A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election
From CAFE meeting in Vancouver, Saturday, October 7, 2017
A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election
From CAFE meeting in Vancouver, Saturday, October 7, 2017
Bill Whatcott’s response to Ms. Susanna Quail’s long winded letter to the BCHRT asking the member Walter Rilkoff to reconsider his decision to not rewrite one sentence in his decision on interveners in Oger vs Whatcott to suit Ronan Oger’s gender delusion.
October. 1, 2017
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017
ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager
Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)
The defendant hereby responds to the spurious and factually erroneous arguments of the complainant and his counsel, Ms. Quail.
Ms. Quail started this circus by claiming in her e-mail exchange with the BCHRT that the complainant “was not born as male.”
The defendant, the complainant’s obstatrician who gave birth to him, the French government and the complainant’s ex-wife to only name a few, know otherwise. The bottom line is, if the complainant and his counsel are deluded on a fact as basic as the complainant’s sex at birth then they won’t be credible on just about anything else. Indeed the defendant can demonstrate that Ms. Quail is light on facts with just about everything she says in her latest letter by doing a very quick and superficial critique of her arguments in her September 27th, “Application for reconsideration.”
Ms. Quail claims “The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record.”
Actually, the complainant’s gender identity is on the record.
On page 1 of the original complaint against me, Ms Quail wrote: “The Flyer attacks Ms Oger’s gender identity. It says Ms. Oger’s gender identity is false and an “impossibility” and that transgender people like Ms. Oger are at elevated risk of various diseases and violent acts.”
As the Tribunal can see in the above paragraph Ms. Quail refers to the complainant with a female pronoun and Ms. Quail tells the tribunal and anyone reading the complaint that the complainant is transgender.
Ms. Quail states “The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint.”
With all due respect the complainant seems to believe his gender identity is relevant to the complaint. On Twitter three days after launching his complaint, the complainant wrote: “Monday I filed a BC #Human Rights tribunal (sic) complaint against Bill Whatcott due to hateful acts over my gender identity + expression.”
Ms. Quail incorrectly states, “It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of their identity as their sex.”
In actual fact defendants are entitled to discovery, especially in matters that are pertinent to the defendant’s defense. In any event the complainant’s so-called gender identity is not really all that personal or private of a matter. A quick perusal of the CBC, Globe & Mail, Youtube, Vancouver Province, Xtra, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, etc….. will show quite definitively that the complainant’s gender identity is just about the only thing he actually talks about when speaking to the public. And a quick check will confirm the complainant likes to talk about his gender identity in public often.
Some pertinent questions that the defendant believes should be answered by the complainant’s counsel if the BCHRT is actually going to entertain this request for the reconsideration of Walter Rilkoff’s September 13, 2017 decision in regards to interveners in the Oger vs Whatcott case where Mr. Rilkoff aptly noted “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female.”
1. What does the complainant’s French Birth Certificate identify him as?
2. Did the complainant’s obstetrician and/or midwife identify him as a male or a female when he was born?
3. Did the complainant’s mother think she had a boy or a girl when she gave birth to the complainant?
4. Did the complainant identify as a woman when he first met his ex-wife? Did the complainant’s ex-wife think the complainant was born male or female when she got married and had children with the complainant?
5. Did the complainant’s foundational Canadian identity documents (passport, citizenship papers) identify him as a boy or a girl 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
6. When the complainant applied for entry into the University of British Columbia in 1986 did he check the male or the female box?
7. If the complainant presented himself as a male when applying for university or when courting his ex-wife, why should the BCHRT or Defendant think the complainant was born a female?
Shouldn’t the defendant have a right to have an answer to these questions if the defendant is being charged under Section 7a and b of the BC Human Rights Code, because the defendant allegedly offended the complainant’s alleged gender identity?
In Christ’s Service
Ms. Quail’s long letter not letting go of a BCHRT member’s decsion to not waste more time and money pandering to Ronan’s neurosis over a sentence referring to him as “born a male.”
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017
ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager
Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)
The Complainant hereby applies for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision
communicated in a letter dated September 13, 2017, in which the Tribunal declined to
correct an error in decision number 2017 BCHRT 195, at paragraph 2.
For clarity, the Complainant is not seeking reconsideration of the merits of 2017 BCHRT
195, granting intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression and
denying intervenor status to Gordon Watson. The Complainant only seeks
reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision not to correct an error made in 2017 BCHRT 195
at paragraph 2.
The first sentence of that paragraph says: “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a
Counsel for the Complainant brought this error to the Tribunal’s attention on September
12, 2015, by email (attached hereto as Appendix A). As set out in that email, the
Complainant was not born male. The Tribunal responded stating that the Tribunal
Member did not understand where the error was, and asked counsel for the Complainant
to describe how this sentence was in error.
Counsel responded, stating: “Ms. Oger was not born as male.”
On September 13, 2017, the Tribunal responded by letter (attached hereto as Appendix
B), stating that it would not correct this error. The Tribunal stated that the burden is on
the person seeking a correction to persuade the Tribunal that the particular statement
said to be in error was indeed an error, and Ms. Oger had not done so.
Demanding that the Complainant, a transgender person, prove her identity is
It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the
Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of
their identity as their sex. To do so would be (and is in this case) highly invasive.
Individuals are taken at their word that they are male, female, transgender, or any other
applicable gender identity.
The Tribunal has required Ms. Oger to persuade it that the statement that she was “born
a male” is false. Ms. Oger telling the Tribunal that that is not her gender identity is
Ms. Oger has offered to provide a copy of her identity document, which indicates that her
sex, in the eyes of the law, is female. It is not “born male but now identifies as female.”
