US Traitor sentenced to 35 years wants sex change now.

[toban]

Prison = loss of freedoms!

I must disagree Jane, with your premise that convicted felons still retain all their rights and that they have the right to be treated equally.


Upon conviction to prison for any reason, ones right to freedom is thereby extinguished and so automatically, they also lose their right to be treated equally. Such confinement and regulation is what prison means! It is the states method of encouraging adherence by all members to the laws of that society for the benefit of the whole population.

Sentencing to prison is the practice of removing one’s ability/freedom to do as they please, i.e. As a punishment for their misbehaviour, their freedom is taken from them. That is what incarceration is all about! All one’s personal choices will be removed, their lives fully regimented with provision of basic maintenance only, until they are released from their term of internment.

Putting aside the spin made by the OP in this thread, the subject of this thread is not whether a traitor has the right to change gender or not? Rather, it is meant to be a broad one:

Whether a prisoner in general has such a right? if he/she qualified by the assessment of qualified professionals?

To hold otherwise is a proof of inherent bias against the individual in this thread, who is a prisoner after all. He committed a "crime" according the established laws and received the punishment for it from a military judge. The judge, and not any sympathizing group, is the one who made the judgment.

To say that prisoners have no right is, in my view, wrong. They still have the right to life for example, otherwise, they
could be shot to death the moment they enter their cells. They have the right to be treated equally, otherwise, all prisons could declare blatantly a discriminatory treatment among black and white inmates, for example.

They have the right to live in good health, both physical and mental. A personal qualified for gender dysphoria has to be treated or their well being could be severely affected to the point of suicide/attempted suicide. Now, who is funding this treatment is a completely different issue as I said earlier. The state could argue that it would treat him/her equal to the general population and not fund him/her, which is fair, and he/she could argue that he/she would fund him/herself. But that doesn't negate the right to make the choice to start with.

There is a spin on this thread by apparently two polarized groups and it is hard to stay in the middle and focus on the main subject.

[Shyla Wild]

Agree totally.

Hence the problem here. On one hand we have a prisoner that requires mental and medical attention. But by giving this person the help this person needs, they receive something that both you and I must pay for.

The problem is where do we draw the line. What is to stop a female prisoner from crying to her psych that she needs bigger boobs for her ruined confidence? Where should we draw the line? In my opinion, if the medical attention is not needed to save your life, then it is not needed.

Now I want everyone who believes that this person has the right to transition to remember one thing. Freedom is taken away from you when you go to jail. The definition of Freedom is: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. If your right to act, think and speak are removed, then you have no right to transition.

[xoxJanexox]

I must disagree Jane, with your premise that convicted felons still retain all their rights and that they have the right to be treated equally.


Upon conviction to prison for any reason, ones right to freedom is thereby extinguished and so automatically, they also lose their right to be treated equally. Such confinement and regulation is what prison means! It is the states method of encouraging adherence by all members to the laws of that society for the benefit of the whole population.

Sentencing to prison is the practice of removing one’s ability/freedom to do as they please, i.e. As a punishment for their misbehaviour, their freedom is taken from them. That is what incarceration is all about! All one’s personal choices will be removed, their lives fully regimented with provision of basic maintenance only, until they are released from their term of internment.

Mr. Toban, please refer to my posts and you might realize that you disagree with your misconception of my posts! Therefore, I have no obligation to make any further comment.

The selective highlighting should be done in a fair manner!

[xoxJanexox]

Hence the problem here. On one hand we have a prisoner that requires mental and medical attention. But by giving this person the help this person needs, they receive something that both you and I must pay for.

The problem is where do we draw the line. What is to stop a female prisoner from crying to her psych that she needs bigger boobs for her ruined confidence? Where should we draw the line? In my opinion, if the medical attention is not needed to save your life, then it is not needed.

Now I want everyone who believes that this person has the right to transition to remember one thing. Freedom is taken away from you when you go to jail. The definition of Freedom is: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. If your right to act, think and speak are removed, then you have no right to transition.

