Whatcott vs. Globohomo Mafia [PREVIEW]

Whatcott vs. Globohomo Mafia [PREVIEW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7QGV7xQxzI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0roubYvuEuy8-TuwzHw8YL377fdVPWxw6y1DuhPYjjGzo7R1e9f76Y8hA

This is a preview of the upcoming short documentary ‘Whatcott vs. Globohomo Mafia’. Bill Whatcott is the first person in Canadian history to be put on trial …

Bill Whatcott is the first person in Canadian history to be put on trial for “hate speech” for witnessing to the traditional Christian view of human sexuality and denouncing the highplaced politicians promoting the LGBTQ agenda. . He is also being sued for $104 million dollars in a class action lawsuit for handing out Bible scripture at a gay pride parade in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The media has barely mentioned these historical cases, churches throughout Canada have been largely silent, and alleged “free speech activists” such as Jordan Peterson have not said a word about any of this. Bill Whatcott is potentially facing up to $100,000 or more in fines from the BC Human Rights Tribunal. He is accepting donations to help cover his legal fees and keep a roof over his family’s head during this time of hardship: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pe… You can contact Bill Whatcott by posting on his web forum at: http://freenorthamerica.ca/ An article with more details about Bill Whatcott’s persecution: https://www.americanthinker.com/artic…

Christian activist willing to go to jail on LGBT hate crime charge: ‘I’m standing for Jesus’

Christian activist willing to go to jail on LGBT hate crime charge: ‘I’m standing for Jesus’

Featured Image

TORONTO, February 14, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Ontario’s attorney general is proceeding by direct indictment against a Christian activist charged with criminally inciting hatred against “the gay community.”

Bill Whatcott, 52, was in court again Thursday to answer to the Criminal Code charge, which carries a punishment of up to two years in jail.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies scheduled a judicial pre-trial — an in-chambers meeting to discuss trial procedure — for March 19.

His lawyer, Daniel Santoro, is asking that Whatcott be tried by judge and jury.

“My alleged crime is preaching the Gospel and sharing accurate information on the dangers of homosexuality at the Toronto homosexual Pride Parade in 2016,” Whatcott said in a live Facebook post before his court appearance.

“I’m very prepared to pay the price. I’m certainly prepared to go to jail,” he added.

“I am standing for Jesus here.”

“Misplaced hope” in Doug Ford Tories

He and his supporters had a “misplaced hope” that Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government would drop what he says is a “politically motivated” charge, Whatcott told LifeSiteNews.

Liberal Attorney General Yasir Naqvi authorized the hate crime charge two months before losing his seat in Ford’s landslide June victory.

Since then, 54,143 people have signed a CitizenGo (here) and LifeSiteNews (here) petitions asking Attorney General Caroline Mulroney to drop the charges.

Instead, Mulroney’s office authorized the Crown on January 21 to proceed by direct indictment, ministry spokesman Brian Gray told LifeSiteNews in an email, adding that he could not comment further on a case before the courts.

“The direct indictment removed Bill’s right to discover witnesses and have the case adjudicated for sufficiency of evidence at a preliminary hearing,” Santoro told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“We also confirmed on the record the election of judge and jury as mode of trial, and I will be requesting further disclosure of the Crown,” he said.

“Zombie safe-sex”

The charge dates back to 2016, when Whatcott registered in the Toronto Pride Parade under the pseudonym Robert Clinton on behalf of the Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association.  

He and several others marched in the parade disguised in skintight green bodysuits and face masks, and distributed 3,000 kits on “Zombie Safe Sex” that included a flyer warning of the physical and spiritual dangers of homosexual activity.

“Natural law is clear, homosexuality is incompatible with human nature. Disease, death and confusion are the sad and sordid realities of the homosexual lifestyle,” it read.

The flyer featured images of anal warts, a mottled corpse described as an “AIDS fatality,” and another of “genital warts in the mouth” set next to a headshot of an open-mouthed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

It excoriated the “homosexual activism” of Trudeau, former Liberal Defence Minister Bill Graham, and former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.

After a two-year investigation, Toronto Police Service issued a Canada-wide warrant for Whatcott in May 2018, and he turned himself in to Calgary police in June.