Ms. Oger stated and continues to assert that she should not be required to furnish
identity documents for the Tribunal to accept that her gender identity is as she says it is.
This is a burden imposed on her, a transgender person, but not on any other party to any
other case before the Tribunal to the Complainant’s or counsel’s knowledge.
The Complainant is not aware of any case in which a cisgender complainant has been
required to persuade the Tribunal that they are the sex or gender they say they are.
Transgender persons are routinely challenged on the veracity of their gender identity. In
fact, that is what this case is about: the Respondent and Intervenor refuse to accept that
Ms. Oger’s, and other transgender individuals’, gender identity is real.
For the Tribunal to require Ms. Oger to furnish proof of her sex or gender identity is a
further perpetuation of this very discrimination. It relies on and extends the stereotype
that transgender people’s own statements about who they are cannot be accepted as true.
The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record
There was nothing in the application or anywhere in the record for the Tribunal member
to make the statement made in paragraph 2, that Ms. Oger was born male. The Tribunal
member invented this fact.
It is not open to the Tribunal to invent facts about parties and then require parties to
persuade them that those invented facts are false.
The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint
Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to this complaint. Ms. Oger is a transgender
woman, not a person “born as male who now identifies as female”, but even that fact is
irrelevant. As determined in School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran, 2005
BCCA 201, a complainant need not actually possess the personal characteristic forming
the basis of the discrimination in order to succeed in establishing a breach of the Code.
The Tribunal Member has asserted a fact that is not only false, but entirely irrelevant to
the complaint before the Tribunal.
This is not a case in which the applicant for reconsideration seeks to submit
information they should have previously put forward
Reconsideration applications cannot be used to put information before the Tribunal that
should have been, but was not, put before the Tribunal at an earlier stage: Hanlon v City
of North Vancouver and another (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 152 at para 7.
In this case, argument about or proof of Ms. Oger’s gender identity is not information
that the Complaint ought to have previously put forward. It is not the case, ever, that a
complainant must prove that they possess the characteristic that is the subject of
discrimination in order to succeed in a complaint before the Tribunal. As stated above, it
perpetuates discriminatory stereotypes to assert that transgender complainants must
prove their gender identity in order to pursue a complaint before the Tribunal.
The question of the Complainant’s gender identity will not be resolved in a
determination of the merits of this complaint
The Tribunal’s letter of September 13, 2017 refers to the fact that this is an interim
decision and suggests that “even that simple sentence” (describing Ms. Oger as “born as a
male”) will be the subject of argument at a hearing of the complaint on the merits.
Ms. Oger’s gender identity will not be the subject of argument at a hearing of the
complaint on the merits.
Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to the merits of her complaint.
The question before the Tribunal at a hearing on the merits of the complaint will be
whether the Respondent has breached section 7 of the Code. There is no reason for the
Tribunal to make a finding of fact as to the Complainant’s gender identity in order to
answer that question.
In any event, the parties do not dispute that Ms. Oger is transgender: the parties dispute
whether transgender people’s gender identity is real, and whether persons like the
Respondent may publish hateful materials about transgender people without offending
the Code. The Tribunal is not asked to determine Ms. Oger’s gender identity at any point
in this complaint.
The Complainant suffers prejudice by having the decision stand uncorrected
The erroneous statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is
based on pernicious, discriminatory stereotypes about transgender people, and is wrong
When transgender people legally change the sex marker on their birth certificates or
other foundational identity documents, that change is not prospective only. A birth
certificate that was formerly marked “M” is not now marked “Born M but now identifies
as F”. It is marked “F”. In the eyes of the law, the individual was always female but was
mis-identified as male prior to the correction of the birth certificate.
More importantly, transgender people experience their own gender identities in many
different ways. While some people might experience that they used to be one gender but
now identify as a different gender, many transgender people experience that they have
always been one gender, but were misidentified by the world around them.
The idea that transgender people were “born” one way but “identify” differently rests on
the assumption that there is a true, biological gender of each person, determinable by the
shape of their external genitalia, and that a transgender person has deviated from that
true, biological gender.
The statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is false and
perpetuates stereotypes about her and other transgender people. It now exists in a
published decision of a legal decision-making body. It is available on CanLII and on the
Tribunal’s website. There exists a binding legal statement that Ms. Oger’s sex and gender
are something other than what they are. Ms. Oger is a prominent activist for transgender
rights and other social causes, and the impacts of this false statement on her sense of self
and public reputation are significant.
The interests of fairness and justice and the purposes of the Code militate in
favour of reconsideration
Reconsideration may be granted where to do so would serve the interests of fairness and
justice: Grant v City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 at para 8.
The erroneous statement is not only patently false, it perpetuates the very discriminatory
thinking that is at the centre of this case. The erroneous statement makes a finding of fact
on something that is wholly irrelevant to the complaint. The Tribunal has gratuitously
invented a fact about the Complainant and then required the Complainant to prove that
this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” is false.
The inclusion of this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” in 2017 BCHRT 195
is contrary to the purposes of the Code.
It is contrary to promoting a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are
equal in dignity and rights (s. 3(b)): it creates a standard where cisgender people are who
they say they are, but transgender people have to persuade the Tribunal that their selfdeclarations
It is contrary to the prevention of discrimination prohibited by the Code (s. 3 (c)), because
it perpetuates stereotyped thinking that assumes that transgender people have a “true”
biological sex, assigned at birth, and change from that true sex to something else that is
merely an identity.
It is contrary to the provision of a means of redress for persons discriminated against
contrary to the Code (s. 3(e)): transgender people will be dissuaded from seeking redress
through the Tribunal if the message to them is that they will have to prove their sex or
gender, or risk having a false statement about who they are published by the Tribunal in a
binding decision, which the Tribunal refuses to correct.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant asks that the Tribunal’s decision refusing to
correct the error in 2017 BCHRT 195 at paragraph 2, communicated by letter dated
September 13, 2017, be reconsidered.