Freedom: prisoners have their freedom severely restricted and not completely gone. Within the confinement of prisons, prisoners have "very limited space" to act and speak. Luckily our thinking process can not be confined physically! A human being with ZERO freedom is already a dead body!

Gender Dysphoria: is condition that could vary in severity from mild to sever and life threatening (suicide).

I have said it many times, funding is a wholly separate issue. If the state doesn't usually fund transition, the it is not obligated to fund prisoners and give them more advantage compared to the general population. The only exception is when the prisoner's life is at risk (e.g. someone who attempted or risk attempting suicide because of his/her gender identity).

But, if the prisoner is willing to fund him/herself, there should be no restriction. Again the prisoner must be qualified for gender dysphoria. There are many prisoners with medical conditions who are allowed to take their medications within the prison. They won't immediately die if they stopped taking those medications.

[Shyla Wild]

Freedom: prisoners have their freedom severely restricted and not completely gone. Within the confinement of prisons, prisoners have "very limited space" to act and speak. Luckily our thinking process can not be confined physically! A human being with ZERO freedom is already a dead body!

Hmm...no. Here is our rights. The US bill of rights is similar. These freedoms are revoked once you are found guilty of a crime as per section 7. People found guilty no longer qualify for the Bill of Rights and are handled by the The Canadian Criminal Code and Prisoners are handled under the Geneva Conventions Act AKA Prisoners of War. Under the Geneva Act, it defines "Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked" in part 2 of the Act. Notice how it says immediate medical assistance?

For the purposes of this Protocol:
(a) ?wounded? and ?sick? mean persons, whether military or civilian, who, because of trauma, disease or other physical or mental disorder or disability, are in need of medical assistance or care and who refrain from any act of hostility. These terms also cover maternity cases, new-born babies and other persons who may be in need of immediate medical assistance or care, such as the infirm or expectant mothers, and who refrain from any act of hostility;
The Canadian Bill Of Rights.

Section 2:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Section 7:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 15: NOTICE: NO MENTION OF GENDER

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[xoxJanexox]

Hmm...no. Here is our rights. The US bill of rights is similar. These freedoms are revoked once you are found guilty of a crime as per section 7. People found guilty no longer qualify for the Bill of Rights and are handled by the The Canadian Criminal Code and Prisoners are handled under the Geneva Conventions Act AKA Prisoners of War. Under the Geneva Act, it defines "Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked" in part 2 of the Act. Notice how it says immediate medical assistance?

Can you please refer me to any section in the U.S bill of rights which states that individuals rights are "completely" revoked upon criminal convection?

Can you please refer me to s. 7 in the Canadian equivalent, where it stands for your proposition above?

I will respond but I want to listen fully to your argument.

[Shyla Wild]

Can you please refer me to any section in the U.S bill of rights which states that individuals rights are "completely" revoked upon criminal convection?

To be Transsexual you need the Freedom of Speech.

Free Speech

Prisoners do not have a First Amendment right to speak freely. Prison officials may discipline inmates who distribute circulars calling for a mass protest against mistreatment. Administrators have traditionally limited prison newspapers to issues that promote good morale.
The restrictions against First Amendment rights to prisoners have extended to so-called "inmate law clerks." In many prisons, a certain inmate is often declared the inmate law clerk by prison authorities to consult fellow inmates about legal problems and to assist them with filling out paper work. The use of inmate clerks provides inmates with inexpensive and accessible counseling. However, prison authorities often maintain control over the clerks by preventing them from consulting with inmates without prior approval.
An inmate in a Montana prison who had violated the rules restricting unauthorized communication in his role as the inmate law clerk with another inmate brought suit claiming that the restriction violated his First Amendment rights. Although the Ninth Circuit declared that inmates have a constitutional right to assist other inmates with their legal claims, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 121 S. Ct. 1475, 149 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2001), the Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that a prior ruling on prisoner-to-prisoner communications required that restrictions must be "reasonably related to legitimate and neutral government objectives." Therefore, the sole question was whether legal correspondence merited a blanket exception to this rule. Thomas made comparisons to other First Amendment restrictions of prisoners, including prohibitions against giving media interviews, organizing private labor unions, and uncensored correspondence among inmates. The restrictions on legal correspondence were no different, according to the Court, and were not entitled to First Amendment protection.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...rs'+Rights

Can you please refer me to s. 7 in the Canadian equivalent, where it stands for your proposition above?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...s_and_Freedoms

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

According to this, you have the right to: Life, liberty and security of person. These will be denied to you if you breach justice aka Commit a Crime.

