things apparently originated in Canada, which perhaps does not have the same robust Free Speech and other constitutional protections, and so might understandably be more inclined toward government-compelled speech.  See, e.g., here.

However, this particular form of overreach has migrated down to the lower 48, including California.  See here (from September 2017) :

Quote

There was a time when I thought no rule of grammar could possibly inspire more ardent debate than the Oxford comma. But California once again proves me wrong.

State representatives elected by the special, especially tan snowflakes of the Golden State have just passed the nation’s first state laws governing pronoun usage.

 

SB 219, which passed the State Assembly on September 12 and has already passed the Senate, proposes to fine or jail employees of long-term or intermediate care facilities who repeatedly and willfully refuse to use a preferred gender pronoun:

This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term-Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights. Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns. [Emphasis added.]

There Are No Religious Exemptions In SB 219

Although this technically wouldn’t criminalize using the wrong pronoun, violating this item in the patient’s “bill of rights” for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly would carry a fine of up to $1000 or a year in jail. As Amy Swearer noted in the Daily Signal, in true California style, SB 219 carries no religious exemptions—not for nursing homes run by religious institutions, nor even individual doctors. The only exception it makes is for “professionally reasonable clinical judgment.”

Additionally, facility staff may not “Prohibit a resident from using, or harass a resident who seeks to use or does use, a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity, regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming. Harassment includes, but is not limited to, requiring a resident to show identity documents in order to gain entrance to a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity [emphasis added].”

Anyway, I've been wondering how things are panning out in Canada, and today I came across this:

Quote

Father jailed after referring to biological female child as his daughter
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." He was found to be in contempt of court.
Erin Perse | London, UK | Mar 16, 2021 5:18 PM

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 14-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.

On Tuesday at 10 am Vancouver time, Hoogland surrendered himself to the court in response to the Attorney General of British Columbia's warrant his arrest for contempt. He was the arrested and jailed. The warrant was issued by Judge Tammen on March 4, 2021.

Hoogland opposes his child's undergoing "gender affirmative" medical procedures, and has stated this opposition again and again, in the hope of saving his child from irreversible harm. The Canadian medical system, the legal system, and the child's mother press ahead with social and medical transition of the child.

A summary of the gag order:

Quote

"{1} AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information.

"a) CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

"b) CD shall not directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to AB’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies."

On December 14, 2020, Hoogland was compelled by Justice Mazari's court to collude in the gender "transitioning" of his fourteen year old daughter and told not to call his biological female child his daughter. In response, Hoogland made a Charter challenge engaging his right to freedom of speech.

When he appeared in family court, the judge forced him to sit in the prisoners' dock, said Hoogland's lawyer Carey Lind said, even though he was guilty of no crime. The judge referred to him as "the accused." Lind made an application for the judge to recuse himself on the basis that all of this was prejudicial.

Hoogland told his story. The child had complex problems, but the court blamed them all on gender dysphoria. His marriage to the child's mother had broken up. He said that, in grades 5 and 6, his daughter was "getting into trouble and hanging out with boys," so they arranged for her to see the school counsellor. In grade 7, he noticed she cut off her long hair and started wearing a toupé. He said that she developed intense crushes on two male teachers, and made a suicide attempt.

Hoogland discovered that the school had been showing his daughter SOGI 123, the going sexual and gender identity education materials in British Columbia which amounts to transgender ideology "propaganda videos." In the grade 7 yearbook, the child was referred to by a different name. The school counsellor changed the child's name without telling her parents. The school "socially transitioned" the biologically female child on its own initiative, with the input of a gender ideologue psychologist, Dr. Wallace Wong.

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.

Hoogland, in contrast, thinks his daughter's best interests lie in preserving his child's health, in case his child ends up among the estimated 85 percent of children who desist in their belief that they are the opposite sex once puberty ends.

He said, "Here I am, sitting there as a parent, watching a perfectly healthy child be destroyed, and there's nothing I can do but sit on the sideline according to Justice Boden at the time. I can only affirm, or get thrown in jail."

Boden's court held that the father's consent was irrelevant. The judge went a step further, declaring that the girl's parents must affirm their child's "gender identity," and refer to the child as though the fact of her being a gender non-conforming biological female who identifies as transgender means that the child is a boy. If he did not, the parents would be implicated of the criminal offense of family violence.