All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Complainant,
ALLEVATO QUAIL & WORTH
per Susanna Allevato Quail
Barrister & Solicitor
cc Morgane Oger
Open Letter to Walter Rilkoff, LGBT Activist and BC Human Rights
Tribunal Kangaroo Adjudicator
Re: Morgane Oger vs Bill Whatcott (case number: 16408)
Dear Mr. Rilkoff,
I have received your letter incorrectly accusing me of unilaterally attempting to determine what the complainant will call himself. On June 9, 2017 you wrote, “The Complainant is entitled to use her name in the complaint process. It is certainly not for Mr. Whatcott to determine what the Complainant will call herself, and his unilateral attempt to do so is disrespectful and will not be tolerated.”
In actual fact I have no power or capacity to determine what either you or Ronan Oger will call himself. If you and Ronan want to indulge his gender confusion and refer to him as “Morgane Oger” have at it. If you want to call Ronan a tomato, a dog, or a cat; I can’t stop you from doing that either. The problem I have with this process is you are exhibiting obvious bias that gives me no confidence you are even capable of arriving at an impartial decision regarding this matter and it is you who is unilaterally determining what the Defendant can and cannot say and indeed you are backing your unilateral attempt to control my speech with threats of legal sanctions. You wrote “He (Whatcott) may not refer to the Complainant as “Ronan Oger,” “he” or “him.” You further go on to say, “Further instances of such behaviour may also subject Mr. Whatcott to an order to pay costs pursuant to s. 37(4)(a) of the Human Rights Code.”
Of course the complaint you are appointed to adjudicate stems from my election flyer delivered during BC’s recent provincial election arguing Mr. Oger is a biological male and that his so-called transgender activism and proven history of wanting legal protection for his fake identity enshrined into law, is incompatible with God’s will for humanity and what I perceive to be good government. Your letter to me on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal letterhead clearly indicates you believe punitive measures employed by state organs (even before the case goes to trial) are an acceptable measure to employ to prevent me from arguing what I argued in my election flyer (that the NDP candidate for Vancouver False Creek is a gender confused male). Hence, it appears to me that the ruling you will make is already decided in favour of LGBT falsehood and you simply want me to politely go along with this fraudulent process, so that your ruling which will be an affront to democratic freedom and the right to speak what is true can have a veneer of legal respectability.
Please be advised I have no interest in cooperating with such a biased and fraudulent process and I will not use the fake pro-nouns you prescribe “she” or “her,” nor will I use Ronan’s transvestite fantasy name “Morgane,” even if the government gave him a birth certificate with that obviously feminine name, nor will I use your gender neutral alternative “the Complainant,” as I believe to do so will mean I am cooperating with LGBT tyranny and falsehood. I am only open to using male pronouns when referring to biological males, or as a possible compromise if the Tribunal and Ronan’s counsel finds it acceptable, I can refer to Ronan in this process as the “biological male.” Various media reports even while calling Ronan a woman acknowledge he was born a biological male and I assume the Tribunal and Ronan’s lawyer acknowledge the reality that Ronan is a biological male, even as you insist the Defendant and presumably all BC residents refer to him with female or gender neutral pronouns.
If you find the term “biological male” unacceptable when referring to Mr. Oger and you have no acceptable (to me) alternative, then please be advised I will continue to use Mr. Oger’s birth name and male pronouns when referring to him, as God has clearly created him male and you should have no authority to coerce me into saying otherwise. In the absence of a mutually acceptable compromise on how to address Ronan Oger, the NDP Vancouver-False Creek candidate, who is now a human rights complainant because I referred to him as a biological male; I will continue to speak what is true regardless of any financial penalties or other measures you decide to impose on me.
For more background information on how Bill Whatcott’s election flyer calling on Vancouver- False Creek residents to reject the false concept of “transgender” (no one can change their gender, one can only mutilate their body and cross dress to look like the gender they are not), and to turn to Jesus Christ in repentance and vote according to Godly and Biblical values, resulted in him being dragged before the BC Human Rights Tribunal and is now being threatened with legal sanctions if he continues to use correct male pronouns go to:
To see Bill Whatcott’s truthful election flyer go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10624
To see Mr. Oger’s human rights complaint and Bill Whatcott’s response go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10638#p26188
To see the biased adjudicator Walter Rilkoff’s threat letter go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10640
“Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill? He who walks uprightly, And works righteousness, And speaks the truth in his heart.” Psalm 15:1, 2
Whatcott Ordered to Use Transgendered’s Pronoun of Choice in Referring to Complainant
Christian evangelist and activist Bill Whatcott handed out some 1,500 leaflets in the Vancouver-False Creek riding prior to the May 8 provincial election in British Columbia challenging transgendered activist Ronan Oger, who now styles him/her/itself as Morgane. Auger was born male and fathered children but now acts as female. Mr. Whatcott argued that if Auger is confused about his sexually identity and rebelling against the law of God, he might not make a very good MLA. Auger, running for the NDP, hoped to be the first transgendered MLA. Whatcott’s leaflet went viral on the social media. He was assaulted and cursed by some in the heavily homosexual riding. In one building, two beefy lesbians rushed him and tried to drive him out. Whatcott feels he influenced many Chinese who received the leaflet. The Chinese take a traditional approach to sexuality. Auger was narrowly defeated and Whatcott’s witnessing may well have played a role. Predictably, all three parties — Liberals, NDP and Greens — denounced Whatcott. Vengeance came swiftly. Shortly after the election, on May 22, Auger filed a complaint of discrimination with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. He claimed Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets exposed the transgendered to “hatred or contempt”, And, of course, among other things, he wanted money — “damages for injury to his dignity and reputation.”
