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

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



Oger v. Whatcott

Supplementary Submissions of the Respondent Whatcott

December 16, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24      Footnote 4 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles I. M. Lugosi, Counsel for William Whatcott

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

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

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

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

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

For those who would like to support us you can do so here: … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

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

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

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

Christian Activist Blasts BC Human Rights Tribunal for Calling a Transgendered She While Insisting Defence Not Call Oger “He”

Christian Activist Kari Simpson Blasts BC Human Rights Tribunal for Calling a Transgendered She While Insisting Defence Not Call Oger “He”


Daniel Varnals



Notice to Panel Members: Oger v Whatcott

Cease disrespectful and offensive language use in addressing Complainant Oger.

I will be attending the hearing again today and trust you will be respectful of those, like me and many others in the hearing room, who do not engage in a dissociative reality and refrain from trampling on the rights of women.


Please refer to the Complainant simply as “the complainant”.  The use of associative feminine related language to address a biological male is at best ludicrous from a position of logic and degrading, disrespectful and humiliating to those whose gender identity and reality is female – a Charter protected, provable state of being. I find it astonishing that special rights and privilege to the exclusion of others would be on such blatant and overtly biased display by the Tribunal members.

Please adjust your conduct to be respectful of all protected groups and people. I appreciate that Complainant Oger’s legal counsel will continue to abuse the English language and reality, that is ok, we have free speech but as impartial jurists your responsibilities and obligations include impartiality.

I would also bring to your attention that my assistant was shocked to be using, what should be a safe place for a woman-the bathroom, only to find a biological man in the same facility.  The BCHRT is there to protect the rights of woman and should be a safe place.

Please remedy this situation immediately.  Provide use of an independent bathroom for individuals who identify contrary to their biology if need be but don’t trample on my rights to accommodate another’s.

Thank you,

Kari Simpson

Executive Director Culture Guard

Day 1 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal & News Coverage

Day 1 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal & News Coverage

Day 1 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal & News Coverage

Postby Bill Whatcott » Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:31 am

Bill Whatcott at 8:30 am standing with supporters in front of a coffee shop next to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) on Robson St in Vancouver

Whatcott with supporters

Pro-homofascism supporters fail to show love and acceptance to Bill Whatcott

In fact they called the police on Bill and attempted to get him arrested when he started handing out his newest flyer exposing the corrupt workings of the BCHRT. You can see Bill’s newest hard hitting flyer here if you scroll to the bottom of the post here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10738

Anyways, a lady with the pro-homo group attempted to get me arrested by asking me when the cop was talking to me “Were you not arrested for a hate crime for handing out a similar flyer in Toronto?” I looked at her and as politely as possible asked her to “go flush your head down a toilet.” I then got back to handing out my flyers and the two cops after reading my flyer left.

Once it got close to hearing time I went upstairs and here is the last picture I was allowed to take before the kangaroo inquisition began

The kangaroo inquisition began poorly enough. My side asked for one extra chair and Mr. Ronan Oger (the transvestite complainant) interjected himself into our request and said I should not be able to have an extra chair for my side. I commented “Ronan being his usual gracious self.” I then went outside of the hearing room to stand with my supporter until he could get a chair and notwithstanding Ronan’s lack of class, my supporter was eventually given a chair in the hearing room and after that little kerfuffle, my lawyer, Mr. Oger’s lawyer, and the lawyers for the interveners, Justice Centre, CAFE, West Coast LEAF and BCTF each gave 10 minute opening remarks.

My lawyer argued for a functioning democracy to work we have to be free to criticize all aspects of a candidate’s life. Ronan Oger’s lawyer spoke nonsense that my words could lead to violence and were preventing Ronan from participating in the political discourse.

The lawyer for West Coast LEAF went on about “non-binary,” “Two spirited,” “Trans,” gender expressions needing human rights protection. She seemed to reject the notion that wishing to speak in a way that is grounded in reality should be a human right.

The West Coast LEAF lawyer also accused me of wanting to remove Mr. Oger from the political debate. She didn’t understand, Ronan could run for office just fine, but in a democracy would have to deal with the fact I don’t agree he is a woman.

The BCTF lawyer understood what was at stake, though she is on the other side. She warned this case will set a precedent that will effect the entire country.

I enjoyed the JCCF lawyer’s submission. He warned election freedom its self is at stake in this case and passionately defended freedom of speech.

Early in the proceedings Ronan’s lawyer Susanna Quail disrupted the hearing and complained my lawyer was “misgendering” Mr. Oger.