It's a long article, but very much worth a read.

I previously posted a link to and commented on this 2016 article: I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery

This article is also worth a read.  

I wonder how far the "Pronoun Wars" will go.  In a sense this is similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop matter, in which some segments of society ("Party A") wish to use to power of government to coerce others ("Party B") to capitulate and submit to compelled speech in accordance with Party A's preferences.  I hope the American ideals of Free Speech, Free Exercise and other constitutional protections will be a sufficient defense in the Cakeshop Wars and, it seems, the Pronoun Wars also.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

What's the relationship of this to the Church?

Edited March 19, 2021 by Duncan

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

What's the relationship of this to the Church?

Duncan, you Canadian, don’t try to deflect. “O Canada” is about to ruin the USA!

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

What's the relationship of this to the Church?

Perhaps Smac is thinking of the “no religious exemptions” part?  I guess if the movement grew it could maybe affect the church somehow. 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a long article, but very much worth a read.

This was discussed on another thread, starting here:  
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73600-ammon-bundy-failed-to-appear-warrant-issued-bond-increased/?do=findComment&comment=1210019986
 

From the limited info out there, that shared by the father, the father is violating a gag order that includes naming the doctors involved...which is a safety issue IMO...and possibly discussing the entire case as the media removed any reference iirc.

 

From my experience, Canada has tough laws dealing with privacy of minors (there were restrictions that even made being a room mother more complicated) and since this is a family court case that would bring a lot of attention, negative as well as positive on the child, I am not the least bit surprised that there is a gag order in place.  
 

Quote

 

"{1} AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information

If anyone thinks it is okay for the father to turn their child’s life into a media circus when the child doesn’t want that attention, I think they should think again how they might have felt as a child if targeted with floods of attention including likely hate mail, etc. and maybe even death threats given what has happened before.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Calm

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This was discussed on another thread, starting here:  
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73600-ammon-bundy-failed-to-appear-warrant-issued-bond-increased/?do=findComment&comment=1210019986
 

From the limited info out there, that shared by the father, the father is violating a gag order that includes naming the doctors involved...which is a safety issue IMO...and possibly discussing the entire case as the media removed any reference iirc.

 

From my experience, Canada has tough laws dealing with privacy of minors (there were restrictions that even made being a room mother more complicated) and since this is a family court case that would bring a lot of attention, negative as well as positive on the child, I am not the least bit surprised that there is a gag order in place.  
 

If anyone thinks it is okay for the father to turn their child’s life into a media circus when the child doesn’t want that attention, I think they should think again how they might have felt as a child if targeted with floods of attention including likely hate mail, etc. and maybe even death threats given what has happened before.

From all of the articles I have read, this new court action is because he refuses to call his child by the proper, court ordered pronouns. The court has stated he has no 'father's right' to contest his minor child's transition and can only think and speak his feelings to close friends and family. I am glad I live in the US. He is concerned about the long term consequences and does not believe teenagers have the perspective to understand the long term consequences of experimental procedures. This does no seem unreasonable to me.

Edited March 19, 2021 by bsjkki

[Calm]

Did you read the quotes I posted in the other thread?  I found it interesting the number of articles that left out the gag order included not publicizing the doctors’ names.

I am not providing links because some were personal Twitter accounts and I don’t want to drive inappropriate traffic to them and others named the doctors involved, for example the dad’s gofundme page

Edited March 19, 2021 by Calm

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We've had a few threads (such as this one) discussing recent trends toward people choosing their preferred pronouns, and also legislation that compels compliant use of such pronoun.  Things apparently originated in Canada, which perhaps does not have the same robust Free Speech and other constitutional protections, and so might understandably be more inclined toward government-compelled speech.  See, e.g., here.

However, this particular form of overreach has migrated down to the lower 48, including California.  See here (from September 2017) :

Anyway, I've been wondering how things are panning out in Canada, and today I came across this:

It's a long article, but very much worth a read.

I previously posted a link to and commented on this 2016 article: I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery

This article is also worth a read.  

