Trans artist censored after doing portrait of Whatcott and o

Trans artist censored after doing portrait of Whatcott

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:10 am

Dear Friends,

Much has happened and is going on for me this upcoming month.

To start with some good news. In the past few months as a result of NDP Vice President and transvestite activist, Mr. Ronan Oger’s human rights complaint against me, I have become friends with a rather interesting fellow by the name of Brooklyn Fink.

I followed Brooklyn’s story with some interest a couple years back, and though my ministry has made me a few friends and a pile of enemies amongst homosexual and cross dressing activists, I never seriously considered the possibility of getting to know Brooklyn one day.

Anyways, Brooklyn gained some notoriety when he burned the homosexual pride flag on the UBC campus back in 2016. You can read about his act of civil disobedience here: … -1.3553719

Anyways, today Brooklyn wrote me a rather nice e-mail and let me know he drew a portrait with my face on it and that was temporarily censored at a downtown Vancouver art gallery. Brooklyn gave me permission to share his e-mail and work of art with you, so here it is.

Dear Bill,

I have a solo show exhibiting this month in Vancouver. One of my paintings in the exhibition is St George smiting the Dragon, and I used your face as the model for St George.

I attached two photos. One from the front, showing the main illustration. And one from the side, showing the little decorative St George’s Crosses on the edges of the painting.

Anyways, Friday was opening night. And Morgane Oger sent her girlfriend to spy it out. She comes, armoured in her “smash the patriarchy” hoodie, emblazoned with LGBT buttons, and introduces herself to me, “hi I’m Heidi, I’m the president of the community association” (the gallery is in the community room of a miniature village type block in downtown Vancouver). Immediately another attendee at the opening shot up, “she’s Morgane’s girlfriend!” And I couldn’t help but smile and ask out loud, “Oh really?” She was visibly disappointed that her cover was blown.

Anyways she noticed you were the model for the St George painting. She asked, “is that Bill Whatcott?” And I confirmed that, yes, it was. And she thought about it for a moment, then asked, “then who’s the dragon?” And I replied, “That’s up to the viewer to decide.” And so she defensively said, “Well I just think he’s slaying his own inner demons” and I gave her a look that just said “whatever you say”.

So flashforward to Sunday, and I get an email from the gallery. They have received a complaint. The complaint is that “one possible interpretation of the work is that if Whatcott is St George, then that makes Oger the Dragon, and you are then depicting the literal murder of a community tenant”. I put two and two together and knew where the complaint came from, and the gallery director accidentally confirmed it when I just talked to him like I knew what I was talking about. Because of the complaint, the gallery took the painting down, leaving a bare spot on the wall.

I told the gallery I would be forced to take them to the Tribunal for discrimination based on political and religious belief if this was not remedied.

So at first, there was going to be a meeting on Wednesday for the board to vote on whether to uphold my censorship or put the painting back. I was going to present my case, and if it failed, I would quickly make a new painting, The Martyrdom of St George, before the gallery re-opens on Friday.

But as it turns out, the gallery director has convinced Oger’s girlfriend to withdraw the complaint. So my painting is back up.

Thought you’d like to know about that.

God bless you,

The work of art that was temporarily removed, but is now apparently restored:



I do appreciate what Brooklyn did for me and given our mutually entrenched differences on gender, I was pleasantly surprised that Brooklyn would show such kindness to me and display such courage to make a controversial, Christian friendly, painting (complimenting a notorious guy like me no less) in such a left wing place! Please pray for God to bless and touch Brooklyn in a special way. My wife and I are really looking forward to meeting Brooklyn and spending some time with him when we get to Vancouver for my Kangaroo inquisition before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in December.

My wife and I will be attending the “In One Accord” conference coming up in Edmonton on Friday, November 9th. This conference is designed to inform and equip believers to become united and effectively deal with the challenges facing us in present day Canada as it pertains to protecting our religious liberty in an increasingly hostile environment.