Mr. Whatcott filed a spirited response: “I refuse to refer to the complainant as ‘Morgane.’ Morgane is a French female name. The baby boy who was named Ronan Oger at the time of his birth is and always will be a biological male and should have a male name that reflects his biological sex. I am writing this letter to request the BC Human Rights Commission dismiss Ronan Oger’s human rights complaint against me. As Dr. Paul McHugh in his article … “Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme” correctly pointed out, “Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men.” While Ronan Oger may believe himself to be a woman and while his fervent activism seems to indicate he wants everyone else to believe he is a woman, the reality that is rooted in biology clearly testifies that Ronan is a man. No government identification with a fake gender designation, no media decorum guide insisting on the use of fake pronouns, no human rights commission ruling trying to silence the truth that God has created two sexes, male and female and they cannot be changed, is going to change what is reality.
While Ronan’s complaint alleges my truthful flyer (validated by attached studies and opinion articles) has attacked his “dignity, feelings, reputation and self respect,” the fact is he chose to run as an NDP candidate in a provincial election. I’ve attached two Globe & Mail articles written by him. In one article Ronan disparages social conservatives in the Christy Clark government and clearly insinuates if one expresses an opinion that so-called transgenderism is problematic, that such an opinion according to Ronan could render a politician unsuitable for political office. The other article argues that people should be able to identify as whatever suits them when it suits them.
A practical outworking of the flawed philosophy that people should be able to self-identify and switch genders as they see fit is co-ed bathrooms and de facto co-ed women’s shelters. Thanks to ideas like Ronan’s actually being implemented in Ontario. A deaf woman was sexually assaulted by a male sex offender who self identified as a “trans-woman” to gain access to a women’s homeless shelter in Toronto where he was able to gravely harm a vulnerable biological woman. The University of Toronto reported males trying to film females when they were bathing in “trans-friendly” change rooms without the women’s consent. At the University of Calgary panic buttons exist in the bathrooms now that they are co-ed due to so-called transgender ideology. Before this madness became policy panic buttons were not needed in segregated sex bathrooms.
Clearly Ronan has a political agenda that is informed by his transvestite identity and activism. (Ronan is not “transgender” nor is any other human being “transgender” who identifies as such.) Ronan has not and never will “transform” into a female, he will only ever be a male who cross dresses and who, unfortunately, appears to be using female hormones to give himself feminine characteristics. As a BC resident I perceive that Ronan’s political advocacy for homosexuality and cross dressing, not to mention his antipathy towards social conservatives who do not agree with his ideology, is going to have a negative impact on me and my community. Therefore, as far as I am concerned I have a civic duty to speak frankly and without inhibitions imposed by political correctness or vague human rights codes, on so-called transgenderism and its harmful effects on BC in ridings like Vancouver-False Creek where it looked possible that a transvestite was going to win the riding and use [his] political power to impose a harmful agenda on my province. I hope this helps in assisting the BC Human Rights Tribunal in arriving at the only conclusion that is consistent with moral coherence, true democratic principles, and biological reality; that you will toss Ronan (he is not Morgane) Oger’s spurious human rights complaint into the waste basket immediately.”
A Tribunal slap down was swift in coming. Tribunal chairman Walter Rilkoff, in a June 9 letter, threatened Mr. Whatcott with financial penalties for not referring to Ronan as a “she”. “The complainant is entitled to use her name in the complaint process. It is certainly not for Mr. Whatcott to determine what the Complainant will call herself, and his unilateral attempt to do so is disrespectful and will not be tolerated. If Mr. Whatcott chooses not to use the name ‘Morgane Oger’ or refer to Ms Oger as she or her, he may use ‘the Complainant’. … He may not refer to the Complainant as ‘Ronan Oger’, ‘Mr. Oger’, ‘he’ or ‘him’. [This is just the mind-bending linguistic tyranny we warned about in regards to Bill C-16 above.] … Further instances of such behaviour may also subject Mr. Whatcott to an order to pay costs pursuant to Sec. 37(4)(a) of the Human Rights Code.”
“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Morgane Oger says she’s unlikely to defeat Sam Sullivan in final count
But close race in her riding shows trans candidates have a real chance of winning, she says
Published on Thu, May 11, 2017 9:02 pm.
http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news … unt-220859
After a rollercoaster of an election night, when at times she seemed poised to become the first transgender person elected to Canadian public office, Morgane Oger is coming to terms with the fact this is not likely going to be the case.
The preliminary election results in Vancouver-False Creek show BC Liberal incumbent Sam Sullivan ahead of the NDP’s Oger by 560 votes. Although absentee ballots have yet to be counted, Oger acknowledges it would be a long shot for those votes to sway the election in her favour.
“Indications are that Sam Sullivan won this election. And we will really know on the 22nd [of May] by how much,” she says. “We need to see what the final count is.”
In an email to Xtra, Andrew Watson, communications manager for Elections BC, says his office estimates there were roughly 176,000 absentee ballots cast in this year’s election province-wide. It’s not known how many of those ballots were cast in Vancouver-False Creek.
“We don’t have an electoral district breakdown yet but will publish one before final count starts on May 22,” Watson says.
In the wake of May 9’s preliminary results, Oger says she’s staying positive. Like their respective parties more broadly, the race between Oger and Sullivan was neck and neck for most of the night. One candidate would take the lead only to later be overtaken by the other.
“I think I had every emotion. There was this elation that [our campaign] had worked, and then this horror as it went from ‘it worked’ to ‘it failed,’ and then relief that it worked and then dismay again,” she says.
