Amended Petition for Judicial Review in the Oger v Whatcott case Before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Where Bill Whatcott’s Rights to Freedom of Expression & Religion Were Egregiously Trashed

Court file No S -196032    
Vancouver  Registry


holden at Vancouver


   [ RSBC 1996 ]    Chapter  241     


[ SBC  1996   ]     Chapter     210    

BETWEEN     WILLIAM WHATCOTT                    Petitioner

                        MORGANE OGER




                                                      as amended November  24th   2020

ON  NOTICE  TO :         DAVID EBY  Attorney General of British Columbia
                                                PO Box 9290   Stn Prov Govt

                                                Victoria   British Columbia   V8W 9J7

                                    BRITISH COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

                                    1170     605   Robson Street    Vancouver    BC    V6B 5J3

                                    MORGANE OGER

                                    C/o       Allevato Quail and Roy
                                                405    510 West Hastings Street   Vancouver   V6B 1L8

Let all persons whose interests may be affected by the Orders sought  TAKE NOTICE  that the Petitioner applies to Court for the Relief set out in this Petition

This proceeding has been started by WILIAM WHATCOTT, Petitioner,  for the relief set out in Part 1, below

If you intend to respond to this Petition, you or your lawyer must

( a ) file a Response to Petition in Form 67 in the above-named Registry of this court within the    time for Response to Petition described below, and
( b ) serve on the Petitioner
            ( i )  2 copies of the response to Petition,  and

            ( ii ) 2 copies of each filed affidavit upon which you intend to rely at the hearing

Orders, including orders granting relief claimed, may be made against you, without any further notice to you, if you fail to file the response to petition within the time for response.

            Time for response to Petition

A response to Petition must be filed and served on the Petitioner, 

( a ) if you reside anywhere within Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed petition was served on you,

( b ) If you reside in the united states of America, within 35 days after the date on which a copy of the filed petition was served on you

( c ) if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed petition was served on you, or

( d ) if the time for response has been set by order of the court,  within that time

 (  1 )  The address of the Registry is :

            800 Smithe Street     Vancouver    British Columbia

(  2  )    The  ADDRESS FOR SERVICE  of the Petitioner, is :
                                                Post Office Box 47034   Langford   British Columbia   V9B 5T2

( 3 )      the Petitioner speaks for himself




For an Order that, because therewas a reasonable apprehension of bias in the tribunal from before it even got underway,  its ruling is thus set aside

For Declaration that sections 2 ( a ) 2 ( b )  2 ( c )  and 2 ( d ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  do override section  7 ( 1 ) of the B C Human Rights Code.   And for an Order that the ruling of the Tribunal in the matter of  OGER versus WHATCOTT  is thus a nullity

For Declaration that section 2 ( b ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms   entrains the right of a citizen to receive expressions of particular information previously unknown to him or her.     And for an Order that, as the Tribunal failed to consider the right of each elector in Vancouver Fraserview riding to receive information via the publication in question, the Tribunal erred in law

For Declaration that by excluding certain witnesses whom WHATCOTT had called to testify in his defence, the Tribunal denied him the right to make full answer in defence

For Declaration that,  by preventing the Defendant testing the veracity of the proposition central to the case, ie, Complainant’s assertion that he ‘is a woman’  then relying upon it as a fact when there was no evidence supporting it,  the Tribunal made an error in law

For an Order that Commissioner Cousineau’s ruling in the BC Human Rights Tribunal matter of OGER versus WHATCOTT,  having been predicated in abovementioned errors of law, is therefore set aside ; a nullity


01        the FACTS which form the basis of this matter are set out best in pages 1 to 3 of the  Amended Additional Response which is Item  One  in the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON.   At all times material to his complaint OGER was a vice president of the New Democratic Party.  In the provincial election in June 2017 he was that party’s candidate in the Vancouver False Creek riding         

02        OGER was born in France.  Official records in that country reflect that he was born a male child, with the birth name “RONAN”.  [  page 44 lines 28 to 47 of the transcript ]   In Canada, OGER  married a woman and had children with her.   At the time those children were born, Complainant identified himself as  “Ronan Oger”.  Official records of the birth of each of his children show ‘Ronan Oger’ as their father. The transcript of the hearing shows OGER pitching to the Tribunal that the flyer and subsequent commotion arising from it,  affected his children. At no time in his political activity, particularly in his campaign in the 2017 provincial election, while declaring himself their parent, did OGER ever say that he was  not  the natural father of those children.  Apparently – from his campaign literature / public appearances – Complainant manipulated the Vital Statistics Branch of British Columbia to change certain information in official records to pretend he is now female. 

03        After the election OGER originated a formal complaint to the Human Rights Commision about the flyer in which WHATCOTT critiqued OGER’s fitness to be elected.     Devyn Cousineau was appointed to be the sole commissioner presiding on the tribunal considering that complaint. Appointment of Commissioners to preside over Administrative Tribunals falls under the Ministry of Attorney General.  In the run-up to the hearing,  various citizens notified Attorney General Eby that Cousineau was a long-time activist promoting the cause of “transgender rights”.   AG Eby never dealt with complaints that her presence on the tribunal was a reasonable apprehension of bias.  Rather,  AG Eby appointed two more people to the tribunal with Cousineau in charge.      

04        The Tribunal proceedings are best described in modern parlance as a charade trying to give the pretence of impartial adjudication of law but in reality, it was nothing more than a pro-LGBT kangaroo court in which there was not defence that WHATCOTT  was able to employ that would have brought about a different result, other than him renouncing the truth that Mr. Oger is man.  To the chagrin of its members,  WHATCOTT correctly referred to OGER as male,  using the correct pronouns ‘he’ and ‘him’ when giving testimony in his own defence. During the hearing adjudicator Norman Trerise in advertently spoke the truth, referring to OGER four times using the correct pronouns even though he later concurred with the other two adjudicators in finding WHATCOTT guilty and assessing additional costs because WHATCOTT did the same. Diana Jurecivic revealed her bias by ordering WHATCOTT to  remove his teeshirt that said Mr. Oger was a man, and had the Bible verse “God made them male and female”  Genesis 5:2.   But Jurecivic did not order the homosexual and transgender activists in the room, to remove their shirts with pro-LGBT slogans. Ms Jurecivic kept a score of the times WHATCOTT refused to lie ( as he was ordered by the Tribunal, allegedly, to protect Mr Oger’s feelings)  And tallied each time WHATCOTT used the correct male pronouns in his defence. The Tribunal refused to consider that WHATCOTT  would literally be discrediting his own defence, his beliefs and his moral character if he referred to the Complainant with female or gender-neutral pronouns.  In its ruling the Tribunal assessed WHATCOTT  an additional $20,000 in costs, because he refused to participate in the charade i.e  ‘Mr. Oger is a woman’.    

05        The Tribunal delivered its ruling in March 2019.   On May 24th 2019 lawyer Daniel Mol originated a Judicial Review on behalf of WHATCOTT.  On November 13th  2019 a private citizen – acting completely independent of lawyer Mol nor WHATCOTT – took it upon himself to serve Respondents with a copy of the Petition, only.  UN-learned in the law, assuming that there was no requirement to serve them because they were available electronically, that individual did not serve hard copies of Affidavits which had been filed when the Petition was originated.   Neither Respondent submitted a Response to that partial service.  After May 29 2019 professional lawyer Daniel Mol took no further step in the matter.  On October 15th  2020 William WHATCOTT took back personal conduct of this matter.    Mr Mol is not counsel of record.               

PART 3          LEGAL BASIS           

06        This Petition is brought in accordance with the  Judicial Review Procedure Act   to have a Justice of the Supreme Court review a ruling of a provincial body.    For his argument for setting aside the ruling of the Tribunal, Petitioner adopts the reasoning including the authorities, published by his counsel at the hearing, the Summary a copy of which is Item Three in the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON.    And for certainty : said reasoning is set out in this PART using letters defining paragraphs instead of the numbers used in the original.      

            Reply to Attorney General Submissions     OGER   versus   WHATCOTT

( a )      At stake is the future of political free speech.     The question is whether the Province has jurisdiction to regulate the content of political free speech uttered or stated in a publication in the course of an election campaign.

Is the Subject Matter Within the Scope of Section 92 (13) read together with 92 (16) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Within Provincial Jurisdiction ?   

General Response to Paragraphs 30, 36-49 of Attorney General Factum

( b )           In Scowby, Estey J. at p. 233i, determined that the test for deciding whether a section of a provincial human rights code falls within the jurisdiction of the province, boils down to the  activities  legislated. Housing, employment and education were all activities that are in relation to property and civil rights or were matters of a local and private nature.

( c )           The activity of political free speech is at issue here.      Is there absolute freedom to discuss the moral fitness of a political candidate running for public office?

( d )           The Respondent says that his liberty, personal autonomy, psychological integrity rooted in security of the person, all guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, is impaired by the coercive reach of s. 7 of the BC Human Rights Code  (“Code”).      Moreover, his deprivation of these constitutional freedoms is done by a governmental adjudicative process that violates fundamental principles of justice.     Rulings made by the Tribunal,    both before and during the hearing, resulted in the abandonment of the search for truth, a prohibition upon cross-examination of the complainant to test credibility,  the application of a legal test for liability that eliminates mens rea,    a legal test that eliminates good faith,  a legal test that deems truth to be irrelevant,     deprivation of a finder of fact composed of a representative jury, and the imposition of an order compelling speech to conform to gender specific pronouns.