[Shyla Wild]

Moreover, her request to be isolated can be met with this:

Privacy

Prisoners do not have the right to expect privacy in a prison setting. Court decisions have established that prison officials can properly monitor and record prisoners' conversations, provided that the prisoner and the visitor are warned that this will be done. Prison officials cannot intrude upon conversations that are legally afforded confidentiality, such as those between the prisoner and the prisoner's attorney or spouse.
In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984), the Supreme Court declared that prisoners do not have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of their property because the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to them.

[xoxJanexox]

Changing gender could be viewed from two angles: liberty and right to life. Freedom of speech is not compulsory! This is just a clarification, as even freedom of speech is restricted in prisons but not completely negated.

There is no provision whatsoever, that negate "fully" individuals rights once they are convicted criminally. It is all a matter of "restrictions" of those rights as deems just and fair.

I have asked for a "section" in the US bill of rights and nothing was revealed so far. The example you provided just support my position that prisons are meant to restrict prisoners freedoms.

To be Transsexual you need the Freedom of Speech.

Free Speech

Prisoners do not have a First Amendment right to speak freely. Prison officials may discipline inmates who distribute circulars calling for a mass protest against mistreatment. Administrators have traditionally limited prison newspapers to issues that promote good morale.
The restrictions against First Amendment rights to prisoners have extended to so-called "inmate law clerks." In many prisons, a certain inmate is often declared the inmate law clerk by prison authorities to consult fellow inmates about legal problems and to assist them with filling out paper work. The use of inmate clerks provides inmates with inexpensive and accessible counseling. However, prison authorities often maintain control over the clerks by preventing them from consulting with inmates without prior approval.
An inmate in a Montana prison who had violated the rules restricting unauthorized communication in his role as the inmate law clerk with another inmate brought suit claiming that the restriction violated his First Amendment rights. Although the Ninth Circuit declared that inmates have a constitutional right to assist other inmates with their legal claims, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 121 S. Ct. 1475, 149 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2001), the Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that a prior ruling on prisoner-to-prisoner communications required that restrictions must be "reasonably related to legitimate and neutral government objectives." Therefore, the sole question was whether legal correspondence merited a blanket exception to this rule. Thomas made comparisons to other First Amendment restrictions of prisoners, including prohibitions against giving media interviews, organizing private labor unions, and uncensored correspondence among inmates. The restrictions on legal correspondence were no different, according to the Court, and were not entitled to First Amendment protection.

As for s. 7 of the Canadian Charter, I am afraid that it doesn't say what you have suggested in the earlier post:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

There are many principles of fundamental justice which must be taken into account when setting out a punishment and that is why the Criminal Code was revised entirely in 1985 after the introduction of the Canadian Charter to conform to those principles as it is related to the punishment among other things.

If your position is correct, then "all" prisoners should automatically loose their "right to life" as well once convicted and shot in their heads!

P.S. I will be busy until later this evening!

[Shyla Wild]

lol...

Okay, I can see I need to explain as you don't seem to understand society and how laws break down and apply. Constitutions; both Canadian and US protect free people. When you commit a crime and are found guilty, you lose these freedoms and are not protected by either Constitution. At this point you are protected under the Geneva Convention Act. There are modifications if the Constitution regarding the Geneva Act, and also varies codes, bylaws, etc. per region.

Another thing people forget in all this, this person is not a civilian. She is military. Therefore, she is triad as a POW. Forget US Law as this is an international issue. She is held under the Geneva Convention Act, which as I stated before; provides immediate medical. I don't see this transition as being an immediate issue.

