DIANE KING IN TORONTO: FREE SPEECH & REVISIONIST BATTLES IN CANADA & THE U.S.
To send or not to send – that is the argument — English Chanteuse Bound By Severe Bail in Zionist-inspired Internet Restriction Case
Firstly, apologies for not updating you all earlier. The latest twist in my court case effectively removes my right to publish anything other than the briefest of briefs for fear of being immediately summonsed for breach of bail or contempt of court. My every move and key stroke will be being watched 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in the hope of my family and I being finally worn down to such an extent that I will plead guilty, thus giving my accusers the legal precedent they so desire.
Last Friday, the original charge brought against me in a private prosecution by Mr Faultfinder of the Campaign Against Britons Having The Right To Free Speech In Their Own Land (CAA) was dropped, bringing the total of dropped charges to four. Court was then briefly suspended in order to allow the Crown Prosecutor to serve me with four more charges – two for each song: I am now accused of sending and, at the same time causing to be sent(!), two songs which my accusers claim caused them gross offence. This, after they themselves had sought out one of my blog posts and clicked on a hyperlink which in turn redirected them to YouTube. In short, they chose to watch a video which I did not upload to YouTube and which was never sent to them in the first place.
With a lack of evidence to prove that I would, in fact, have sent or caused to be sent anything other than a hyperlink, my case has again been prolonged whilst the Crown seeks expert analysis, to be submitted in August. A new date for legal argument has been set down for October 25. This gives the CAA another four months of breathing space during which time their small but noisy army of Twitter trolls will no doubt continue to stalk and harass anyone they disagree with.
Last week’s hearing was in fact suspended twice whilst lawyers agreed on dates and discussed varied bail conditions. It was noticeable that the Crown Prosecutor used these breaks to liaise with a tall, olive-skinned young man and that each party was constantly checking their phone. Was this gent a representative of CAA? My original accuser and his chief witness were both conspicuous by their absence: since CAA won its costly campaign to bring about a judicial review of the Jez Turner case, at least one report suggests that it is now a Zionist lobbying organisation which is giving orders to the CPS – a supposedly independent body – when it comes to prosecuting anyone CAA dislikes.
Regards my bail conditions (imposed for a ‘crime’ without precedent and therefore likely to go to a higher court and, I might add, all at taxpayers’ expense), these limit not only my freedom of expression but now also my freedom of movement. I must notify my solicitor if I intend to stay anywhere other than my official address for a period of more than ten days. Offers of accommodation for nine days would be most welcome. It doesn’t have to be in the Bahamas – but I wouldn’t say no!
Unsurprisingly, there have been no reports in the media about this landmark case. The last thing my accusers and a pandering, corrupt Establishment want is more Britons waking up to the harsh reality of yet more tyrannical legal constraints undermining our most precious freedom – being able to think for ourselves and express those thoughts. Likewise, there has been complete silence from the press both about Falter’s original charge being dropped as well as the recusal of District Judge Arbuthnot who gagged me last December, resulting in never-ending bail. Frankly, it’s difficult to see how any advantage could be gained by way of further intimidation and harassment of my family and I, as a result of pressure being applied on the authorities by CAA. Or perhaps that’s just me being naive and we really do live in an Orwellian dystopia where patriotism is now a crime?
To conclude, I shall not be using the Internet much in the coming months but you can stay in touch by leaving comments on my blog or contacting me via email. I will try to respond as time and bail conditions permit. There is enough information already on my blog and elsewhere, detailing my ordeal, which exposes quite clearly the underhand methods used by CAA to try and force a conviction.
The good news is that I now have several new songs ready to record and perform, as well as ideas for two books. In the meantime, if you could please support me and encourage others to do likewise by ordering a copy of my Songs of the Shoah EP and/or by donating to any amount, large or small, to my PayPal account, I would be very grateful.
Much gratitude to my steadfast legal team and to those who made the trip to support me last Friday. Thanks for reading and blessings to all.
BERLIN — Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.
The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.
But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.
Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.
“With this law, we put an end to the verbal law of the jungle on the internet and protect the freedom of expression for all,” Mr. Maas said. “We are ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely, without being insulted or threatened.”
