FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

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

Image
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.

Image
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: http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/28/can … 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: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … 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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj9t6t5Ulfo

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

CASE MANAGER

BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

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

Image
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

Image
Whatcott with supporters

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

Image
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

Image
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.

Image
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
Image
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:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10624

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: art@streetchurch.ca, Phone: 403-607-4434

To help the Whatcott family with the Vancouver Mission and Bill’s trial before the BCHRT:
https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … 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

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

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

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

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

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before

the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

Morgane Oger

COMPLAINANT

AND:

Bill Whatcott

RESPONDENT

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

  Per:  _______________________________

Paul Fromm, Director

Whatcott Ordered to Use Transgendered’s Pronoun of Choice in Referring to Complainant

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.

Inline image 1


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.”