TRANS ARTIST CENSORED AFTER DOING PORTRAIT OF BILL WHATCOTT

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: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- … -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,
Brooklyn

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

Image

Image

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: https://www.in1accord.ca/

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: https://www.facebook.com/streetchurch.ca/
Phone: 403-607-4434
E-mail: art@streetchurch.ca

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.

Conclusion

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

or

Go Get Funding: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … 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

Politicized Cops & Leftist Media Gang Up on Bill Whatcott

Politicized Cops & Leftist Media Gang Up on Bill Whatcott

[The rot is deep. Canadian society is increasingly like the degenerate Weimar Republic. Public media and many politicians glorify the sexually unusual, the nmost recent favourite class being the switcheroos — the transgendered.We have a politicized Vancouver police force investigating a political/religious pamphlet distributed by Bill Whatcott about a flamboyant, transgendered political candidate Ronan (now styling himself as Morgan) Oger. Of course, the violently biased media is doing a boo-hoo-hoo for the transgendered Oger who is also a vice-president of the provincial New Democratic Party. And in all this, what about a healthy respect for Bill Whatcott’s religious beliefs and his right to engage in the political process by criticizing a candidate’s character? — Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression]

Vancouver Police & Lamestream Media respond to Bill’s flyers

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:11 pm

Image

Vancouver police investigate potential hate crime, fliers attack school board candidate

BY LAUREN BOOTHBY
Posted Oct 12, 2018
https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/10/12 … candidate/

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – Fliers posted around Vancouver last weekend attacking a Vancouver School Board candidate Morgane Oger may have gone too far.

Vancouver police are investigating the situation as a potential hate crime. The posters attack her because she is a transgender woman.

Oger says she was contacted by police recently who told her the same person who handed out fliers attacking her in 2017 was planning to do it again. She’s already filed a human rights complaint against him for those fliers, arguing they were hate speech.

As for the new ones she says they’re unacceptable as well.

“It feels terrible to have someone target you like this. This man is trying to shame me about who I am, that means he believes I should be ashamed for who I am,” she says. “That hurts.”

Those posters say that God doesn’t want people to vote for her, and attacks her because of her gender identity.

They also make disparaging comments about other LGBTQ people. Oger says she’s also concerned for others who may be affected by reading the hand-outs.

“Imagine that you are a youth, and you’re not out to your family for being gay or being trans, and you find this flyer in your home, in your mailbox,” she says. “That would be terrible experience.”

Victim hopes for justice

Oger also wonders why, in 2017, crown prosecutors did not pursue criminal charges against the person who made the fliers. She’s hoping this time they might make a different choice.

“I have heard a lot of ugly, ugly stories about justice not being carried out from the victim’s side, and there are too many of those stories,” she says. “I hope that our newfound human rights protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression will energize the Crown and the police forces to ensure that justice is carried out.”

Vancouver police are saying this about the incident.

“The VPD is aware of the posters and is investigating. We don’t have any additional information to share publicly at this time,” reads the statement. “We encourage anyone who feels they have been a victim of a crime, or has information about a crime, to make a report with their local police.”

“Victim” hopes for justice? I wonder if 1130 Am News is so deferential to Donald Trump when the public says bad things about him?

Anyways, I see some forms of actual hate is acceptable to Lauren Boothby on her Twitter wall….

F-bombs, name calling, and a certain Peter McCartney (who calls himself @Climate_Pete) who states he wants to punch me in the face is fine with her.

https://twitter.com/laurby/status/1050937709638737920
Image

I note her media buddy Brett Mineer from CHNL 610 AM radio is one of the three leftists who “liked” the above post advocating physically assaulting me because I put out unflattering, but accurate election information on Mr. Oger, the transvestite, NDP Vice President, who is running for school board and in addition to calling Christianity a “death cult” has also called for the removal of children from homes of parents who don’t agree with their minor children being given puberty blocking hormones and cosmetic surgery if the kid is a boy who at some point says he is a girl.

And somehow the media acts like Mr. Oger, an outspoken public figure and hard left LGBT activist, is the “victim” because someone is morally coherent enough to criticize him during an election. Utter fake news….. vomit21

Transphobic flyers target Vancouver school trustee candidate
Angela Jung, Reporter / Web Journalist
@AngelaJungCTV
Published Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:19 PM
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/transphobic-flyer … -1.4133247

Hateful handouts asking voters not to cast their ballots for an openly transgender woman is being distributed in Vancouver by a man who can’t vote in the civic election, or any election in B.C., because his home is two provinces away.

“What a horrible thing to do, to hunt someone down from Saskatchewan – that’s crazy stuff,” Morgane Oger said.

Oger is running as an independent candidate for Vancouver school board trustee.

She learned about the flyers from police earlier in the week. Unfortunately, she has faced this before in 2017 when she ran for a seat in the provincial legislature.

Peter Quily recorded anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott handing out the posters in Kerrisdale.

