Red Tory Ontario AG Rushing to Send Christian Activist Bill Whatcott to Prison for “Hate” Against Homosexuals

Red Tory Ontario AG Rushing to Send Christian Activist Bill Whatcott to Prison for “Hate” Against Homosexuals

Discretionary warrant to arrest Whatcott, Activist update.

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:18 am

Young native fellow takes my picture as young lady rapidly walks towards us and yells about “hate literature.”

Dear Friends,

Yesterday was an interesting day. I was not able to make it to my court hearing to face the so-called “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” charge that I am facing for sharing the Gospel in the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade in 2016.

You can see my “crime” here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526&p=26006#p26006

The Ontario Attorney General is proceeding by Indictment and is seeking to put me in prison for up to two years for the above stunt.

In my stead I sent my good friend Mark Theodoro to act as my agent and read my lawyer’s concerns to the court along with a request for a January 8 court date. In specific Dr. Lugosi wanted to express his concern about not getting disclosure and wanted time to appeal to the Ontario Superior Court the Crown Attorney’s refusal to give my side disclosure.

Anyways, the Crown Attorney Jennifer Epstein refused to acknowledge that Mark Theodoro was my agent and tried to get a bench warrant issued for my arrest, and presumably have me extradited back to Ontario again. Thankfully, the judge declined to do that and accepted that Mark was my agent, however the judge prevented Mark from reading Dr. Lugosi’s letters in court, demanded them to be handed to him, and only looked at them for 10 seconds before calling them “irrelevant.”

My lawyer’s request for an adjournment to January so he could appeal to the Ontario Superior Court was denied, a discretionary bench warrant for my arrest was issued, and I am now ordered to fly out to Toronto to appear in College Park Court, courtroom 503, 10:00 am, on my birthday, Tuesday, October 16th.

Here are the letters that were prevented from being read into the court record and which are called “irrelevant.”

Letter 1

Dear Jennifer,

In a situation where there is the appearance of a glaring conflict of interest, I suggest that the usual rule is open to an exception.

Conflict of Interest

In this case, the Premier and possibly other cabinet members were plaintiffs, in a Liberal subclass, in a 2016 civil class action against the defendant, Mr. Whatcott. That class action litigation was effectively stopped on March 20, 2017.

Then the Liberal subclass, which includes Prime Minister Trudeau and former Premier Wynne, decided not to pursue individual civil actions against my client.

Instead, the timeline reveals that the litigation changed in or about May of 2018, from a civil track to a criminal track once the civil litigation stalled in appeals.

The AG of Ontario, who marched in solidarity with the LGBTQ community in Ottawa in 2016, then may have assisted or benefited the Liberal subclass, to allow the approval of a criminal charge on the same content that was the subject matter of the civil action. As you know, the AG was accountable to the person who appointed him, Premier Wynne, who was a prominent member of the Liberal subclass.
The six month summary conviction time limit had long expired before Mr. Whatcott was arrested in June 2018, nearly two years after his participation in the Parade.

The timing of the charge approval is suspicious, as there is no explanation why no charge was approved many months earlier, nor is there an explanation why the matter could not have been left until after the Ontario election, to another AG who did not have an apparent conflict of interest.

Is the Crown is protecting the AG and the former Premier, who may have been politically motivated, by using privilege to prevent full disclosure?

An abuse of process may occur when there is an improper use of discretion, rooted in conflict of interest.

Selective Prosecution

Why is only Mr. Whatcott being targeted?

There appears to be selective prosecution, as Kerry Simpson came forward and volunteered to be a defendant in the civil action, and Stefan Jetchick was a named defendant in the civil action, along with Mr. Whatcott.

Misuse of Privilege

A blanket claim of privilege is improper, unless there is proof legal advice was given to the Attorney General. No such proof is being offered.

Under the disclosure case law, my client is entitled to know if any legal advice was provided to the AG or his designate, to establish a legitimate claim of privilege.

He is not asking for the content of that advice.

If advice was provided, then a legitimate claim of privilege might be made. That advice could be independently reviewed by a judge to examine the authenticity of that advice and to decide if the privilege claim is genuine and legal.

But the Crown to this date refuses to even disclose whether or not legal advice was given. If the answer is no, then no privilege attaches to the information used or considered by the AG in the exercise of his discretion.