( e )           The result is the imposition of strict liability based on an objective test of a hypothetical reasonable person.      Although the norm in judicial review of administrative action is reasonableness,  the Respondent says that the appropriate legal standard can only be one of correctness.    This is because what is reasonable to the average person who forms part of the majority, does not take into consideration what is reasonable to discrete and insular minorities, who are powerless and marginalized because of unpopular views.      To counter this imbalance, a finder of fact assessing this case, that is essentially about democracy, must give weight to unpopular dissenting views that are perceived as unreasonable or even hateful, by adopting a correctness standard, instead of a reasonableness standard that will only be certain to impose liability upon the Respondent.

( f )           The Respondent says that there is no authority, express or implied, within the scope of s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867  that grants jurisdiction to the province to regulate the content of political speech in the course of an election campaign.    Section 7 of the Code strikes at the heart of democracy.      Here is why.

( g )           The prohibition of alleged hate speech during an election campaign will exacerbate social problems and not relieve them.    Banning free speech will bottle up steam that needs a way to peacefully vent.      Restricting free speech disrespects individual autonomy and self-determination. The concept of democracy is self-government by the people.     For the system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas.    Democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if there is law that can manipulate the electorate by withholding information to stifle criticism of the moral fitness of a political candidate.

( h )           Democracy thrives when there is no regulation of the content of free speech during an election. Good intentions to prevent hurt feelings to targeted candidates harms the political and democratic process.     Free speech, not human rights law, is the antidote to the social diseases of prejudice and hate. In this war on free speech, the ultimate casualties are truth and democracy.

( i )           Whatcott’s flyer created a golden political opportunity and platform for Oger to expose Whatcott as a prejudiced bigot and to attack the Bible as a fount of hate literature.    The activities of Whatcott identified him as a political opponent and revealed the precise nature of his thinking. This allowed Oger to counter with a strategic political response,   by using religious clergy to oppose the biblical authorities cited by Whatcott.

( j )         The effect of legally supressing unwelcome political speech will outrage and alienate those who share Whatcott’s beliefs and views.     This consequence marginalizes minorities who may then view the legal order as illegitimate and regard the electoral and democratic process as a one-sided sham.     History teaches us that suppressing peaceful political speech in the short term can eventually lead to violence and illegal means to accomplish political goals.     Conflicts are inevitable in any society, but what sets democracy apart from other political systems is that it offers the means to resolve conflicts peacefully without violence.

( k )         Regulating political speech means that the majority and “reasonable” viewpoint in society will attain power that can lead to abuse. Classifying dissenting minority speech as unprotected “hate” speech, will be an easy means to attack moralists who quote the Bible, and to expose people like Whatcott to detestation and vilification by the general public.     People like Oger will use s. 7 as a shield to defend dominant groups that have protected status in law, and used like a sword to punish Whatcott, by stifling his political speech and to financially and socially destroy him, labeling him a hater and relegating him to marginal existence, all because Whatcott decided to meaningfully participate in the democratic electoral process and to manifest his religious faith.

( l )         The irony is that outliers and dissenters who are most in need of speech protection, will be denied that protection by any finding that s. 7 of the Code is constitutional and may regulate the content of political free speech.      If the Tribunal disempowers those who advance biblical authority to justly criticize the moral fitness of a political candidate for public office, the enemies of Whatcott and what he stands for, will have cleverly set the stage for a direct attack on the Bible itself, as cesspool filled with hate literature, that condemns the immoral to eternal suffering and punishment for sin.      All this will flow from an innocuous complaint regarding the content of a political and religious flyer that has not a shred or hint of posing any clear or present danger of criminal activity or hatred to the person of Oger or to anyone else associated with Oger’s gender identity.

( m )         All these aforementioned activities cannot be said to have any rational connection to the powers granted to a provincial government under s. 92.   The inevitable conclusion is that s. 7 of the Code poses a grave threat to the very foundations of democracy itself.

( n )         Regulating the content of political free speech and thus restricting Whatcott’s public participation in the democratic electoral political process is incompatible with a free and democratic society.

( o )         If s. 7 of the Code is constitutional, then the provincial government will have the authority to regulate the content of political expression during an election. Such a finding is opposite to the conclusion of the Tribunal in   CJC v. North Shore News, para. 190,    “Thus s. 7(1)(b) does not in any way restrict hateful expressions that are likely to expose … politicians … to hatred or contempt, because of their political affiliations …”   Close scrutiny of Whatcott’s flyer reveals that his goal was to persuade other voters not to vote for the NDP,   a political party advocating the political, legal, and social agenda of Oger,    who is the current Vice-President of that same party.

( p )         The content of political free speech cannot be limited by provincial law, as this activity is outside the scope of s. 92 and arguably also s. 91.     The written and unwritten constitution of Canada is a legal instrument that is superior to any positive law passed by any provincial government or by the federal government.  Unregulated political free speech is in its own right, is a political institution of the highest order, enshrined by both the implied bill of rights found in the unwritten constitution and in the Constitution Act, 1982.  Support for this is found in the Keegstra decision, where freedom of expression is regarded as the most powerful of all the s. 2 Charter rights.    See: Brunner, p. 302.

( q )         In Switzman v. Elbing, at p. 328 [SCR], Abbott J. stated, “… neither a provincial legislature nor Parliament itself can ‘abrogate this right of discussion and debate.’”   Political free speech is the lifeblood of democracy.     Political free speech, like the air itself, is not confined to the physical limits of a building housing the elected members of parliament or the legislature, but extends everywhere as a treasured political institution that is at its highest level of importance, during an election campaign, when the freedom to choose a candidate is at stake.

( r )         In this case, the Whatcott flyer injects truth and Christian morality into the political debate, to dissuade voters from electing a party that nominated an individual perceived by Whatcott to be morally unfit.  To mischaracterize a flyer intended to be the sunlight of truth as the darkness of hate, disregards the rule of law, which permits citizens to “explain, criticize, debate and discuss in the freest possible manner such matters as the qualifications … and social principles …” of a political candidate.     See pp. 327-8, per Abbott J. in Switzman.  

( s )         Do moral virtues and social principles derived from Judeo-Christian authority that informed the genesis and development of the common law and the rule of law still matter today? If the answer is yes, the message that Whatcott preached through his flyer cannot be properly interpreted as hateful at all.

( t )         While gender identity and expression is be legal as a protected class under human rights legislation, there is a hot political opposition from some feminists who argue that this kind of activity is unwelcome gender misappropriation, offensive to biological women.    Does this mean that all political opposition to the legal status quo is uniformly hateful, whether based in feminist theory or in Christian doctrine?   If only Christian doctrine is viewed as hateful, is this not bigotry and hate toward Christianity itself, manifested as Christphobia?

( u )         The human rights legislation includes religion as a protected class too.     Is not the depiction of Whatcott’s flyer as hate, also an indirect attack on the Bible itself as hate literature? Where is the jurisdiction in the province to make a determination that the holy book of a major established religion is hate speech and cannot be quoted in an election to oppose the morality, political platform, and social principles of a political candidate?   Assuming there is a hate finding against Whatcott, is this not State discrimination against Christian evangelists and activists, contrary to the statutory policies of the Code?     Where is the jurisdiction in the division of powers that allocates such a sweeping mandate to a province?      There is none.

( v )         A political proposal to repeal the protection of those people who identify as transgender might be regarded by some as hateful, and the subject of a complaint to the human rights tribunal. But however repulsive Whatcott’s political actions might be to Oger, who lobbied to amend the Code to protect gender identity, CJC Duff ruled in Reference re Alberta Statutes, at pp. 133-4 that “every point of view” is legitimate in both the advancement and in the attack upon political proposals.  This freedom is governed by criminal laws that protect public order from violence and protects by tort law the reputation of individuals from defamation. Duff CJC does not identify the truth as a limitation that may be restricted by law.

Is the Subject Matter Within the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Criminal Law, s. 91 (27) Constitution Act, 1867 ?

            Specific Response to Paragraph 40, AG Factum

( w )         The imposition of a penal sanction, such as the deprivation of physical liberty for a predetermined period of time, is not the only identifying characteristic of criminal law regarding the classification of legislation to be in pith and substance criminal law.     Whatcott faces the possible lifetime deprivation of his liberty to evangelize, to manifest his religion in the public square, and to use the pronouns he chooses.    He also risks losing his freedom to express his conscience and to publicly rebuke immorality, as part of his participation in a democratic election to urge voters not to vote for a candidate or a political party, or both, that he believes is morally unfit to hold public office and to exercise power.    These infringements of liberty are far more insidious and restrictive of personal liberty and his psychological integrity, which is integral to his security of the person, than incarceration that imposes no control over the mind.

( x )         Section 7 of the Code resurrects the crime of seditious libel that was once regulated in the Criminal Code. Exclusive jurisdiction for the regulation of hate speech as a crime is conferred upon the federal government by s. 91(27).     The Keegstra decision is an illustration of the exclusive authority of the federal government to regulate hate speech.

( y )         In this case, Oger asked the police to bring a hate crime prosecution against Whatcott.    No charges were laid.  That ought to have been the end of the matter.  It is a violation of the rule of law and the division of powers to use human rights legislation as criminal law to accomplish the suppression of Whatcott’s views.

( z )         Had Whatcott been charged with a hate crime, he was entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to test the credibility of Oger, to rely upon the defence of truth, to the admission of expert evidence from Dr. Gutowski, allotted more time to cross-examine and to make legal submissions, and if indicted, to be tried by a judge and a jury, just to name a few due process protections available under criminal law.    Whatcott would have been far better off to be criminally charged and undoubtedly acquitted.

( aa  )         The test for charge approval is that there is no likelihood of conviction and that it is not in the public interest to proceed.      That was the right decision.

( bb )         However, s. 7 of the Code is bereft of the due process requirements of criminal law.    In effect, Whatcott is unconstitutionally prosecuted for a human rights hate crime that is not only outside the jurisdiction of the province,   but also is shamefully lacking legislative safeguards that ensure due process.