“I’m just representing the point of view of Jesus Christ and his teachings on marriage and religious liberty,” Whatcott said in the video.

Oger believes many Christians would reject Whatcott’s beliefs, calling his actions “a horrible hijacking of a beautiful faith.”

“The worst part is that he thinks that, or he says he thinks that, I should be shamed for who I am,” she said.

Whatcott has a history of handing out homophobic literature across the country over the last two decades.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled he violated Saskatchewan’s human rights rules when he distributed pamphlets denouncing homosexuals.

He is currently facing one charge of willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group for an incident during Toronto’s Pride Month in 2016.

Oger has submitted a police complaint against Whatcott; it is unclear if charges will be laid

With files from CTV Vancouver’s Breanna Karstens-Smith

Constable Anne Marie Clark feels sorry that Mr. Oger has to deal with a flyer advising Vancouver voters that God did not want them to vote for him, correctly gendering him, and informing potential voters that he bilked his ex-wife out of $120,000 and an Indian band out of a year’s worth of rent.
https://twitter.com/VPD2Fox15
Image
Claiming my flyer distribution is “harming an awful lot of people” is a bit of a stretch, these leftists have no problem trashing conservative candidates and digging up sordid details of the personal lives of conservatives and outlets like CTV have no problem making conservative dirty linen public. But I could see why Mr. Oger might not like my flyer distribution. Sorry Mr. Oger, I believe speaking the truth, so Vancouverites can make an informed vote is more important than making the election your “safe space.” What Mr. Oger and his fellow NDP whackjobs want to do to children in our public schools and to our supposedly democratic elections is really harmful to an awful lot of people.

To see the accurate election flyer that Mr. Oger claims is illegal, that a climate alarmist wants to punch Bill Whatcott in the face over, the lamestream media seems to be behaving like it is illegal, and that a police constable is giving a transvestite political candidate condolences over go here:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10723

“For your steadfast love is before my eyes,
and I walk in your faithfulness.
I do not sit with men of falsehood,
nor do I consort with hypocrites.
I hate the assembly of evildoers,
and I will not sit with the wicked.”
Psalm 26:3-5

User avatar
Bill Whatcott

Whatcott 5,000 anti-Ronan/NDP flyer update and court dates: Ongoing persecution of Christian preacher Bill Whatcott.

Whatcott 5,000 anti-Ronan/NDP flyer update and court dates

Ongoing persecution of Christian preacher Bill  Whatcott.

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:02 am


Whatcott went to the Burnaby All Canadidates Meeting at Gilmore Community School on October 11th, after delivering his 5,000 flyers letting Vancouver voters know God did not want them to vote for “Morgane” (actually Ronan) Oger, to voice his support for pro-family Christian School Trustee candidate Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson. Leftist SOGI supporters in their usual nasty fashion tried to censor Whatcott as he tried to share this video with you.

Dear Friends,

The mission to bring three essential truths to the Vancouver civic election and provide Vancouver’s voters with a Biblical and reality based framework on how not to vote if they wish to obey God’s will is now completed.

Here is the flyer that informed Vancouver voters God did not want them to vote for “Morgane” (actually Ronan) Oger
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10723

The three essential truths that were made known in spite of the left’s nastiest efforts to silence them is.

1. “Morgane” Oger was born Ronan Oger and even though he adopted a woman’s name, calls himself a female, got the Canadian government to recognize his fake name and gender identity, and threatens people with prosecution who question his delusion; Ronan is in fact still Ronan and is 100% a biological male.

2. Ronan bilked his ex-wife out of $120,000 and a native band out of a year’s worth of rent.

3. God does not want Ronan Oger to be a School Trustee or hold any other political position until he repents of his gender delusions, homofascism and makes things right with his ex-wife and the native band that he bilked.

Notwithstanding, considerable opposition from the LGBT left, they really seem to believe and act like public disagreement with their degenerate agenda is against the law, in the final analysis the 5,000 flyer truth offensive against Morgane (actually Ronan) Oger’s candidacy to become a Vancouver School Trustee was a success.

While no small number of NDP supporters followed me down the street in a menacing manner, F-bombed me, called the cops on me, reported me to Elections BC, and in a couple of instances threatened me, still a handful of recipients thanked me for the flyers and in one case confirmed that they will vote against Ronan.

For a guy who is quite capable of dishing out verbal abuse, name calling, threats of prosecution, and routinely insults those who he disagrees with, it is amusing watching the guy whine about being the target of a truthful flyers, with unflattering information about him. Indeed, only a NDP transvestite could seriously believe they are entitled to behaving in an abusive manner for years and then run in an election and have it turned into their personal “safe space” where no one can say bad things about them, on pain of being arrested and incarcerated.

Ronan’s whine…. yawn1

Image

Yup, the same guy who called SOGI opponents a–holes and who Tweeted that parents who fail to approve of their children being given transgender hormones and surgery should lose their kids, is now whining that I am giving voters accurate and unflattering information about him….

After the 5,000 flyers were delivered, I headed to Burnaby to support Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson in her bid to become school trustee.

