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

Last Gasp in War on Free Speech By Ontario’s Outgoing Lesbian Premier & Her Moslem Pakistani Attorney General

Last Gasp in War on Free Speech By Ontario’s Outgoing Lesbian Premier & Her Moslem Pakistani Attorney General

 
They may be down, but their not yet out. Ontario’s rabidly anti-Christian and anti-free speech Liberals were trounced in the last election and reduced to a 7-MPP rump that doesn’t even qualify for official party status in the legislature. However, they are still in power promoting their pro-LGBTQ, pro-Moslem, anti-free speech agenda. Last year the now-defated Yasir Naqvi, Ontario’s Pakistani, Moslem Attorney General, gave the rarely granted but necessary consent for Sec. 319 “hate law” charges against Kevin J. Johnston, a critic of radical Islamd, and against Dr. James Sears, the editor, and Leroy St. Germaine, the publisher of YOUR WARD NEWS, for their critiques of Jews and extreme feminism. As their parting shot, they have charged Christian evangelist Whatcott for views expressed when he infiltrated the Toronto Gay Pride parade several years ago.
 
A Canada-wide warrant has been issued for his arrest. [Remember, the persecution of Christians does not only occur in formally communist states like Red China or North Korea; it also occurs in regimes ruled by Cultural Marxist].
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Whatcott the subject of a Canada wide warrant

Postby Bill Whatcott » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:55 pm

Dear Friends,

I found out yesterday I am the subject of a Canada wide arrest warrant issued by Toronto’s 51 Division Police Headquarters. It appears I am facing an indictable charge for “Public Incitement of Hatred.”

Public incitement of hatred
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years

The “crime?” My ministry bringing the Gospel and the truth about homosexuality to Toronto’s homosexual pride parade in 2016. :icon_rolleyes:

To read about this “crime” that has caused the police to hunt me down in 2 provinces, go to my daughter’s home, and some of my friend’s houses searching for me and for which they appear to want to extradite me to Ontario to stand trial go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526

Anyways, I will be turning myself into the Calgary Police Service Headquarters on Friday, June 22 at 10:00 am.

Calgary Police Service Address: 5111 47 St. N.E. Calgary

My wife and Pastor Art Pawlowski are organizing a protest in front of the police headquarters in defense of religious freedom and freedom of speech. My wife will be speaking about this case at the March for Jesus in Calgary this coming Saturday.

If you wish to join them:

Jadranka Whatcott: 226-591-2014, e-mail: jadrankawhatcott@gmail.com
Pastor Art Pawlowski: 403-607-4434, e-mail: art@streetchurch.ca

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.” John 8:36

HELP CAFE — SUPPORT FREE SPEECH

                                        HELP CAFE — SUPPORT FREE SPEECH                                                                                                                                                   

                                          Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 

Times of Triumph and Challenge for Free Speech in Canada

            It’s been six months since I wrote to you. What a wild time it’s been for freedom of speech in Canada!

 

                Canadians are heading in two different directions. On the one hand, more and more people are speaking up for freedom of speech. Almost every weekend, somewhere in Canada there is a protest against immigration or radical Islam and prominent in these protests are concerns about Motion-103, now before the Commons Heritage Committee. M-103 was a condemnation of Islamophobia by Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani who is a Mississauga Liberal MP. People rightly fear that out of this will come even more restrictions on freedom of speech. On the other hand, a panicking cultural Marxist elite is striking out in all directions trying to suppress criticism of special minorities — Moslems, Jews, the sexually unusual — LGBTQ etc.

 

Ottawa Library Folds & Cancels Showing of Movie Critical of Islamic Invasion of Europe

                Almost every day, it seems, there is a new issue requiring a response from CAFE and very often a timely video on You Tube. We are amassing a growing audience. Just as I sat down to write this letter to you, I was made aware that the cowardly Ottawa Public Library had cancelled a meeting of Act! For Canada because they were going to screen the movie Killing Europe. Chronic busybody Richard Warman, who apparently had not seen the movie, declared it was “hate propaganda”. Needless to say, it has never been the subject of a “hate” charge or a conviction. CAFE quickly sent complaints to the Ottawa Library and provided our list with the contact e-mails of the Board.

 

Thought Control Forces Lose One: Professor Tony Hall Returns to U of Lethbridge

                The day before, we got good news. Professor Tony Hall of the University of Lethbridge was back in the classroom. Changes in provincial law — yes, Rachel Notley has managed to do one thing right — forced the university to cancel its suspension and  BANNING from, campus of Professor Hall. He had criticized Zionism and insisted that there should be open debate on the holocaust. B’nai Brith, one of Canada’s most strident anti-free speech group, howled and Tony Hall, a tenured professor, was banned from campus last year and faces charges before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. CAFE wrote a number of letters supporting him and I know many of you did too.

 

Lindsay Shepherd — Free Speech Heroine

                More good news. A creepy story from Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. Lindsay Shepherd is a very brave 22 year old woman. She is a graduate student and was teaching a class in communications. She was talking about the issue where some sexual dysfunctionals insist on being called “zir” or “they” instead of he or her. She played part of a TVO debate between University of Toronto psychologist Prof. Jordan Peterson who opposes such nonsense and another professor who supports the use of these made-up terms. All hell broke loose. Some anonymous student complained. She was hauled before her superiors and, in an interview she recorded, she was denounced as a White supremacist and transphobic. She bravely held her ground even when she was advised — incorrectly — that even screening Professor Peterson’s remarks might be illegal. Her future classes would be monitored by her superiors. She held her ground and insisted universities are places for people to explore and debate ideas and that controversy does not create a ‘”toxic” environment. When her recording went viral on the Internet many people rushed to her defence. The thought police at WLU became a laughingstock. Even leftish papers condemned the university’s behaviour.