( cc )         The penal sanctions test deserved more than just a cursory look by the Attorney General to see if the Tribunal has the power to jail Whatcott or not. A proper analysis begins with the finding of liability. A finding of liability under the applicable statute attaches moral culpability and social stigma to the offender. The sanctions imposed by both a sentencing judge for a criminal offence and for a human rights offence are the same. The sanctions are designed to compel behaviour modification.

( dd )         Behaviour modification is the goal of sanctions that are designed to denounce, deter, rehabilitate and make reparations to the complainant and to society at large.    In this case, this Tribunal is asked by Oger to make a finding of liability; to make a declaration that s. 7 of the Code was violated; to impose costs of $35,000 for alleged defiant and disrespectful behaviour, both in and out of the sight of the Tribunal members; to assess a severe monetary penalty of $35,000 to punish for the public expression of alleged hateful thoughts and ideas that allegedly harmed Oger’s dignity and reputation, to pay an unspecified large sum of money to a transgender-rights organization to pay for harm done to the larger transgender societal community; for an order that Whatcott be compelled to be re-educated by participating in a school designed to teach him a better understanding of gender identity, with the goal to humble and humiliate Whatcott by indoctrinating  him with the Tribunal’s view of Whatcott’s legal obligations under the Code.

( ee )         Denunciation is accomplished by the declaration that Whatcott violated the Code and amounts to a societal miscreant who is a hateful bigot.    The monetary penalty of $35,000 for harming Oger’s dignity and reputation serves as a deterrent to both Whatcott and others who might follow his example.     The monetary penalty of $35,000 in costs also serves to deter Whatcott and others from criticizing the lack of due process, coercion and bias alleged by Whatcott to have permeated the human rights proceedings.    The coerced donation to an organization supporting what Whatcott considers to be immoral political, social and cultural goals is designed to make reparations to a certain segment of society that identifies with the political advocacy of Oger.    The order for coerced re-education is designed to rehabilitate Whatcott in the hopes that his thinking and behaviour will conform in the future to transgender values and objectives.     The individual and collective sum of all these sanctions amount to behaviour modification through a combination of financial penalties, social stigma, and forced re-education of his mind by social engineering.

( ff )         These sanctions are indeed penal and to anyone with a sound knowledge of criminal law, recognize that these sanctions follow the basic principles of criminal law sentencing. In fact, the sanctions sought are more comprehensive and more draconian than simply a fine and a term of probation with conditions that is normally imposed as sanctions for summary conviction offences that result in a criminal record.

( gg )         A human rights record is no less odious than a criminal law record, and is perhaps even worse, because there is no process for a human rights pardon.    Whatcott faces a lifetime of unemployment. No employer is required to hire an individual deemed by law to be a hate monger. He will be discriminated against, in spite of his Christian beliefs. Social isolation, ostracism and expulsion are other consequences.    For an indigent individual like Whatcott, bankruptcy looms, and the financial penalties affect not only him, but his wife and two young children. Compulsory re-education imposes the state’s will upon Whatcott’s security of the person, in a similar manner to a judge unconstitutionally ordering the castration of a convicted sexual offender or the forced ingestion of unwanted prescription drugs upon a convicted person, to modify that individual’s behaviour and mental state.   Compulsory re-education at a facility amounts in principle to a form of temporary incarceration to brainwash Whatcott so that he will modify his Christian beliefs to accept transgenderism.     This sanction is similar to the current situation in China where over a million Muslim Chinese are confined to a detention facility to modify their religious beliefs so that the prevailing orthodox view of the secular state is unchallenged in society.

( hh )         For the Attorney General to conclude without any substantive analysis in paragraph 40 that   “there is no penal sanction that could possibly make this [legislation] criminal law,” ignores the provisions of the human rights legislation,   that permit sanctions that follow the principles of behavior modification and sentencing utilized in criminal and human law.

( ii )         There is no doubt that s. 7 of the Code in pith and substance is criminal law.    Rand J. at pp. 12-13 [SCR] ruled in Switzman that prohibiting any part of political free speech “as an evil would be within the scope of criminal law,” and then referred to sections of the Criminal Code that dealt with sedition.

( jj )         Section 7 of the Code, according to the AG in para. 40, does not specifically ban the propagation of a political belief.     If that is the case, why was this case not dismissed at an early stage upon the application of Whatcott?      The evidence in this case is clear that Whatcott was expressing a political belief that was grounded in Christian morality.

( kk )         Duff, CJC read s. 92(13) and s. 92(16) together in Reference re: Alberta Legislation.  At p. 26 [SCR] Duff summed up the law that leaves no doubt that s. 7 of the Code falls outside provincial jurisdiction:    “Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the State within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law.     Every inhabitant … is also a citizen … The province may deal with his property and civil rights of a local and private nature within the province;   but the province cannot interfere with his status as a Canadian citizen and his fundamental right to express freely his untrammelled opinion about government policies and discuss matters of public concern.”      [My emphasis]

( ll )         This conclusion is supported in para. 47 of the AG factum.     In OPSEU, Beetz J. held, “… neither Parliament nor the provincial legislatures may enact legislation the effect of which would be to substantially interfere with the operation of this basic constitutional structure.”      The structure is the right to abrogate the right of free public discussion and debate referred to in the immediately preceding authorities cited, of Switzman and Alberta Statutes.

( mm )         The law is clear: the mandatory and prohibitory provisions of s. 7 of the Code are ultra vires of the provincial legislature.  

07        Section 32 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code  Application of  Administrative Tribunals Act to tribunal,   particularly,  its section ( i )  states section 45   [ tribunal without jurisdiction over Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues ].     Cousineau et al. were statute-barred from entertaining the OGER complaint until Charter issues had been canvassed in the Supreme Court of B C.    As a lawyer knowing perfectly-well that the matter invokes the Charter ab initio, and that the Defendant had already voiced such defence to the Commission in the run-up to the hearing,  Commissioner Cousineau ought not to have gone ahead with OGER’s complaint, at all.  

08        UN-learned in the law as he was prior to the hearing,  it was not incumbent upon WHATCOTT to point out to the tribunal that the BC Human Rights Code is fatally-flawed.    Even if he was remiss in not challenging that aspect in the run-up,   he hereby raises it now pursuant to section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms      


09        Several people applied to Intervene in the hearing but were denied standing.  One of them being Gordon S Watson, who had stood as a candidate in the provincial election of 2001.   He funded part of the cost of publishing the flyer in question.  Watson’s submission to the Tribunal prior to the hearing proves he did intend to argue that the reciprocal of the right to expression, is the right to receive information. Thus every one,  whether known to a publisher or not, has the right to receive new information by any and all media, especially the free press.   And that as an Intervenor he could best make this argument.  Shutting out his pitch re such right directly on-point legitimacy of speech in the fray of the election,  the Tribunal evaded its duty to hear from a stake-holder as it dealt with a kind of complaint never encountered before.


10        Because of the fact that political activist Cousineau had been appointed to preside over the OGER WHATCOTT matter, when it was well known she was a longtime activist in the “trans-gender” cause, there was apprehension of glaring bias such that the Tribunal was convened illegally ab initio.  Item four the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON, find a photograph of her in full throat in her activist mode.  The location, ie. on the public sidewalk outside the MLA constituency office of Premier Clark, is important. 
MLA Christie Clark – miraculously – moved the “transgender” amendment to the
B C Human Rights Code through the Legislature via 3 readings in one day, while the gallery was packed with supporters of that political cause.          

11        Any reasonable person who learned that AG EBY had picked Cousineau to preside on the OGER WHATCOTT matter, involving this vice president of the New Democratic Party ( OGER ) can see that that was done so the goal of OGER and Cousineau’s personal political campaign would have the color of law.        Allowing this matter to go ahead under Cousineau, after her bias had been brought to his attention, AG Eby knowingly evaded his duty to ensure WHATCOTT’s civil right to due process of law :  ‘the fix was in’  and the Attorney General himself was in on the fix.           

12        After the fact,  Cousineau’s prejudice is proven in her Reasons where she changed the very words spoken in the hearing, inserting feminine pronouns where the official transcript shows WHATCOTT having used “he”  “his”  “him” when referring to OGER.        
13       The nature of evidence is that it can be tested. If it cannot be tested, it isn’t evidence 

Had OGER’s core delusion been put to the test in cross-examination, his credibility would have been ruined. Example being, at page 47 lines 43- 44 of the transcript of examination in Chief,  where OGER  relates an exchange with someone who believes he is mentally ill. For the Tribunal to prevent WHATCOTT’s counsel from testing OGER’s assertions that he was somehow ‘a mom … her children … who she is’  [  lines 17 to 20 page 41 transcript of his evidence in Chief ]  while relying upon that absurdity as a fact,    is an error of law.             
14        Compelling his accuser to take the witness stand so he can be exposed as a liar is a fundamental right of a Defendant within British jurisdiction.  This right is long established … predating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   WHATCOTT was entitled to exercise that right in order get at the facts regarding OGER’s mental state, especially the delusion that he “is a woman”. The term for the mental illness suffered by OGER is gender dysphoria. Such people are “brittle” personalities.  When their preposterous self image is challenged, they come un-glued.   Based on its acceptance that what the Complainant said was so, but for which there was not a scintilla of evidence then the Tribunal’s ruling is as patently absurd as OGER’s belief he  “is”  a woman.            



Item One         Amended Additional Response

Item Two         Supplemental Submissions December 16th 2018

Item Three      Summary of Whatcott’s defence December 21 2018

Item Four        photograph of political activist Devyn Cousineau in full throat
                        outside the constituency office of MLA Christie Clark

Item Five         application by Gordon S Watson for status as Intervenor 

Such other affidavits as Petitioner may come up with, and be permitted, prior to the hearing

Petitioner estimates that the Review will take one full day of Court.