The leftists putting on the event wanted to ban all videotaping of the All Candidates Debate, presumably to hide their bad behaviour towards Laura Lynn and others who oppose their SOGI, child perversion/abuse agenda. I videotaped my support of Laura Lynn anyways, and you can see the result above.

Please keep these dates in your prayers and join us if you can…

I have been ordered to appear in court to have a discretionary bench warrant removed. My appearance will be at College Park Courthouse, Courtroom 503, Tuesday, October 16, 10:00 am. College Park Courthouse is located Downtown Toronto, at the corner of Yonge and College St.

After court I will be preaching at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, I will be standing at Hoskin Ave and Queens Park Cr 3:30 pm -4:30 pm, Tuesday, October 16th.

Please also pray for my kangaroo trial for the “crime” of correctly gendering “Morgane” (actually Ronan) Oger, the tyrannical NDP transvestite activist who seems to believe elections are his safe space when he runs in them. The trial is coming up at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal is located at 605 Robson St, Vancouver, BC, and will be going from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm, December 11-14.

To help us with court and living expenses until these trials are over:
https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … tt-family/

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
Jeremiah 29:11

Red Tory Ontario AG Rushing to Send Christian Activist Bill Whatcott to Prison for “Hate” Against Homosexuals

Red Tory Ontario AG Rushing to Send Christian Activist Bill Whatcott to Prison for “Hate” Against Homosexuals

Discretionary warrant to arrest Whatcott, Activist update.

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:18 am

Image
Young native fellow takes my picture as young lady rapidly walks towards us and yells about “hate literature.”

Dear Friends,

Yesterday was an interesting day. I was not able to make it to my court hearing to face the so-called “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” charge that I am facing for sharing the Gospel in the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade in 2016.

You can see my “crime” here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526&p=26006#p26006

The Ontario Attorney General is proceeding by Indictment and is seeking to put me in prison for up to two years for the above stunt.

In my stead I sent my good friend Mark Theodoro to act as my agent and read my lawyer’s concerns to the court along with a request for a January 8 court date. In specific Dr. Lugosi wanted to express his concern about not getting disclosure and wanted time to appeal to the Ontario Superior Court the Crown Attorney’s refusal to give my side disclosure.

Anyways, the Crown Attorney Jennifer Epstein refused to acknowledge that Mark Theodoro was my agent and tried to get a bench warrant issued for my arrest, and presumably have me extradited back to Ontario again. Thankfully, the judge declined to do that and accepted that Mark was my agent, however the judge prevented Mark from reading Dr. Lugosi’s letters in court, demanded them to be handed to him, and only looked at them for 10 seconds before calling them “irrelevant.”

My lawyer’s request for an adjournment to January so he could appeal to the Ontario Superior Court was denied, a discretionary bench warrant for my arrest was issued, and I am now ordered to fly out to Toronto to appear in College Park Court, courtroom 503, 10:00 am, on my birthday, Tuesday, October 16th.

Here are the letters that were prevented from being read into the court record and which are called “irrelevant.”

Letter 1
————————————

Dear Jennifer,

In a situation where there is the appearance of a glaring conflict of interest, I suggest that the usual rule is open to an exception.

Conflict of Interest

In this case, the Premier and possibly other cabinet members were plaintiffs, in a Liberal subclass, in a 2016 civil class action against the defendant, Mr. Whatcott. That class action litigation was effectively stopped on March 20, 2017.

Then the Liberal subclass, which includes Prime Minister Trudeau and former Premier Wynne, decided not to pursue individual civil actions against my client.

Instead, the timeline reveals that the litigation changed in or about May of 2018, from a civil track to a criminal track once the civil litigation stalled in appeals.

The AG of Ontario, who marched in solidarity with the LGBTQ community in Ottawa in 2016, then may have assisted or benefited the Liberal subclass, to allow the approval of a criminal charge on the same content that was the subject matter of the civil action. As you know, the AG was accountable to the person who appointed him, Premier Wynne, who was a prominent member of the Liberal subclass.
The six month summary conviction time limit had long expired before Mr. Whatcott was arrested in June 2018, nearly two years after his participation in the Parade.

The timing of the charge approval is suspicious, as there is no explanation why no charge was approved many months earlier, nor is there an explanation why the matter could not have been left until after the Ontario election, to another AG who did not have an apparent conflict of interest.

Is the Crown is protecting the AG and the former Premier, who may have been politically motivated, by using privilege to prevent full disclosure?

An abuse of process may occur when there is an improper use of discretion, rooted in conflict of interest.

Selective Prosecution

Why is only Mr. Whatcott being targeted?

There appears to be selective prosecution, as Kerry Simpson came forward and volunteered to be a defendant in the civil action, and Stefan Jetchick was a named defendant in the civil action, along with Mr. Whatcott.

Misuse of Privilege

A blanket claim of privilege is improper, unless there is proof legal advice was given to the Attorney General. No such proof is being offered.