 

Some Winnipeg Hotels Won’t Let A Controversial Figure Even Rent a Bedroom: Pyongyang on the Prairies

My recent visit to Winnipeg did not end as well. After two well attended and enthusiastic meetings in Victoria and Regina, I arrived in Winnipeg to discover  I had been the subject of a three day smear in the Winnipeg Free Press. I enclose one of these articles. Typical soap opera journalism, the article is full of name calling and denunciation. You’d have no idea what I believe and am presented mostly in the words of anti-free speech activists. I had booked a suite at the Airport Hilton for the meeting, thus, a bedroom. As long as I am sober, orderly and can pay the bill, they cannot deny me lodging. However, I was met by the manager who told me he would not let me enter. He was backed up some  grotesquely fat East Indian who refused to give his name. When asked for reasons, the manager said “circumstances”. I quickly arranged for another location and started contacting my list. About 20 minutes before the meeting, the second hotel manager said he’d spoken to the police and was throwing me out of the hotel. Friends drove me to two more hotels. As soon as I presented my ID, they refused to let me stay. The bald bouncer-like night manager with an ear ring of the Assiniboine  hotel said he “had a bad gut feeling” about me. Clearly, they had been contacted by people high up — we suspect the police — and ordered to violate my civil rights. I am consulting a lawyer and am planning to take action. However, the publicity won us three new supporters who read through the garbage. Because of Donald Trump increasing number of people see the media as liars and purveyors of fake news.

 

Democracy in Ontario:  Uninvited to Testify to Legislative Committee

                On October 10, I learned that the Ontario Legislature was expediting passage of Bill 63 — a draconian measure that would create 150-metre bubble zones  around abortion clinics or abortion providers’ residences. Displaying any sign, slogan even a facial gesture critical of abortion within this zone could result in 6 months in prison or a $10,000 fine. This was definitely a free speech issue, I thought. I called the Legislature and registered for a spot at 2:15 on October 12. That was the only day for the hearings. Meanwhile enemies of free speech and open debate like Warren Kinsella sent protests to the Legislature. The morning of the hearing, the clerk advised me that the committee had voted unanimously — and that included the Tories — NOT to hear me. We circulated our brief anyway.

 

Prior Restraint: Toronto Public Library Bans Victor Fletcher Meeting

            Joining the thought control crew is the Toronto Public Library. They refused to let us book their facilities to host Toronto Street News publisher Victor Fletcher in October. Toronto Street News is a publication that looks at conspiracies and has since 1999. Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation and a violation of the provisions of the Library‘s Rules of Conduct. The Library cannot allow its facilities to be used to support such activities and we have, therefore, denied the booking on these grounds.” Libraries have often stood bravely for making controversial views available to the public. Not any more. One can only argue from past behaviour. Neither the meeting’s sponsor nor Mr. Fletcher nor his paper has ever been charged, much less convicted, under Sec. 319 — Canada’s ‘hate’ laws. I will be appearing at the December 11 meeting of the Toronto Library Board as a delegation to protest.

 

YOUR WARD NEWS Postal Ban Review Continues

                The review as to whether Judy Foote had reasonable grounds to issue the Interim  Prohibitory Order, banning YOUR WARD NEWS editor Dr. James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine from sending mail — any mail — in Canada resumes today. CAFE is taking an active role and will continue to do so. On November 2, the Committee issued a series of preliminary rulings. First, they decided that the minister had not provided reasons for her decision. They also ruled they could consider the constitutionality of both the minister’s arbitrary actions and of those sections of the Canada Post Corporation Act itself. More hearings will be held.


 

YOUR WARD NEWS Charged With “Hate”

                After several years of fevered agitation, especially by Jewish censorship groups like the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, with active assistance from anti-free speech meddlers like Warren Kinsella and Richard Warman, the Moslem Attorney General of Ontario Yasir Naqvi — he comes from a country (Pakistan) that doesn’t much value free speech — laid his second “hate law” charge in six months. The victims this time, Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine, publisher of YOUR WARD NEWS. This is going to be an important battle and CAFE is already on board as an active participant in the defence. Dr. Sears intends to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 319 as well. Prune face Canada is actually charging a satirical paper for making people laugh. Our grim guts rulers would fit right in with the tyrants in Pyongyang.

 

                The Evangelist versus the Transgendered: Whatcott Human Rights Tribunal — The Opening Shots

                Across the country in Vancouver the hearing of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal into a complaint by Ronan Auger who says he is transgendered against evangelist Bill Whatcott for critical leaflets he distributed during last May’s provincial election is still in its preliminary stages. We are supporting Mr. Whatcott’s motion to dismiss this complaint as frivolous and petty. CAFE also  supported the successful application of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms to join us as an intervenor supporting Mr. Whatcott’s rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

                Indeed, a very busy Fall. All of this takes money and, as always, we must rely on you. Please help Christmas to arrive early for CAFE and send us your most generous support to continue to make all this possible. We are at a dangerous crossroads in Canada with many people speaking out against our suicidal immigration policies and in defence of free speech. But, equally those trying to change our country beyond recognition and impose diversity and special rights for privileged minorities are desperate and dangerous as they try to squelch those who speak up. More than ever, CAFE’s work is vital.