“That is not a limitation, but a prerequisite for freedom of expression,” he continued.
The law will take effect in October, less than a month after nationwide elections, and will apply to social media sites with more than two million users in Germany.
It will require companies including Facebook, Twitter and Google, which owns YouTube, to remove any content that is illegal in Germany — such as Nazi symbols or Holocaust denial — within 24 hours of it being brought to their attention.
The law allows for up to seven days for the companies to decide on content that has been flagged as offensive, but that may not be clearly defamatory or inciting violence. Companies that persistently fail to address complaints by taking too long to delete illegal content face fines that start at 5 million euros, or $5.7 million, and could rise to as much as €50 million.
Every six months, companies will have to publicly report the number of complaints they have received and how they have handled them.
In Germany, which has some of the most stringent anti-hate speech laws in the Western world, a study published this year found that Facebook and Twitter had failed to meet a national target of removing 70 percent of online hate speech within 24 hours of being alerted to its presence.
The report noted that while the two companies eventually erased almost all of the illegal hate speech, Facebook managed to remove only 39 percent within 24 hours, as demanded by the German authorities. Twitter met that deadline in 1 percent of instances. YouTube fared significantly better, removing 90 percent of flagged content within a day of being notified.
Facebook said on Friday that the company shared the German government’s goal of fighting hate speech and had “been working hard” to resolve the issue of illegal content. The company announced in May that it would nearly double, to 7,500, the number of employees worldwide devoted to clearing its site of flagged postings. It was also trying to improve the processes by which users could report problems, a spokesman said.
Twitter declined to comment, while Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The standoff between tech companies and politicians is most acute in Europe, where freedom of expression rights are less comprehensive than in the United States, and where policy makers have often bristled at Silicon Valley’s dominance of people’s digital lives.
But advocacy groups in Europe have raised concerns over the new German law.
Mirko Hohmann and Alexander Pirant of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin criticized the legislation as “misguided” for placing too much responsibility for deciding what constitutes unlawful content in the hands of social media providers.
“Setting the rules of the digital public square, including the identification of what is lawful and what is not, should not be left to private companies,” they wrote.
Even in the United States, Facebook and Google also have taken steps to limit the spread of extremist messaging online, and to prevent “fake news” from circulating. That includes using artificial intelligence to remove potentially extremist material automatically and banning news sites believed to spread fake or misleading reports from making money through the companies’ digital advertising platforms.
The Canadian Supreme Court today ruled the country has the authority to demand Google censor and remove links to certain web pages or online content.
The idea that governments can force Google to deindex links to pages is unfortunately not new (see the European Union’s “right to be forgotten“). What matters internationally in this case is the government is forcing Google to remove links from searches regardless of where the Internet user is. That is to say: Canada is demanding the authority to censor the internet outside of its physical borders and control what people who are not Canadian citizens can find online.
Today’s court ruling declares that because the Internet doesn’t have any borders, when Canada decides Google has to censor content it should be a global order: “The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally.”
The case involves copyright and intellectual property claims. A tech firm was accusing another firm of stealing and duplicating one of its products and selling it online. Google was asked to deindex the links to the firm accused of stealing so that it wouldn’t show up in search results. Google complied with court orders, but only for searches from within Canada.
Canada’s Supreme Court sees geographical limits (even virtual ones) on its ability to censor speech as “facilitating” illegal commerce rather than a speech issue. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling that should give folks pause:
This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.
Canada has hate speech laws. Does it follow that Canada should require Google to deindex pages containing what it deems “hate speech” in the United States? If Canada does not because it acknowledges limits to its reach as a nation is it “facilitating” something unlawful?
The court notes Google removes links due to court orders based on content and still doesn’t seem to see an issue in a country’s boundary of authority:
[Google] acknowledges, fairly, that it can, and often does, exactly what is being asked of it in this case, that is, alter search results. It does so to avoid generating links to child pornography and websites containing “hate speech”. It also complies with notices it receives under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2680 (1998) to de-index content from its search results that allegedly infringes copyright, and removes websites that are subject to court orders.