After a weekend in a Toronto jail, Whatcott was released on $5,000 bail with several conditions, including he surrender his passport.

Whatcott was also subject to a $104 million defamation class action lawsuit launched by lawyer Douglas Elliott.

An Ontario judge threw out the case in March 2017 but ordered Whatcott to disclose names of fellow “zombies” and “unidentified financial backers.”

That order is on hold pending appeal.

Canada turning into a “Nazi, communist state”

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2013 upheld a decision by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission that two of Whatcott’s pamphlets on homosexuality were “hate speech.”

While a crippling blow to free speech, the top court was ruling on whether Whatcott breached the province’s human rights code – not that he had committed a crime.

Canadians should be alarmed at what’s happening to Whatcott, said Pastor Art Pawlowski, founder of Calgary’s Street Church.

“We’re turning Canada into a Nazi state, into a communist state, where if you voice your politically incorrect views, you will be attacked by the forces of the government,” he told LifeSiteNews in an earlier interview.

Meanwhile, the Canada Anti-Hate Network (CAN) has lauded the hate crime prosecution, describing Whatcott as a “notorious homophobe,” and “a leading figure in the dissemination of homophobic hate propaganda in Canada for years.”

Whatcott is also waiting for a ruling from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on a discrimination complaint filed by transgender activist Morgane Oger, formerly Ronan Oger, which was heard over five days in December.

Whatcott, who lives in Alberta with his wife and two children, says he lost his job as an oilfield bus driver as a result of the hate crime charge, but he doesn’t regret his actions.

“Unworthy as I am, I think the Lord wanted me to do it,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“Somebody had to speak out. My flyer simply told the truth from a Christian perspective.”

Whatcott’s fundraising page to cover his legal fees can be found at wife Jadranka Whatcott’s GoGetFunding page here.

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Free speech and the rights to express one’s religious beliefs were very much on trial during a five day hearing (December 11-17) before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.  Ronan Oger, a transgendered advocate and activist and a vice-president of the provincial New Democratic Party, had laid a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distribution of 1,500 copies of a leaflet during the May, 2017 provincial election. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet called into question Oger’s fitness for public office, on the basis of his sexual confusion. Relying on the Bible’s account that God created two sexes, Mr. Whatcott argued that if Oger couldn’t get his sexuality right, should be really be entrusted with making decisions on such matters as the provincial budget.

The original one-person tribunal, just before the proceedings opened expanded to three, consisted of Devyn Cousineau, an outspoken social justice warrior and donor to LGBT causes. The defence tried unsuccessfully to have her recuse herself for a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” In preliminary proceedings, the Tribunal rejected all the defence character and expert witnesses. The final defence witness-to-be was Dr. Willi Gutowski, a medical doctor and psychiatrist with over 30 years of clinical experience treating patients in Chilliwack and the U.S. He had frequently been called as an expert witness before U.S. courts. He had treated transgendered people in the past. He said, during testimony seeking to qualify him, that he “has a particular interest in dissociative disorders.” No one can make you hate, he said: You will yourself to have the thoughts that lead to the emotions of love or hate. “Love and hate are both a choice of the will.” His expertise would have been crucial as Oger’s lesbian lawyer had contended that Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet was likely to expose the transgendered candidate to hatred or contempt. The panel decided to reject Dr. Gutowski concluding: “The burden has not been met as to his qualification on this topic.” Thus, the defence had but one witness — Bill Whatcott.

The defence was not allowed to challenge the nature of transgenderism. Is it mistaken and immoral, as Bill Whatcott argues on biblical grounds? Is it a state of delusion — in short, mental illness — as many psychiatrists and scientists contend? Humans are born with one of two and only two chromosomal combinations: two “X Chromosomes” — female; and X and a Y Chromosome — male. Apparently, if you’re born a man but identify as a woman, or vice versa, then you are whatever you feel you are or want to be. Thus, a hulking, hairy man with a penis who identifies as a woman should be able to prance into the girls’ washroom and ogle 13-year old girls.

The panel made their prejudice crystal clear. On at least eight separate occasions, Devyn Cousineau  who seemed to be keeping careful count, interrupted Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi for “misgendering” Oger by referring to him as “he”, instead of she.