                Merry Christmas! my fellow truth seeker  and friend of free speech,

 

                Paul Fromm, Director

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

___  Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE fund its interventions in the YOUR WARD NEWS  case (denial of mailing rights and now “hate law” charges).

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, and to produce more timely You Tube videos in this age of Internet alternative media.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2018 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#____________________________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:______________________________________________________________________

 Name:__________________________________________________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________________________________________________           

_______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

CAFE’S SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF BILL WHATCOTT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRANSGENDERED OGER’S COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION BEFORE B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

CAFE’S SUBMISSIONS  IN SUPPORT OF BILL WHATCOTT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRANSGENDERED  OGER’S COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION BEFORE B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS  TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before

the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

Morgane Oger

COMPLAINANT

AND:

Bill Whatcott

RESPONDENT

 

SUBMISSION BY INTERVENER CAFÉ (CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION) ON RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL

1.     The BCHRCode is narrow + specific as to what it covers, + doesn’t allow tribunal leeway to invent or make up rules or concepts not specifically provided for.

2.     The concept of “hatred” or “hate” has been narrowly defined by SCC in Whatcott v Sask. (HRC), [2013] SCJ no. 11. These passages from the SCC Whatcott decision confirm “a Modified Definition of ‘Hatred’ “: [56]  First, courts are directed to apply the hate speech prohibitions  objectively . In my view, the reference in  Taylor  to “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions” (at p. 928) should not be interpreted as imposing a subjective test or limiting the analysis to the intensity with which the author of the expression feels the emotion. The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances surrounding the expression, would view it as exposing the protected group to hatred. [57]  Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred and contempt” is to be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification”. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects. [58]  Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue. Is the expression likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others? The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not, in itself, sufficient to justify restricting the expression. The prohibition of hate speech is not designed to censor ideas or to compel anyone to think “correctly”.

In light of these three principles, where the term “hatred” is used in the context of a prohibition of expression in human rights legislation, it should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. [85]…prohibiting…any representation which “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

The words “ridicules”, “belittles” or “affronts the dignity of” are said to lower the threshold of the test to capture “hurt feelings” and “affronts to dignity”that are not tied to the objective of eliminating discrimination. To the extent that they do, they are said to infringe freedom of expression in ways not rationally connected to the legislative objectives. [87]  Since the decision in  Taylor , the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has interpreted s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code , including the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of”, to prohibit only those publications involving unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification: see  Bell  at para. 31;  Owens , at para. 53, and  Whatcott (C.A.) , at paras. 53-55. [88]  Although the expansive words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” have essentially been ignored when applying s. 14(1)( b ), it is a matter of concern to some interveners that “the legislation has never been amended, and no declaration has ever been made to read down the impugned law” (Christian Legal Fellowship factum, at para. 22), and that the express wording of the provision contributes to its chilling effect (Canadian Journalists for Free Expression factum, at para. 5). [89]  In my view, expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” does not rise to the level of ardent and extreme feelings that were found essential to the constitutionality of s. 13(1) of the  CHRA  in  Taylor . Those words are not synonymous with “hatred” or “contempt”. Rather, they refer to expression which is derogatory and insensitive, such as representations criticizing or making fun of protected groups on the basis of their commonly shared characteristics and practices, or on stereotypes. As Richards J.A. observed in  Owens , at para. 53: “Much speech which is self-evidently constitutionally protected involves some measure of ridicule, belittlement or an affront to dignity grounded in characteristics like race, religion and so forth. I have in mind, by way of general illustration, the editorial cartoon which satirizes people from a particular country, the magazine piece which criticizes the social policy agenda of a religious group and so forth. Freedom of speech in a healthy and robust democracy must make space for that kind of discourse. . . .”[90]  I agree. Expression criticizing or creating humour at the expense of others can be derogatory to the extent of being repugnant. Representations belittling a minority group or attacking its dignity through jokes, ridicule or insults may be hurtful and offensive. However, for the reasons discussed above, offensive ideas are not sufficient to ground a justification for infringing on freedom of expression. While such expression may inspire feelings of distain or superiority, it does not expose the targeted group to hatred. [91]  There may be circumstances where expression that “ridicules” members of a protected group goes beyond humour or satire and risks exposing the person to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. In such circumstances, however, the risk results from the intensity of the ridicule reaching a level where the target becomes exposed to hatred. While ridicule, taken to the extreme, can conceivably lead to exposure to hatred, in my view, “ridicule” in its ordinary sense would not typically have the potential to lead to the discrimination that the legislature seeks to address. [92]  Thus, in order to be rationally connected to the legislative objective of eliminating discrimination and the other societal harms of hate speech, s. 14(1)( b ) must only prohibit expression that is likely to cause those effects through exposure to hatred. I find that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in s. 14(1)( b ) are not rationally connected to the legislative purpose of addressing systemic discrimination of protected groups. The manner in which they infringe freedom of expression cannot be justified under s. 1 of the  Charter  and, consequently, they are constitutionally invalid. [93]  It remains to determine whether the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” can be severed from s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code , or whether their removal would transform the provision into something which was clearly outside the intention of the legislature. It is significant that in the course of oral argument before this Court, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan endorsed the manner in which the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” were read out in  Bell . I accept his view that the offending words can be severed without contravening the legislative intent. [94]  Given my determination that these words are unconstitutional, it is time to formally strike out those words from s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code . The provision would therefore read: (b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground. [95]  Accordingly, I will proceed on the basis that the only word in issue on this appeal is “hatred”. Interpreting that term in accordance with the modified  Taylor  definition of “hatred”, the prohibition under s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code  is applied by inquiring whether,  in the view of a reasonable person aware of the context and circumstances, the representation exposes or tends to expose any person or class of persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. [99] Having concluded that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in s. 14(1)( b ) are not rationally connected to the objective of prohibiting speech which can lead to discrimination, I also find them constitutionally invalid because they do not minimally impair freedom of expression. [109]  Restricting expression because it may offend or hurt feelings does not give sufficient weight to the role expression plays in individual self-fulfillment, the search for truth, and unfettered political discourse. Prohibiting any representation which “ridicules, belittles or affronts the dignity of” protected groups could capture a great deal of expression which, while offensive to most people, falls short of exposing its target group to the extreme detestation and vilification which risks provoking discriminatory activities against that group. Rather than being tailored to meet the particular requirements, such a broad prohibition would impair freedom of expression in a significant way. [110]  The Saskatchewan legislature recognized the importance of freedom of expression through its enactment of s. 14(2) of the  Code . To repeat, that provision confirms that “[n]othing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of expression under the law upon any subject”. The objective behind s. 14(1)( b ) is not to censor ideas or to legislate morality. The legislative objective of the entire provision is to address harm from hate speech while limiting freedom of expression as little as possible.