All this is troubling to say the least and makes my client question the good faith of the Crown, which has a duty to be fair and independent of politics, and not to be seen to protect a possible politically motivated discretion to charge.


We could save a lot of time, money and judicial resources if you can satisfy my client that the AG’s approval was independently, fairly and impartially arrived at, without any possibility of a conflict of interest, and without the hint of influence from Liberal subclass members, with the assistance of independent legal advice, and that his discretion was properly exercised.

Again, I urge you to seek new instructions to make full and proper disclosure according to law, so that my client may be able to instruct me and so that he can make full answer and defense.

The rule of law demands nothing less.

Best wishes,
Charles Lugosi


Letter 2

Dear Jennifer,

We need to graciously agree to disagree with your latest proposal.

It is improper to move this case along to a hearing in the absence of full disclosure.

An agent will be asked to appear on Thursday to ask for an adjournment until January 8, 2019.

The defense needs time to make an originating application to Superior Court for disclosure, and for an appeal by either party.

The specific grounds will be disclosed at a later time.

You may anticipate that in order to make full answer and defense, the defense needs full disclosure, as there is a significant gap in the timeline, investigation, and charge approval. Prejudice is presumed. Carosella.

The defense claims this is a politically motivated prosecution for an improper motive.

The defense claims that the deliberate non-disclosure by the Crown is for an improper motive.

1. There is a public interest in the non-disclosure of the material that was put before the Attorney General and his designate. It is not for the Crown to decide whether or not the material is privileged. The public interest immunity is one for the court to weigh and decide. See Carey v. Ontario, 1986 CarswellOnt 472.

2. The public interest requires an examination of the glaring conflict of interest in this case. It is unprecedented that a plaintiff in a civil class action, the members of the government of Ontario who belong to the Liberal Party, which has the political means and opportunity to initiate criminal proceedings against a civil defendant who defeated the Liberal Party in prior civil proceedings, uses those means to further its oppression of Mr. Whatcott.

3. Not only is the material put before the Attorney General relevant, all communications made between members of the Liberal cabinet is also properly disclosable to the presiding Judge. For example, a hypothetical political directive in cabinet, to launch criminal proceedings under s. 319 of the Criminal Code by former Premier Wynne, would be relevant to any application to bring an application for a stay of proceedings.

4. The public interest also requires an examination whether there may be any elements of a breach of trust in the decision to prosecute Bill Whatcott. Was the public position of Attorney General used to assist, promote or further the private, personal or political interests of the Liberal Party of Ontario, by instituting a 22 month abandoned prosecution in order to get a second chance to “get” Bill Whatcott, who defeated the civil claim? If the answer is yes, then serious consequences may result.

Duty of Crown

The fruits of the investigation that were put before the AG, or known to the AG, are used to ensure that justice is done. There is a duty to disclose to the defense all material that may assist the defense, even if the Crown does not intend to adduce the material at trial.

Duty of Defense

The defense has a duty to bring to the attention of the trial judge at the earliest opportunity deliberate non-disclosure by the Crown that prejudices the accused’s rights to make full answer and defense.

This is why we both need the adjournment, given the unprecedented nature of these unique proceedings.

Institutional Delay

The resulting institutional delay ought not be attributed to either the defense or to the Crown, but to required due process as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Stinchcombe.

There is no intrinsic urgency to this matter. After all, there was a 22 month delay that is unexplained by the material which has been disclosed.

Independent Review Requested

The continued refusal of the Crown to disclose all the circumstances, documents, and communications made with respect to the decision to charge Mr. Whatcott, in the absence of any legal advice given to the AG, cannot as a matter of law be classed as privileged, especially in a jurisdiction like Ontario where charge approval is normally delegated to the police, and not made by the Crown.

A court, which is permitted to examine all the material, may find at the end of the day, that the claim of privilege is a sham and that approval of the charge was improperly laid for the private, personal or political benefit of the individual members of the subclass of plaintiffs from the civil action, the Liberal Parties of Ontario and possibly also Canada. These assumed facts would constitute an abuse of process, and be the basis of a civil claim, as in Henry.

Again I urge you to stay the charge, and have it independently reviewed by an impartial, neutral, non-political third party not now, or ever connected to or associated with any political party or government.