Claiming to shoot prisoners in the head is a little dramatic. I have no issues with prisoners being treated properly, I just have issues with taxpayers paying for something the rest of us free girls have to pay for. The Government didn't pay for my Psych, Endo, hormones, breast implant, laser, or ANYTHING to do with my transition. If you think TS in the states have more rights than us, then you are mistaken. So if every one of us has to pay for our transition....how did this criminal get away with this? And she gets to do her transition in private?

Wow...I have been going about this all wrong. Next time I fly, I'm going to bring enough pot on me to get 5 years. Get the rest of you people to pay for my transition, in some minimum security country club.

PS: I do think traitors should be shot in the head as I find this dishonorable and on par with murder. In this case, it would have solved tons of issues.

[toban]

Yes! Traitors who jeopardize their country deserve to be so treated!

lol... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
PS: I do think traitors should be shot in the head as I find this dishonorable and on par with murder. In this case, it would have solved tons of issues.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier on, this procedure was swiftly taken care of by a Firing Squad, but unfortunately today we have become far too civilized to do things like that!

[xoxJanexox]

lol...

Okay, I can see I need to explain as you don't seem to understand society and how laws break down and apply. Constitutions; both Canadian and US protect free people. When you commit a crime and are found guilty, you lose these freedoms and are not protected by either Constitution. At this point you are protected under the Geneva Convention Act. There are modifications if the Constitution regarding the Geneva Act, and also varies codes, bylaws, etc. per region.

Another thing people forget in all this, this person is not a civilian. She is military. Therefore, she is triad as a POW. Forget US Law as this is an international issue. She is held under the Geneva Convention Act, which as I stated before; provides immediate medical. I don't see this transition as being an immediate issue.

Claiming to shoot prisoners in the head is a little dramatic. I have no issues with prisoners being treated properly, I just have issues with taxpayers paying for something the rest of us free girls have to pay for. The Government didn't pay for my Psych, Endo, hormones, breast implant, laser, or ANYTHING to do with my transition. If you think TS in the states have more rights than us, then you are mistaken. So if every one of us has to pay for our transition....how did this criminal get away with this? And she gets to do her transition in private?

Wow...I have been going about this all wrong. Next time I fly, I'm going to bring enough pot on me to get 5 years. Get the rest of you people to pay for my transition, in some minimum security country club.

PS: I do think traitors should be shot in the head as I find this dishonorable and on par with murder. In this case, it would have solved tons of issues.

Here is how the laws break down and apply in "modern" societies. The following is a copy and past from the US Supreme Court decision in Shaw v. Murphy, which was referred to in your post:

Traditionally, federal courts did not intervene in the internal affairs of prisons and instead "adopted a broad handsoff attitude toward problems of prison administration."Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 404 (1974). Indeed, for much of this country's history, the prevailing view was that a prisoner was a mere "slave of the State," who "not only forfeited his liberty, but all his personal rights except those which the law in its humanity accords him." Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U. S. 119, 139 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (quoting Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. 790, 796 (1871)) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). In recent decades, however, this Court has determined that incarceration does not divest prisoners of all constitutional protections. Inmates

---

229retain, for example, the right to be free from racial discrimination, Lee v. Washington,390 U. S. 333 (1968) (per curiam), the right to due process, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974), and, as relevant here, certain protections of the First Amendment,Turner, supr

If prisoners have no constitutional rights entirely, then how could the courts hear their claim at the first place!

I never commented on the Geneva Act, because it is wholly irrelevant here as it an international law meant to deal with War prisoners!

Military laws in each country are made internally and although more "stringent" compared to civil laws must still conform to the constitution. I find it illogical to presume that a military person who is supposed to fight for his own country, is the first to be stripped down "fully" from "all" its constitutional rights. Yes, in the military there are some restrictions to maintain order, but these are viewed to be necessary and fair to maintain order.