 All of which is respectfully submitted

Dated this   24th     day of November 2020 A. D.

______  __________________

signature of Gordon S Watson
Agent for Petitioner WILLIAM  WHATCOTT

Update from Christian Free Speech Warrior & Political Prisoner, Bill Whatcott

Whatcott update, August 10, 2020


by Bill Whatcott » Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:20 pm Dear Friends,

My lawyer John Rosen just finished the latest pre-trial conference for my so-called “hate crime” charge today. The “hate crime” is now over four years old. Since then the civil $104 million lawsuit that was commenced with much drama (see the drama here: immediately after my Gospel infiltration of the Toronto unGodly pride parade has been dropped as of late last year. The criminal hate crime charge remains ongoing and now as of today Justice Goldstein has set the tentative trial date for my “hate crime” trial for Monday, October 4, 2021.

One could be forgiven if by now they forgot the Gospel stunt that I pulled off that made the homosexual activists so mad that nearly 5 years after the fact they still want me in jail for 18 months for raining (in a Godly sort of way) on their parade. For those who forgot or who don’t know about this redemptive, creative, and definitely not hateful act of truth telling activism, here it is: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526&p=26007#p26007

As for other news not much has been going on in my life. Being out on bail for the past 2 years has its limitations. I had to turn my passport in, so that precludes travel outside of Canada. Now with the advent of the Chinese Communist Party virus travel is shut down for most of the world and Canadians can’t travel abroad anyways.

Then there is the economic fallout from the lockdown and virus protocals being imposed on businesses across Canada and the world. The unfortunate thing about outstanding criminal charges is even though you are “presumed innocent” until proven guilty, in actual fact the police reveal outstanding charges to your potential employers during background checks when you apply for a job and the presumption of innocence bafflegab aside, most employers decline to hire people with outstanding charges. When this sort of thing goes on for years it is quite limiting, especially when the unemployment rate is in the double digits as it is in Canada right now thanks to our corrupt and incompetent government destroying our resource and manufacturing sectors , before the economic hammering brought on by the Chinese Communist Party virus lockdowns and layoffs.

That being said, I have been blessed these last few months to be putting in 20-30 hour work weeks with a temp agency. Ten years ago that would be considered extremely marginal, but today many Canadians with no outstanding criminal charges are out of work and would love to have a 20-30 hour a week minimum wage job. How times have changed!

Indeed times have changed, in fact I believe Canada has fundamentally changed. The freedom and prosperity we took for granted is gone. Thanks to our Liberal government colluding with foriegn NGOs to sabotage Canada’s oil sands, what was once the largest employer in Canada’s resource industry, the oil sands is largely destroyed now. Conventional oil, mining, lumber, etc…. are also almost dead. There are no jobs in any of these sectors.

Eastern Canada’s manufacturing base is also largely gone. Without manufacturing or resources there simply is no means of wealth creation to keep handing out government cheques, so with that in mind the CERB payments are ending next month and literally millions of Canadians will be off CERB and will still be out of work with no prospects of economic recovery coming in the near future.

We could blame the Liberal government for this mess and indeed they deserve alot of the blame. Their carbon taxes, other taxes and onerous; I would even say malicious, regulations have ruined our nation’s oil industry years before the CCP virus reached our shores. We could also blame the Chinese Communist Party as the virus they covered up and allowed to spread around the world has had a catastrophic effect on our economy and quality of life. Had the CCP warned the world earlier that this virus escaped from their lab (more probable than wet market) and declined to vacuum up all our PPE before we knew what was going on, we could have been better prepared and mitigated much of the suffering we are now experiencing thanks to the pandemic. However, I believe there are deeper issues at play in Canada’s repid demise.

For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:14

I believe God has removed His blessing from our land and it is He who is allowing wicked governments such as the Canadian Liberals and Chinese Communist Party to harm us.

Canada has murdered more than 3 million unborn children by abortion. We have murdered thousands of elderly and disabled through euthanasia. We are allowing our children to be switched to the gender they are not but are not and are allowing children to march in homosexual parades but we won’t allow them to recite the Lord’s prayer in our schools. We have rejected God’s Word and embraced instead homosexual perversion and socialism, so now it is not surprising to me that the land is starting to suffer under God’s judgment in tangible ways.

Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Isaiah 1:18-20

I believe God in His great mercy can forgive us of our sin and turn back the judgment on our land if we repent and turn to Him. I know in my own life I have suffered both tremendous loss because of my sun and experienced tremendous, undeserved, grace and forgiveness when I repented, confessed, and turned away from my sin. I believe on a national level these same principles hold true for Canada. I would strongly encourage Canada’s Christians to start to fast and pray for our land. Even if it is too late to turn back the judgement, perhaps with a bold witness some souls could be snatched from the coming fire.

“When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
2 Chronicles 7:13, 14

User avatar

Bill Whatcott Administrator


Posts: 6910Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 amLocation: Edmonton, AB


Whatcott hate crime trial update

Whatcott hate crime trial update


by Bill Whatcott » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:46 pm



(Picture left) The “hate crime” for which I am now slated to go on trial for this coming June 2020. Handing out 3500 zombie safe sex packages AKA known as life saving Gospel literature to naked sodomites and others at the 2016 Toronto homosexual pride parade. (Picture right) Bill Whatcott poses with two Toronto police officers while taking a break from handing out zombie safe sex packages at the unGodly pride parade.

Dear Friends,

Yesterday was my last day of court before my trial,

The Crown Prosecutor tried to argue quite forcefully that I had a “deep and complex hatred of homosexuals.” Multiple times during the hearing the prosecutor reiterated “Whatcott hates homosexuals” and at least once the Prosecutor asserted I have an “intense and ongoing hatred of homosexuals.”

For proof of this alleged intense (apparently selectively criminalized) emotion that I am carrying with me the Prosecutor wants to introduce social media posts and flyers that I have penned over the decades into evidence where they can pull words like “sodomite,” “freak,” and “homofascist” out of the paragraphs to establish my alleged hatred of homosexuals.


The Crown Prosecutor pulled the word “freak” out of a January 2019 post on this site where I referred to this guy walking around with a pride flag stuck out of his bum as a “freak.” Here is the post the Prosecutor cited as evidence of my “hatred of homosexuals:” viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10744&p=26366&hilit=pride+flag+bum#p26366

When you engage in behaviour worthy of ridicule what am I supposed to call you? In my world if you run around naked with a pride flag sticking out of your bum you are a freak…… For a Prosecutor to use my reality based assessment of a homosexual’s highly public behaviour as evidence of criminal intent worthy of 18 months incarceration is highly disturbing and I wonder when Canadians will wake up and forcefully demand their God given right to speak sanely once again?


While the word “sodomite” is a behaviour based word that is pejorative in the Bible, so are the words “adulturer,” “thieves,” and “sorcerers” pejorative in the Bible. In my circle of friends I have people who have stolen, who have committed adultery, and who have engaged in homosexual acts. In Canadian law we can quite correctly seperate acts of adultery and stealing from a person’s innate genetic make up. We know people may experience seemingly irresistable urges to steal or sleep with someone’s spouse, but we also know that people are morally responsible when they commit this behaviour and that people who engage in this behaviour will often change, especially when they seek moral guidance and desire to change these unhealthy behaviours in their lives. Sadly, with homosexual behaviour there is a huge disconnect with reality and it seems time tested rules that apply to other sexual behaviours are hysterically attacked and in some cases even criminalized when they are applied to homosexual behaviour. Truthfully critiquing homosexual behaviour and pointing out its harm is now simply called “hate” and is banned.

Of course Christians condemn stealing, but don’t hate people who steal and we will always condemn sodomy (even though the Prosecutor doesn’t like me saying it, sodomy does have significant economic and social costs that are being born by all Canadians) but that does not mean we hate sodomites. In fact we know thieves and sodomites (and all other sinners) can change.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

But heck now Bill S202 has passed first reading and it seems to me the homosexual activist media is pushing this bill with complete garbage stories of multitudes of homosexuals committing suicide after being told by some evil and crazy Christian therapist that they can change their sexual behaviour if they are motivated to do so, and now our homosexual activist Prime Minister is supporting the bill which will make such Christian counselling an indictable offense punishable by up to five years in prison.

And yet the Prosecutor pulled the word “homofascist” out of my writings and acted like this particular word is a made up delusion and more evidence of my “intense and ongoing hatred of homosexuals.”

Is it possible that this word might actually apply when referring to Canadian politicians and LGBT activists who want to see Christian counsellors put in prison for 5 years or Christian activists jailed for 18 months who hand out “zombie safe sex” packages on the streets of Toronto during “Pride” month?

Please pray for truth and true justice to prevail in this hate crime case.

It looks like my trial is definitely going forward for June 2019. The trial will last a month and I will need to be in Toronto for two weeks before the trial begins to work with my lawyer.

No money is needed for legal expenses as that is covered by legal aid now, but I will need some donations to survive for the 6 weeks that I will be forced to reside in Toronto for my trial.

At this point in time there is no news on my appeal in Whatcott vs Oger where I (as predicted) lost in the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) the case that Mr. Ronan Oger prosecuted me for saying he was a man and that God did not want Vancouver-False Creek residents to vote for him during the last provincial election. The penalty for refusing to call him a woman during my hearing and for participating in the provincial election by advancing a reality based perspective, based on an orthodox Christian perspective, was a whopping $55,000 fine.

No news yet on when my trial date is coming in the Jonathan Yaniv vs Whatcott case either. In this case Mr. Yaniv is seeking over $35,000 in compensation from me because I refered to him as a man and criticized his prosecution of 16 female estheticians who he dragged to the BCHRT for refusing to wax his balls.