3.     All Code-created prohibitions + offences can only be read + interpreted subject to the superior freedoms + rights enacted in the Charter, especially section 2(b) thereof, namely, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion + expression, including freedom of the press + other means of communication.

4.     The Courts in Canada + USA have given paramount importance to freedom of expression in the context of elections, as evidenced in the Canadian SCC decisions of Figueroa v Canada [2003] 1 SCR 912, + Thomson v Canada [1998] 1 SCR 877, + the USSC decision of Citizens United v FEC. Free expression must be given free rein in the vital matter of free democratic elections.

5.     Any member of the public, any citizen, has the absolute right to raise any matter about an election candidate, including: fitness for office, good character, honesty + truthfulness, trustworthiness, faithfulness to others (including one’s spouse and/or children), lying about anything including about oneself, sexual misconduct, sanity (being free of mental disorder or delusion), political agenda (including candidate’s desire, as here, to punish, harrass or bully citizens.

6.     Nobody has a right not to be offended, to protection of so-called “dignity”, “feelings”, “reputation” or “self-respect”. These aren’t in the Code, and no Tribunal has the right to make up or invent concepts from “whole cloth”. It’s not the purpose for which Code was initially enacted, to protect people from actual tangible + palpable harm from true discrimination in matters like employment, houding, + services offered to the public.

7.     Each citizen has the right to express his/her doubt or disbelief that any person has the right to claim any special privilege under the Code.

8.     Each citizen has the right to question the validity of any claim by a person to be of a gender or sex that doesn’t correspond to reality, & to question any demand by someone to be addressed as or referred to as being of a certain gender or sex, or to be referred to by certain pronouns if that does not correspond to reality.

9.     It is submitted that any cases decided by BCHRT or any other tribunal, contrary to the charter or the Code, are wrongly decided + must not be followed. This would include the Browne, Sheridan, waters + dawson decisions. Alternatively, these cases must be distinguished on the basis the facts differed from those in the present case.

 

All of which is respectfully submitted by the Intervenor, the Canadian Association For Free Expression (CAFÉ), this 22nd day of December, 2017.

  Per:  _______________________________

Paul Fromm, Director

CAFE & JCCF Granted Intervenor Status for Bill Whatcott’s Motion to Have Oger’s Transgendered Discrimination Complaint Dismissed as Meritless

CAFE & JCCF Granted Intervenor Status for Bill Whatcott’s Motion to Have Oger’s Transgendered Discrimination Complaint Dismissed as Meritless
 
On December 1, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and the Justice Cenre for Constitutional Freedoms , both pro-free speech intervenors in a complaint before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission were granted intervenor status in a special application filed by Mr. Whatcott seeking summary dismissal of the complaint by flamboyant transgendered activist and failed NDP candidate Rona Oger, formerly married and who has fathered two children, but now styles himself a woman and uses the name “Morgane”. Oger filed the complaint in retaliation for Mr. Whatcott’s distributing 1,500 leaflets during last May’s provincial election arguing that, if Oger cannot even get his gender right, he dopes not have the judgement to be a good MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly.
 

​Ronan Oger                                                                                                    Now “Morgane” Oger

 
CAFE and JCCF were both accepted as intervenors in this motion and have until December 22 to file their submissions, CAFE’s Director Paul Fromm and JCCF attorney Jay Cameron were told today.
 
The following is evangelist and victim Bill Whatcott’s motion, filed December 8.
 
Dear Mr. Rilkoff, Ms Quail and others,
 
I am filing my application to dismiss on the following grounds,
BC Human Rights Code:
 
27 (1) A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a
hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the
following apply:
(b) the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint or that part of the complaint do not
contravene this Code;
(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;
And the Word of God:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female.”
Matthew 19:5
 
There is a very high threshold which must be established for a finding of ‘hate speech’ under
provincial human rights codes further to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision
in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 467, 2013 SCC 11
(CanLII). The flyers are not even remotely close to meeting that threshold.
 