To learn more about this Christ centred and informative conferance and to register please go here:

On November 27th, my Judicial Pre-Trial Conference for my so-called “hate crime” (actually ministering the Word of God and accurate medical information to Toronto’s homosexual shame parade) will begin in Toronto’s College Park Courthouse. Pray for God to provide an agent to represent me so I don’t have to fly to Toronto again, unless God actually wants me there to do more preaching and ministering to that once great city that has now become a bastion of cultural Marxism. Please pray for this.

I have been invited to speak at the “Biblical view on homosexuality and sexuality” seminar in Calgary on Saturday, December 1, 2018 from
10 AM – 2 PM.

I will be speaking on the impact of homosexual activism on religious and other civil liberties in Canada.

This conference is hosted by Pastor Artur Pawlowski and the Calgary Street Church and is RSVP.
If you would like to attend please contact Pastor Pawlowski via:

Street Church Facebook page:
Phone: 403-607-4434

My kangaroo trial before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) is fast coming up for December 11-14.

As you can see in the latest judgment released by Devyn Cousineau, the homosexual activist adjudicator; my lawyer and I won some small victories. Ronan (he calls himself Morgane) Oger, the NDP Vice President and tyrannical transvestite activist, and his lesbian activist lawyer Susanna Quail were looking for an immediate pay out of $5000 cash from me for “misconduct” during this so-called human rights tribunal process. My alleged “misconduct” being calling Ronan a biological male (which he is) and a tyrant (a reasonable person looking at his online threats of litigation, attempts at career destruction, and attempts to hunt down and bully anyone who refuses to call him a woman can reasonably draw the same conclusion as me). Indeed, I am far from alone in seeing Ronan as a petty tyrant. Anyways, Devyn deferred judgment on whether I should pay Ronan and his lawyer $5000 in costs until the kangaroo trial is over.

We also won a small victory perhaps (I must admit my lawyer seems more excited about the development than me) in that Devyn Cousineau asked for two other members of the BCHRT to hear and adjudicate my case, in addition to her. Even though Cousineau appears dismissive of my concerns about her lack of impartiality, I suspect she really can’t ignore the fact that I dug up evidence of her donating money to transvestite rights organizations, her affiliation with the NDP, etc…. By having my case heard by three pro-homosexual/left-wing kangaroos, instead of just one kangaroo (Devyn), she probably hopes to give the process more of a veneer of impartiality. Of course, I expect the outcome to be the same. I have pointed out for years human rights tribunals are systemically kangaroo show trials. The Chairpersons overseeing these abominations tend to be left wing, pro-homosexual, dismissive of religious liberty concerns, and restrictive in terms of their view of free speech. The types of adjudicators these Chairpersons appoint to hear human rights cases are lawyers who share the same views as them. I do not believe a single conservative lawyer has ever been appointed to a Canadian human rights tribunal in the last three decades and hence why I will never dignify this process with any title more flattering than kangaroo court. Anyways, here is Devyn’s latest ruling:

November 1, 2018 Via Email

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

170 — 605 Robson Street Vancouver BC V6B 513
Phone: 604-775-2000
Fax: 604-775-2020
TTY: 604-775-2021
Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844 http://www.bchrt.bc.ea

Susanna Quail
Allevato Quail & Worth
405 – 510 West Hastings St.
Vancouver, BC V6B 1L8

Charles Lugosi
Crease Harmon LLP
800 – 1070 Douglas Street
Victoria, BC V8W 2C4

Dear Parties:

Re: Morgane Oger v. Bill Whatcott
(Case Number: 16408)

This letter addresses the following issues:

1. Ms. Oger’s application for costs
2. Mr. Whatcott’s request that I recuse myself on my own motion
3. The conduct of the Canadian Association for Free Expression [CAFE]
4. Mr. Whatcott’s witness list
5. The hearing panel

Application for costs

Ms. Oger applies for an award of costs against Mr. Whatcott for improper conduct during the course of this complaint: Human Rights Code [Code], s. 37(4)(a). The application concerns. Mr. Whatcott’s public comments that denigrate her, her counsel, the Tribunal, and me in my capacity as Tribunal Member managing the complaint. He made the impugned comments on his personal website and social media accounts, and in a podcast interview.