CAFE has been an active intervenor in this long and costly case. In its oral submissions, December 14, Director Paul Fromm argued that Oger had not been the victim of discrimination. No candidate is entitled to anyone’s vote. A voter may discriminate in his or her choice by voting for or against a candidate for ANY reason — sexual identity, policies, history. Not all “discrimination” or advocacy of discrimination  is banned under human rights laws, only discrimination in the provision of certain goods and services. Mr. Fromm protested the discriminatory rules imposed upon the Defence side.  Oger had complained that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet intimidated him and prevented him from being his authentic self. Mr. Fromm said forcing the defence to refer to Oger as “she” or more awkwardly as “the complainant said in the complainant’s complaint” violated the Defence’s ability to be their authentic selves. “Mr. Whatcott questions Oger self-identification on religious grounds; I and others question his identity on scientific, psychiatric or common sense grounds. We should not be compelled to say what we don’t believe or end up speaking in stilted 1984 Newspeak. If I wake up and believe I am Napoleon, no one is under any obligation to call me ‘Emperor,'” he said.

CAFE argued Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet was not about “hate”. Oger had testified that he had felt fearful. Mr. Fromm pointed out that his alleged fear had not prevented him from continuing as the NDP candidate in Vancouver-False Creek, from holding rallies and running again, in 2018 for school trustee. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet did not advocate “hate” much less violence, but urged voters to tell NDP canvassers they would not be voting for that party.

The following are portions of Dr. Lugosi’s masterful summation on behalf of Bill Whatcott:

2              Canadian history records significant litigation brought by Jehovah Witnesses whose civil rights were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pioneering jurisprudence left a legacy that ensures that personal freedom of Witnesses to go door to door to distribute literature today remains a beacon of religious liberty and personal freedom.

3              Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the Christian Holy Bible. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.

4              What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda. Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code is to be utilized as a tool to silence and punish political enemies, who if powerful enough, would repeal s. 7 and the addition of gender identity and expression as a protected ground.

5              If this Tribunal adopts Oger’s contention that faith is a private matter, and must be kept in the closet and out of the public square, this will set the stage for the creation of a new kind of crime, rooted in human rights legislation. The new crime is publicly manifesting religious belief.

6              Oger contends that even if the flyer does not promote violence or the threat of violence, it ought to be interpreted as hate literature, which inspires violence by others, harming not just Oger but anyone who is transgender or a family member. What Oger describes is a human rights crime that has no victim.

7              The movie Minority Report described a society wherein an individual could be tried and convicted of the crime of murder, when no murder has been committed. I suggest that Oger views Whatcott as a continuously barking dog that is a nuisance, an irritation that spoils Oger’s political and legal agenda by refusing to let go of his bone. The bark is the flyer, the dog is less than human, and the bone is the Bible.

8              Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to Christophobia. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.

9              Oger invites the panel to speculate that the flyer will incite evil. Oger implores the panel to harshly punish Whatcott as a preventative measure, to destroy him financially and to permanently muzzle this troublesome meddling dog that will not let go. No evidence of causation is offered. Subjective belief of Oger that amounts to conclusory statements is urged to be sufficient.

10           Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town) 2017 ONCA 668, para. 46. “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b).[Charter]” para. 49. “… courts must be vigilant in determining whether the evidence supports the characterization, and in not inadvertently expanding the category of what constitutes violence or threats of violence.” Para. 50. “Courts should not be quick to conclude that a person’s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken’s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.”

11           Was the flyer tantamount to a “dog whistle” directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The Ontario Divisional Court in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, “…the removal of political speech as a result of alleged subtle, hidden messages in visual imagery demands that robust explanations be given and demands that the CHP have an opportunity to participate in that inquiry. Absent such explanations, any individual could stifle otherwise valid political speech by citing subliminal messages without having to justify that position… no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.”

12           These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger’s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger’s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle “dog whistle” message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the Tribunal. Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See: Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.

13           The “likely to expose” may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the “reasonable person.” A hypothetical panel of three qualified lawyers, all with Asian origins from countries where Christianity is respected and gender identity is not legally protected or recognized, might find that Whatcott’s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of “likely to expose” is not even remotely met.