The court, in justifying its ruling, is unwittingly bringing up problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is intended as a tool for fight online piracy and intellectual property theft by making it easier to remove copyrighted material through an ownership claim process. It is also prone to abuse.
People abuse the DMCA’s “take down” process in order to try to censor speech, critiques or commentary, they find objectionable. It can be as minor as trying to censor critical video game reviews, or extend as far as criticizing another country’s leaders. Ecuadorian officials once attempted to use the DMCA to censor criticism of government actions. Google itself has stepped in to try to help users fend off abusive DMCA take-down requests.
Invoking other forms of legally recognized internet censorship is not, perhaps, the defense Canada’s Supreme Court is looking for. A closer examination highlights the potential for abuses. And claiming the authority to censor Google links everywhere in the world is a decision begging to be abused.
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
June 28, 2017
Board of Review
c/o Jamal Family Law Professional Corporation
2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 301
Oakville , ON L6H SR7
Re: Complaint By Warren Kinsella About Sharing of Participants’ E-mails
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Earlier today, the Board sent out the Submissions of the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and copied all the recognized parties and “interested parties” in this review.
Warren Kinsella, a major instigator in the three-year long attack seeking to shut down YOUR WARD NEWS, responded thus:
“Again: communicating with all of us in this manner, without keeping addresses confidential, is reckless and precisely what the panelists promised not to do. How do you propose to remedy this? — Warren Kinsella, LL.B”
On his website, he was a little more extreme:
“Because that’s what the panel investigating Canada Post’s delivery of the violence-promoting hate rag Your Ward News did this morning. And it was what I and others had warned them about, and what they promised never to do.
If someone now gets hurt or targeted, it’ll be on their heads.
I plan to raise Hell about this. Stay tuned.”
A press release by Mr. Kinsella and Lisa Kinsella’s Daisy Group is even wilder and is attached.
We suggest that the near hysterical language and name calling speak for themselves. The fact is that the Committee shared the e-mails of participants. This is scarcely a threat to anyone’s safety or security. Frankly, we have no problem with CAFE’s contact information being shared.
The only information conveyed in the Committee’s e-mail are the participants’ e-mails. Sharing they will not hurt anyone. Being a lawyer of some experience, Mr. Kinsella knows or ought to know that in most proceedings the addresses and contacts (physical, e-mail, phone, and FAX) of the participants are readily exchanged.
The abusive accusations by Mr. Kinsella are unacceptable. Neither the Canadian Association for Free Expression nor, to our knowledge, those other parties supporting freedom of expression and YOUR WARD NEWS’ right to use the Canadian mails has threatened anyone. Accusing some participants of being “dangerous” is outrageous, unproven and decidedly not helpful.
We were uneasy about the fear-mongering and obsessive secrecy advocated at the Committee’s first hearing in April. Contrary to his submission, Mr. Kinsella is not a victim. The only victims here are Dr. James Sears and Mr. Leroy St. Germaine who have been denied their mailing rights for over a year.
Those who seek to curtail others’ rights to speak by making complaints or participating in this process should have the courage to come forth and participate with the same sort of openness (contacts, address) as participants in most legal proceedings. They should not be permitted to portray themselves a delicate petunias and cast their hurtful accusatory stones from virtual anonymity. If they want to contend in the kitchen, they should be prepared to face the heat, as CAFE does. We do not hide our contacts. Nor do the victims here, Dr. James Sears or Mr. Leroy St. Germaine.
Mr. Kinsella seems happy to try to curtail others’ freedoms and damage their business and lives but insists on hiding.
CAFE suggests Mr. Kinsella abusive press release speaks for itself. However, it is consistent with several decades in public life of being an outspoken and extreme partisan for a variety of causes both within and outside the Liberal Party.
In the mid 1990s, while promoting his book Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network, Mr. Kinsella told a Toronto paper that he and his then wife checked into hotels under assumed names as they were in danger from hit men sent by then Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi (supposedly angry at his book on Libya) or “neo-Nazis” angry at Web of Hate. Frankly, Mr. Kinsella is a bit of a drama queen who loves to portray himself as a victim. while attacking others. It might be noted that, some 23 years since Web of Hate was published, there is no sign of those assassins, Libyan or local, being anything other than a figment of Mr. Kinsella’s self-promoting imagination.