Mr. Whatcott opposes the application on the bases that his conduct was not improper and that, in any event, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs for a party’s behaviour outside its process.

There is no question that Mr. Whatcott’s public comments are deliberately derogatory towards Ms. Oger. In many ways, his statements reflect those which have given rise to this complaint in the first place. He is also, in colourful terms, highly critical of the Tribunal and me personally,

and clear in his view that this process is a “kangaroo show trial”. He refers to Ms. Oger’s counsel as a “lesbian lawyer” and does not intend the phrase as a compliment.

The issue is whether these comments, made outside the Tribunal’s process but clearly related to it, can give rise to an order for costs under s. 37(4) of the Code.
Mr. Whatcott argues that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award costs is limited to instances where misconduct that impacts upon “practice or procedure in the proceeding itself”. He cites Routkovskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2012 BCCA 141, where the Court of Appeal described the Tribunal’s discretion to order costs as limited to circumstances “when there is misconduct or breach of a BCHRT rule or order regarding practice and procedure”: para. 34.

This passage of Routkovskaia is not controversial. It merely summarizes what is apparent from the plain language of s. 37(4) itself. The discretion to award costs is not limited to circumstances where a party contravenes a rule or order. Rather, it also applies where a party has engaged in “improper conduct during the course of the complaint”. The phrase “during the course of” clearly signals that there must be a connection to a complaint. In that regard, I agree with Mr. Whatcott that the Tribunal does not have powers to punish a party’s conduct beyond what is conferred expressly by the Code and the applicable provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

The issue in the application is whether Mr. Whatcott’s comments, made on social media and his website, are “during the course of the complaint”. Ms. Oger relies on Stone v. BC (Ministry of Health Services) and others, 2004 BCHRT 221 and Bakhitiyari v. BCIT (No. 6), 2007 BCHRT 320. In Stone, the costs award was based on more than Mr. Stone’s online comments alone. In Bakhitiyari, the complainant’s impugned conduct occurred both within and outside the Tribunal’s process. Neither case required the Tribunal to interpret “during the course of the complaint” in s. 37(4). Nor was the Tribunal in those cases called upon to consider Charter values in the exercise of its discretion: Dore v. Barreau du Quebec, 2012 SCC 12 at para. 24.

I do not have the benefit of legal submissions on the issue of whether the phrase “during the course of complaint” in s. 37(4) should be interpreted in light of Charter values or, alternatively, how Charter values may be relevant to the exercise of discretion under s. 37(4).

In my view, it will be most efficient to address Ms. Oger’s costs application at the conclusion of the hearing. At that point, the Tribunal will benefit from the submissions of all participants about the scope of Mr. Whatcott’s rights under ss. 2(a) and (b) of the Charter, and how those rights inform the interpretation of the Code. Within this framework, the Tribunal can interpret and apply s. 37(4) in a way that achieves its purpose of protecting the integrity of its process, and the vulnerable people who appear before it, and remains consistent with Charter values.

My decision on this application is therefore deferred to the conclusion of the hearing. I will allow all participants, including the intervenors, to make further submissions about the interpretation and application of s. 37(4) in light of the Charter.

Mr. Whatcott’s request that I recuse myself

Mr. Whatcott earlier applied to have me recuse myself because of a reasonable apprehension of bias. I denied that application and set out my reasons in Oger v. Whatcott (No. 3), 2018 BCHRT 183 at paras. 28-57.

Mr. Whatcott now says that he has learned more information about my past charitable, volunteer, and political affiliations that he says show conclusively that I am “hopelessly biased”. He says my failure to disclose those affiliations earlier “taints the integrity of the entire process”. He asks me to recuse myself “on my own motion”.