Under the disclosure case law, my client is entitled to know if any legal advice was provided to the AG or his designate, to establish a legitimate claim of privilege.

He is not asking for the content of that advice.

If advice was provided, then a legitimate claim of privilege might be made. That advice could be independently reviewed by a judge to examine the authenticity of that advice and to decide if the privilege claim is genuine and legal.

But the Crown to this date refuses to even disclose whether or not legal advice was given. If the answer is no, then no privilege attaches to the information used or considered by the AG in the exercise of his discretion.

All this is troubling to say the least and makes my client question the good faith of the Crown, which has a duty to be fair and independent of politics, and not to be seen to protect a possible politically motivated discretion to charge.

Request

We could save a lot of time, money and judicial resources if you can satisfy my client that the AG’s approval was independently, fairly and impartially arrived at, without any possibility of a conflict of interest, and without the hint of influence from Liberal subclass members, with the assistance of independent legal advice, and that his discretion was properly exercised.

Again, I urge you to seek new instructions to make full and proper disclosure according to law, so that my client may be able to instruct me and so that he can make full answer and defense.

The rule of law demands nothing less.

Best wishes,
Charles Lugosi

———————————-

Letter 2
—————————-

Dear Jennifer,

We need to graciously agree to disagree with your latest proposal.

It is improper to move this case along to a hearing in the absence of full disclosure.

An agent will be asked to appear on Thursday to ask for an adjournment until January 8, 2019.

The defense needs time to make an originating application to Superior Court for disclosure, and for an appeal by either party.

The specific grounds will be disclosed at a later time.

You may anticipate that in order to make full answer and defense, the defense needs full disclosure, as there is a significant gap in the timeline, investigation, and charge approval. Prejudice is presumed. Carosella.

The defense claims this is a politically motivated prosecution for an improper motive.

The defense claims that the deliberate non-disclosure by the Crown is for an improper motive.

1. There is a public interest in the non-disclosure of the material that was put before the Attorney General and his designate. It is not for the Crown to decide whether or not the material is privileged. The public interest immunity is one for the court to weigh and decide. See Carey v. Ontario, 1986 CarswellOnt 472.

2. The public interest requires an examination of the glaring conflict of interest in this case. It is unprecedented that a plaintiff in a civil class action, the members of the government of Ontario who belong to the Liberal Party, which has the political means and opportunity to initiate criminal proceedings against a civil defendant who defeated the Liberal Party in prior civil proceedings, uses those means to further its oppression of Mr. Whatcott.

3. Not only is the material put before the Attorney General relevant, all communications made between members of the Liberal cabinet is also properly disclosable to the presiding Judge. For example, a hypothetical political directive in cabinet, to launch criminal proceedings under s. 319 of the Criminal Code by former Premier Wynne, would be relevant to any application to bring an application for a stay of proceedings.

4. The public interest also requires an examination whether there may be any elements of a breach of trust in the decision to prosecute Bill Whatcott. Was the public position of Attorney General used to assist, promote or further the private, personal or political interests of the Liberal Party of Ontario, by instituting a 22 month abandoned prosecution in order to get a second chance to “get” Bill Whatcott, who defeated the civil claim? If the answer is yes, then serious consequences may result.

Duty of Crown

The fruits of the investigation that were put before the AG, or known to the AG, are used to ensure that justice is done. There is a duty to disclose to the defense all material that may assist the defense, even if the Crown does not intend to adduce the material at trial.

Duty of Defense

The defense has a duty to bring to the attention of the trial judge at the earliest opportunity deliberate non-disclosure by the Crown that prejudices the accused’s rights to make full answer and defense.

This is why we both need the adjournment, given the unprecedented nature of these unique proceedings.

Institutional Delay

The resulting institutional delay ought not be attributed to either the defense or to the Crown, but to required due process as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Stinchcombe.

There is no intrinsic urgency to this matter. After all, there was a 22 month delay that is unexplained by the material which has been disclosed.

Independent Review Requested

The continued refusal of the Crown to disclose all the circumstances, documents, and communications made with respect to the decision to charge Mr. Whatcott, in the absence of any legal advice given to the AG, cannot as a matter of law be classed as privileged, especially in a jurisdiction like Ontario where charge approval is normally delegated to the police, and not made by the Crown.

A court, which is permitted to examine all the material, may find at the end of the day, that the claim of privilege is a sham and that approval of the charge was improperly laid for the private, personal or political benefit of the individual members of the subclass of plaintiffs from the civil action, the Liberal Parties of Ontario and possibly also Canada. These assumed facts would constitute an abuse of process, and be the basis of a civil claim, as in Henry.

Again I urge you to stay the charge, and have it independently reviewed by an impartial, neutral, non-political third party not now, or ever connected to or associated with any political party or government.

Best wishes,

Charles

——————————————

As for my anti-SOGI/pro-truth operation ministering 5,000 truthful pamphlets to Vancouver neighbourhoods explaining why God does not want Vancouverites to vote for Morgane (actually Ronan) Oger, the transvestite activist, NDP Vice President, School Board candidate, is going well.