I wonder how far the "Pronoun Wars" will go.  In a sense this is similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop matter, in which some segments of society ("Party A") wish to use to power of government to coerce others ("Party B") to capitulate and submit to compelled speech in accordance with Party A's preferences.  I hope the American ideals of Free Speech, Free Exercise and other constitutional protections will be a sufficient defense in the Cakeshop Wars and, it seems, the Pronoun Wars also.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, for me it just means one less job I would apply for. 

baker of wedding cakes in a commercial bake shop

long-term care nurse in a government-run institution

Not much I will be missing out on, I think.

[bsjkki]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you read the quotes I posted in the other thread?  I found it interesting the number of articles that left out the gag order included not publicizing the doctors’ names.

I am not providing links because some were personal Twitter accounts and I don’t want to drive inappropriate traffic to them and others named the doctors involved, for example the dad’s gofundme page

Where did you get your quotes? I could not find the article. I did not find these quotes from the OP article. Is that where it is from? I was speed reading. There was a series of court actions from 2018. Where these from the current situation or past actions?

This article discussed the doctors names and is from Feb. 2020. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/judge-orders-father-of-transgender-teen-not-to-give-further-interviews

Was the current contempt charge from talking with the media or calling his child by her 'birth' pronouns?

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

Best timeline I have found. https://nationalpost.com/news/b-c-father-arrested-held-in-jail-for-repeatedly-violating-court-orders-over-childs-gender-transition-therapy

In June 2020, C.D. gave an interview to a YouTube channel, where he’s alleged to have identified health-care providers, revealed information about A.B.’s mental health, medical status or treatments, and gave out information that could reveal C.D., A.B. and the mother’s identity.

He was charged with contempt of court, and that matter will come before the court in April.

On Tuesday, C.D. was back in court, arrested for allegedly breaching court orders again. The B.C. Prosecution Service told National Post that “the subsequent breach of court order allegations are being treated as aggravating circumstances.”

It's hard to find anywhere what he did that triggered the arrest Tuesday. According to many articles and based on the defendant's statements, it is because he called his child by the wrong pronouns. I can't find more so far.

Edited March 19, 2021 by bsjkki

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This was discussed on another thread, starting here:  
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73600-ammon-bundy-failed-to-appear-warrant-issued-bond-increased/?do=findComment&comment=1210019986
 

From the limited info out there, that shared by the father, the father is violating a gag order that includes naming the doctors involved...which is a safety issue IMO...and possibly discussing the entire case as the media removed any reference iirc.

 

From my experience, Canada has tough laws dealing with privacy of minors (there were restrictions that even made being a room mother more complicated) and since this is a family court case that would bring a lot of attention, negative as well as positive on the child, I am not the least bit surprised that there is a gag order in place.  
 

If anyone thinks it is okay for the father to turn their child’s life into a media circus when the child doesn’t want that attention, I think they should think again how they might have felt as a child if targeted with floods of attention including likely hate mail, etc. and maybe even death threats given what has happened before.

The father may be more concerned for the health and welfare of his daughter than all the other persons in this battle.  Ideologues are often more interested in their ideology than in the welfare of any individual -- that is the enlightened Marxist way.  Reminds me of the high-minded physicians who prescribed regular radium treatments a century ago, until the horrific results became visible in their victims.  The girl in this matter is being treated like an experimental animal.  The mother, psych, and judge may actually believe they are doing the right thing.  However, once the damage has been done, there is no going back.  Playing biological games with children is probably not wise, and laws need to prevent it.  Only adults should be allowed to make such life-altering decisions.

Reminds me also of the feature central to the Hippocratic Oath:  "First, do no harm."

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The father may be more concerned for the health and welfare of his daughter than all the other persons in this battle. 

It took a year for him to notice something was going on. I think it likely that his overall concern about his daughter was not that high. 

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/20b/Rob-Hoogland-speaks-out/index.html

Quote

Rob did not find out about this until a year after it began. He took the school district, staffers, doctors, and others to court. 
 

I actually disagree with the move to treat kids medically with hormonal treatments to shutdown or alter puberty or alter physical attributes before adulthood due to statistics currently showing most resolve issues in favor of their biological sex as an adult. It needs to be studied more so that those who don’t resolved in the future without intervention are better identified and those who will are proactively treated with cognitive and other noninvasive therapies. 
 

I however don’t find this father’s case persuasive given the little that is currently known. 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Calm

[longview]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I however don’t find this father’s case persuasive given the little that is currently known. 