22           The core value of freedom of expression is a search for the truth, and is at its highest protection in the context of public participation in an election campaign in a free and democratic society. While Whatcott may represent only a tiny minority viewpoint in contemporary Canadian society, the constitutional Charter values of liberty (s. 7); conscience and religion (s. 2a); thought, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press (s. 2b); right to vote (s. 3); not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12); equality and equal protection (s.15); and multicultural heritage (s. 27) all apply to protect Whatcott’s rights. [The Tribunal reserved judgement.]

FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

Oger v. Whatcott

Supplementary Submissions of the Respondent Whatcott

December 16, 2018

1        Although Whatcott described himself as a Christian activist, there are no doubt a handful of people who view him as a prophet of God, urging repentance from sexual immorality, and preaching that salvation is within reach of everyone.

2        Canadian history records significant litigation brought by Jehovah Witnesses whose civil rights were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pioneering jurisprudence left a legacy that ensures that personal freedom of Witnesses to go door to door to distribute literature today remains a beacon of religious liberty and personal freedom.

3        Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the Christian Holy Bible. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.

4        What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda. Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code is to be utilized as a tool to silence and punish political enemies, who if powerful enough, would repeal s. 7 and the addition of gender identity and expression as a protected ground.

5        If this Tribunal adopts Oger’s contention that faith is a private matter, and must be kept in the closet and out of the public square, this will set the stage for the creation of a new kind of crime, rooted in human rights legislation. The new crime is publicly manifesting religious belief.

6        Oger contends that even if the flyer does not promote violence or the threat of violence, it ought to be interpreted as hate literature, which inspires violence by others, harming not just Oger but anyone who is transgender or a family member. What Oger describes is a human rights crime that has no victim.

7        The movie Minority Report described a society wherein an individual could be tried and convicted of the crime of murder, when no murder has been committed. I suggest that Oger views Whatcott as a continuously barking dog that is a nuisance, an irritation that spoils Oger’s political and legal agenda by refusing to let go of his bone. The bark is the flyer, the dog is less than human, and the bone is the Bible.

8        Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to Christphobia. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.

9        Oger invites the panel to speculate that the flyer will incite evil. Oger implores the panel to harshly punish Whatcott as a preventative measure, to destroy him financially and to permanently muzzle this troublesome meddling dog that will not let go. No evidence of causation is offered. Subjective belief of Oger that amounts to conclusory statements is urged to be sufficient.

10      Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town) 2017 ONCA 668, para. 46. “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b).[Charter]” para. 49. “… courts must be vigilant in determining whether the evidence supports the characterization, and in not inadvertently expanding the category of what constitutes violence or threats of violence.” Para. 50. “Courts should not be quick to conclude that a person’s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken’s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.” Para. 52.

11      Was the flyer tantamount to a “dog whistle” directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The Ontario Divisional Court in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, “…the removal of political speech as a result of alleged subtle, hidden messages in visual imagery demands that robust explanations be given and demands that the CHP have an opportunity to participate in that inquiry. Absent such explanations, any individual could stifle otherwise valid political speech by citing subliminal messages without having to justify that position… no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.”

12      These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger’s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger’s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle “dog whistle” message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the Tribunal. Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See: Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.

13      The “likely to expose” may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the “reasonable person.” A hypothetical panel of three qualified lawyers, all with Asian origins from countries where Christianity is respected and gender identity is not legally protected or recognized, might find that Whatcott’s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of “likely to expose” is not even remotely met.

14      Unfortunately, the legislation does not provide for a representative jury of Canada’s diverse population to decide the issue of “likely to expose.” As well the legislation does not provide a threshold subjective test added to the objective test, to filter out weak claims where there is no actual proof of causation or harm. Instead the panel is left to make a finding derived from three different versions of an objective test known only in the minds of the individual panel members.

15      Oger relies upon an analogy to bolster the argument that it is unlawful to campaign against the election of a black candidate on the basis that no black individual merits election on racial grounds. With respect, that is not the proper analogy. Recently in Spokane Washington a black activist woman and professor was outed by her own mother, who disclosed that her daughter was 100% white and lying about her racial identity. Black people were universally outraged, as this “poser” misappropriated racial identity to benefit from affirmative action, and deceived many supporters. Her lies left a bitter trail of hurt, degrading the progress the black community strived mightily to achieve.