At lunch hour Mr. Oger’s lawyer complained I was posting on Facebook during the trial and clearly her client was unhappy that my Facebook posts were critical of his claims he is a woman. I was ordered by the Tribunal Chair to quit posting in the hearing room.

Ronan went on for awhile under cross examination about his alleged fear for his personal safety and how my flyer ruined his life.

When my lawyer was cross examining Mr. Oger about his subjective experiences, Oger’s lawyer repeatedly objected to my lawyer’s line of questioning and the Tribunal upheld all of her objections. My lawyer found it hard to question and while he tried to stay neutral with pronouns and mostly referred to Ronan as “The Complainant,” a couple times he slipped up and called Ronan “he,” thereby eliciting the wrath of all three Tribunal members. (Devyn Cousineau, Diana Juricevic, Norman Trerise)

After Devyn Cousineau (NDP supporter and financial contributer to tranvestite political groups) berated my lawyer harshly and warned Dr. Lugosi he “misgendered” Mr. Oger “5 times,” Tribunal member Norman Trerise accidentally refered to Mr. Oger as a “he” and promptly apologized.

I got upset and demanded the Tribunal members quit bullying Mr. Lugosi and I yelled out “The Emporer has no clothes, even Norman accidentally called Ronan what he is, a guy.”

The adjudicator Norman Trerise got upset with me for saying that and ordered me to shut up. After a short recess, adjudicator Diana Juricevic warned me if I had an “outburst” like that again I would be removed from my own hearing and ordered to pay costs.

Kari Simpson of Culture Guard who is helping my lawyer, was also ordered not to talk anymore as she asked the Tribunal to quit offending her by misgendering Mr. Oger with their pretending he is a female.

The Tribunal ended at 4:30 pm and is set to resume tomorrow.

Please pray for us…….

“They traded God’s truth for a lie, and they worshipped and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed forev

Radical left planning demo to get Bill Whatcott convicted by BCHRT

Radical left planning demo to get Bill Whatcott convicted by BCHRT

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:16 am
Stacey MacLeod Wakelin’s Facebook Post

It appears the totalitarian left is organizing in support of Mr. Oger’s quest to have me punished by the BC Human Rights Tribunal for correctly gendering him during the last provincial election when he ran as an NDP candidate for the Vancouver-False Creek riding.

I find Stacey’s post fascinating and frustrating. Calling on people to “come out to support Morgane” I get. Though, I can’t think of a more unworthy cause than helping Mr. Oger in his quest to get handsomely compensated for “hurt feelings and loss of dignity” and saddle me with a debt of up to $75,000, because I called him a man (which he is) and told constituents in his riding that God did not want them to vote for him (a democratic activity).

How what they are doing is “standing up to hate” is completely beyond me. I note Stacey is calling on her activists to “not engage with Mr. Whatcott or his supporters.” By not engaging, I suppose they don’t have to answer the simple question of how my flyer is so hateful that they need to support Mr. Oger in his quest to have me dragged before a Tribunal for four days and fined tens of thousands of dollars?

An even more pertinent question I would like to ask Stacey and her protesters, but if they refuse to engage, I guess I can’t is: why do they think it should be illegal to call Mr. Oger a man when indeed he was born with a penis, fathered a child, has 100% male DNA, and self identified as a man until age 43?

Anyways, here is the flyer Stacey and her activists feel strongly enough about to get out on the street to demonstrate in support of Mr. Oger’s quest to have me punished and fined tens of thousands of dollars:


As for me, I am in the process of getting 2,000 flyers printed and I have a number of helpers willing and able to deliver the flyers.

I hope to have signs denouncing BCHRT tyranny, praising Jesus Christ, telling the truth men are men and women are women, all of this is depending on helpers willing to donate time to make the signs and come down to the BCHRT to stand for Christian liberty and the freedom to tell the truth.

Gospel preaching on the steps of the BCHRT, will be Wednesday, December 12, 12:00 pm. Bring a sign and make your presence felt!!!!

For those in Calgary, I will be preaching and teaching at the “Biblical view on homosexuality and sexuality seminar,” December 1st, 2018, Time: 10:00 am – 2:00 pm

If you would like to attend please pre-register with Pastor Art Pawlowski, E-mail:, Phone: 403-607-4434

To help the Whatcott family with the Vancouver Mission and Bill’s trial before the BCHRT: … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott

“Seek good, and not evil,
that you may live;
and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you,
as you have said.
Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts,
will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.”
Amos 5:14, 15




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

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before

the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal


Morgane Oger



Bill Whatcott




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  Per:  _______________________________

Paul Fromm, Director