I do not intend to exhaustively address this argument again. I have set out the high bar for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias in Oger (No. 3), and the law which makes clear that a judge’s “prior conceptions, opinions, or sensibilities” do not, on their own, operate to displace the weighty presumption that they are able to approach “each case with an open mind”: Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v. Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25 at para. 34. Mr. Whatcott has not identified any new circumstances that would persuade “an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through … that (I), whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly”: Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 Can1_112 (KC), [1978] 1 SCR 369 at 394.

Mr. Whatcott’s energy would be better spent making arguments about the scope of s. 7 of the Code in light of the Charter rights to freedom of religion and expression. Indeed, I observe that the highest purpose of protecting free expression is to encourage “the exchange of opposing views”: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 [Whatcott] at para. 117. There is no merit to an argument that a judge must share the views of a speaker in order to impartially adjudicate a claim engaging their right to express those views.

I decline Mr. Whatcott’s invitation for me to recuse myself.

The conduct of the Canadian Association for Free Expression [CAFE]

CAFE was granted leave to intervene in this complaint on September 8, 2017: Oger v. Whatcott, 2017 BCHRT 195. In that decision, Tribunal Member Rilkoff set out several conditions that applied to its participation, including that its role would be “limited to making oral and written submissions in regard to … whether the two flyers violated s. 7 of the Code.” Member Rilkoff was clear that “CAFE does not have standing to take part in any procedural matters before the Tribunal unless the Tribunal asks them for submissions”: at para. 30.

Notwithstanding these conditions, CAFE has repeatedly made unsolicited submissions in respect of the parties’ interim applications.

In a letter to all the participants dated August 10, 2018, I wrote:

I remind the intervenors that they do not have standing to make submissions or take positions in respect of the procedural matters that may arise, or applications that may be brought by the parties, unless their participation is invited. Their role is restricted to legal arguments — and possibly the introduction of evidence — at the hearing. [emphasis in original]

The Tribunal did not seek submissions from the intervenors on Ms. Oger’s application for costs. Notwithstanding this clear direction about the scope of its participation, CAFE filed another unsolicited submission in response to Ms. Oger’s costs application. The submission is 25 pages of dense text. Ms. Oger quite properly did not respond to it.

I have not read the entire submission because it was submitted contrary to the Tribunal’s direct, and repeated, instruction that intervenors not file submissions on interim applications unless they are invited to do so. This is important because the role of the intervenor is to help the Tribunal with the substantive issues presented by the complaint. In doing so, they are not to descend into the fray or take the litigation away from the parties. It would be unfair to Ms. Oger to allow CAFE to act as a second respondent alongside Mr. Whatcott and require her to expend time and resources addressing arguments against a party she did not name and which is not directly involved in the complaint.

I am concerned, therefore, that CAFE has demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the Tribunal’s clear instructions, and a persistent misunderstanding about its role in these proceedings. Although I did not read the full submission, I read enough to develop additional, more significant, concerns about its content. In the submission, CAFE directly attacks Ms. Oger based on her gender identity and her decision to bring forward this complaint. it argues that Mr. Whatcott’s comments about her are “true”, that she cannot produce “evidence of being actually a woman”, refers to Ms. Oger’s name as a “fantasy name”, and calls her a “transvestite… with tyrannical tendencies” and a “cruel or terrifying person”. And it goes on.

These submissions, though unsolicited, have been made to the Tribunal in the context of an application before it. As such, the concerns that I have identified about Mr. Whatcott’s speech — which has occurred outside the process —do not apply here. In my view, CAFE’s comments about Ms. Oger are completely improper and could fairly be the subject of a costs award if made by a party: Stone at para. 61; Colbert v. District of North Vancouver, 2018 BCHRT 40 at para. 54.
The circumstances are, in my view, more egregious because they come from an intervenor who is a participant in the process by invitation of the Tribunal. The role of the intervenors in this case is to assist the Tribunal with the substantive question of law. These types of submissions are not helpful and, more importantly, are inflammatory, derogatory, disrespectful and inappropriate. No person should be subjected to that kind of treatment while bringing forward or defending a complaint.