This case has the awful stench of tyranny.  All done in the name of wild-eyed social engineering.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

It's hard to find anywhere what he did that triggered the arrest Tuesday.

According to the article:

Quote

A B.C. father who objects to his teenage child’s gender transition therapy was arrested on Tuesday and put in jail until at least Friday for repeatedly speaking publicly about aspects of the case

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder how far the "Pronoun Wars" will go.  In a sense this is similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop matter, in which some segments of society ("Party A") wish to use to power of government to coerce others ("Party B") to capitulate and submit to compelled speech in accordance with Party A's preferences.  I hope the American ideals of Free Speech, Free Exercise and other constitutional protections will be a sufficient defense in the Cakeshop Wars and, it seems, the Pronoun Wars also.

Thoughts?

I expect the pronoun wars will be first be waged by pushing for changes in government-as-employer speech. While the government can't punish me for using whatever words I like, they can go to their university professors who they employee and tell them that they expect them to do so as part of their jobs. 

And, indeed, we've already seen cases like this start to pop up. In Meriwether v. Shawnee State Univ. a magistrate judge held that a professor could be ordered to refer to a transgendered student by his (or her, or ze) preferred title and pronoun or refer to all students without a title (e.g., by first name or by last name) and not use third-person pronouns to refer to them. (link)

I suspect the next likely target will be salvos into licensed professional speech (e.g., doctor-patient, attorney-client, etc.), where the government or relevant governing boards will begin to impose regulations, guidelines, etc. on speech required to be used (or avoided) in professional conduct. 

From there, the battle will move to the corporate office space, where fear of hostile work environment litigation will be sufficient to drive companies to update their harassment policies accordingly.

And then you'll finally get to the margins of easy change and start having to deal with situations regarding public accommodation laws. Here, again, the plan will be to simply modify existing statutes. More liberal jurisdictions will be the ones leading the way here, just as we've seen in previous cases (with the attendant comparisons to racist bigotry to any who dare to question the expansion of the existing protected classes that will invariably go along with that debate - joy). I guess we'll see how much popular support there is for enacting such provisions more broadly. 

The First Amendment will carry the day for individual speech. That's a safe bet.

And it will help in many of the situations listed above as well, but many of those changes are not inherently unlawful so it won't necessarily be a guarantee that those won't happen at some point, but (again) I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

 

[Calm]

According to National Post article:

Quote

The orders instruct him to not make public any information that would identify A.B., or the medical professionals involved, to call A.B. by the child’s preferred name and gender pronoun, and to not share his opinions of the case publicly.

Quote

 In December 2018, C.D. went before the Provincial Court of British Columbia to prevent the treatment without his consent. That application successfully prevented A.B. from seeking treatment. Further applications were made before the Supreme Court of British Columbia by A.B. — who wanted to be declared able to make his own health decisions — and C.D., who sought to prevent treatment and bar a variety of groups from counselling him regarding treatment.

 

Quote

On Feb. 27, 2019, Justice Gregory Bowden ruled that A.B. was able to consent to medical treatment. In the ruling, the judge also issued a de facto publication ban, saying A.B., C.D. and E.F.’s identities must remain anonymous.

Quote

In March 2019, there were two alleged breaches of the publication ban, and A.B. went to court to force media who had published articles to remove identifying information.

“Both breaches were apparently supported by C.D., who had given interviews to both organizations,” says the court documents of the decisions.

Quote

In April 2019, A.B. went before Justice Francesca Marzari seeking a court order to prevent his father from speaking about his medical case publicly. C.D. countered that speaking about the case was “important to society and to his rights as a parent.”

He is currently allowed to talk to his child and others privately as he desires according to this article.

Quote

“This order should not restrict C.D.’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors, provided none of these individuals is part of or connected with the media or any public forum, and provided C.D. obtain assurances from those with whom he shares information or views that they will not share that information with others,” the court said.

 

Looks to me the primary issue for contempt is his continual public appearances, etc. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/21/heartbroken-dad-of-trans-teen-breaks-gag-to-beg-for-end-of-state-sponsored-child-abuse/
 

Quote

After losing his legal appeal to stop the process in January, Rob (previously anonymized as “Clark” or “CD”) is making a desperate attempt to bring his case into the courts of public opinion, even though it breaks a court order demanding his silence about the case.