You can see my much needed flyer on Ronan’s lack of suitability to be a School Trustee here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10723

So far nearly 2000 flyers are out in a variety of neighbourhoods across Vancouver. Yesterday, I leafletted a number of homes and apartments across the west end of Vancouver. One pro-homosexual guy chased me out of his apartment in Kitsalano, but I was able to successfully stuff the last mailbox in the apartment building with my truth flyer before the guy chased me out the front door. I was happy I got every mailbox before the guy kicked me out.

Today, I was leafletting around Commercial Drive, south of East 1st Ave. This neighbourhood was the most hostile I’ve encountered so far. Early into the mission one young man ran after me with my flyer in his hand screaming “This is hate mail” and after shouting Ronan’s gender identity has no effect on his job performance (a not true statement), the guy crumpled my flyer and threw it at my head. I was getting concerned the young man was going to try and hit me as he was following me down the street and was clearly agitated and shouting about “hate speech.” After a few minutes of listening and observing the guy’s tirade I asked him if he thought it was cool that he was defending a guy who ripped off his ex-wife and absconded on a native band’s rent. My belligerent leftist went quiet for a second and it was clear his head was trying to process what I said as he asked “ripped off wife?” I responded by saying “think about it.” The fellow seemed to lose his steam and walked back to his home and I continued leafletting the neighbouhood.

A few minutes after disengaging the one yong leftist, a young native fellow and two white women came running after me and started yelling I was a “hater” and guilty of “hate speech.” I tried to tell them my flyer was true and not hateful, but they just kept shouting “hate speech! hate speech! and drowned me out, making it impossible to have a discussion. People hearing the comotion on the street started opening up their windows and started yelling at me that I was a “bigot,” and seeing as I wasn’t able to talk with my oponents at all, I decided to leave the neighbouhood.

Anyways, I still have 3000 more flyers to go. Please continue to pray for this operation.

Seeing as the courts are dragging me back to Toronto for what seems to me a court date that will accomplish very little, except insure I don’t spend my birthday with my wife, I have decided to use this injustice as an opportunity to promote God’s justice and offer His free gift of salvation through His Son Jesus Christ to University of Toronto’s law students once again.

Join us for the preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a strong and Biblical stand against homofascism at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, the main entrance of the Bora Laskin Library, 78 Queens Park, University of Toronto, October 16, 3:30 – 4:30 pm.

If you would like to help with the airfare, expenses related to being dragged to court in Toronto again, and help us survive until this trial is over (it is very difficult to find stable work when your police clearance tells potential employers you are charged with a “hate crime” and the courts are dragging you to Toronto every couple of weeks) please consider donating to us:

https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcortt

“I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith — that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.”
Philippians 3:8-10

Is the Tribunal Member (Judge) in the Whatcott Free Speech Case Hopelessly Biased

Is the Tribunal Member (Judge) in the Whatcott Free Speech Case Hopelessly Biased

 

CAFE, as an intervenor in the Whatcott case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, supported a motion by his lawyer asking Ms Devyn Cousineau to recuse herself as Tribunal member of judge in this case on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.  The arguments offered by Dr. Charles Lugosi dealt mostly with rulings by Ms Cousineau. However, some very powerful further evidence of LGBTQ activism by Ms Cousineau have been discovered by two dogged researchers.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Whatcott BC Human Rights trial date change, judge exposed

by Bill Whatcott » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:02 am

Devyn Cousineau claims her pro-homosexual activism demonstrates “experience” with human rights law and is not an indicator of bias that would prevent her from deciding Oger vs Whatcott fairly.

In Devyn Cousineau’s recent decision where she declined to recuse herself from Oger vs Whatcott the homosexual activist kangaroo judge Devyn Copusineau wrote:

[54] Finally, Mr. Whatcott argues that my actions prior to being appointed to this Tribunal demonstrate that I was a “vigorous advocate of LGBT rights”. He says that I will be predisposed to decide this complaint based on my “personal subjective view … through the lens of political correctness”.

[56] What this demonstrates is that I came to this Tribunal with experience and engagement in human rights law. This is a pre-requisite for the position. It does not, in my view, amount to evidence that I would not decide this matter fairly.

To read the rest of Devyn’s flawed judgment go here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12zQr1Z … sp=sharing

Anyways….

It is touching to see Devyn Cousineau has complete confidence in her so-called impartiality. However, If you look at these screen shots below of one of Ms. Cousineau’s favourite LGBT activist groups and her support of it, you will see why I have no confidence in this far left, pro-homosexual activist who is attempting to pass herself off as a credible judge at all.