16      The correct analogy in the case at bar is that same person who runs for office as a “black” candidate, but is genetically 100% white. If her own mother handed out a flyer claiming that her daughter was morally unfit for public office, this would not be received as hateful, but welcomed as the truth. People hunger for honest politicians, for deceit in one subject area may lead to deceit in other, much more important matters.

17      Oger admitted that some women feminists oppose transgender women. Oger identified Megan Murphy, who operates the publication, the Feminist Current, as one such individual. These women resent the sexual misappropriation claimed by transgender women. This is an ongoing hot political issue.

18      Oger’s ambition is to become the first transgender woman to be elected to the BC legislature. It is no different than the calling card of Hilary Clinton, who urged voters to elect her as the first female President of the United States. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed a cabinet that implemented affirmative action for women and diverse representatives of different races and cultures.

19      Canadian politics is rife with playing whatever “card” a politician possesses to gain political success. Oger follows this tradition by putting transgender identity into the NDP toolbox to promote the legal, social, and political agenda of Oger’s passion, namely the legislative reform and enforcement of transgender rights. What Oger did not anticipate, was that transgenderism, like abortion is a moral issue that just will not disappear. Making transgenderism legal, does not make it moral.

20      A political debate about morality, rooted in Christian morality that adheres to scripture, is not within the scope of hate. Genocide occurred in Rwanda when the dominant majority urged for the killing of the minority, by labeling them cockroaches that needed to be exterminated. That is hate speech. Today in South Africa, a political party seeking the seizure of land from white farmers, openly promotes the killing the white farmers. That is hate speech too. Whatcott’s flyer does not meet the legal test for hate speech.

21      Whatcott’s political and moral attack could have been easily handled by revealing the truth. Oger could have said he was born a male, raised as a boy, and made the life changing decision to identify as a transgender woman. Oger then could take the advantage by noting that the law registers Oger’s identity as a woman. Oger could then say it is unfair to be put into such a position to reveal personal and private information. The sympathy generated by Oger would have resulted in Oger’s election, for Oger could then claim to be completely truthful and a morally fit candidate for public office. Whatott’s flyer might then have resulted in fruitful search for the truth, a cherished value.

22      The core value of freedom of expression is a search for the truth, and is at its highest protection in the context of public participation in an election campaign in a free and democratic society. While Whatcott may represent only a tiny minority viewpoint in contemporary Canadian society, the constitutional Charter values of liberty (s. 7); conscience and religion (s. 2a); thought, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press (s. 2b); right to vote (s. 3); not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12); equality and equal protection (s.15); and multicultural heritage (s. 27) all apply to protect Whatcott’s rights.

23      The Tribunal is urged to apply Justice Harlan Stone’s footnote 4 from Carolene Products, 304 US 144 (1938), because s. 7 of the Human Rights Code does not protect a discrete and insular minority, namely Whatcott, nor flyers distributed in the course of political and moral debate in the political process. Human rights legislation that ordinarily is accorded the presumption of constitutionality, in the context of this case, must be subject to the equivalent of strict scrutiny.

24      Footnote 4 states:

          There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth….

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation….

Nor need we inquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious… or nations… or racial minorities…: whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry…. [Italics added]

25      Finally, Whatcott contends that the abandonment of truth-seeking in the context of this hearing is an affront to the fundamental principles of justice found within s. 7 of the Charter. Whatcott’s security of the person and liberty is infringed, when truth is held to be irrelevant. No one may be deprived of liberty or security of the person in contravention of the fundamental principles of justice, which includes the search for truth as an integral part of any judicial or quasi-judicial administrative law proceeding.

26 Truth is absent in this case. Even if the entire content of the flyer is the truth, this Tribunal has already ruled those facts are completely irrelevant. Credibility is not allowed to be tested on cross-examination. All this makes the oath to tell the truth administered to witnesses irrelevant, since all that ultimately matters is the document and the Tribunal’s application of the “objective” test directed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

27      In Bracken, the Town Council was deeply offended to be called liars and communists in an impolite and unrestrained manner. However the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conduct of Bracken to be lawful, citing the following passage from Cusson v. Quan, 2009 SCC 62, at para. 125 as the final word on this topic:

“(d)emocracy depends upon the free and open debate of public issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those … who exercise power and authority in our society … Debate on matters of public interest will often be heated and criticism will often carry a sting and yet open discussion is the lifeblood of our democracy.”