So, if you want to focus the argument on military prisoners, then the way to compare, is really to the right of an average military person to change his/her gender? If the law is permissive for an average military person to change their gender, then a military prisoner should not be restricted from that right. If the law is not permissive, then one must ensure that the law was not challenged before the courts before putting a dogmatic answer!

Again, the funding issue seems to be thrown in despite my clear previous position about it! Prisoners, whether military or civilians, are not entitled to a preferential treatment compared to their respective populations!

[Shyla Wild]

Yes, as I mentioned earlier on, this procedure was swiftly taken care of by a Firing Squad, but unfortunately today we have become far too civilized to do things like that!

In true TS fashion, a woman traitor did not face a firing squad by was instead burnt at the stake. Got to love the British.

In The Devine Comedy the 14th poem is called Inferno, in which Dante finds Antenor, Judas, Brutus and Satan in the 9th circle of Hell. The lowest circle, a circle that God reserved for traitors.

Treason, betrayal, dishonor have always been the lowest of all the crimes.

[Shyla Wild]

Here is how the laws break down and apply in "modern" societies. The following is a copy and past from the US Supreme Court decision in Shaw v. Murphy, which was referred to in your post:

Traditionally, federal courts did not intervene in the internal affairs of prisons and instead "adopted a broad handsoff attitude toward problems of prison administration."Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 404 (1974). Indeed, for much of this country's history, the prevailing view was that a prisoner was a mere "slave of the State," who "not only forfeited his liberty, but all his personal rights except those which the law in its humanity accords him." Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U. S. 119, 139 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (quoting Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. 790, 796 (1871)) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). In recent decades, however, this Court has determined that incarceration does not divest prisoners of all constitutional protections. Inmates

---

229retain, for example, the right to be free from racial discrimination, Lee v. Washington,390 U. S. 333 (1968) (per curiam), the right to due process, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974), and, as relevant here, certain protections of the First Amendment,Turner, supr

If prisoners have no constitutional rights entirely, then how could the courts hear their claim at the first place!

Please Next time Quote what I wrote and do not put words in my mouth. I said FREEDOM OF SPEECH was revoked, which includes EXPRESSION, including gender expression. The reason I ask for the Whole quote is because in this case the Judge ruled that the prisoners had no right to 1st Amendment.

The Verdict of Shaw vs Murphy
Justice Thomas made comparisons to other First Amendment restrictions of prisoners, including prohibitions against giving media interviews, organizing private labor unions, and uncensored correspondence among inmates. The restrictions on legal correspondence were no different, according to the Court, and were not entitled to First Amendment protection.

I never commented on the Geneva Act, because it is wholly irrelevant here as it an international law meant to deal with War prisoners!

Hence the problem. This person is NOT a civilian. She is military. She became a POW when the MP arrested her.

So, if you want to focus the argument on military prisoners, then the way to compare, is really to the right of an average military person to change his/her gender? If the law is permissive for an average military person to change their gender, then a military prisoner should not be restricted from that right. If the law is not permissive, then one must ensure that the law was not challenged before the courts before putting a dogmatic answer!

I have constantly provided tons of information in which this transition should not be allowed. Funding is the whole issue. This person was tried and found guilty and still receives special treatment. YES A TRANSITION PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT is special treatment.

You are missing the point. The person has every right to transition but we shouldn't pay for it. If we shouldn't pay for it

Again, the funding issue seems to be thrown in despite my clear previous position about it! Prisoners, whether military or civilians, are not entitled to a preferential treatment compared to their respective populations!

then the person has no right to transition as she cannot support a transition from behind bars.

The problem is that you believe this person has the right to transition, but yet you don't want to pay for it. Doesn't work that way. If she has that right, then taxpayers pay for it and she receives special treatment. If she doesn't have the right, then no one pays for it. I am in the second boat.

[xoxJanexox]

We can argue this for years and still not convince each other. It is simply a matter of different opinions and views. You have stated your argument and I have made mine. Now members of the forum have the benefits of both sides, if I could claim that there is any benefit to my side of the argument!