Best wishes,



As for my anti-SOGI/pro-truth operation ministering 5,000 truthful pamphlets to Vancouver neighbourhoods explaining why God does not want Vancouverites to vote for Morgane (actually Ronan) Oger, the transvestite activist, NDP Vice President, School Board candidate, is going well.

You can see my much needed flyer on Ronan’s lack of suitability to be a School Trustee here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10723

So far nearly 2000 flyers are out in a variety of neighbourhoods across Vancouver. Yesterday, I leafletted a number of homes and apartments across the west end of Vancouver. One pro-homosexual guy chased me out of his apartment in Kitsalano, but I was able to successfully stuff the last mailbox in the apartment building with my truth flyer before the guy chased me out the front door. I was happy I got every mailbox before the guy kicked me out.

Today, I was leafletting around Commercial Drive, south of East 1st Ave. This neighbourhood was the most hostile I’ve encountered so far. Early into the mission one young man ran after me with my flyer in his hand screaming “This is hate mail” and after shouting Ronan’s gender identity has no effect on his job performance (a not true statement), the guy crumpled my flyer and threw it at my head. I was getting concerned the young man was going to try and hit me as he was following me down the street and was clearly agitated and shouting about “hate speech.” After a few minutes of listening and observing the guy’s tirade I asked him if he thought it was cool that he was defending a guy who ripped off his ex-wife and absconded on a native band’s rent. My belligerent leftist went quiet for a second and it was clear his head was trying to process what I said as he asked “ripped off wife?” I responded by saying “think about it.” The fellow seemed to lose his steam and walked back to his home and I continued leafletting the neighbouhood.

A few minutes after disengaging the one yong leftist, a young native fellow and two white women came running after me and started yelling I was a “hater” and guilty of “hate speech.” I tried to tell them my flyer was true and not hateful, but they just kept shouting “hate speech! hate speech! and drowned me out, making it impossible to have a discussion. People hearing the comotion on the street started opening up their windows and started yelling at me that I was a “bigot,” and seeing as I wasn’t able to talk with my oponents at all, I decided to leave the neighbouhood.

Anyways, I still have 3000 more flyers to go. Please continue to pray for this operation.

Seeing as the courts are dragging me back to Toronto for what seems to me a court date that will accomplish very little, except insure I don’t spend my birthday with my wife, I have decided to use this injustice as an opportunity to promote God’s justice and offer His free gift of salvation through His Son Jesus Christ to University of Toronto’s law students once again.

Join us for the preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a strong and Biblical stand against homofascism at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, the main entrance of the Bora Laskin Library, 78 Queens Park, University of Toronto, October 16, 3:30 – 4:30 pm.

If you would like to help with the airfare, expenses related to being dragged to court in Toronto again, and help us survive until this trial is over (it is very difficult to find stable work when your police clearance tells potential employers you are charged with a “hate crime” and the courts are dragging you to Toronto every couple of weeks) please consider donating to us: … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcortt

“I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith — that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.”
Philippians 3:8-10

Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters

Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters

After Canada’s Jewish lobby, the most mortal enemies of free speech in Canada are the activists the the LGBTQ homosexual/lesbian/transgendered and sexually disfunctional crowd. Irrepressible evangelist Bill Whatcott keeps finding ways to bring his hard Gospel admonitions to the LGBTQ crowd. Last summer, he and some supporters infiltrated Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade as Gay Zombies. He handed out tracts and condoms. The hideous revenge planned for him was a $104-million class action suit launched by homosexual activists and lawyers. The idea was to saddle Mr. Whatcott and those who joined or financially supported him with a horrific judgement (and costs). The clear point of this intimidation was to warn potential supporters: “You could be on the hook for huge costs. Nightmares of losing one’s home or bank account were the clear threat. Some of Mr. Whatcott’s more timid supporters have already backed off.

From the start, the claim was preposterous, but with Canada’s courts deeply infiltrated by homo-friendly elements and the Cultural Marxist creed of victimology, one never knows. As the LifeSiteNews report below explains, the judge threw out the class action suit BUT preached that the plaintiffs might pursue other civil actions against Bill and his band. To that end, he ordered Bill to reveal the names of his supporters. Bill announced he’d rather go to prison. His lawyers are appealing the judge’s extraordinary order.