I hereby put CAFE on notice that if this type of behaviour is continued, I will revoke its status as intervenor in these proceedings. In future, it must only make submissions when invited —namely at the hearing. Those submissions should focus on how s. 7 of the Code should be interpreted in light of ss. 2(a) and (b) of the Charter. It should refrain from personal attacks against Ms. Oger, or further attempts to prove the truthfulness of Mr. Whatcott’s statements. I will not tolerate further such conduct in this proceeding.

Mr. Whatcott’s witness list

Mr. Whatcott was required to submit a copy of his witness’s will-say statements by October 25, 2018. Aside from his summary of Dr. Gutowski’s proposed testimony, he has not done so.

If Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses other than Dr. Gutowksi, he is required to give notice to Ms. Oger and file will-say statements forthwith. If he does not do so, he may be precluded from introducing such evidence at the hearing.

Hearing panel

As I have repeatedly observed, this complaint raises the important issue of how s. 7 of the Code is to be interpreted in light of the Charter and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 5CC 11.

Because of the novel legal issue at stake, I have asked the Chair of the Tribunal to appoint a three-person panel to hear the complaint. She has agreed to do so. As a result, I will hear and decide this matter along two other members of the Tribunal.


In summary:

The panel will hear further submissions about whether and how s. 37(4) should be interpreted in light of Charter values or, alternatively, how Charter values may be relevant to the exercise of discretion under s. 37(4). It will decide the application after the hearing.

• I decline to recuse myself from this complaint.
• CAFE is cautioned that its conduct in respect of Ms. Oger’s costs application was improper, and that I will revoke its intervenor status if its attacks on Ms. Oger continue.

• If Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses aside from Dr. Gutowski, he must give notice of who he intends to call forthwith, along with a summary of the subject matter of their evidence.

• This complaint will be heard by a panel of three members of the Tribunal.

cc: Paul Fromm
Lindsay A. Waddell
Rajwant Mangat
Jay Cameron.
Marty Moore
Kerri Fisher
Freya Zaltz

Dr. Lugosi and his firm understand I have absolutely no capacity to cover his full legal fees. So far for all three of my cases that Dr. Lugosi is litigating ($104 million lawsuit, hate crime charge, and this BCHRT Human Rights Complaint) I have raised $60,000 or so, which actually isn’t bad for a small budget and somewhat controversial activist like me. However, the actual bill if the full hourly rate was applied is somewhere around $250,000 – $300,000 or so….. The sixty thousand I have raised over the past year and a half is long gone on disbursements, research, a little bit for Lugosi’s rent and to eat, etc…..

That a legal bill can get this high and none of the cases have even made it to trial yet, makes me sad and leads me to think the system is systemically flawed and intrinsically unjust. Truly justice can only be attained for the rich or in my case because there is a Christian lawyer willing to martyr his financial well being in the pursuit of justice.

Anyways, while Dr. Lugosi knows $300,000 is not coming his way in this life, he asked if I could at least raise another $1000 or so this month so he can at least have his food during the trial, a modest hotel for 5 days, and his fairy fare from Vancouver Island to Vancouver covered. So far I have $800 set aside for Dr. Lugosi that I will be mailing to him this month. If I could get another $200 or preferably a little more for Dr. Lugosi that would be much appreciated.

To mail directly to Dr. Charles Lugosi:

Bill Whatcott Legal Defense Fund
Crease Harman Lawfirm:
#800 – 1070 Douglas Street
Victoria, B.C. V8W 2C4


Go Get Funding: … t-family/#

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“Put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
Ephesians 4:22-24