Liberally hurling most ill-liberal invective like “White supremacist” and “neo-Nazi”, Warren Kinsella has shown himself over the years to be the high priest of hyperbole. During the 2014 Toronto mayoralty campaign, he made some intemperate comments against eventual winner John Tory which saw him dropped from the campaign of Olivia Chow whom he’d been supporting. The Globe and Mail (August 22, 2014) reported: “The political strategist who came under fire for accusing John Tory of ‘segregationist’ policies – and whom the Olivia Chow campaign has attempted to distance itself from in recent days – has since deleted dozens of posts from his blog related to Ms. Chow and her run for mayor. Ever since Warren Kinsella, an outspoken Liberal strategist who is head of Ms. Chow’s rapid-response ‘war room,’ incited controversy this week by accusing rival John Tory of having a ‘segregationist’ transit plan, Ms. Chow has attempted to play down his role on her campaign. In recent days, Mr. Kinsella appears to have deleted more than 40 blog posts he’s written in support of Ms. Chow, dating back to at least November of last year — later writing on his blog that he still supports her, but is trying to be ‘positive’.”
CAFE urges the Committee to ignore Mr. Kinsella’s complaint and adopt the procedure followed in most legal matters, where all parties can directly serve their submissions on all other parties and be advised of the other parties’ normal contact information..
The TSA began a new screening policy for paper products at airport checkpoints in Missouri last month, and now the agency’s branch in Sacramento, California, is testing out more invasive searches for books and food items.
In the new system, passengers are required to take all reading material and food out of their carry-on luggage and place it in a separate bin. TSA screeners can “fan” through travelers’ books to see if anything is hidden in the pages, but agency officials insist they will not pay attention to the content. Critics have long argued passengers selected for extra screening are not chosen as randomly as the TSA claims, and book content — particularly of a political or religious nature — could re-ignite that debate.
“It’s always been a series of insults,” said Julie Sze, a University of California, Davis, professor who experienced the test procedure at Sacramento. “Books, magazines, food, those are like my three treasured things. It feels personal on a whole different level.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said Sunday he will likely expand the new searches nationwide and may also ban laptop carry-ons for all international flights in and out of the United States. Bonnie Kristian
SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 2017
One example of this is Bill C-16, which passed its third-reading in the Senate on Thursday, June 15th and which was signed into law by the Governor-General on Monday, June 19th. Bill C-16 is a bill which amends both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. To the former it adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of grounds of discrimination prohibited by the Act. To the latter it adds the same to Section 318, the “hate propaganda” clause of the Code. The Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code were both inflicted upon us by the present premier’s father in his long reign of terror and it would have been better had the present Parliament passed legislation striking both out of existence rather than amending them to increase the number of ways in which they can be used to persecute Canadians. When, a century and a half ago, the Fathers of Confederation put together the British North America Act which, coming into effect on July 1, 1867, established the Dominion of Canada as a new nation within what would soon develop into the British Commonwealth of Nations, their intention was to create a free country, whose citizens, English and French, as subjects of the Crown, would possess all the freedoms and the protection of all the rights that had accumulated to such in over a thousand years of legal evolution. The CHRA and Section 318 do not belong in such a country – they are more appropriate to totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Third Reich.
The CHRA, which Parliament passed in 1977 during the premiership of Pierre Trudeau, prohibits discrimination on a variety of grounds including race, religion, sex, and country of origin. It applies in a number of different areas with the provision of goods and services, facilities and accommodations, and employment being chief among them. Those charged with enforcing this legislation have generally operated according to an unwritten rule that it is only discrimination when whites, Christians, and males are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but even if that were not the case, the very idea of a law of this sort runs contrary to the basic principles of our traditional freedoms and system of justice. It dictates to employers, landlords, and several other people, what they can and cannot be thinking when conducting the everyday affairs of their business. It establishes a special police force and court – the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal respectively – to investigate and sit in judgement upon those private thoughts and prejudices. Those charged do not have the protection of the presumption of innocence because the CHRA is classified as civil rather than criminal law.