In the never ending battle to secure our ancient liberties of free speech from the demonic clutches of the thought control freaks, this is definiItely a case to watch.

Paul Fromm



Inline image 1

ONTARIO, April 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An Ontario judge has ordered a Christian who evangelizes homosexuals to identify his financial backers and anonymous friends who helped him hand out info packets about the physical and spiritual dangers of anal sex at Toronto’s [Gay] Pride Parade last year. “There could be serious repercussions for me, including prolonged jail time if I don’t comply with the order to disclose the names of my supporters,” said Christian activist Bill Whatcott.  “Generally, Christians should comply with secular courts, but not when complying harms the innocent or when the order is unjust in the eyes of God,” he added.  Homosexual activists last year launched a $104 million class-action lawsuit against Whatcott for defamation after he and a handful of friends infiltrated the [Toronto Gay] Pride Parade dressed as green “gay zombies.” They handed out what looked to be free condoms in packets that said “Zombie Safe Sex” but which contained messages about the physical and spiritual dangers of homosexual practices. The messages encouraged active homosexuals to change their lifestyle and accept the Christian faith. 

Last month, Justice Paul Perell dismissed the lawsuit on a technicality, ruling in Hudspeth v. Whatcott that the homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth could not claim defamation of an entire group, such as the Pride Parade participants or the “LGTBTQ2SI Community,” but only of individuals. [You need a politically correct guidebook to keep track of the growing number of sexually weird privileged groups.]

But then in a surprise move in the same ruling, the judge ordered Whatcott to deliver the names of a half a dozen anonymous “zombies” who helped hand out the info packets as well as the “unidentified financial backers” who funded the group’s expenses.  The judge argued that knowing the identities of the individuals who helped Whatcott was “necessary” to the homosexual activists if they were to decide in the future to go ahead with further legal action on grounds that the judge himself suggested.
But Whatcott said he would rather go to jail than betray his friends and supporters to homosexual activists who have publicly promised to “punish them” with a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

Instead of letting Whatcott face jail time for being in contempt of court in not handing over the names of his friends and supporters, Whatcott’s lawyers are appealing the ruling.

In the appeal, Charles Lugosi and Findlay McCarthy argue that Judge Perell “erred” in ordering Whatcott to reveal the identities of the members of his group after having dismissed the case.  “Once it was determined that the action could not proceed as a class proceeding and that the representative plaintiffs [Smitherman and Hudspeth] had no cause of action, then the action should [have] been dismissed, as the plaintiffs were no longer capable of representing members of the classes,” they argued in the appeal.

Whatcott said that the judge ordering him to betray his friends so that homosexual activists can bring legal action against them shows how far the nation has “turn[ed] its back on God” as it “embraces sexual libertinism as its new idol.
Indeed, a judge helping the losing party to refile its claim and ordering the winning party to reveal the identities of friends and helpers to the losers so the helpers of the winning side can be sued is unheard of in property, divorce, criminal, or injury cases,” he said. “Only in a case involving homosexual activism where the homosexual activists are seeking to silence the voice of Christians could such a deviation from established legal norms be contemplated,” he added.

Whatcott has launched a GoGetFunding page to raise $50,000 to help cover his legal costs. So far, he has raised $10,706 (21 percent) of his goal. “If you agree with me this lawsuit is unjust and if you would like to help, please do so,” he wrote on his funding page titled “Help Bill protect his friends and stay out of jail!” … n-lawsuit/

Whatcott’s lawyers are also arguing that the judge erred in denying costs to Whatcott despite having thrown out the case.
“It would be wrong to put a defendant [Whatcott] to the expense of the litigation process if there is no reasonable cause of action against that defendant on the face of the pleading,” they argued.

“Justice Perell, in striking the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable causes of action, should have awarded the defendant to recover the full legal costs of the motion to strike,” they added.


Whatcott $104 million hearing update

Postby Bill Whatcott » Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:10 am

Some Christian supporters standing outside the Ontario Superior Court and Ontario Law Society building in downtown Toronto, protesting against the $104 million dollar lawsuit and in support of religious liberty and free speech. I didn’t join them in the protest (as I was asked by my counsel not to) but I did thank them for coming out and publicly standing with us and let them know that I appreciated them being there.