As Canada moves further away from the God who created us and who desires Lordship over our lives, it seems we are inventing ever stranger notions of what justice and human rights looks like. Please pray for God to deliver Canada from this darkness that is gripping our land and that He will have mercy and heal this land so that we can have leaders capable of discerning real justice and pray the Canadian people will see their need to repent and turn to the Living God so they can be reconciled with their Lord and the Saviour of their souls once again.

If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14

Ongoing Persecution of Bill Whatcott by Yaniv

Whatcott Yaniv vs Whatcott update

Postby Bill Whatcott » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:22 am

The podcast known as Catholic vs… interviewed me last week … anity.html
An article written by Amy Contrada in the American Thinker

Dear Friends,
The sad and absurd saga of Mr. Yaniv vs. Mr. Whatcott continues:

On July 22nd, I received notice of Mr. Yaniv’s rather bizarre “human rights” complaint and demand for $35,000: … sp=sharing

Anyways, as per the (British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s (BCHRT) direction I filed my response on Sept 23rd, you can see it here: … sp=sharing

Notwithstanding, I did not ask for this engagement with Mr. Yaniv, and generally speaking starting a conversation by serving me with a frivolous lawsuit demanding $35,000 is not the best way to warm me up to a guy, it seems Mr. Yaniv went into a hissy fit that I am not referring to him using his preferred pronouns.

Please keep in mind I have never threatened Mr. Yaniv, nor have I swore at him or even seriously insulted him, though I would understand someone being less charitable than me; the guy is after all behaving in a predatory fashion and is using a lawless government agency to enforce a make-believe speech code and is expropriating people’s money in a discreditable fashion. Mr. Yaniv does not deserve to be spoken to politely, but in any event, I have been nothing but polite to him. I have merely stated the obvious after Mr. Yaniv chose to seek me out, sue me. and engage with me; I have simply told the BCHRT the truth, they are an abusive government agency and their behaviour is not credible, as demonstrated by their prosecuting Yaniv’s victims and I have stated the obvious that Yaniv is a predatory, disturbed, biological male.

Anyways in response to my compelled BCHRT response Mr. Yaniv started with this e-mail to the BCHRT and ccd it to me:


Then Yaniv sent some attachments to myself and the BCHRT asking for additional costs to be imposed on me and asking for increased security to be provided for him at the hearing. When I clicked on his attachments I was unable to open them so I sent a polite e-mail that seems to have provoked an agitated response from the complainant insisting I engage with him using female pronouns.


Mr. Yaniv and the BCHRT had a little hissy fit and refused to respond to my request for Mr. Yaniv’s increased security and costs application, presumably because they are both mad at my personal rule that I only use reality based pronouns when engaging with human beings. Anyways, after a week I sent an e-mail reminding both of them the BCHRT’s own rules clearly state all form correspondence is to be shared between the parties. Within a few hours I finally got Mr. Yaniv’s application for another $7500 in costs and his perceived need for more security. Here is the most relevant excerpts:


Here is the July 26th incident that Mr. Yaniv is talking about

My “abusive” behaviour consists of my September 23rd response (see above) to Mr. Yaniv’s human rights complaint and the above above e-mail where I respond to the complainant with the correct gender pronoun.

Here is more of the application:


Keep in mind I never asked for this engagement, it is Mr. Yaniv who sought me out and used the BCHRT government kangaroo court to force me to engage with him. I never agreed to maintaining any sort of confidentiality with either him or the kangaroo tribunal. I have grave concerns that the BCHRT and predators like Yaniv thrive best when there is no public exposure or awareness as to what they are up to.

As for respecting the process? Mr. Yaniv is not alone in demanding I “respect” the process. I recently received an e-mail from a Christian lawyer whom I have a degree of respect for who has declined to help me with this case citing my response to the BCHRT as being “disrespectful, lacking in decorum, and injudicious” that means I am going into this fight alone.

Reflecting on the matter, I am not sure that Canadians should be so deferential to kangaroo courts. We are not merely in a legal dispute where lawyers are politely arguing over who has rights to a property or a disagreement over what constitutes “facts” in an alleged crime; this is an ideologically driven judicial body compelling Canadians to call biological men women and enabling a predatory male to victimize vulnerable women and men who dare to criticize him. The BCHRT is out touch with reality, has disregarded real due process in preference to having a veneer of due process (to give them the air of legitimacy that they do not deserve), so they can ram their neo Marxist gender ideology down our throats and do their part in deconstructing the western European Christian foundation that our nation was built upon.

When before a real court we should show respect and when dealing with broken sinners we should have compassion. However, look at how the prophet Eijah dealt with King Ahab and his false prophets (the highest authority figure in the Kingdom of Israel) and both the King and his prophets would have commanded a great deal of respect from the population.

Elijah mocked the false prophets in the presence of King Ahab:
“At noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
1 Kings 18:27

Then once their fraud was fully exposed Elijah called on the people to kill the false prophets
“Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.” And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there.”
1 Kings 18:40

Now maybe stating the obvious that Ronan Oger and Jonathan Yaniv were born with wangs between their legs and they are therefore male is too much for the tender ears of so-called transgenders, well meaning Christian lawyers who can’t sully themselves by associating with such common sense, and BCHRT kangaroos who donate to transgender causes, refuse to recuse themselves when their political sympathies are exposed, and who with no pang of conscience destroy freedom of speech and equate correctly gendering a transvestite, far left, political candidate with white supremacy, but still my speech and actions are downright refined compared to how the Prophet Elijah handled King Ahab and the false prophets of Baal.

Now maybe I am not too overly deferential to a fake legal body who already has trampled on our election freedom and fined me $55,000 for not calling a biological male, NDP candidate a woman, but what I said and did and the consequences I am suffering is all small potatoes compared to Christianity’s first martyr.

“Some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council.” Acts 6:9-13

St. Stephen due to his public preaching and works was brought before the high priest and a council of Jewish elders (an authoritative body commanding more respect and judicial power than the BCHRT). While a Jewish council was held in high regard by the common man in ancient Israel, many people besides myself correctly hold the BCHRT in contempt, as they have discredited themselves with their insane rulings, complete disregard for real human rights, and attempts to impose gender non-reality on those of us who disagree.

When the High Priest and council allowed themselves to be consumed with bias and rejected the truth of St. Stephen’s preaching, look at what St. Stephen said to them.

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
Acts 7:51-51

St. Stephen’s blunt truth telling so enraged the elders and those listening to him that his trial was cut short and he was stoned to death on the spot. What would a “polite” Canadian Christian lawyer who demands decorum out of those who care enough to plainly speak against injustice do with St. Stephen if he was their client?

Anyways, the $42,500 that Mr. Yaniv wants (likely to grow to $50,000 + after he reads this update and files it with the BCHRT as evidence of my further misconduct) is but a distraction in comparison to Oger vs Whatcott where literally Canada’s election freedom is at stake. It seems to my horror that most Canadians are asleep and unaware of what is at stake in Oger vs Whatcott where a political candidate decided their so-called gender identity is off limits from discussion, even though their gender identity was destined to be what drives them in their political career. Worse yet the BCHRT kangaroo tribunal agreed with Oger that Canadians can’t express a critical opinion about his gender identity as that might cause voters to think about how fake gender identities might impact government policies that directly effect their lives and indeed their very freedom.

Then there is my upcoming “hate crime” trial on January 6 for distributing 3,000 “zombie safe sex” packages that contained the Gospel and wholesome good news that homosexuals and transgenders CAN change their sexual behaviour and realign their gender identities with reality.

Please pray for all of the above. I am a weak and flawed Christian going into these battles with few earthly resources. Left on my own I will surely bring disgrace to Christ’s cause. However, our Lord also promised “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” 1 Corinthians 12:9.

While I am weak, sinful, maybe not cultured enough, and not always too wise, we will see what God does…..

“You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.”
2 Timothy 2:1-3

User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott Yaniv vs Whatcott update

Postby aschaper » Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:37 am

Shameful what is happening in Canada!

I cannot believe that so many Canadians are asleep or don’t care.

However, I can assure you that there are more Canadians, little by little, who have woken up and who are waking up others to fight this LGBT perversion!

No more “Human Wrongs Tribunals”!

Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:54 pm

Whatcott legal update and commentary on Trudeau’s blackface

Whatcott legal update and commentary on Trudeau’s blackface

Postby Bill Whatcott » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:14 pm

Canada’s Prime Minister committing no crime, other than not quite growing up when he was 29 years old

Dear Friends,

The last month has been quite busy. I got this e-mail from Mr. Yaniv (the fellow who charged 16 female estheticians with discrimination and dragged them before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) for refusing to wax his “female penis.”)

Jessica Yaniv <>
Sep 15, 2019, 10:25 PM (4 days ago)
to <,>


The deadline for the Respondent to provide a response to expedite process was August 26, 2019. I received no response, therefore, I did not reply as per the directions given by the Tribunal. It is now September 16, 2019.

What is the Tribunal’s decision in the matter regarding expediting, given the reasons listed in my application?

Miss Jessica Yaniv

Anyways, the BCHRT in quick fashion (hours after Yaniv sent his e-mail) sent me a mediation agreement to sign, seeing as they would like to see if me and Mr. Yaniv could come up with a mutually acceptable agreement to remedy the alleged loss of dignity he suffered when I briefly mentioned he is a biological male who dragged 16 vulnerable women to the BCHRT during a preaching session in front of the BCHRT during my trial there in December of last year.