Dated 2/21/2020

Quote

Despite the gag order, Hoogland continues to reveal the names of those who were collaborating to change his daughter’s sex.

2/17/20. No link given because lists doctors names and possibly private citizens

Quote

My friend Rob Hoogland, barring intervention, will be imprisoned *next week* for opposing his daughter's medical transition and refusing to stop naming doctors responsible. 

Posted 3/12/20 on Twitter, don’t know if actual friend or not though

Quote

The allegation is the father breached orders banning the publication of aspects of his case. He regards the orders as a breach of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms to free speech....

In such circumstances he regards himself uniquely a person to draw public attention to the spreading craze of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria in girls.

The father will tell the court if he is held to have breached any orders he did so in full knowledge and expectation of consequences including imprisonment.

Quote

Following the hearing on 2nd September, in which the case was given a new date of 14th December 2020, both Rob and his lawyer, Carey Linde, gave an interview to Dan ****s of ‘Press for Truth’.

https://ourduty.group/tag/transition/

From the father’s attorney’s press release in Sept 2020

This is from the above link on current charges:

Quote

C.D., the father fighting in family court to be able to talk publicly about all the aspects of his child’s court ordered gender transitioning, will be at the Vancouver Law Courts this coming Tuesday March 16 at 10 am to be criminally arrested for breaching court orders limiting his freedom of speech. The proceedings will be before Mr Justice Tammen.

This criminal charge is separate and apart from the application by the Atty. Gen. in the family file for a finding the father is in criminal contempt of different breaches of the same court orders. The hearing on that application is scheduled to commence Tuesday, April 13 for four days.
On March 16 the father will plead not guilty, a further date will be set in that matter for a trial, , and he will seek release on his own recognizance. The Crown may ask for a dollar amount for bail or that he beheld in custody.
The proceeding on March 16, and the proceeding in April, will be in person, open to the public and media both in person and video hookup.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Calm

[strappinglad]

This is the new way the State has to jail those who use free speech and religious exemptions to go against the narrative. The state can't jail the person directly so they put a court order on them and then can jail them for " contempt of court " 

We as a society have decided that children under 18 shouldn't smoke or drink and those under 16 shouldn't drive ... because they are not mature enough. On the other hand changing gender at 5 or 6 is just fine. They are mature enough for that major life decision. Schools are given the power to make enable those decisions but parents ? Nope!!

Edited March 20, 2021 by strappinglad

[Duncan]

38 minutes ago, longview said:

This case has the awful stench of tyranny.  All done in the name of wild-eyed social engineering.

nope, this case, as you mentioned before, i've never heard of it before. I wouldn't call it "social engineering"

 

Would you call the supression of trans rights tyranny? I hope so

[Calm]

If the ban against publicity is because it is a family court issue and a minor is involved, I have no problem with it. I think the damage done by dragging kids into the public’s eyes is massive for most. 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Calm

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the ban against publicity is because it is a family court issue and a minor is involved, I have no problem with it. I think the damage done by dragging kids into the public’s eyes is massive for most. 

I have no issue with protecting the minor and their identity but, as a parent, I believe he has the right to speak about the court decisions. He has the right to publicize his predicament.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I have no issue with protecting the minor and their identity but, as a parent, I believe he has the right to speak about the court decisions. He has the right to publicize his predicament.

Using his own name targets his child. It is unusual enough, the child will most likely be easily identified.  I would feel very differently if he continued to use CD or Clarke as he originally did. 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

I can scarcely think of a more invasive infringement upon freedom of speech than forcing an individual to use specified pronouns. 

[bsjkki]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Using his own name targets his child. It is unusual enough, the child will most likely be easily identified.  I would feel very differently if he continued to use CD or Clarke as he originally did. 

Yes, in Canada they won’t publish his name but here they do. It’s tough to be involved in high profile cases. 
 

 

 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you read the quotes I posted in the other thread?  I found it interesting the number of articles that left out the gag order included not publicizing the doctors’ names.

I am not providing links because some were personal Twitter accounts and I don’t want to drive inappropriate traffic to them and others named the doctors involved, for example the dad’s gofundme page

Thanks for the clarification and the additional information. The quoted information from the OP seems to be very right slanted.  I think it is always good to look at several sources reporting on a issue.

Edited March 20, 2021 by sunstoned