Dear Friends,

My first day at Ontario Superior Court got off to a bit of a raucous start. I noticed on the homosexual side no actual supporters came out to support the litigants. Only the two homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth who are suing me for $104 million dollars and their rather bloated legal team of two lawyers Dr. Scott Fairley, Doug Elliott and three articling students/ paralegals came out to the hearing. On my side a dozen or so supporters came out, along with me and my two lawyers, Dr. John Findlay and Dr. Charles Lugosi. The courtroom that was reserved for us was rather small and could not fit all of us. The court clerk (who seemed hostile to my side) announced some of the people who wanted to see the court proceedings were going to have to leave.

A few rabble rousers who I did not really know showed up to support me and they started arguing with the court clerk that everyone should be accomodated and no one should have to leave as people have a right to an open court and that means being able to see the proceedings. The court clerk became visibly angry and an argument broke out between her and the rabble rousers. I cringed and encouraged people to be gracious when in court, but I must note if the rabble rousers did not speak up some people would have missed the court proceedings. As it was the court clerk after arguing with the rabble rousers was able to find a couple more chairs and everyone who came out to support me was able to see the proceedings.

Unfortunately, once people were seated one of the ladies who was with the rabble rousers decided to use her smart phone to start recording the court proceedings. The homosexuals’ lawyer Doug Elliott noticed her doing this and alerted the court and insinuated I was known to do things like that. The judge ordered her to shut off her phone immediately. In actual fact I was rather annoyed with her and rebuked her when the court recessed and my lawyer expressed his displeasure with her as well. The lady left shortly afterwards. One of her friends who left with her had his own experience with Canadian censorship as he spent two years in prison for criticizing the Islamicization of Canada.

Much of the oral arguments made by the lawyers centred around technical issues as to whether or not a class action lawsuit was an appropriate vehicle to sue me and my supporters for infiltrating the homosexual pride parade with my truthful and accurate Gospel flyers (disguised as “zombie safe sex packages) that warned of the health, social and spiritual harms related to the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexual pride marcher in the 2016 Toronto Homosexual Pride Parade marches with a picture of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ painted on his crotch.

The homosexual side argued my flyers were “hate speech,” that they were prima facie illegal, that they deserved no legal protection, and that they harmed the marchers and Liberal Party members who marched in the Toronto homosexual pride parade. Conversely, the homosexuals’ lawyers called the Toronto homosexual pride parade an “advancement of democracy.” While the homosexuals’ lawyers cited my Whatcott Supreme Court decision as evidence my flyers are “hate speech” that hurts homosexuals and Liberals. I note neither the Whatcott Supreme Court decision, nor the two lawyers arguing this case produced so much as a shred of evidence that anyone was seriously harmed by my flyers. They simply parrot this falsehood as if it is fact. At one point the homosexual side compared my flyers attacking the Liberal Party members who support homosexual pride to the Ku Klux Klan’s murder of white people who were supportive of black rights and ending segregation.

In the afternoon the court clerk yelled at my supporters that they would be removed from the courtroom if they made anymore noise. In actual fact my supporters were very quiet and I heard no noise at all. During the afternoon break I found out two of my supporters brought on the court clerk’s wrath because they quietly exchanged a note between them that was written on paper expressing a thought about what was said in the court case. In noted George Smitherman played on his phone during court quite a bit, but the court clerk said nothing to him.

The lawyers for my side argued (in my opinion effectively) that the class action was not an appropriate vehicle to sue me for alleged defamtion and hate speech at the Toronto homosexual pride parade. My side also did a good job in arguing my flyers are not ‘hate speech’ and are in fact a legitimate part of the democratic debate in Canada. I would love to show you my flyers that were disguised as “Zombie Safe Sex” packages, but I won’t be able to until these proceedings are over, I suspect.The flyers contained pictures of diseases that are common afflictions related to the homosexual lifestyle, statistics related to diseases that ravage the homosexual subculture, accurate information on the complicity of Liberals in child sexual abuse, and the Gospel. Not surprisingly the homofascist side regurgitated the error in fact promulgated by the Supreme Court of Canada that I call all homosexuals pedophiles. In actual fact I never said that, nor do I believe that to be true. But my flyers do articulate correctly that the homosexual subculture is more tolerant of sex with children than the mainstream culture and the Liberals, just like their LGBT allies appear to be more tolerant of child sexual abuse than they ought to be. Liberals and homofascist lawyers might not like hearing that, but truth while no defense in so-called Canadian human rights law, is a defense in defamtion and if the shoe fits one should wear it.