According to the Supreme Court in that case:
The definition of “hatred” set out in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, 1990 CanLII
26 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892, with some modifications, provides a workable approach to
interpreting the word “hatred” as it is used in legislative provisions prohibiting hate speech.
Three main prescriptions must be followed. First, courts must apply the hate speech prohibitions
objectively. The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context
and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to
hatred. Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred or contempt” must be interpreted as
being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words
“detestation” and “vilification”. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and
offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks
causing discrimination or other harmful effects. Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the
effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or
group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to
justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to
incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of
the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate
discrimination. In light of these three directives, the term “hatred” contained in a legislative hate
speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person,
aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person
or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
 
In my submission, simply expressing the opinion that the Complainant is a man does not
possibly rise to the level of hate speech. The fact that the Complainant was a political candidate
and narrowly lost is irrelevant to whether the speech is hate speech under Whatcott SCC 2013.
 
The Tribunal must first ask, “whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and
circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred.” The flyers
do not expose the Complainant to hatred. The flyers express the opinion that the Complainant is
a man, and that people should not vote for someone who pretends to be a woman for the
purposes of an election. The purpose of the flyers is to bring transparency to the democratic
process – voters deserve transparency. Saying that someone should not vote for a candidate is not
exposing them to “hatred”. The flyers express a protected religious belief that gender is male and
female, and not subject to change. That is not hate speech. That is an opinion, and we have
freedom to have those under section 2(b) of the Charter in this country.
 
Second, the Tribunal must restrict its consideration of the whether the flyers were “hateful” to a
definition of hatred that restricts itself to the one the Supreme Court of Canada outlined
in Whatcott: “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and
“vilification””. The flyers do not even begin to approach extreme manifestations described by
“detestation” and “vilification”. The flyers don’t advocate violence or persecution – they advocate
not voting for the Complainant. That does not even remotely qualify as “hate”.
 
Third, the Tribunal must focus on the expression and consider whether it was “likely to
expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being
expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the
author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is
irrelevant.” The result of the community was predictable: they either told me I was an
idiot, or they ignored me. No one read the flyer and “vilified” the Complainant. No one
acted out against the Complainant. The Complainant has pointed to no harm at all from the
flyers, except to claim that the Complainant lost the election because of them, which is
irrelevant to a consideration of this matter, and no link has been established between the
election result and the flyers, in any event.
 
I could not be successfully sued for defamation for the content of the flyers: the
Complainant fathered two children with a biological woman that the Complainant was
once married or in a common law relationship with. It is not hateful to highlight biological
reality. The Complainant identifies as a woman, but the Complainant differs
physiologically from a biological woman. It is not hate speech to point this out.
 
Lastly, many millions of people in Canada believe and express the biological reality of sex
as being male or female. The statements in the flyers are not unusual. They represent a
common understanding of biology that is both accepted in science and taught in religion.
In Whatcott, the Court delineated the line between protected expression under the Charter
and hate speech:
“In my view, expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” does
not rise to the level of ardent and extreme feelings that were found essential to the
constitutionality of s. 13(1) of the CHRA in Taylor. Those words are not synonymous with
“hatred” or “contempt”. Rather, they refer to expression which is derogatory and
insensitive, such as representations criticizing or making fun of protected groups on the
basis of their commonly shared characteristics and practices, or on stereotypes. As
Richards J.A. observed in Owens, at para. 53:
 
Much speech which is self-evidently constitutionally protected involves some measure of
ridicule, belittlement or an affront to dignity grounded in characteristics like race, religion
and so forth. I have in mind, by way of general illustration, the editorial cartoon which
satirizes people from a particular country, the magazine piece which criticizes the social
policy agenda of a religious group and so forth. Freedom of speech in a healthy and robust
democracy must make space for that kind of discourse . . . .
 
I agree. Expression criticizing or creating humour at the expense of others can be
derogatory to the extent of being repugnant. Representations belittling a minority group or
attacking its dignity through jokes, ridicule or insults may be hurtful and offensive.
However, for the reasons discussed above, offensive ideas are not sufficient to ground a
justification for infringing on freedom of expression. While such expression may inspire
feelings of disdain or superiority, it does not expose the targeted group to hatred.”
 
The complaint should be dismissed because there is no reasonable chance it will succeed in
light of the law in regard to hate speech from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Under section 27(1)(b), the Complaint should be dismissed because the flyers are not a
contravention of the Human Rights Code.
 
Finally, the flyers are clearly in harmony with Matthew 19 in the Holy Bible, and I would
like to remind the Chairperson and everyone else reading this; God is the highest arbiter of
right and wrong and one day we will all stand before Him.
 
In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott

A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election

A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election

From CAFE meeting in Vancouver, Saturday, October 7, 2017

https://youtu.be/1AcgrV6pBXU

Christian Bill Whatcott put out flyers questioning a trasgendered candidate for Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Vancouver, BC Canada. Here he is …
YOUTUBE.COM
 
0 replies

Whatcott Replies to Oger’s Lawyer’s Demand that the Tribunal Say O is a Woman

Whatcott responds to delusional letter from Ronan’s lawyer

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:22 am

Image – Image
Ronan (picture left) when he was a husband and father of two children 5 years ago. Ronan (picture right) campaigning for NDP in Downtown Toronto riding Vancouver False Greek.