At 11pm, with just six ballot boxes remaining, Oger was leading by 48 votes. She and her team came to NDP headquarters preparing for what looked like victory.
“At one point I was practising my speech — and then at another point I was looking at the numbers and it said the votes were 100 percent counted,” she says.
But despite the outcome so far in Sullivan’s favour, Oger says her campaign can be proud of how close she came to winning as an NDP candidate in a Liberal stronghold.
“This riding was considered almost un-winnable,” she says. “It means finally in Canada a transgender person can — if properly supported and properly engaging with the experience required to have credibility as a candidate — a transgender person can take a fight to [an establishment] candidate.”
Ronan Oger heads to NDP headquarters on election night to concede his defeat. Bill Whatcott delivered 1500 flyers denouncing Ronan’s attempt to become Canada’s first transvestite MLA. Bill’s flyers were widely shared on social media and in e-mail mass mailings. Because the race was so close it is possible Bill Whatcott’s flyers played an important role in assuring the gender confused homofascist Ronan did not attain the inluential possition of MLA for Vancouver-False Creek. In fact by keeping Ronan out of office Bill’s flyers might have also kept the hard left pro-abortion/homofascist NDP from taking power in BC as things are so close one seat could literally make the difference between an NDP or Liberal government.
Oger attributes the closeness of the race to public fatigue with the BC Liberals. She also suggests that her work on a broad range of issues, such as education, and her background in the tech sector made her relatable to a larger constituency. She believes her advocacy work on trans and human rights issues alone would not have been enough to propel her to office.
“It’s important to appreciate that being an advocate for a tiny percentage of the population is not enough to get elected. One has to have done things that touch the mainstream,” she says. “This is what I encourage the transgender community and the LGBT community to do. Touch the mainstream. It’s the mainstream that elects you.”
She says it’s unclear what impact a series of transphobic flyers plastered throughout her riding may have had on her chances of being elected, but she describes them as “horrifying” and “destabilizing” to her campaign.
“They forced us to focus on that some days. And that was detrimental, that harmed us,” she says, referring to time diverted to speaking with the police, filing a complaint with Elections BC, and crisis-management team meetings. She says the team was forced to cancel some engagements while dealing with the poster issue. “Cancelling an engagement within the last 10 days of an election — that has consequences.”
Still, though neither Oger nor the other three openly trans candidates were elected May 9, Oger says this election has been groundbreaking.
“I was very encouraged within our community to see the love and the hope,” she says. “I hope that everybody appreciates this was a major win for the transgender and the LGBT community, that we can be satisfied that anybody can run who’s credible.”
Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters
After Canada’s Jewish lobby, the most mortal enemies of free speech in Canada are the activists the the LGBTQ homosexual/lesbian/transgender
From the start, the claim was preposterous, but with Canada’s courts deeply infiltrated by homo-friendly elements and the Cultural Marxist creed of victimology, one never knows. As the LifeSiteNews report below explains, the judge threw out the class action suit BUT preached that the plaintiffs might pursue other civil actions against Bill and his band. To that end, he ordered Bill to reveal the names of his supporters. Bill announced he’d rather go to prison. His lawyers are appealing the judge’s extraordinary order.
In the never ending battle to secure our ancient liberties of free speech from the demonic clutches of the thought control freaks, this is definiItely a case to watch.
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
ONTARIO, April 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An Ontario judge has ordered a Christian who evangelizes homosexuals to identify his financial backers and anonymous friends who helped him hand out info packets about the physical and spiritual dangers of anal sex at Toronto’s [Gay] Pride Parade last year. “There could be serious repercussions for me, including prolonged jail time if I don’t comply with the order to disclose the names of my supporters,” said Christian activist Bill Whatcott. “Generally, Christians should comply with secular courts, but not when complying harms the innocent or when the order is unjust in the eyes of God,” he added. Homosexual activists last year launched a $104 million class-action lawsuit against Whatcott for defamation after he and a handful of friends infiltrated the [Toronto Gay] Pride Parade dressed as green “gay zombies.” They handed out what looked to be free condoms in packets that said “Zombie Safe Sex” but which contained messages about the physical and spiritual dangers of homosexual practices. The messages encouraged active homosexuals to change their lifestyle and accept the Christian faith.
Last month, Justice Paul Perell dismissed the lawsuit on a technicality, ruling in Hudspeth v. Whatcott that the homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth could not claim defamation of an entire group, such as the Pride Parade participants or the “LGTBTQ2SI Community,” but only of individuals. [You need a politically correct guidebook to keep track of the growing number of sexually weird privileged groups.]
But then in a surprise move in the same ruling, the judge ordered Whatcott to deliver the names of a half a dozen anonymous “zombies” who helped hand out the info packets as well as the “unidentified financial backers” who funded the group’s expenses. The judge argued that knowing the identities of the individuals who helped Whatcott was “necessary” to the homosexual activists if they were to decide in the future to go ahead with further legal action on grounds that the judge himself suggested.
But Whatcott said he would rather go to jail than betray his friends and supporters to homosexual activists who have publicly promised to “punish them” with a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.
Instead of letting Whatcott face jail time for being in contempt of court in not handing over the names of his friends and supporters, Whatcott’s lawyers are appealing the ruling.
In the appeal, Charles Lugosi and Findlay McCarthy argue that Judge Perell “erred” in ordering Whatcott to reveal the identities of the members of his group after having dismissed the case. “Once it was determined that the action could not proceed as a class proceeding and that the representative plaintiffs [Smitherman and Hudspeth] had no cause of action, then the action should [have] been dismissed, as the plaintiffs were no longer capable of representing members of the classes,” they argued in the appeal.