Here is the BCHRT mediation agreement they want me to sign. I didn’t sign it yet as I would like the meeting to be face to face and not subject to a confidentiality agreement:!Avrh8Zy7sQqXiBW50qi7_BQq5wN9

Yaniv wants me to pay him $35,000 and my position is I am broke and have no money to pay him, but I will give him the Gospel which is far more valuable free of charge. Whether we can bridge our differences remain to be seen.

On the $104 million dollar lawsuit we are heading to appeal court soon where a judge will decide if I have to reveal the names of my friends who helped me launch the Gospel guerilla operation against the Toronto homosexual shame parade in 2016. My position to the courts is much the same as it was last year and the year before that. I’m broke and I have no money to give them, if they take stuff by force of a court order, my second hand furniture, second hand car, whatever they find in my bank account, etc…. I have no power to stop them.

As for my friends, I believe it would be a sin to reveal their names and I prefer to sit in jail indefinitely rather than do it. Some of them have dependants and all of them have modest means to defend themselves against this lawsuit. They did nothing wrong in helping with my charitable Gospel stunt, so it is my duty to do what I can to shield them.

On the criminal hate crime case, we will be going to trial on January 6, 2020. I believe the trial is going to be held in the Ontario Superior Court at 361 University Park Ave, Toronto. How long the trial will last I am unsure. The lawyer I have representing me on this case is now John Rosen.

As for the election,

I was blessed to spend last weekend helping the Scarborough Christian Heritage Party (CHP) candidate Mark Theodoru collect signatures so he could run. Over the course of an hour or so we collected signatures standing in front of a condo complex in the far east end of Scarborough. The people we asked were mostly Muslim and East Indian. Most declined to sign Mark’s nomination papers, but some did and they were mostly polite and friendly.

One Muslim fellow is quite memorable and I had an interesting conversation with him. The Muslim appeared to me to be either Pakistani or Bangladeshi and he smelled of alcohol and was somewhat inebriated. Our conversation went like this:

Me: “Will you sign Mark Theodoru’s nomination papers so he can run in your riding this election?”
Intoxicated Muslim: “What party is he with?”
Me: “Christian Heritage Party”
Intoxicated Muslim: “What do you think about Muslims?”
Me: “Muslims are human beings”
Intoxicated Muslim: “Do you think returning ISIS fighters should be pardoned?”
Me: “No, I don’t believe returning ISIS fighters should be pardoned, they should stand trial for their crimes”
Intoxicated Muslim: “Sorry, if you do not support a pardon for returning ISIS fighters than I can’t sign your nomination paper”

With that the intoxicated Muslim handed me my clipboard and pen back and walked off. I was a little startled by the candid opinion of my intoxicated Muslim friend, but quickly I got into conversations with other riding residents and the intoxicated, apparently ISIS supporting, Muslim was out of sight and out of mind.

Ten minutes later the intoxicated Muslim came back, grabbed my clipboard and pen from me and asked:

Intoxicated Muslim: “What is your opinion on Syria?”
Me: “I am speaking for myself and not the party. I don’t think the United States belongs there.”
Intoxicated Muslim: “What about Russia?”
Me: “Actually, I personally think the Russians have done more good in Syria than the Americans.”

The intoxicated Muslim abruptly shoves my clipboard and pen at me again and proclaims: “I was thinking about signing your sheet, but for sure I can’t now!”

With that the intoxicated Muslim storms off down the sidewalk and is soon out of sight again.

Mark was observing the spectacle in awe and I just looked and Mark and shrugged my shoulders and said “I can’t make everyone happy” and got back to work engaging passerby again.

Five minutes later the intoxicated Muslim showed up again roughly telling me, “give my that clipboard” and before I could respond he grabbed my clipboard and pen.

Intoxicated Muslim: “I’m going to sign your paper. Where do I sign???!!!”

Me: “right here, and please print your name and address and then sign”

The intoxicated Muslim correctly gave his name and address with some help and then he handed back my pen and clipboard and said: “I’m pro-Israel”
and walked off…..

Me and Mark looked at eachother again, wondered where “I’m pro-Israel” came from and then got back to our work….

As for my riding I have no CHP candidate to vote for, so after talking to my People’s Party of Canada (PPC) candidate, I got a few names in my riding for his nomination paper and informed him I will be voting for him. While the PPC lacks an understanding of Canada’s need to repent and turn back to the God who created us, the party at least believes moral issues can be discussed and Christians can run and be themselves without being thrown out of the party every time the media says “boo,” unlike the so-called Conservative Party.

Disturbingly, two Conservative MP’s have publicly endorsed the “Morgane Oger Foundation” and one Calgary Conservative Member of Parliament, Michelle Rempel, hosted a fundraiser for the foundation last year. The sole purpose of the Morgane Oger Foundation as far as I can tell is to prosecute Canadians who publicly disagree with Oger’s (and apparently Rempel’s) warped ideas about gender. The PPC is the only party besides the CHP that has the courage to allow their members to question whether children should be force fed propaganda in grade school about being able to switch their gender. Scheer on the other hand has disqualified candidates this election for publicly saying children should not be forced fed transgender propaganda in our public schools. The Conservatives moved too far away from their conservative roots for me to vote for them. While my first loyalty is with the CHP and their Godly vision for Canada and I am happy to be helping my friend Mark with his campaign in Scarborough, in my riding I have decided the PPC is at least conservative enough and tolerant enough of Christians that I can vote for them in good conscience without feeling I wasted my vote….

Now here’s my thoughts eight days into Canada’s Federal Election campaign:

Whatcott thoughts on Day 8 of Canada’s election campaign

Speaking as a Canadian, I don’t actually care if my Prime Minister wore a blackface, or a brownface, or any other coloured face, at some party twenty years ago. It is well known Trudeau is a party boy who to this day has never grown up. Trudeau was and continues to be ill prepared to lead the country and as Prime Minister he is frankly incompetent.

Putting on costumes depicting Arabians, blacks, or natives, is as far as I can tell harmless. The two Sikhs in the above picture don’t seem too traumatized by Justin Trudeau’s costume and the fact Justin is posing and smiling with them leads me to to conclude our Prime Minister probably wasn’t harbouring malicious Ku Klux Klan thoughts that day. The fact this is Justin’s behaviour that set off a media storm causes me to shake my head in wonder.

Canada’s national media being the near homogenous partisan Liberal hacks they are, I fully expect they will quit covering this story as soon as they feel they can and they will likely create a faux scandal and attribute it to the conservative leaders (Scheer, Bernier) in the coming days. I don’t actually feel sorry for Trudeau getting roasted for his silly costume mind you. Trudeau after all is a disingenuous “feminist,” “anti-racist,” “progressive;” the sort who would thump his chest in faux outrage and demand a conservative resign if a similar twenty year old photo surfaced of the said conservative wearing a “racist” costume at some long forgotten party. I don’t like the mob frenzy that the media whips up with these so-called “racist” twenty year old incidents, but if we must endure the media mob, I suppose if Trudeau is the one targeted by it, that is some sort of justice at least.

Actual bigotry by Trudeau that has mobilized me to work against his re-election this election season would be his government’s decree that Canadian businesses, charities, and non-profits who were unwilling to sign a statement of support for abortion, same sex marriage, and gender identity, would be ineligable to partake in the Summer Jobs Program. Of course this decree targeted businesses and charities run by conservative Christians, as we are the ones who would be unable to sign such a statement of support. The media is all good with that sort of actual bigotry that caused harm to pro-life/pro-family Canadian taxpayers, who were forced to pay for the program but were barred from participating in it because of their moral and religious values.

Trudeau early in his Prime Ministership once candidly told a Baptist pastor “Evangelical Christians are the worst part of Canadian society.” Once again Trudeau displayed actual bigotry and said this while sitting in office. The mainstream media while sanctimoniously beating their chest about silly decades old costumes is silent about this.

The SNC Lavalin affair is so serious it should have forced the Prime Minister to resign and face criminal prosecution, but the media is already not covering this scandal. For those who don’t know what this scandal is, our Prime Minister was tape recorded pressuring his former Justice Minister to terminate a proper criminal prosecution against a Quebec engineering company known as SNC Lavalin for corruption and get them a deferred prosecution deal. The Justice Minister refused to do such a thing as it would be illegal and unethical to do that as the corruption was serious and involved billions of dollars in illegally obtained construction contracts. Trudeau then fired the Justice Minister for doing her job honestly and the now former Justice Minister blew the whistle on Trudeau and provided the taped convesations she had with him which clearly exposed our Prime Minister committing a criminal offense by pressuring her to drop the criminal proceeding against a company that donates money to the Liberal Party and hires employees in the Prime Minister’s riding.

This next reason to not vote for Trudeau while maybe not criminal like SNC Lavalin, is still bad. The Prime Minister has allowed hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to cross Canada’s border and collect benefits. The sheer scale of Trudeau’s open border policy (legal and illegal) has aggravated the already severe tax strain on working Canadians and has exacerbated an affordable housing crises in all Canadian cities. Canadians who are homeless are far more visable now than ten years ago.

The Prime Minister is a chronic attender of “gay” pride parades and Trudeau added gender identity to our nation’s hate crime legislation meaning we can be criminally prosecuted if we criticize cross dressing now. The Prime Minister also added gender identity to the nation’s human rights code forcing biological women to share bathrooms, sports competitions, and federal prisons with biological men.

The next reason to not vote for Trudeau might be criminal as I can see no rational reason for our government to wave their own tariffs and give the work to China (a hostile nation who is illegally holding two Canadians in detention) without a bidding process. But we will never know what sort of corruption enabled China to build our LNG plants and dump their steel on us as the national media is silent and not investigating or asking questions. Trudeau’s government has waived tariffs and is allowing China to dump $42 billion dollars worth of their cheap and highly subsidized steal on Canada to make our LNG plants in BC. Worse yet, the Chinese are not even sending us raw steel, but rather fabricated steel as they are making our LNG plants in China. The components of the LNG plants will be made by module in Chinese factories and shipped by boat from China to Canada. This decision by the Liberal cabinet will deprive Canada of more than 60,000 jobs as we have the steel mills and trades to provide the product and do the work, but Canadian businesses were not even allowed to bid.