Bill Whatcott’s response to Ms. Susanna Quail’s long winded letter to the BCHRT asking the member Walter Rilkoff to reconsider his decision to not rewrite one sentence in his decision on interveners in Oger vs Whatcott to suit Ronan Oger’s gender delusion.

October. 1, 2017
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017

ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager

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

The defendant hereby responds to the spurious and factually erroneous arguments of the complainant and his counsel, Ms. Quail.

Ms. Quail started this circus by claiming in her e-mail exchange with the BCHRT that the complainant “was not born as male.”

The defendant, the complainant’s obstatrician who gave birth to him, the French government and the complainant’s ex-wife to only name a few, know otherwise. The bottom line is, if the complainant and his counsel are deluded on a fact as basic as the complainant’s sex at birth then they won’t be credible on just about anything else. Indeed the defendant can demonstrate that Ms. Quail is light on facts with just about everything she says in her latest letter by doing a very quick and superficial critique of her arguments in her September 27th, “Application for reconsideration.”

Ms. Quail claims “The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record.”

Actually, the complainant’s gender identity is on the record.

On page 1 of the original complaint against me, Ms Quail wrote: “The Flyer attacks Ms Oger’s gender identity. It says Ms. Oger’s gender identity is false and an “impossibility” and that transgender people like Ms. Oger are at elevated risk of various diseases and violent acts.”

As the Tribunal can see in the above paragraph Ms. Quail refers to the complainant with a female pronoun and Ms. Quail tells the tribunal and anyone reading the complaint that the complainant is transgender.

Ms. Quail states “The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint.”

With all due respect the complainant seems to believe his gender identity is relevant to the complaint. On Twitter three days after launching his complaint, the complainant wrote: “Monday I filed a BC #Human Rights tribunal (sic) complaint against Bill Whatcott due to hateful acts over my gender identity + expression.”

Ms. Quail incorrectly states, “It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of their identity as their sex.”

In actual fact defendants are entitled to discovery, especially in matters that are pertinent to the defendant’s defense. In any event the complainant’s so-called gender identity is not really all that personal or private of a matter. A quick perusal of the CBC, Globe & Mail, Youtube, Vancouver Province, Xtra, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, etc….. will show quite definitively that the complainant’s gender identity is just about the only thing he actually talks about when speaking to the public. And a quick check will confirm the complainant likes to talk about his gender identity in public often.

Some pertinent questions that the defendant believes should be answered by the complainant’s counsel if the BCHRT is actually going to entertain this request for the reconsideration of Walter Rilkoff’s September 13, 2017 decision in regards to interveners in the Oger vs Whatcott case where Mr. Rilkoff aptly noted “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female.”

1. What does the complainant’s French Birth Certificate identify him as?
2. Did the complainant’s obstetrician and/or midwife identify him as a male or a female when he was born?
3. Did the complainant’s mother think she had a boy or a girl when she gave birth to the complainant?
4. Did the complainant identify as a woman when he first met his ex-wife? Did the complainant’s ex-wife think the complainant was born male or female when she got married and had children with the complainant?
5. Did the complainant’s foundational Canadian identity documents (passport, citizenship papers) identify him as a boy or a girl 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
6. When the complainant applied for entry into the University of British Columbia in 1986 did he check the male or the female box?
7. If the complainant presented himself as a male when applying for university or when courting his ex-wife, why should the BCHRT or Defendant think the complainant was born a female?

Shouldn’t the defendant have a right to have an answer to these questions if the defendant is being charged under Section 7a and b of the BC Human Rights Code, because the defendant allegedly offended the complainant’s alleged gender identity?

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

Ms. Quail’s long letter not letting go of a BCHRT member’s decsion to not waste more time and money pandering to Ronan’s neurosis over a sentence referring to him as “born a male.”

BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017

ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager

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

The Complainant hereby applies for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision
communicated in a letter dated September 13, 2017, in which the Tribunal declined to
correct an error in decision number 2017 BCHRT 195, at paragraph 2.

For clarity, the Complainant is not seeking reconsideration of the merits of 2017 BCHRT
195, granting intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression and
denying intervenor status to Gordon Watson. The Complainant only seeks
reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision not to correct an error made in 2017 BCHRT 195
at paragraph 2.

The first sentence of that paragraph says: “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a
female.”

Counsel for the Complainant brought this error to the Tribunal’s attention on September
12, 2015, by email (attached hereto as Appendix A). As set out in that email, the
Complainant was not born male. The Tribunal responded stating that the Tribunal
Member did not understand where the error was, and asked counsel for the Complainant
to describe how this sentence was in error.

Counsel responded, stating: “Ms. Oger was not born as male.”

On September 13, 2017, the Tribunal responded by letter (attached hereto as Appendix
B), stating that it would not correct this error. The Tribunal stated that the burden is on
the person seeking a correction to persuade the Tribunal that the particular statement
said to be in error was indeed an error, and Ms. Oger had not done so.

page 2

Demanding that the Complainant, a transgender person, prove her identity is
itself discriminatory

It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the
Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of
their identity as their sex. To do so would be (and is in this case) highly invasive.
Individuals are taken at their word that they are male, female, transgender, or any other
applicable gender identity.

The Tribunal has required Ms. Oger to persuade it that the statement that she was “born
a male” is false. Ms. Oger telling the Tribunal that that is not her gender identity is
sufficient proof.