I have discovered that Ms. Cousineau is a financial supporter of “Qmunity.” Qmunity chose an interesting pic for their homepage here. This is a shot of two male drag queens who belong to the homosexual activist group “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.” The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are highly visible at homosexual pride parades and seem to exist mostly to blaspheme Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Toronto homosexual shame parade in 2016. Note the sodomite on the left who has a silhouete of Jesus Christ on his crotch

Screenshot of a message from the Qmunity Board of Directors. Note “gender affirming garments” consist of giving free bras, girdles and other women’s clothes to gender confused boys. The site claims these are sometimes given to children in “conservative” homes without parental knowledge or consent. Bill 27 was an amendment that added protection of transvestitism to the BC Human Rights Code. Mr. Ronan Oger sat on committees that brought this amendment into law.

Qmunity marching in the 2017 Vancouver homosexual pride parade.

Ronan Oger (cross dresser wearing pink cowboy hat) smiling at a bare bummed homosexual marching in the 2017 Vancouver homosexual pride parade. Ronan (he calls himself Morgane) is the Vice President of the BC NDP and the complainant in Oger vs Whatcott who wants Bill Whatcott punished for calling him a biological male and telling voters in Vancouver-False Creek that God didn’t want them to vote for him. Bill Whatcott notes Mr. Oger is a well known volunteer at Qmunity and travels in the same far left/regressive/pro-homosexual circles in Vancouver that Devyn Cousineau travels in. It is highly probable Ronan and Devyn know eachother at least socially.

In the Qmunity 2016 annual report Devyn Cousineau (the woman tasked with impartially adjudicating Oger vs Whatcott) was recognized for financially donating to the homosexual activist organization.

The date for my Kangaroo show trial has been changed. Please cancel Sept 10-13 in your dayminders. The new dates for my kangaroo show trial are:

Here is my latest interview done two days ago with Press for Truth Media:

“These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
“Therefore they are before the throne of God,

Sign the Petition to Ontario AG to Drop Anti-Christian “Hate” Charges Against Bill Whatcott

Sign the Petition to Ontario AG to Drop Anti-Christian “Hate” Charges Against Bill Whatcott

 

Yesterday, I travelled to Toronto to observe the court proceedings against Bill Whatcott, an Alberta man who has been charged with a “hate crime” for passing out Christian literature to homosexuals at the Toronto “Gay Pride” parade in 2016.

Bill remarked, “I’m the first Christian arrested for putting out fliers at a gay parade.”

At the core of the Christian religion is the message that all people are sinners, and that we must repent of our sins and trust in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Among the behaviours delineated as “sinful” in sacred Scripture is homosexuality (or sodomy). (See Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

As a Christian, Bill felt compelled to present this message at the “Gay Pride” parade, out of concern and love for the people there. For this, he was arrested.

But you can’t call something “illegal” at the core of a world religion, unless you aim to condemn that whole religion.

At today’s proceedings, Bill’s lawyer asked the Crown to fully disclose its basis for pressing charges against Bill. In order to mount a credible defence, Bill’s legal team needs to know why the charges were laid, and what parties were involved in the accusation.

The Crown agreed to provide disclosure, and the trial was set to resume September 20th.

About ten supporters and friends joined Bill in the courtroom, including pro-life heroine Linda Gibbons. Linda has spent over ten years in prison for her repeated witness in front of abortion clinics.

Bill Whatcott and Linda Gibbons

Bill appreciates the support he has received thus far. He is also very grateful for our CitizenGO petition, which has been signed by over 40,000 people. (You can sign and share it here: https://www.citizengo.org/en-ca/pr/163468-christian-charged-hate-crime-sharing-truth).

Bill has faith in God to see him through this ordeal. He also believes that the more people speak out and stand up for free speech, the more likely it is that our new Ontario government will listen.

However, it appears the cards are stacked against Bill.

There is a great deal of prejudice against Bill in the public square. He has been labelled an “anti-LGBTQ activist” and his literature has been decreed “homophobic” in most media outlets. Various politicians have denounced him.

When dealing with other types of crimes, the media will usually say the accused is an “alleged” criminal, having “allegedly done this or that”. However, in the case of a Christian like Bill, they have already passed judgement, even before the court gets a chance.

I asked Bill about the “anti-LGBTQ” label placed upon him. He immediately denied it. He said, “I’m opposed to sodomy, but I’m not opposed to people.”

When asked if he would ever carry a sign that said, “God Hates Homomsexuals,” he said he never would. “I won’t carry that sign.”

Bill expressed hope that Ontario’s new attorney general, Caroline Mulroney (a Harvard graduate), will recognize the absurdity of these charges. He expects she will see that he has done nothing illegal, and that these charges are merely political – laid to further the former liberal government’s agenda.

Bill will now return to his home in Alberta to look for employment as he awaits his next court date. I will keep you up-to-date on events over the summer.