There are more protections for defendants under Section 318 because it is part of the Criminal Code but it is still a bad law. Incitement of criminal violence was already against the law long before Section 318 was added. It is not, therefore, the incitement of criminal violence per se that Section 318 was introduced to combat, for the existing laws were sufficient, but the thinking and verbal expression of thoughts that the Liberal Party has decided Canadians ought not to think and speak.
Bill C-16 takes these bad laws and makes them even worse. By adding “gender identity and expression” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination the Liberals are adding people who think and say that they belong to a gender that does not match up with their biological birth sex to the groups protected from discrimination. Now, ordinarily when people think they are something they are not, like, for example, the man who thinks he is Julius Caesar, we, if we are decent people, would say that this is grounds for pity and compassion, but we would not think of compelling others to go along with the delusion. Imagine a law that says that we have to regard a man who thinks he is Julius Caesar as actually being the Roman general! Such a law would be crazier than the man himself!
Bill C-16 is exactly that kind of law. Don’t be fooled by those who claim otherwise. The discrimination that trans activists, the Trudeau Liberals and their noise machine, i.e., the Canadian media, and everyone else who supports this bill, all want to see banned, is not just the refusing of jobs or apartments to transgender people but the refusal to accept as real a “gender identity” that does not match up with biological sex. Dr. Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto who has been fighting this sort of nonsense at the provincial level for years, and who testified against the Bill before the Senate committee that reviewed it, has warned that it could lead to someone being charged with a “hate crime” for using the pronoun – “he” or “she” – that lines up with a person’s birth sex, rather than some alternative pronoun made-up to designate that person’s “gender identity.” Supporters of the bill have mocked this assertion but we have seen this sort of thing before – progressives propose some sort of measure, someone points out that the measure will have this or that negative consequence, the progressives ridicule that person, and then, when the measure is passed and has precisely the negative consequences predicted, say that those negatively affected deserved it in the first place.
Indeed, progressive assurances that Peterson’s fears are unwarranted ring incredibly hollow when we consider that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has said that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” would be considered discrimination under a similar clause in Ontario’s provincial Human Rights Code, if it were to take place in a context where discrimination in general is prohibited, such as the workplace. Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, writing in the National Post, explains that this new expansion of human rights legislation goes way beyond previous “hate speech” laws in its infringement upon freedom of speech. “When speech is merely restricted, you can at least keep your thoughts to yourself,” Pardy writes, but “Compelled speech makes people say things with which they disagree.”
It is too much, perhaps, to expect Captain Airhead to understand or care about this. Like his father before him – and indeed, every Liberal Prime Minister going back to and including Mackenzie King – he has little to no appreciation of either the traditional freedoms that are part of Canada’s British heritage or the safeguards of those freedoms bequeathed us by the Fathers of Confederation in our parliamentary government under the Crown. For a century, Liberal governments have whittled away at every parliamentary obstacle to the absolute power of a Prime Minister backed by a House majority. The powers of the Crown, Senate, and the Opposition in the House to hold the Prime Minister and his Cabinet accountable have all been dangerously eroded in this manner. Last year the present government attempted to strip Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition of what few means it has left of delaying government legislation. The motion in question was withdrawn after the Prime Minister came under strong criticism for behaving like a spoiled, bullying, petty thug in the House but it revealed his character. These Opposition powers are a necessary safeguard against Prime Ministerial dictatorship but Captain Airhead, the son of an admirer of Stalin and Mao, regards them, like the freedoms they protect, as an unacceptable hindrance to his getting his way as fast as he possibly can. Years ago, George Grant wrote that the justices of the American Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had “used the language of North American liberalism to say yes to the very core of fascist thought – the triumph of the will.” This is also the modus operandi of Captain Airhead and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Open Letter to Walter Rilkoff, LGBT Activist and BC Human Rights
Tribunal Kangaroo Adjudicator
Re: Morgane Oger vs Bill Whatcott (case number: 16408)
Dear Mr. Rilkoff,
I have received your letter incorrectly accusing me of unilaterally attempting to determine what the complainant will call himself. On June 9, 2017 you wrote, “The Complainant is entitled to use her name in the complaint process. It is certainly not for Mr. Whatcott to determine what the Complainant will call herself, and his unilateral attempt to do so is disrespectful and will not be tolerated.”