Ms. Oger has offered to provide a copy of her identity document, which indicates that her
sex, in the eyes of the law, is female. It is not “born male but now identifies as female.”
Ms. Oger stated and continues to assert that she should not be required to furnish
identity documents for the Tribunal to accept that her gender identity is as she says it is.
This is a burden imposed on her, a transgender person, but not on any other party to any
other case before the Tribunal to the Complainant’s or counsel’s knowledge.

The Complainant is not aware of any case in which a cisgender complainant has been
required to persuade the Tribunal that they are the sex or gender they say they are.
Transgender persons are routinely challenged on the veracity of their gender identity. In
fact, that is what this case is about: the Respondent and Intervenor refuse to accept that
Ms. Oger’s, and other transgender individuals’, gender identity is real.

For the Tribunal to require Ms. Oger to furnish proof of her sex or gender identity is a
further perpetuation of this very discrimination. It relies on and extends the stereotype
that transgender people’s own statements about who they are cannot be accepted as true.

The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record

There was nothing in the application or anywhere in the record for the Tribunal member
to make the statement made in paragraph 2, that Ms. Oger was born male. The Tribunal
member invented this fact.

It is not open to the Tribunal to invent facts about parties and then require parties to
persuade them that those invented facts are false.

The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint

Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to this complaint. Ms. Oger is a transgender
woman, not a person “born as male who now identifies as female”, but even that fact is

page 3

irrelevant. As determined in School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran, 2005
BCCA 201, a complainant need not actually possess the personal characteristic forming
the basis of the discrimination in order to succeed in establishing a breach of the Code.
The Tribunal Member has asserted a fact that is not only false, but entirely irrelevant to
the complaint before the Tribunal.

This is not a case in which the applicant for reconsideration seeks to submit
information they should have previously put forward

Reconsideration applications cannot be used to put information before the Tribunal that
should have been, but was not, put before the Tribunal at an earlier stage: Hanlon v City
of North Vancouver and another (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 152 at para 7.

In this case, argument about or proof of Ms. Oger’s gender identity is not information
that the Complaint ought to have previously put forward. It is not the case, ever, that a
complainant must prove that they possess the characteristic that is the subject of
discrimination in order to succeed in a complaint before the Tribunal. As stated above, it
perpetuates discriminatory stereotypes to assert that transgender complainants must
prove their gender identity in order to pursue a complaint before the Tribunal.

The question of the Complainant’s gender identity will not be resolved in a
determination of the merits of this complaint

The Tribunal’s letter of September 13, 2017 refers to the fact that this is an interim
decision and suggests that “even that simple sentence” (describing Ms. Oger as “born as a
male”) will be the subject of argument at a hearing of the complaint on the merits.

Ms. Oger’s gender identity will not be the subject of argument at a hearing of the
complaint on the merits.

Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to the merits of her complaint.

The question before the Tribunal at a hearing on the merits of the complaint will be
whether the Respondent has breached section 7 of the Code. There is no reason for the
Tribunal to make a finding of fact as to the Complainant’s gender identity in order to
answer that question.

In any event, the parties do not dispute that Ms. Oger is transgender: the parties dispute
whether transgender people’s gender identity is real, and whether persons like the
Respondent may publish hateful materials about transgender people without offending
the Code. The Tribunal is not asked to determine Ms. Oger’s gender identity at any point
in this complaint.

The Complainant suffers prejudice by having the decision stand uncorrected

page 4

The erroneous statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is
based on pernicious, discriminatory stereotypes about transgender people, and is wrong
in law.

When transgender people legally change the sex marker on their birth certificates or
other foundational identity documents, that change is not prospective only. A birth
certificate that was formerly marked “M” is not now marked “Born M but now identifies
as F”. It is marked “F”. In the eyes of the law, the individual was always female but was
mis-identified as male prior to the correction of the birth certificate.

More importantly, transgender people experience their own gender identities in many
different ways. While some people might experience that they used to be one gender but
now identify as a different gender, many transgender people experience that they have
always been one gender, but were misidentified by the world around them.

The idea that transgender people were “born” one way but “identify” differently rests on
the assumption that there is a true, biological gender of each person, determinable by the
shape of their external genitalia, and that a transgender person has deviated from that
true, biological gender.

The statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is false and
perpetuates stereotypes about her and other transgender people. It now exists in a
published decision of a legal decision-making body. It is available on CanLII and on the
Tribunal’s website. There exists a binding legal statement that Ms. Oger’s sex and gender
are something other than what they are. Ms. Oger is a prominent activist for transgender
rights and other social causes, and the impacts of this false statement on her sense of self
and public reputation are significant.

The interests of fairness and justice and the purposes of the Code militate in
favour of reconsideration

Reconsideration may be granted where to do so would serve the interests of fairness and
justice: Grant v City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 at para 8.

The erroneous statement is not only patently false, it perpetuates the very discriminatory
thinking that is at the centre of this case. The erroneous statement makes a finding of fact
on something that is wholly irrelevant to the complaint. The Tribunal has gratuitously
invented a fact about the Complainant and then required the Complainant to prove that
this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” is false.

The inclusion of this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” in 2017 BCHRT 195
is contrary to the purposes of the Code.

page 5

It is contrary to promoting a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are
equal in dignity and rights (s. 3(b)): it creates a standard where cisgender people are who
they say they are, but transgender people have to persuade the Tribunal that their selfdeclarations
are true.

It is contrary to the prevention of discrimination prohibited by the Code (s. 3 (c)), because
it perpetuates stereotyped thinking that assumes that transgender people have a “true”
biological sex, assigned at birth, and change from that true sex to something else that is
merely an identity.