Dated at Victoria, BC, this 16th day of December, 2018

Charles I. M. Lugosi, Counsel for William Whatcott

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Postby Bill Whatcott » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:19 am

Image
A freak marching with a pride flag poll inserted in his rectum. The Liberal Party and Toronto Police believe it is an indictable offence worthy of a Canada wide arrest warrant and substantial jail time if one dares to deliver flyers criticizing parades that celebrate behaviours such as this. The Liberal Parties of Canada and Ontario believe in forcing taxpayers to pay for this and punishing taxpayers who speak out against this.

Image
Mr. Ronan Oger, Vice President of the BC NDP (right), posing with a lesbian wearing an obscene t-shirt (left). The BC Attorney General and BC Human Rights Tribunal believes it is illegal to criticize Mr. Oger and call him a biological male when he chooses to run for political office.

Dear Friends,

Please pray for my lawyers Daniel Santoro who will be present in College Park Court House in Toronto on Thursday, January 10th, and Dr. Lugosi who is also working on the case and who might be appearing via teleconference for the Judicial Pre-trial Conference. This court case on January 10th is in relation to the “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” charge I am facing for daring to disguise myself as a “gay” zombie and going into the Toronto Shame Parade, to deliver Gospel condoms (no condom, lots of Gospel) AKA “Zombie Safe Sex packages,” to the publicly funded parade.

To read about our courageous and very creative, covert ministry in the Toronto Shame Parade where guys like the one with a pride flag shoved in his butt were running around courtesy of your tax dollar go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526

Here is an accurate article which describes what happens to you when you dare to put out flyers criticizing tax funded parades that celebrate guys like the one in the picture above running around with a pride flag pole stuck in his bum: http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/28/can … sexuality/

The $104 million lawsuit’s Norwich order that I reveal my friends and supporters identities is being heard this week I think in the Ontario Court of Appeal. My understanding is I might be ordered to reveal my friend’s identities this week as our side’s work on the appeal is incomplete. Anyways, I remain committed to going to prison idefinitely and losing whatever assets they want to take, rather than jeopradize my friends (some of them have young families and could stand to lose their homes and retireent savings), and their “crimes” are literally making Gospel condoms for 1 hour or giving me $50 to help deliver the Gospel condoms in the parade.

The BCHRT Tribunal decision for correctly gendering the NDP transvestite politician and telling voters to not vote for him is likely coming very soon. Of course in all of this my wife, children, and me continue to have to survive.

For those who would like to support us you can do so here: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
Matthew 6:19-21

Report on Day 4 of the BC Human Rights Tribunal Ronan, the Transgendered, versus Preacher Whatcott: Abolish the Human Rights Commission!

Report on Day 4 of the BC Human Rights Tribunal Ronan, the Transgendered, versus Preacher Whatcott: Abolish the Human Rights Commission!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj9t6t5Ulfo

Tribunal enforces transgendered agenda and compelled speech. Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi repeatedly admonished for calling Oger “he.”

Tribunal enforces transgendered agenda and compelled speech. Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi repeatedly admonished for calling Oger “he.” 
Exclusive report by Paul Fromm
* Tribunal threatens to ban Bill Whatcott from his own hearing & fine him for speaking out saying ,”Stop harassing my lawyer!” 
Paul Fromm joins Brian Ruhe at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, Dec. 11, 2018. This was after the first day of…

Free Speech on Trial This Week in BC _PETITION BY DAVID COOKE AND E- MAIL IN SUPPORT OF WHATCOTT vs. PERSECUTION BY OGRE!

Free Speech on Trial This Week in BC _PETITION BY DAVID COOKE AND E- MAIL IN SUPPORT OF WHATCOTT vs. PERSECUTION BY OGRE!