Whatcott said that the judge ordering him to betray his friends so that homosexual activists can bring legal action against them shows how far the nation has “turn[ed] its back on God” as it “embraces sexual libertinism as its new idol.
Indeed, a judge helping the losing party to refile its claim and ordering the winning party to reveal the identities of friends and helpers to the losers so the helpers of the winning side can be sued is unheard of in property, divorce, criminal, or injury cases,” he said. “Only in a case involving homosexual activism where the homosexual activists are seeking to silence the voice of Christians could such a deviation from established legal norms be contemplated,” he added.
Whatcott has launched a GoGetFunding page to raise $50,000 to help cover his legal costs. So far, he has raised $10,706 (21 percent) of his goal. “If you agree with me this lawsuit is unjust and if you would like to help, please do so,” he wrote on his funding page titled “Help Bill protect his friends and stay out of jail!”
Whatcott’s lawyers are also arguing that the judge erred in denying costs to Whatcott despite having thrown out the case.
“It would be wrong to put a defendant [Whatcott] to the expense of the litigation process if there is no reasonable cause of action against that defendant on the face of the pleading,” they argued.
“Justice Perell, in striking the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable causes of action, should have awarded the defendant to recover the full legal costs of the motion to strike,” they added.
Today was the second day of the hearing into the merits of the $104 million dollar lawsuit against me for infiltrating the Toronto homosexual pride parade with accurate information about the downside of homosexuality and the life saving Gospel while disguised as a “gay” zombie.
To see the redemptive work that got Bill Whatcott and his zombies sued for $104 million dollars go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526
The hearing didn’t have the most pleasant beginning. The court clerk who was not very pleasant on the first day of the hearing began the second day by warning my supporters that if they made any noise the would be thrown out of the courtroom. No one was making any noise and no one argued with her. My side was well attended with around ten supporters. The homosexual side only had Christopher Hudspeth and no supporters in attendance.
The homosexuals’ lawyer Doug Elliot started his arguments with his false allegation that I accuse all Liberals of child sexual abuse. Elliot also made much use of testimony from one of my zombies who decided to identify himself and agreed to submit himself to cross examination by the homosexuals’ lawyers without a lawyer of his own. Elliot used my zombie’s testimony to bolster his argument that my material was extreme hate speech. Unkown to me, I guess my zombie was passing out flyers of his own, as according to Elliot my zombie “found my flyer to be too extreme.” I guess in an earlier exchange with my zombie in Quebec according to Elliot, I commented my zombie’s flyer was “too boring as it lacked a picture of an anal wart.” At that point I nearly gagged on some water as I tried not to laugh.
On a more serious note Elliot used my zombie’s testimony to build a case for conspiracy, reading excerpts from the zombie’s testimony that I swore them to secrecy and engaged in a long period of planning. Elliot argued my zombie’s testimony regarding my planning and secrecy was compelling evidence in favour of an order to compel me under threat of contempt of court to divulge the rest of the names of my other zombies, financial supporters and friends who helped in other ways. Elliot argued I had no respect for the law, parade rules or the welfare of homosexuals. Elliot also accused me of not mentioning the mass murder of homosexuals in Orlando three weeks earlier, unlike the other parade participants who Elliot alleged were mourning the mass murder.
Maybe Elliot was mourning the mass murder in Orlando three weeks earlier while marching in the homosexual pride parade. All of the homosexuals around us where partying and having a good time. Not a word about the victims of the Orlando massacre was spoken within our hearing range by the homosexual pride participants. We only heard complaints about the hot weather, about Black Lives Matter holding us up, and of course happy talk about drugs, sex and partying.
According to Elliot because my flyers were hate speech and because I used deception to gain access to the parade my supporters had no right to privacy.
During these arguments I actually noticed the court clerk was staring at one of my female supporters an awful lot. After awhile the court clerk got up and went to my female supporter who was quietly texting and ordered her to put away her smartphone or she would be immediately ejected from the courtroom. I noted the clerk never asked me or George Smitherman to put away our phones and we both used ours to text quietly. Nor did the clerk ask the Lifesite News journalist to put away her phone that could have been used for texting and tweeting (which journalists routinely do during hearings and trials). An articling student (I think) was taking notes and used her phone to quietly text or google something and she was not harrassed either. Inspite of the double standard my supporter immediately apologized and put away her smartphone.
Half an hour later I saw three police officers arrive and then two of my supporters were removed from the courtroom. I wondered what was happening so I quietly left the hearing to see why my supporters were being removed from the courtroom. When I discovered the court clerk (who was needlessly hostile for two days) called the police to remove my two supporters I immediately pulled out my camera to record the event and get it on the public record that my supporters did nothing wrong to merit having their right to observe an open court proceeding violated. I vouched for their character and behaviour and demanded they be let back in but to no avail. The police ordered me to put away my smartphone and the court clerk was belligerent and out and out lied that my supporters received multiple warnings and dirsrupted the court multiple times.
When it was obvious we would get nowhere with the court clerk or police I asked my unjustly expelled supporters to wait around until lunch. During lunch I told my lawyers what happened and then two of my male supporters and I accompanied the two expelled ladies to the court office where the women made the case they should be reinstated. After lunch my two ladies went back into the court and the court clerk ignored us.
My lawyer argued the Saskatchewan Human Rights prosecution of my speech was not relevant to this case as Saskatchewan Human Rights law is different from Ontario civil litigation law and the context and content of my flyers delivered in the homosexual pride parade is different from Saskatchewan. Dr Lugosi made strong arguments in favour of free speech and the need to follow the law and not prosecute speech, rather than make new law to restrict speech even further.