It is contrary to the provision of a means of redress for persons discriminated against
contrary to the Code (s. 3(e)): transgender people will be dissuaded from seeking redress
through the Tribunal if the message to them is that they will have to prove their sex or
gender, or risk having a false statement about who they are published by the Tribunal in a
binding decision, which the Tribunal refuses to correct.

For all of the above reasons, the Complainant asks that the Tribunal’s decision refusing to
correct the error in 2017 BCHRT 195 at paragraph 2, communicated by letter dated
September 13, 2017, be reconsidered.

All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Complainant,

ALLEVATO QUAIL & WORTH
per Susanna Allevato Quail
Barrister & Solicitor

cc Morgane Oger
Bill Whatcott
CAFE

WHATCOTT DEFIES B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL EFFORTS TO IMPOSE GENDER LANGUAGE TYRANNY

WHATCOTT DEFIES B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL EFFORTS TO IMPOSE GENDER LANGUAGE TYRANNY

—————————————————————————————————-

Image Image

Open Letter to Walter Rilkoff, LGBT Activist and BC Human Rights
Tribunal Kangaroo Adjudicator

Re: Morgane Oger vs Bill Whatcott (case number: 16408)

Dear Mr. Rilkoff,

I have received your letter incorrectly accusing me of unilaterally attempting to determine what the complainant will call himself. On June 9, 2017 you wrote, “The Complainant is entitled to use her name in the complaint process. It is certainly not for Mr. Whatcott to determine what the Complainant will call herself, and his unilateral attempt to do so is disrespectful and will not be tolerated.”

In actual fact I have no power or capacity to determine what either you or Ronan Oger will call himself. If you and Ronan want to indulge his gender confusion and refer to him as “Morgane Oger” have at it. If you want to call Ronan a tomato, a dog, or a cat; I can’t stop you from doing that either. The problem I have with this process is you are exhibiting obvious bias that gives me no confidence you are even capable of arriving at an impartial decision regarding this matter and it is you who is unilaterally determining what the Defendant can and cannot say and indeed you are backing your unilateral attempt to control my speech with threats of legal sanctions. You wrote “He (Whatcott) may not refer to the Complainant as “Ronan Oger,” “he” or “him.” You further go on to say, “Further instances of such behaviour may also subject Mr. Whatcott to an order to pay costs pursuant to s. 37(4)(a) of the Human Rights Code.”

Of course the complaint you are appointed to adjudicate stems from my election flyer delivered during BC’s recent provincial election arguing Mr. Oger is a biological male and that his so-called transgender activism and proven history of wanting legal protection for his fake identity enshrined into law, is incompatible with God’s will for humanity and what I perceive to be good government. Your letter to me on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal letterhead clearly indicates you believe punitive measures employed by state organs (even before the case goes to trial) are an acceptable measure to employ to prevent me from arguing what I argued in my election flyer (that the NDP candidate for Vancouver False Creek is a gender confused male). Hence, it appears to me that the ruling you will make is already decided in favour of LGBT falsehood and you simply want me to politely go along with this fraudulent process, so that your ruling which will be an affront to democratic freedom and the right to speak what is true can have a veneer of legal respectability.

Please be advised I have no interest in cooperating with such a biased and fraudulent process and I will not use the fake pro-nouns you prescribe “she” or “her,” nor will I use Ronan’s transvestite fantasy name “Morgane,” even if the government gave him a birth certificate with that obviously feminine name, nor will I use your gender neutral alternative “the Complainant,” as I believe to do so will mean I am cooperating with LGBT tyranny and falsehood. I am only open to using male pronouns when referring to biological males, or as a possible compromise if the Tribunal and Ronan’s counsel finds it acceptable, I can refer to Ronan in this process as the “biological male.” Various media reports even while calling Ronan a woman acknowledge he was born a biological male and I assume the Tribunal and Ronan’s lawyer acknowledge the reality that Ronan is a biological male, even as you insist the Defendant and presumably all BC residents refer to him with female or gender neutral pronouns.

If you find the term “biological male” unacceptable when referring to Mr. Oger and you have no acceptable (to me) alternative, then please be advised I will continue to use Mr. Oger’s birth name and male pronouns when referring to him, as God has clearly created him male and you should have no authority to coerce me into saying otherwise. In the absence of a mutually acceptable compromise on how to address Ronan Oger, the NDP Vancouver-False Creek candidate, who is now a human rights complainant because I referred to him as a biological male; I will continue to speak what is true regardless of any financial penalties or other measures you decide to impose on me.

In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott, Ph: 778-837-3650, e-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com, website: http://www.freenorthamerica.ca

For more background information on how Bill Whatcott’s election flyer calling on Vancouver- False Creek residents to reject the false concept of “transgender” (no one can change their gender, one can only mutilate their body and cross dress to look like the gender they are not), and to turn to Jesus Christ in repentance and vote according to Godly and Biblical values, resulted in him being dragged before the BC Human Rights Tribunal and is now being threatened with legal sanctions if he continues to use correct male pronouns go to:

To see Bill Whatcott’s truthful election flyer go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10624
To see Mr. Oger’s human rights complaint and Bill Whatcott’s response go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10638#p26188
To see the biased adjudicator Walter Rilkoff’s threat letter go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10640

“Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill? He who walks uprightly, And works righteousness, And speaks the truth in his heart.” Psalm 15:1, 2