The Liberals harmed our oil industry with carbon taxes, government mandated gender analysis, and onerus red tape that has made it impossible to get oil projects built or product shipped to market. Hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs are gone in BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan due to Liberal ideological hatred of our natural resource sector.

The Prime Minister has spent multiple millions of Canadian tax dollars promoting abortion in third world countries that don’t want it.

These are the reasons (and many more) why I won’t vote for Justin Trudeau. As for his childish 20 year old make up stunt that the national media is in a frenzy over? I don’t care……

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Ephesians 4:5,6


Whatcott’s September 2, 2019 update

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:48 am

Bill handing out flyers in front of the BCHRT on the first day of his trial, December 11, 2018

Dear friends,

These past couple weeks have been quite busy.

The mediation date for Jonathan Yaniv’s British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) complaint against me has been set for:

October 16th, 2019, from 9:30 am – 4:30 pm

For those unaware, Mr. Yaniv is seeking $35,000 in damages for my flyer and preaching that referred to him as a man and criticized his predatory complaints against 16 female estheticians who he attempted to coerce into waxing his genitals.

Here is the preaching session that I am being prosecuted for

Strangely, the BCHRT has insisted the “mediation” be conducted via telephone conference.

“Given the high conflict nature of the complaint, the Tribunal has determined that the most appropriate method of mediation is by teleconference.”
Danyka Wadley, Resolution Clerk

Mediation is generally done face to face with a mediator. If my mediation session with Mr. Yaniv is so “high conflict” that it is not safe for us to be in the same room together with a mediator then I am not actually sure what the purpose of the mediation is????

Anyways, tomorrow Monday, Citizen Go is holding a demonstration outside the Toronto CBC headquarters to voice our opposition to CBC’s “Drag kids” tv program.

In spite of concerns being expressed that the children depicted on the “Drag Kid’s” program are being exploited and the outrage expressed by many taxpayers at seeing gender confused young children in sexually suggestive poses on their tv screens, CBC in their usual fashion is ignoring the taxpayer complaints and imposing this harmful tv program on Canadians whether they want it or not.

Tomorrow I will be going to show my support for Citizen Go’s worthy protest. If you wish to go it will be held:

CBC Toronto headquarters, 250 Front St. W,
Monday, September 2nd, 12:30 to 2:00 PM.

On Thursday, September 5th, 2019 I will be back in the Ontario Superior Court again at 391 University St at 9:30 am for what is known as a Rowbatham hearing.

This is to see if I will qualify for government funding for my legal defense for my upcoming January 6th, 2020 so-called “hate crime” trial.

The Crown Prosecutor offered to support the application on my behalf for state funding so long as I would agree to pay $100 a month for perpetuity until the legal bill is paid in full and the $100 a month payable amount would be open to reassessment in the future at the Ontario government’s discretion.

Given that I didn’t ask for this trial and given that the debt that I would be agreeing to take on will likely run into the multiple tens of thousands of dollars whether I win or lose, and given that my earning capacity is less than that of the average Canadian, I told Mr. John Rosen (the lawyer who has been kind enough to work on this application on my behalf) that the terms are not acceptable. A life time of debt to the Ontario government whether I win or lose the criminal trial would definitely be a loss for me.

As for my other case with Mr. Morgane Oger, the NDP Vice President transvestite, who had me prosecuted by the BCHRT and fined $55,000 for telling Vancouver voters in a flyer that he is a biological male and that God did not want them to vote for him, there is no news yet on the appeal. However, the guy seems to still be bothered by my existence. Notwithstanding that I am not even residing in his province and I have issues more pressing than him in my life, Mr. Oger decided to publish malicious and delusional statements on his foundation website that I have threatened him with a rifle and that he needs continual police protection at his children’s school and his home, and warned those reading his website that I will likely kill someone if I am not dealt with.

Yup, that’s the guy who “Conservative” MP Michelle Rempel decided to fundraise for last year so that his foundation could be well funded to prosecute people who “misgender” him.

I note another “Conservative” MP had this to say about the “Morgane Oger Foundation” a foundation whose only purpose as far as I can see is to prosecute Canadians who dare to publicly disagree with Mr. Oger’s views on LGBT issues and now has delusional slander on its website:

“The role of the Morgane Oger Foundation is needed in Canadian society.”
Karen Vecchio, Conservative MP, Elgin, Middlesex, London

My advice if you really care about Conservative values and freedom of speech is don’t waste your vote on the so-called Conservative Party of Canada. The Christian Heritage Party or if you don’t have a CHP candidate in your riding than a People’s Party of Canada are the two parties truly committed to freedom of speech and the CHP is unambiguous in its commitment to protect the God ordained natural family from state intrusion.

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“The earth, O Lord, is full of your steadfast love; teach me your statutes!”
Psalm 119:64

The Ongoing Legal torment of Bill Whatcott: Legal Aid for Illegals but Not Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott?


The Ongoing Legal torment of Bill Whatcott: Legal Aid for Illegals but Not Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott?


I was in Toronto this morning to attend the continuing saga of the “hate crime” trial of Bill Whatcott.

Bill Whatcott was accused of a “hate crime” and arrested last year under an extraordinary Canada-wide warrant. His “crime” was handing out Christian literature that starkly warned of the physical and spiritual dangers of homosexuality. He had done this peaceably at the 2016 “Gay Pride” parade in Toronto.

For Bill, the process truly is the punishment. Bill has been in the Ontario court system for just over one year now, having made dozens of appearances. Despite this, his case is still at a “pre-trial” stage, with the actual trial date set for January 6th, 2020. Because of all the costs and time involved in travelling to and from court appearances, Bill has had to relocate from his home in Alberta to Ontario, where he is struggling to make ends meet.

To-day’s hearing was called to determine whether or not Bill can receive financial assistance for his legal costs – which are becoming astronomical. Without legal aid, Bill will be forced to represent himself. Considering this is such a pivotal, precedent-setting case for religious freedom in Canada, self-representation is not a very good idea!

The Christian lawyer who has been helping Bill thus far has connected him with one of Ontario’s top criminal lawyers, John Rosen. Mr. Rosen, who is not a Christian, and who has represented some of the most heinous criminals in Canadian history, is willing to take over Bill’s case if legal aid is provided.

I had the opportunity to spend about an hour chatting with Bill and Mr. Rosen this morning, and it is clear that Mr. Rosen is an incredibly intelligent, experienced, and savvy lawyer. He knows Bill’s case, Bill’s history, and has also been tracking other cases involving Christians losing their free speech rights in Canada, like Father Tony Van Hee in Ottawa. He said he found Bill’s case “interesting”.

To-day’s hearing resulted in no actual decision on legal aid for Bill, but another date was set to come back to court and discuss the matter on September 5th. (As I said, the process is the punishment!)

After the hearing, Bill and I spent some time one-on-one talking about his case and the strain it is placing on his finances and family. The prospect of eighteen months in jail is a frightening thought for him, but he is willing to face it for the sake of the Gospel, if it is God’s will. He also told me he feels the Church in Canada is burying its head in the sand when it comes to the increasing threats to her freedom – and to her very existence.

We also discussed the subject of Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv, a male transsexual who is bullying a number of female aestheticians in BC, using human rights courts to demand that they be forced to provide a Brazilian wax job on “her” male genitals. Mr. Yaniv has also filed a human rights complaint against Bill, seeking $35,000 in damages because Bill called him a man and criticized his bullying of those aestheticians. The BC Human Rights Tribunal has actually decided to take up Mr. Yaniv’s case and pursue his complaint against Bill. As Bill put it so aptly, “He’s the posterchild of all that’s wrong with gender ideology.”

Finally, Bill and I also spent some time in prayer – which was probably the most productive part of Bill’s day! We prayed for God’s help in this country – not only to vindicate Bill, but to wake up the Church! We need to call our nation to repent and turn back to Christ.

You can sign and share our petition in support of Bill here:…/163468-christian-charged-hate-c…

Image may contain: one or more people and people standing

Radical trans activist hits Christian with $35K ‘human rights’ complaint for injured ‘dignity’

Bill Whatcott. David Cooke via YouTube
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin


Radical trans activist hits Christian with $35K ‘human rights’ complaint for injured ‘dignity’

PETITION: Tell Rights Tribunal to THROW OUT cases of trans ‘woman’ demanding females wax his genitals Sign the petition here.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A Canadian trans activist who has drawn global headlines for demanding female beauticians wax his male genitals and attempting to organize LGBT “swim parties” for children is now going after Christian activist Bill Whatcott for publicly referring to him as male.

Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv is a man who “identifies” as a woman. He recently rose to prominence for filing 16 complaints against local beauticians who offer bikini waxes to actual women but have refused to wax his male genitals, then for seeking permission from the Township of Langley, British Columbia, for “LGBTQ2S” groups to hold topless-optional swimming parties for “all people aged 12+,” with parents and guardians barred from attending.

Whatcott is a Christian social conservative activist whom the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined $55,000 in March for distributing a flyer identifying trans activist and former political candidate Ronan “Morgane” Oger as a “biological male,” which the court deemed an affront to Oger’s “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

In a post Tuesday at the Free North America forums, Whatcott revealed that Yaniv is seeking $35,000 for “gender identity or expression” discrimination for publicly referring to him in sidewalk preaching and a flyer as a “biological male” and a “transvestite deviant” looking to “prey on vulnerable biological women.”