Justice Perrell expressed concerns about the rights of Whatcott supporters being exposed to such a massive financial liability as a $104 million lawsuit for the simple “crime” of donating a few bucks to my cause or offering me a bed during my travels. By the afternoon the arguments were wrapped up and me and my supporters went out for a coffee. We all pray that God will help Justice Perrell to arrive at a just judgment. The decision is reserved for a later date.
My first day at Ontario Superior Court got off to a bit of a raucous start. I noticed on the homosexual side no actual supporters came out to support the litigants. Only the two homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth who are suing me for $104 million dollars and their rather bloated legal team of two lawyers Dr. Scott Fairley, Doug Elliott and three articling students/ paralegals came out to the hearing. On my side a dozen or so supporters came out, along with me and my two lawyers, Dr. John Findlay and Dr. Charles Lugosi. The courtroom that was reserved for us was rather small and could not fit all of us. The court clerk (who seemed hostile to my side) announced some of the people who wanted to see the court proceedings were going to have to leave.
A few rabble rousers who I did not really know showed up to support me and they started arguing with the court clerk that everyone should be accomodated and no one should have to leave as people have a right to an open court and that means being able to see the proceedings. The court clerk became visibly angry and an argument broke out between her and the rabble rousers. I cringed and encouraged people to be gracious when in court, but I must note if the rabble rousers did not speak up some people would have missed the court proceedings. As it was the court clerk after arguing with the rabble rousers was able to find a couple more chairs and everyone who came out to support me was able to see the proceedings.
Unfortunately, once people were seated one of the ladies who was with the rabble rousers decided to use her smart phone to start recording the court proceedings. The homosexuals’ lawyer Doug Elliott noticed her doing this and alerted the court and insinuated I was known to do things like that. The judge ordered her to shut off her phone immediately. In actual fact I was rather annoyed with her and rebuked her when the court recessed and my lawyer expressed his displeasure with her as well. The lady left shortly afterwards. One of her friends who left with her had his own experience with Canadian censorship as he spent two years in prison for criticizing the Islamicization of Canada.
Much of the oral arguments made by the lawyers centred around technical issues as to whether or not a class action lawsuit was an appropriate vehicle to sue me and my supporters for infiltrating the homosexual pride parade with my truthful and accurate Gospel flyers (disguised as “zombie safe sex packages) that warned of the health, social and spiritual harms related to the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexual pride marcher in the 2016 Toronto Homosexual Pride Parade marches with a picture of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ painted on his crotch.
The homosexual side argued my flyers were “hate speech,” that they were prima facie illegal, that they deserved no legal protection, and that they harmed the marchers and Liberal Party members who marched in the Toronto homosexual pride parade. Conversely, the homosexuals’ lawyers called the Toronto homosexual pride parade an “advancement of democracy.” While the homosexuals’ lawyers cited my Whatcott Supreme Court decision as evidence my flyers are “hate speech” that hurts homosexuals and Liberals. I note neither the Whatcott Supreme Court decision, nor the two lawyers arguing this case produced so much as a shred of evidence that anyone was seriously harmed by my flyers. They simply parrot this falsehood as if it is fact. At one point the homosexual side compared my flyers attacking the Liberal Party members who support homosexual pride to the Ku Klux Klan’s murder of white people who were supportive of black rights and ending segregation.
In the afternoon the court clerk yelled at my supporters that they would be removed from the courtroom if they made anymore noise. In actual fact my supporters were very quiet and I heard no noise at all. During the afternoon break I found out two of my supporters brought on the court clerk’s wrath because they quietly exchanged a note between them that was written on paper expressing a thought about what was said in the court case. In noted George Smitherman played on his phone during court quite a bit, but the court clerk said nothing to him.
The lawyers for my side argued (in my opinion effectively) that the class action was not an appropriate vehicle to sue me for alleged defamtion and hate speech at the Toronto homosexual pride parade. My side also did a good job in arguing my flyers are not ‘hate speech’ and are in fact a legitimate part of the democratic debate in Canada. I would love to show you my flyers that were disguised as “Zombie Safe Sex” packages, but I won’t be able to until these proceedings are over, I suspect.The flyers contained pictures of diseases that are common afflictions related to the homosexual lifestyle, statistics related to diseases that ravage the homosexual subculture, accurate information on the complicity of Liberals in child sexual abuse, and the Gospel. Not surprisingly the homofascist side regurgitated the error in fact promulgated by the Supreme Court of Canada that I call all homosexuals pedophiles. In actual fact I never said that, nor do I believe that to be true. But my flyers do articulate correctly that the homosexual subculture is more tolerant of sex with children than the mainstream culture and the Liberals, just like their LGBT allies appear to be more tolerant of child sexual abuse than they ought to be. Liberals and homofascist lawyers might not like hearing that, but truth while no defense in so-called Canadian human rights law, is a defense in defamtion and if the shoe fits one should wear it.
The hearing will continue tomorrow. Those who wish to witness in favour of religious liberty will be doing so at the corner of Queen St and University at 9:00 am.
The hearing will continue from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm in courtroom 9….
In Christ’s Service
“But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak.”
I am now at the Vancouver airport heading to my two day hearing for the $104 million lawsuit. My crime that I am being sued for being infiltrating the Toronto Perverted Sex Celebration and unGodly Pride parade, disguised as a zombie and sharing 3,000 redemptive Gospel packages disguised as “Zombie Safe Sex” packages.
The hearing will be held at
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, ON
The trial will be from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm both days and the hearing will apparently be taking place in the Osgoode Hall Courtroom
Demonstration in defense of religious freedom and free speech!