In actual fact I have no power or capacity to determine what either you or Ronan Oger will call himself. If you and Ronan want to indulge his gender confusion and refer to him as “Morgane Oger” have at it. If you want to call Ronan a tomato, a dog, or a cat; I can’t stop you from doing that either. The problem I have with this process is you are exhibiting obvious bias that gives me no confidence you are even capable of arriving at an impartial decision regarding this matter and it is you who is unilaterally determining what the Defendant can and cannot say and indeed you are backing your unilateral attempt to control my speech with threats of legal sanctions. You wrote “He (Whatcott) may not refer to the Complainant as “Ronan Oger,” “he” or “him.” You further go on to say, “Further instances of such behaviour may also subject Mr. Whatcott to an order to pay costs pursuant to s. 37(4)(a) of the Human Rights Code.”
Of course the complaint you are appointed to adjudicate stems from my election flyer delivered during BC’s recent provincial election arguing Mr. Oger is a biological male and that his so-called transgender activism and proven history of wanting legal protection for his fake identity enshrined into law, is incompatible with God’s will for humanity and what I perceive to be good government. Your letter to me on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal letterhead clearly indicates you believe punitive measures employed by state organs (even before the case goes to trial) are an acceptable measure to employ to prevent me from arguing what I argued in my election flyer (that the NDP candidate for Vancouver False Creek is a gender confused male). Hence, it appears to me that the ruling you will make is already decided in favour of LGBT falsehood and you simply want me to politely go along with this fraudulent process, so that your ruling which will be an affront to democratic freedom and the right to speak what is true can have a veneer of legal respectability.
Please be advised I have no interest in cooperating with such a biased and fraudulent process and I will not use the fake pro-nouns you prescribe “she” or “her,” nor will I use Ronan’s transvestite fantasy name “Morgane,” even if the government gave him a birth certificate with that obviously feminine name, nor will I use your gender neutral alternative “the Complainant,” as I believe to do so will mean I am cooperating with LGBT tyranny and falsehood. I am only open to using male pronouns when referring to biological males, or as a possible compromise if the Tribunal and Ronan’s counsel finds it acceptable, I can refer to Ronan in this process as the “biological male.” Various media reports even while calling Ronan a woman acknowledge he was born a biological male and I assume the Tribunal and Ronan’s lawyer acknowledge the reality that Ronan is a biological male, even as you insist the Defendant and presumably all BC residents refer to him with female or gender neutral pronouns.
If you find the term “biological male” unacceptable when referring to Mr. Oger and you have no acceptable (to me) alternative, then please be advised I will continue to use Mr. Oger’s birth name and male pronouns when referring to him, as God has clearly created him male and you should have no authority to coerce me into saying otherwise. In the absence of a mutually acceptable compromise on how to address Ronan Oger, the NDP Vancouver-False Creek candidate, who is now a human rights complainant because I referred to him as a biological male; I will continue to speak what is true regardless of any financial penalties or other measures you decide to impose on me.
For more background information on how Bill Whatcott’s election flyer calling on Vancouver- False Creek residents to reject the false concept of “transgender” (no one can change their gender, one can only mutilate their body and cross dress to look like the gender they are not), and to turn to Jesus Christ in repentance and vote according to Godly and Biblical values, resulted in him being dragged before the BC Human Rights Tribunal and is now being threatened with legal sanctions if he continues to use correct male pronouns go to:
To see Bill Whatcott’s truthful election flyer go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10624
To see Mr. Oger’s human rights complaint and Bill Whatcott’s response go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10638#p26188
To see the biased adjudicator Walter Rilkoff’s threat letter go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10640
“Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill? He who walks uprightly, And works righteousness, And speaks the truth in his heart.” Psalm 15:1, 2