Yours for Freedom in Christ,

David Cooke and the Entire CitizenGO Team

P.S. Again, if you have not already, please sign and share our petition:https://www.citizengo.org/en-ca/pr/163468-christian-charged-hate-crime-sharing-truth

P.P.S. You may also send a personal e-mail to the Hon. Caroline Mulroney, attorney general for Ontario, asking that the charges against Bill Whatcott be dropped. She has the power to do that. Her e-mail is: caroline.mulroneyco@pc.ola.org

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association Calls on Ontario Attorney General to Revoke Consent for ‘Hate’ Charges Against Dr. Sears & Leroy St. Germaine (YOUR WARD NEWS); Kevin J. Johnston & Bill Whatcott

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association Calls on Ontario Attorney General to Revoke Consent for ‘Hate’ Charges Against Dr. Sears & Leroy St. Germaine (YOUR WARD NEWS); Kevin J. Johnston & Bill Whatcott
http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-07-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-Ontario-Mulroney.pdf 
Media Release: 
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has sent a letter to Ontario’s new 
Attorney General Caroline Mulroney, re: Criminal code censorship prosecutions in Ontario.
By Email
 
July 24, 2018

 

Hon. Caroline Mulroney
Attorney General of Ontario
Ontario, Canada
Dear Attorney General Mulroney:
 
Re:  Criminal Code censorship prosecutions in Ontario

 

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) advocates for civil and human rights, including the fundamental human right of individual expression, opinion and belief.
We write to ask you to refrain during your mandate from consenting to any prosecutions based on the censorship provisions of the Criminal Code, because the said provisions categorically violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the “Covenant”) ratified by Canada in 1976.
The impugned sections of the Criminal Code are:

 

LIBEL
·   S. 296 – Blasphemous libel
·   Ss. 297 to 317 – Defamatory libel

 

HATE PROPAGANDA
·   S. 318 – Advocating genocide
·   S. 319 – Public incitement of hatred / Wilful promotion of hatred
·   Ss. 320 to 320.1 – Warrant of seizure

 

Our point is not that expression cannot be criminal. For example:  ss. 22 and 464 of the Criminal Code, which apply to valid provisions of the Criminal Code.
Our point is that Canada and the provinces are obligated under international law not to enact and use laws that violate fundamental human rights.
The “blasphemous libel” (s. 296) and “defamatory libel” (ss. 297 to 317) provisions are squarely contrary to international law,[1] and opposite to all the relevant joint statements of international rapporteurs on human rights.[2],[3],[4] In particular, the said provisions prescribe imprisonment, whereas international law expressly disallows imprisonment as a penalty for any type of defamation, whether characterized as “criminal” or not.[5]

 

Section 296 will be repealed by Bill C-51 (referred to committee on Senate second reading). The defamatory libel” sections (ss. 297 to 317) are maintained, except that “published” cannot mean solely to the person who is defamed (s. 299(c)).

 

The “advocating genocide” provision of the Criminal Code (s. 318), is noncompliant with the Covenant because it does not prescribe an onus on the state to establish a “direct and immediate connection” to an actual “threat”:[6]

 

When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.
A valid law prohibiting advocating genocide is required to prescribe that the “advocating” must be credible and causally connected to a palpable threat.
The “public incitement of hatred / wilful promotion of hatred” provisions (s. 319) violate the Covenant because no actual harm to any specific person needs to be proven by the state; nor is the issue incitement of a crime, but rather incitement of “hatred” (an emotion which is not in itself a crime) in unspecified persons at large.
The court is asked to subjectively hypothesize an induced “hatred” at large. The state need only wave the magic wand of “hatred”, subjectively inferred from the impugned expression itself, to imprison an individual for up to two years.
These are victimless crimes of hypothetically inducing emotions transmitted into the ether of society, which hypothetically cause unspecified harm to unspecified persons. No evidence of any kind is needed beyond the impugned expression itself and the context of the expression.
The Supreme Court itself determined this statutory interpretation of prosecutions pursuant to ss. 319(1) and 319(2):[7]
“The offence does not require proof that the communication caused actual hatred. … The risk of hatred caused by hate propaganda is very real.  This is the harm that justifies prosecuting individuals under this section [319] of the Criminal Code.  In the Media Case, the ICTR said that ‘[t]he denigration of persons on the basis of their ethnic identity or other group membership in and of itself, as well as in its other consequences, can be an irreversible harm’.”  [Emphasis added]
The proverbial slippery slope has now led us beyond this victimless crime — in which any effect or harm from the expression need not be proven and cannot be tested — to a place where “holocaust denial” is argued to automatically generate the said hatred at large. On the contrary, the Covenant holds the state to an entirely different standard:[8]

 

Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events.

 

The impugned Criminal Code provisions include overt “book burning” clauses (ss. 319(4), 320 and 320.1) for recorded materials that are subjectively hypothesized to induce “hatred” in the reader, listener or viewer.
Canada has an obligation to remove these laws,[9] an obligation that it appears to be largely disregarding despite our calls starting in February 2016.
All prosecutions pursuant to the impugned provisions are fundamentally unjust towards the individual, extraordinarily wasteful of public resources, and harmful to democracy itself.