The complaint alleges that by stating the facts of Yaniv’s gender and expressing a negative opinion about his public activities, Whatcott has caused him “immense injury to dignity and self respect,” “incited hatred towards myself,” and “clearly intended to injure and, regardless of his intent, did injure the my privacy, dignity, and economic interests by calling attention to my sex and gender identity in a hateful manner.”

“God has created two sexes, and your gender identity should align with reality,” Whatcott declares in the video the complaint highlights. “If you choose to believe something fake, if you choose to believe you’re a woman when in fact you were born a biological male, I feel sorry for you. But you have no right to impose that falsehood on me. You have no right to impose that falsehood on other Canadians.”

“Really, these so-called human rights complaints are all an offense to real democratic principles and when it comes to complaints involving so-called transgender complainants the process is an offense to reality itself,” Whatcott responded to the complaint. “What is clear to me is if these frivilous (sic) and vexatious complaints continue (and all indicators are the BCHRT is happy to spend taxpayer’s money entertaining them) the ability to use peaceful speech to challenge the mostly fraudulent claims of the LGBT agenda, especially as it pertains to so-called gender theory will be gutted.

“No doubt Yaniv and the BCHRT would be really happy if I incurred the cost of another lawyer and expended all sorts of energy to defend myself,” he continued. “I believe we Christians have to do something different and indeed we have to work to reform our country and remove the ability of cultural Marxists and malcontents to use the power of the state to silence our speech.

“Beyond pointing to Christ as our ultimate answer, I have no solution as to how to Canadians can regain our freedom,” Whatcott lamented. “I think the judgments I am facing and the ordeal these 16 female estheticians have faced at the hands of a sick predator and a corrupt human rights tribunal is clear evidence our courts and political system is corrupt and I see no mass uprising on the horizon of outraged Canadians demanding to have their freedom back.”

Apart from the transgender ideology issues at play, some speculate Yaniv may simply be a male heterosexual predator using “gender identity” as a pretext to prey upon women and girls (he identifies as a lesbian, indicating he remains sexually attracted to the people he wants to wax his genitals and share locker-room space with).

The Daily Caller reported that Yaniv has a record of disturbing texts about being in locker rooms with girls as young as age 10, asking questions like, “If there’s like 30 girls in the change room, how many of them would you say are out there changing freely with their vaginas and tits out?” and, “What are some things that girls do like in the bathroom stall and in the change room that I should be doing to make myself more a girl,” specifying that he was asking about “the gross stuff.”

Moreover, Oger himself has accused Yaniv of “outrageously inappropriate acts, some towards children who are tweens and teens,” spanning 2013 to 2018.” Yaniv is alleged to have attempted to solicit phone numbers from teenage girls online, and to have taken photographs of underage girls at a beauty pageant without permission.

For his part, Whatcott says he may be willing to sit down with Yaniv for mediation, noting that while he doesn’t have the money for the damages Yaniv seeks, “I have Good News that I can share and a treasure more long lasting and beneficial to his well being than money.”

Whatcott hit with another “human rights” complaint

Whatcott hit with another “human rights” complaint

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:11 pm

Bill Whatcott’s Gospel preaching in front of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) that Mr. Yaniv claims “caused immense injury to dignity and self respect.” So much so that Mr. Yaniv allegedly needs $35,000 in compensation to recover.

The flyer that allegedly harmed Mr. Yaniv so much he needs $35,000 and given the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) did not summarily dismiss his complaint (which is within their power to do), it appears they might agree with him!

Jonathan Yaniv’s BCHRT complaint asking for $35,000 because I allegedly called him a man and criticized his vexatious habit for finding women working as estheticians out of their homes, demanding they wax his “female penis” and then slapping them with human rights complaints when they refuse. … i5Fs_gHw_W

Jonathan Yaniv needs expedited service to fleece me of $35,000 because he is worried I am going to be in jail for 18 months before he gets his cash … nNLhoEEE3B

Here is the complainant whose “dignity, self respect and privacy” I allegedly harmed showing off in a bathing suit on social media.

I note Mr. Oger (who the BC Human Rights Tribunal ordered me to pay $55,000 and no longer refer to using male pronouns) is supposed to be a woman and as Vice President of the BC NDP is allegedly deeply concerned about women’s rights and safety; however in this post on his own social media, Mr. Oger shows about as much sensitivity to the real female esthetician’s discomfort with being forced to handle Jonathan Yaniv’s ‘female penis” as you might expect from a porn addicted biological male.

Just because Mr. Oger is comfortable looking at strange naked men when marching in homosexual pride parades, that doesn’t mean biological female estheticians are comfortable looking at strange men’s penises and being forced to touch them when the man identifies as a woman and demands a wax job in the woman’s private home. In fact real women have a valid concern for their safety if such a cross dressing man shows up and demands such an intimate service. Look at the article below and if you are a woman ask yourself if you would want to be alone with this guy.

Here is an article published by the Post Millenial delving into Mr. Yaniv’s background and exposing some of his disturbing, predatory tendencies. It should be a no brainer that women estheticians should not be forced to handle this strange man’s penis. I note most of the women who Mr. Yaniv targeted were working alone in their homes and some had children in their homes: … to-emerge/

Dear Friends,

Yesterday, I received this latest so-called “human rights” complaint. I’m not sure if this complaint is more outrageous than the last one. Really, these so-called human rights complaints are all an offense to real democratic principles and when it comes to complaints involving so-called transgender complainants the process is an offense to reality itself. What is clear to me is if these frivilous and vexatious complaints continue (and all indicators are the BCHRT is happy to spend taxpayer’s money entertaining them) the ability to use peaceful speech to challenge the mostly fraudulent claims of the LGBT agenda, especially as it pertains to so-called gender theory will be gutted. Now merely speaking on the street your reality grounded belief that biological men are men and proclaiming your belief publicly that men who call themselves women should not be able to target vulnerable biological women with demands that women be forced touch their private parts, such speech in Canada can land you in front of a human rights tribunal facing potentially tens of thousands of dollars in fines, not to mention spending tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself.

To be clear I will not be requesting any funds to defend myself in this latest case.

Before I deal with Yaniv’s complaint, I actually have to appear before the Ontario Superior Court to deal with funding for my criminal case, the so-called “hate crime” charge related to my Gospel ministry at the Toronto homosexual parade. I will be in the Ontario Superior Court, 361 University Ave, Toronto, this coming Thursday, July 25th at 9:30 am. Please pray that the judge orders funding for my case or else I will be self representing when the trial starts July 6th, 2020.

Of course throughout history Christians have had to appear before courts and tribunals without counsel. Christianity’s greatest missionary St. Paul had to appear before a Jewish Council where he was physically abused and had to defend himself without the help of a lawyer, see Acts 23. St. Paul also appeared before the courts of Caeser in Rome without the help of a lawyer and after giving his witness before the emperor, St. Paul was put to death. The injustice of St. Paul’s suffering and execution may have seemed meaningless at the time, but God used St. Paul both as a free man and as a prisoner and God used St. Paul both in life and in death, to spread the Gospel thoughout the Mediterranean region and his early ministry still touches people around the world today as they read his epistles and come to know Jesus Christ through his work.

No doubt Yaniv and the BCHRT would be really happy if I incurred the cost of another lawyer and expended all sorts of energy to defend myself against this frivilous and vexatious complaint. I believe we Christians have to do something different and indeed we have to work to reform our country and remove the ability of cultural Marxists and malcontents to use the power of the state to silence our speech.

Beyond pointing to Christ as our ultimate answer, I have no solution as to how to Canadians can regain our freedom. I think the judgements I am facing and the ordeal these 16 female estheticians have faced at the hands of a sick predator and a corrupt human rights tribunal is clear evidence our courts and political system is corrupt and I see no mass uprising on the horizon of outraged Canadians demanding to have their freedom back.

Once I deal with my hate crime charge on July 25th I might consider heading to BC to go into mediation with Mr Yaniv. I have no $35,000 to give him, but I have Good News that I can share and a treasure more long lasting and beneficial to his well being than money.

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the
prison to those who are bound.”
Isaiah 61:1

I also note Mr. Oger is hoping to run for office again in the fall federal election and not surprisingly the BC media is fawning over him in its coverage and all of the major outlets are pretending he is a woman: … -1.4493153

I had no plans to bring gender and Biblical truth to this upcoming election, however if I have to appear to speak to Jonathan Yaniv and deal with his allegations, it is altogether possible that God would want me to speak to gender non reality in the upcoming federal election while I am in Vancouver. To this end I might ask for some crowd funding in the near future and will greatly covet prayers in the meantime.

In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott

Hear Bill Whatcott — The War to Silence Christian Dissent 

Hear Bill Whatcott — The War to Silence Christian Dissent 

The  Alternative Forum & the Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Present

Bill Whatcott

* The man the LGBTQ Lobby has sought to destroy

* Fined $55,000  by B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for criticizing flamboyant tranny NDP candidate Ronan Oger

* Victim of a class action suit for $104-million by Liberals and homosexual lawyers

*Now facing “hate” charges in Ontario


The War to Silence Christian Dissent: Oger & My Upcoming “Hate” Trial for Christian Witnessing

Mr.Whatcott was threatened with a 104 million dollar lawsuit for giving out religious information at a Toronto gay pride parade. He had a Canada wide warrant out for his arrest for this. The B.C. Human Rights Commision fined him in the amount of I believe $55,000 for a misgendering that occurred in a provincial election in B.C. He still faces hate crime charges for the pride parade thing. Antifa communists violently repress political discussions and remain free to reoffend, but a guy like Bill who has a double dip of religious fervor and physically harms no one is in deep trouble. The lecture was sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression and was facilitated by Paul Fromm.