Please read BELOW even if you don’t sign …… You may not agree
with him but we all have a RIGHT to our Beliefs.
Without that RIGHT, we are no longer a democracy but a dictatorship!
I don’t usually sign these  Petitions but this is “overkill”  IMHO.
L
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 6:22 AM
To: Laurell
Subject: Fwd: Free Speech on Trial This Week in BC

Send  it around to as many on your list as possible.
s

Subject: Free Speech on Trial This Week in BC

Dismiss the Complaint Against Bill Whatcott in BC

TO: BC Human Rights Tribunal

RE: Case# 16408 (Oger v. Whatcott)

In the case of Oger v. Whatcott, I ask
that the complaint against Mr. Whatcott be dismissed immediately.

Mr. Whatcott freely admits producing
flyers that identify the complainant’s biological sex. He did this to
provide the voting public with information about a public figure
running for public office. The public has a right to know about the
lives and backgrounds of those who are elected to represent them. This
is necessary for a free and open society to function.

Mr. Whatcott’s further comments on
transgenderism are based both in scientific fact and in his Christian
faith. Science has shown that it is impossible to truly change one’s
biological sex, and the Bible teaches it is sinful to try. The
complainant may be personally offended by these statements, but they
are a far cry from being an attack on anyone’s dignity, feelings,
reputation, or self-respect, as the complainant asserts.

Mr. Whatcott produced his flyer not as
an act of hatred or hostility, but out of concern for the truth, for
God’s Word, and for the complainant’s eternal soul.

If an ordinary citizen is no longer free
to express his beliefs, opinions, and thoughts, especially when those
are well-grounded in science and Christian tradition, then our society
is no longer truly free. Our human rights code must never be used as
an instrument of suppression, but rather as a force for freedom and
liberation for all.

SIGN NOW

Dear Sally,

I have been following the “hate crimes trial”
of Bill Whatcott since the summer. This Christian activist from
Alberta was charged with the “willful promotion of hatred” against
“gays” – a very serious offence that could land him in prison for two
years.

Bill was charged because he had the courage to
peacefully pass out some flyers during a “gay pride” parade in Toronto
back in 2016. Those flyers warned about the health hazards of
homosexuality and presented a Gospel message of hope for those who
repent and turn to Christ. There was absolutely no hatred in his
messaging – and he was certainly not calling on anyone to hurt, harm,
or harass LGBT practitioners.

Bill’s hate crimes trial is set to continue in
Ontario in the new year. (You can read more about it on our petition
page).

Meanwhile, all the way across the country in
British Columbia, Bill Whatcott is facing another frivolous legal
battle. This week, from Tuesday to Friday, Bill will be appearing
before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in order to face a complaint
brought by a person who goes by the name of Ms. Morgane Oger.

SIGN NOW:
https://www.citizengo.org/en-ca/pc/167244-dismiss-complaint-against-bill-whatcott

Ms. Morgane is actually a Mr. – he is a
biological male who was once married and has even fathered children.
He also happens to be the vice-president of the BC NDP – which gives
him a certain political clout.

When Mr. Oger was running in the recent
election, Bill put together some pamphlets to advise BC citizens of
Mr. Oger’s deceptive lifestyle. They rightfully informed otherwise
unknowing voters that this individual on the ballot is presenting
himself falsely. They also shared the Biblical and scientific truth of
our human gender identity: God created us male and female – and it is
impossible to switch from one sex to the other.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with
transgenderism and its underlying “gender theory”, we cannot allow the
BC Human Rights Tribunal to close all debate on the subject. It is not
up to this quasi-judicial body to decide which groups of people do and
do not enjoy freedom of expression and religion. We ALL have the right
to share our sincerely-held beliefs – whether other people like it or
not. Without that right, we are no longer a democracy but a
dictatorship!

Please join me in signing this new petition in
support of Bill Whatcott, addressed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

SIGN NOW:
https://www.citizengo.org/en-ca/pc/167244-dismiss-complaint-against-bill-whatcott

Yours for Freedom,

David Cooke and the Entire CitizenGO Team

P.S. If you are in the Vancouver area, there
will be a gathering of support for Bill in front of the BC Human
Rights Tribunal at 605 Robson St. on Wed. Dec. 12th at noon. Please
join in if you are able.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT RIGHTS FOR CHRISTIANS & FREE SPEECH, WE NEED YOUR HELP TODAY!