Wednesday, February 8 and Thursday, February 9, 2017 from 9 – 10 am
10,000 flyers containing a defense of Christian liberty and the editorial cartoon “Trudeau’s Chopper of Rights” will be delivered between February 5 – 10. I believe the organizers (not me) are looking for volunteers for this work. The excellent editorial cartoon can be seen here: http://www.billwhatcott.com
If you would like more information on the above prophetic witnesses please call me at (306) 861-6140 or e-mail me at:
billwhatcott @ gmail.com
A Toronto radio station 88.3 FM CIGQ is discussing the lawsuit. A friend e-mailed me the interview here. It can be heard live at noon on Sunday, Febrary 5th.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Ol- … Tl5d18zbmM
Sadly the Toronto homosexual perverted sex and unGodly pride parade rejected my request to march as an open heterosexual Christian in their 2017 parade and banned me from all parades after that.
From Pam Paulsen
Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:07 AMThis email represents our acknowledgment of receipt for email issued to email@example.com – Subject: Bill Whatcott’s request to march in the 2017 Pride Parade as an Open heterosexual Christian – on February 1, 2017.
Be advised, as communicated in August 2016, the Board has banned Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association and Bill Whatcott from participation in the Pride Parade in 2017 and beyond.
So much for diversity and acceptance!
Please pray for my upcoming hearing at the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto this coming Tuesday, November 15th. Pray that not only is the homofascist attempt to force me to give up my friend’s names so “Big Gay” can go and financially destroy them is stopped, but pray that this entire vexatious lawsuit is thrown out.
In Christ’s Service
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life”
John 6:47, 48
Bill Whatcott fights $104 million lawsuit over ‘gay zombies’ Pride protest
Fri Nov 11, 2016 – 4:18 pm EST
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-z … ation-suit
TORONTO, November 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Anti-homosexuality campaigner Bill Whatcott is using a hearing called by the homosexual activists suing him for $104 million to get their defamation suit dismissed as a violation of his Charter rights.
According to the argument submitted by Whatcott:
The class action lacks bona fides. It is not brought in good faith. It is a political tool designed to ‘smoke out’ political opponents. It is designed to punish political opponents and to suppress constitutional freedoms. It is designed to intimidate, bully Whatcott, chill free speech, and financially ruin his supporters. Its stated purpose is to crush and “stamp out” anyone opposed to the gay agenda. It is a politically motivated action done in concert with the Liberal federal and provincial governments of Canada and Ontario and supported by the Liberal subclass.
Whatcott and several named and unnamed supporters are being sued in a class action by several Ontario public homosexuals such as one-time Liberal MPP George Smitherman and gay bar owner Christopher Hudspeth for defaming them and all 500,000 participants in Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade. Whatcott led a small group of so-called “gay zombies,” who distributed approximately 3,000 information kits warning against the immorality and health risks of homosexual practices and urging a spiritual and religious conversion to Christianity.
The plaintiffs, who claim to be acting for both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne as members of a defamed “class” of Liberal politicians, have secured a November 15 hearing to seek a court order forcing Whatcott to identify several supporters who joined him in the parade effectively disguised in green body suits.
Hudspeth has said the lawsuit was intended to “smoke out” all who helped Whatcott in any way — with funds, with preparation of the kits, and by donning the green suits and handing out kits.
But Whatcott’s lawyer, Charles Lugosi, has prepared an exhaustive factum urging protection of the anonymous participants and dismissal of the lawsuit as an attack on Charter freedoms of speech, thought, expression, religion, and association.
The Lugosi/Whatcott argument is basically: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The factum cites statements by organizers showing the Gay Pride Parade is, as the factum puts it, a “significant political event” providing a “golden opportunity” for the Ontario homosexual community to push for expanded rights and status. The defendants’ factum argues that it ought to be a golden opportunity for those who oppose this agenda too.
The factum also notes the parade was funded by more than $800,000 in grants from federal, provincial, and municipal governments and $729,000 in services. In addition, it claims that the official participation by Trudeau, Wynne and hundreds of other Liberal politicians was intended to “strengthen their alliance with the gay community.”
Whatcott’s factum argues:
This makes the parade a public and political event where, the defendants claim, they should be entitled under the Charter to express an opposing viewpoint. It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society than freedom of expression. Indeed, a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance of the concept cannot be overemphasized. No doubt that was the reason why the framers of the Charter set forth s. 2(b) in absolute terms.” Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of expression.
As for defamation, they rely on the defense of truth for their claims about the health risks and costs of homosexual activities and on their religious and free speech rights for their claims of immorality.
The defendants also argue that the plaintiffs are disqualified because they do not have legally “clean hands.” The parade, the defendants say, “was a display of immoral, indecent public nudity, uninhibited obscene lewd erotic behavior, blasphemous costumes, which were obscene and insulted Christians and other people of faith, and biased free speech extolling the hedonistic gay lifestyle … ”
The defendants also claim that there were men and women paraders “exposing their sexual organs to children” and breaking the Criminal Code in other ways.
Such illegal behavior provoked the protest by the “gay zombies,” the factum asserts, adding, “Equity in these circumstances does not entitle the plaintiffs to equitable remedies.”
The defendants also address the plaintiffs’ demand that Whatcott reveal the names of his supporters, arguing their Charter freedoms would be endangered if their identities were exposed, especially given the plaintiff’s expressed intent to “stamp” them “out. ” The factum recounts the historic importance of anonymous pamphleteers in the cause of civil and religious rights in Great Britain and America, at times when publication of certain arguments could draw the death penalty. The factum states:
Freedom of expression is constitutionally protected even when done anonymously. The disclosure of identity is the choice of the individual who has chosen to remain anonymous. The freedom to remain anonymous is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression.
The factum concludes by charging the plaintiffs with “abuse of process” and calling for the suit’s dismissal with all costs awarded to Whatcott.