 

The “hate propaganda” prosecutions are structurally political because they are made at the discretion of the Attorney General (ss. 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7)). They have a potential to be used as propaganda and societal manipulation, much as witch trials were used in the Reformation in competing for “religious market share” between Catholics and Protestants.[10] Those who seek censorship of a particular negative view are often partisans of a particular political party or ideology or may have a special interest they wish to advance. Reactions to views one finds repugnant are emotional vectors that can align, consolidate, increase or strengthen partisan affiliation when the issue is predictably mediatized through a controversial trial.

 

In addition, we ask you to retract the Attorney General’s consent for all the ongoing such prosecutions, which were consented to by the previous Attorney General despite our requests.

 

We know of three current such prosecutions being pursued in Ontario:
  • Kevin Johnston – for expressed negative opinions about Muslims
  • James Sears – for expressed negative opinions about women and Jews
  • Bill Whatcott – for expressed negative opinions about gays

 

Please let us know your responses so that we may report these to our members and to the public.
Yours truly,
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
Cc: Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Attorney General of Canada, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.camcu@justice.gc.ca
[1] General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd
session, CCPR/C/GC/34, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf>, paras. 47 to 49
[2] JOINT DECLARATION: Current Challenges to Media Freedom, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, 30 November 2000, <http://www.osce.org/fom/40190>
[3] JOINT DECLARATION, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, 10 December 2002, <http://www.osce.org/fom/39838>
[4] JOINT DECLARATION ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS, AND ANTI-TERRORISM AND ANTI-EXTREMISM LEGISLATION, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the ACHPR (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, 10 December 2008, <http://www.osce.org/fom/35639>
[5] General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd
session, CCPR/C/GC/34, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf>, para. 47
[6] See Article 20 of the Covenant; and see General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd session, CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 35
[7] Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 SCR 100, 2005 SCC 40 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1l249>, at para. 102
[8] General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd session, CCPR/C/GC/34, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf>, at para. 49
[9] General comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 80th session, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004, <http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=478b26ae2>, para. 13
[10] “Witch Trials” by Peter T. Leeson and Jacob W. Russ, The Economic Journal, 2017, DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12498
Contact:
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)

CALGARY STAR ON WHATCOTT STREET PREACHING @ CALGARY STAMPEDE

Calgary Star on Whatcott Street Preaching @ Calgary Stampede

Calgary Star on Whatcott Street Preaching @ Calgary Stampede

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:14 am

Image
Bill Whatcott surrounded by 25 or so supporters as he speaks to a Calgary Police officer moments before being arrested.

Anti-LGBTQ activist appears at Stampede parade two weeks after turning himself in
By MADELINE SMITH
StarMetro Calgary
Fri., July 6, 2018
https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2018/07 … lf-in.html

CALGARY—An anti-LGBTQ activist who turned himself in on a Canada-wide warrant in Calgary two weeks ago appeared Friday with protest signs at the Stampede parade.

William Whatcott surrendered to Calgary police on June 22 for charges of wilful promotion of hatred, which stemmed from accusations of distributing 3,000 pamphlets to attendees at Pride Toronto’s 2016 parade that contained what Toronto police call “hateful” content. At the time of his arrest, he said he regretted nothing and had “absolutely no apologies to make.”

On Friday, Whatcott was equally unapologetic.

“I haven’t changed my mind on very much,” he said.

He said he plans to stay in Calgary for “at least a little while.”

Video and photos on Whatcott’s Facebook page show him holding signs, one that references “homosexuals” and Muslims. In one of the videos, two people confront Whatcott as he says, “We’ve got a right to preach.”

Whatcott said he was in Calgary police custody for one night and spent one further night in the Calgary Remand Centre before he was taken to Toronto, where he was in jail for two days before his bail hearing. He came back to Alberta shortly after his release.

He said the Stampede protest did not violate any of his bail conditions, which include not replicating the pamphlet his hate-related charges stemmed from, informing police of any address changes and staying at least 500 metres away from any Pride parade.

Neither Calgary nor Toronto police could confirm what conditions he had to follow.

Whatcott’s next court date is July 23 in Toronto, but his lawyer Charles Lugosi said Whatcott would likely not have to appear in person until the trial begins.

Lugosi said Toronto-based lawyer Daniel Santoro represented Whatcott at his most recent court appearance.

Video of Canadian Political/Religious Prisoner Just Before His Arrest in Calgary, June 22

 

Video of Canadian Political/Religious Prisoner Just Before His Arrest in Calgary, June 22

See the video of Amy Contrada’s interview with Bill Whatcott in Calgary one hour before he turned himself in to face an indictable hate crime charge for sharing the Gospel and accurate medical information at the 2016 Toronto Homosexual Pride Parade:

http://www.freenorthamerica.ca/viewtopic.php?f=16&…

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

https://youtu.be/evAP1qI7Ay4

*Updates on the Alison Chabloz, & Monika & Alfred Schaefer

* Updates on Canadian cases — YOUR WARD NEWS, Bill Whatcott, now charged by the outgoing Pakistani, Moslem AG for “hate” & other