A Battle for Freedom of Speech and Religious Liberty: Bill Whatcott, the Evangelist, versus Ronan Oger, the Transgendered

                This will be a very expensive Autumn for CAFE. We have intervenor status in the complaint by Ronan Oger, now calling himself Morgane, a transgendered activist who filed a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distributing some 1,500 leaflets during the May, 2017 British Columbia provincial election. Oger, it was publicized,  a vice president of the NDP in B.C., might be the first elected transgendered creature in Canada. Oh, wow!

                But it was not to be. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet argued that the Bible says there are only two sexes: man and woman. If Oger can’t even get his sexuality straight, can he really be trusted to make weighty decisions on finance and other matters. Oger lost in an election that was trending NDP in urban areas. He threw a hissy fit and filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets were discriminatory and wounded his “dignity” on the basis of his sexual identity. It might be argued that a guy who puts on a dress, earings and lipstick has already damaged his own dignity.

 

Ronan, now “Morgane” Oger

                As bizarre as all this may sound, it’s actually quite serious. Part of our democratic freedoms is the right to support or challenge a candidate on the basis of character and policy. Bill Whatcott very skillfully challenged Oger’s delusions about sexual identity — he was married to a woman and fathered two children — and argued that such confusion raised questions about his suitability for public office. Should the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal find against Mr. Whatcott, we shall be seeing the limiting of one’s right even to criticize someone’s sexual identity. If I wake up one morning and feel I am Napoleon, no one should be compelled to address me as “Emperor”.

             The Tribunal is already insisting that participants play in Oger’s delusional sandbox. In our submissions, we must refer to him as her/she. CAFE refuses to say the Earth is flat. So, our written submissions may seem awkward. Thus, “Oger’s complaint [we will not say, “Morgane”] was filed as retaliation for Oger’s having lost the 2017 election”. You get the picture.

                There is strong reason to suspect that the Tribunal chair (no, that’s a piece of furniture), chairman (oops, that might be sexist), chairwoman (? whatever) is hopelessly biased. As of November 11,  defence has not yet won a single motion. The chairman, Devyn Cousineau (that’s a woman) is a radical pro-lesbian activist and financial donor. For instance, in  each of 2014, 2015, and 2016, she contributed between $100 and $249 to Qmunity, a group dedicated to “building better, queer, trans and 2-spirited lives 365 days of the year” and in 2013 an unspecified sum to the  same cause. We have challenged her to recuse herself on the basis of “a reasonable apprehension of bias”. She has refused, but, perhaps, feeling vulnerable, late in the day asked the government to appoint two more adjudicators to make it a panel of three. The proceedings are getting nasty.

                Oger’s lesbian lawyer is demanding $5,000 in costs before the hearing is even held. Cousineau has not yet ruled on this but notes: “Mr. Whatcott’s public comments are deliberately derogatory towards Ms. Oger. He is also, in colourful terms, highly critical of the Tribunal and me personally and clear in his view that this process is a ‘kangeroo court’.

                CAFE, apparently, is limited to making submissions only on the main argument but not in procedural matters. Because we did make several other submissions, we, too, are under fire. We’ve been threatened. On November 1, Cousineau wrote: “CAFE is cautioned that its conduct in respect of Ms Oger’s costs application was improper [we were not supposed to make a submission] and that I will revoke its intervenor status if its attacks on Ms Oger continue.” [So, you shut up!]

                Let’s just say, things are getting nasty. Mr. Whatcott has an excellent Victoria-based lawyer Charles Lugosi. We have paid for some legal work for our submissions thus far. The Tribunal will run from December 11-17 in Vancouver. I reckon the costs of our participation during the hearing will be $5,000. We desperately need your support today!

              I am heading to Vancouver and the bank account is almost empty! We need your support TODAY. Earlier this year, the globalist censors at PayPal arbitrarily cancelled our account. Thus, we must rely on two old fashioned payment methods:

  1. Mail us a cheque or money order TODAY to CAFE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M94 5L3, CANADA.
  2. Or, if you feel comfortable, send your VISA or Mastercard number in two e-mails (number in one, expiry date in second) topaul@paulfromm.comOR call in this information to 416-428-5308.

                Thanking you in advance for your support for the cause of free speech and, if it is not too politically incorrect, wishing you and your family a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS, I remain,

                                                                                                                Sincerely yours,

                                                                                                                Paul Fromm

                                                                                                                Director

                                        CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION