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

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

​Ronan Oger                                                                                                    Now “Morgane” Oger

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

Free speech critic of abortion bubble zone silenced at Ontario legislature

And this is MPPs’ idea of democracy. All 3 abortion parties collude to gag anti-abortion protests.

Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free…
YOUTUBE.COM

ERNST ZUNDEL MEMORIAL — TORONTO, AUGUST 16, 2017 — THE VIDEO

 ERNST ZUNDEL MEMORIAL — TORONTO, AUGUST 16, 2017 — THE VIDEO

ERNST ZUNDEL MEMORIAL, TORONTO, August 16, 2017. Friends of the late publisher and holocaust skeptic, Ernst Zundel, and supporters of free speech gather to celebrate a remarkable man.

YOUTUBE.COM
https://youtu.be/50G00Rw9EVE

Help Brian Ruhe, Victim of Zionist-Inspired Job Loss and Persecution

Help Brian Ruhe, Victim of Zionist-Inspired Job Loss and Persecution

 
 
Hello from Brian,

People have asked me where is my fall schedule of meditation courses. Members of a powerful Zionist organization openly state that they contacted Capilano University and four Vancouver Community Centres in order to have me fired from teaching there. They succeeded and I am now unemployed after teaching for 17 years at some of these community centres. This is a loss for spreading Buddhist meditation and it’s a financial hardship for me. I ask for your support at this time as I adjust. I have a fund raising drive on the Indeigogo website at: www.generosity.com/fundraisers/support-free-speech-on-the-brian-ruhe-show/x/12642716

I still intend to teach meditation and lead retreats privately, where my employers cannot be as influenced. You can volunteer to help in organizing this too. I also want to make a change to benefit more people so I have started my own talk show on YouTube using the amazing technology of Google Hangouts on Air which makes an instant YouTube video from each interview. I want to interview great minds all over the world on spiritual and truth search themes. This is, “The Brian Ruhe Show” and my recent guest is Sensei Mui from Chicago on this YouTube video: What is Wrong with Buddhism Again

I have over 600 YouTube videos on all aspects of my teachings which have reached over 750,000 views. My videos have focused upon Buddhism and meditation but now my talk show also focuses on issues relating to truth and justice on a global scale, WWII historical revisionism, and a Buddhist interpretation of world events and history.         These are controversial topics, yes and I am one of the few on YouTube expressing these vital ideas from a Buddhist perspective. This is a free speech issue and I have a video about my current dilemma, made with the Canadian Association for Free Expression, at:


Most people are unaware of the damaging powers of Zionist supremacist forces behind the scenes, such


as Bill C-51 which allows for spying on Canadians.
It is very important for me and others to speak out. We are the 99% and our voice can make a decisive difference. We are being lied to by our political leaders and the media. Please go online to get informed instead of relying on TV or newspapers, and please support my talk show where you can see how I use my freedom of speech. You don’t have to agree with everything that I and my guests say but it is wise for us to open up this dialogue with a sense of urgency. Hundreds of comments on YouTube encourage me to speak out, to take a stand and let out the truth, which got me fired from my teaching career in public institutions. In this I am facing a critical challenge but I am committing myself to continue the fight for justice because I can do what others will not dare to do if they have a family to support. Because of the responsibility for justice, I encourage all people to take part to allow justice to run, by supporting our mission, as I work with others. You’re welcome to make a donation to join me and support me in raising awareness about our true history.

I have some spiritual insight and I will not back down before intimidation and persecution. I can give you such evidence and I am challenging this. I‘ve had threats but            I will continue to profile guests who are courageous and intelligent. You can see recent episodes at youtube.com/user/BrianRuhe with guests Mark Weber, John Friend and Sensei Mui. With your donations we can make a difference towards creating a good and gentle world. If you have a sense of what I’m trying to do and what I have already done,            please consider making a financial contribution so I can afford to focus more time and energy on this mission.

I have spent about 3000 hours since 2007 studying outside of the controlled mainstream media, subjects of truth search themes, such as the International bankers’ control over our society, World War II revisionist history, the international Jewish community, UFOs and government cover-ups. Prior to that I also spent a lot of time on these things going back to my childhood but in 2007 I discovered YouTube and I since have learned from every educational modality you can name. In 2009 I created the Vancouver UFO and Conspiracy Meetup group and from there I have found mentors and advisers here in Vancouver who have personally guided my studies. Since then, I have changed my mind on issues

a few times but I am now able to come to some conclusions about the world and how power flows in it.

My own YouTube videos since July 2014 are about truther themes, the surprising true history of World

War II and National Socialist Germany, as well as challenging Jewish supremacy in our society, but I state

that 95% of Jewish people are not aware of nor are they responsible for the actions of the elite. I don’t

discuss such matters in the Buddhism and meditation retreats and courses I teach but I have been fired

from seven teaching positions just

because of these videos. YouTube is a big focus in my life and my altruism and over 80% of myinteraction with the world is through YouTube. What I say is backed up by better evidence than the

conventional history we were brought up with and taught in the mainstream media and universities-

which are centres of cultural Marxism. This is about truth vs. peer group pressure, about the forces of

good and the forces of Mara in the world. This is profound and I have always been drawn to the

profound.

I am a Theravada Buddhist teacher and I regard what I am doing as a higher moral standard and

I am sacrificing my own reputation in order to protect people who criticize me. I have more courage

than most Canadian men do. I now know that we are in a war but most people don’t even realize that

they’re in a war. I’m fighting in an info war for what is good and decent in the world.

If you want to know more with real evidence I can tell you more in person, and I also have more

info attached. This is part of my mission in life so to support it I accept donations for my time,

otherwise it’s not practical nor sustainable for me to spend my time contacting people one-on-one about

such things. My YouTube videos are free and they explain it all and you can watch as many as you like, at:

youtube.com/user/BrianRuhe

These truths uncovered, are the biggest surprise of my entire life and they profoundly effect every

single person in the world. This is nothing less than a paradigm shift and I am grateful that I have had a

transformational experience. My inner strength and happiness is better than ever because

my internal refuge is strong and grounded in reality.

Frederick Fromm's photo.
Victim of Zionist censorship Brian Ruhe *(left) being interviewed by Paul Fromm

I believe that what I am doing follows the Buddha’s teaching and ethics in general. The Buddha taught that we should make an effort to see through delusion, confusion and lies and He said, “Three things can not be long hidden: The sun, the moon, and the truth”. Of the ten paramis (perfections) truthfulness is the most important one. It is the only one that the bodhisatta, the Buddha in his previous lives, could not break because of the profound karmic implications of the truth. The Buddha criticized people who lied to him and he taught that you can blame those who are blameworthy. The Buddha was in constant argument and debate with other spiritual leaders of his day in his proclamation of the dhamma- which is truth. He taught that dhamma is a universal objective truth and that we should live in harmony with it. The Buddha taught universal loving kindness for all beings and it is because I have loving kindness for 7,000,000,000 people that I am making a personal sacrifice for them now, greater than what I have made in my past 20 years of teaching. I have right view and my knowledge of the grave dangers hidden in the world surpasses the vast majority so knowledge means I have a responsibility to act.

The Buddha taught that our actions should be timely, not untimely and that we should use right speech which is not only truthful but skillful, at the right time, spoken without harshness or ill-will and it should be beneficial. I am accomplishing all of that through the medium of YouTube because there are millions of voices on YouTube. I am skillfully adding my voice to these millions of videos to tweak an adjustment more towards what is true, wholesome and good in the world as I am a moderate in comparison to others on YouTube.

The Buddha defined enlightenment as “seeing things as they really are.” There are so many lies from the top down in our society that an intelligent Buddhist should use their discernment and insight to see through these lies and speak out against them, which is what I am proud to do.

The Buddha taught that we should not cling to attachment to views but that does not mean that we live

without views, which is impossible. It means that we don’t force our views on others or act unskillfully

based upon our views. We should still have views rooted in dhamma, the Buddha taught, and we should

act and live by those views in a way that is skillful and beneficial to ourselves and to others.

Some Buddhists make the mistake of using meditation as an excuse to not get engaged in the social issues in the world believing that they are good just by developing their practice and they actually withdraw from the world but the Buddha was opposed to this. The Buddha taught ethics for his followers because they are in the world and they are responsible for taking care of their world. In May, I met with Zen Buddhist professor David Loy when he was giving lectures in Vancouver. He told us “If Buddhism can’t help us face the social issues of the world, then maybe Buddhism isn’t what the world needs right now. But I think Buddhism can help.”

The Buddha said to a Jain who joined him that people should support their current teachers as well as their former teachers. There is also the 2,500 year Buddhist tradition of dana, referring to donations and generosity to support Buddhist teachers. In the Numbered Discourses the Buddha said that there are three people who should be remembered- the one who introduced you to the path, the one who established you on the path and the one who helped you reach a deeper insight. I have done the first one or two for countless people.

Donations can be made at:

www.generosity.com/fundraisers/support-free-speech-on-the-brian-ruhe-show/x/12642716

or by PayPal or mailed, being payable and sent to:

Brian Ruhe

#104 – 1960 West 7th Ave.

Vancouver, BC V6J 1T1


It would be gratefully appreciated!

May you be well, happy and peaceful,

Brian Ruhe

brianruhe.ca

CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake

 

CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake

KELOWNA, BC., August 25, 2015. Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression announced today that CAFE had,  instructed its lawyer Andy Lodge of St. John to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal against decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal nullifying the bequest of the late Robert McCorkill to the U.S. National Alliance.

“The July 30 decision by the Court of Appeals was dismissive and failed to deal with the substantive arguments and submissions both by CAFE’s lawyer and John Hughes, counsel for the  executor of the estate. In the end, there was no legal precedent for scrutinizing the character of the recipient,” Mr. Fromm said. “This case is crucial for freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights,” Mr. Fromm added.

The Court of Appeals decision was short and uninformative.

The brief two paragraph decision concluded: “Having regard to the application judge’s comprehensive reasons and his determination that  the bequest was void as it was against public policy, we can find no justification to interfere. We are in substantial agreement with the essential reasons of the application judge.

The final paragraph then slapped CAFE with $3,000 in costs ($9,000 total) to each of the parties supporting the nullification of the will on the grounds it was against public policy.

The bequest was deemed “contrary to public policy” because of the politically incorrect ideas of the National Alliance, racial views which are entirely legal in the U.S. where the NA is headquartered.

“After extensive consultations with our supporters in Canada and the U.S., CAFE decided to take this very costly step and seek leave of the Supreme Court to appeal this horrific decision which stomps on free speech and property rights,” said Mr. Fromm.

The Supreme Court grants leave in about only 10 per cent of cases. “However, ” said Mr. Fromm, “this case is of national importance. Its opens the door to endless litigation whenever a bequest is made to a controversial person or organization. It nixes the right of a person to dispose of his property as he sees fit.”

“We were assured by the lawyer for the Attorney General of New Brunswick during the original application that this was a once in a lifetime decision.”

Yet, Mr. Fromm noted, just eight months later, in the Spence case,  an Ontario judge tossed out a will where a Negro preacher disinherited a daughter who had a mixed-race child in favour of her sister who had adhered to her father’s racial views.

The executor for the estate is now appealing this decision.

“This is one of the most serious cases in which CAFE has ever been involved,” said Mr. Fromm. “However, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and property rights are on the line. In the words of Martin Luther, ‘Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.” (Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.)

____________________________________________________________

This appeal is a huge and costly undertaking. CAFE needs your support urgently.

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

 

__   I believe property rights and the right of freedom of belief and freedom of expression are worth fighting for. Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE appeal the nullification of the the McCorkill will’s bequest to the National Alliance  to the Supreme Court of Canada.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#___________________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________Email___________________________________