The hearing will continue tomorrow. Those who wish to witness in favour of religious liberty will be doing so at the corner of Queen St and University at 9:00 am.

The hearing will continue from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm in courtroom 9….

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak.”
Matthew 10:19

Image … n-lawsuit/

User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Posts: 6674
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Whatcott $104 million lawsuit hearing this coming Tuesday!


Whatcott $104 million lawsuit hearing this coming Tuesday!

Whatcott $104 million lawsuit hearing this coming Tuesday!

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:16 am

Crack top secret Christian Commando Bill Whatcott and an unsuspecting leatherman
pose for a photo together at the 2016 Toronto homosexual shame paradeDear Friends,

Please pray for my upcoming hearing at the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto this coming Tuesday, November 15th. Pray that not only is the homofascist attempt to force me to give up my friend’s names so “Big Gay” can go and financially destroy them is stopped, but pray that this entire vexatious lawsuit is thrown out.

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life”
John 6:47, 48

Bill Whatcott fights $104 million lawsuit over ‘gay zombies’ Pride protest
Steve Weatherbe
Fri Nov 11, 2016 – 4:18 pm EST … ation-suit

TORONTO, November 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Anti-homosexuality campaigner Bill Whatcott is using a hearing called by the homosexual activists suing him for $104 million to get their defamation suit dismissed as a violation of his Charter rights.

According to the argument submitted by Whatcott:

The class action lacks bona fides. It is not brought in good faith. It is a political tool designed to ‘smoke out’ political opponents. It is designed to punish political opponents and to suppress constitutional freedoms. It is designed to intimidate, bully Whatcott, chill free speech, and financially ruin his supporters. Its stated purpose is to crush and “stamp out” anyone opposed to the gay agenda. It is a politically motivated action done in concert with the Liberal federal and provincial governments of Canada and Ontario and supported by the Liberal subclass.

Whatcott and several named and unnamed supporters are being sued in a class action by several Ontario public homosexuals such as one-time Liberal MPP George Smitherman and gay bar owner Christopher Hudspeth for defaming them and all 500,000 participants in Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade. Whatcott led a small group of so-called “gay zombies,” who distributed approximately 3,000 information kits warning against the immorality and health risks of homosexual practices and urging a spiritual and religious conversion to Christianity.

The plaintiffs, who claim to be acting for both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne as members of a defamed “class” of Liberal politicians, have secured a November 15 hearing to seek a court order forcing Whatcott to identify several supporters who joined him in the parade effectively disguised in green body suits.

Hudspeth has said the lawsuit was intended to “smoke out” all who helped Whatcott in any way — with funds, with preparation of the kits, and by donning the green suits and handing out kits.

But Whatcott’s lawyer, Charles Lugosi, has prepared an exhaustive factum urging protection of the anonymous participants and dismissal of the lawsuit as an attack on Charter freedoms of speech, thought, expression, religion, and association.

The Lugosi/Whatcott argument is basically: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The factum cites statements by organizers showing the Gay Pride Parade is, as the factum puts it, a “significant political event” providing a “golden opportunity” for the Ontario homosexual community to push for expanded rights and status. The defendants’ factum argues that it ought to be a golden opportunity for those who oppose this agenda too.

The factum also notes the parade was funded by more than $800,000 in grants from federal, provincial, and municipal governments and $729,000 in services. In addition, it claims that the official participation by Trudeau, Wynne and hundreds of other Liberal politicians was intended to “strengthen their alliance with the gay community.”

Whatcott’s factum argues:

This makes the parade a public and political event where, the defendants claim, they should be entitled under the Charter to express an opposing viewpoint. It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society than freedom of expression. Indeed, a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance of the concept cannot be overemphasized. No doubt that was the reason why the framers of the Charter set forth s. 2(b) in absolute terms.” Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of expression.

As for defamation, they rely on the defense of truth for their claims about the health risks and costs of homosexual activities and on their religious and free speech rights for their claims of immorality.

The defendants also argue that the plaintiffs are disqualified because they do not have legally “clean hands.” The parade, the defendants say, “was a display of immoral, indecent public nudity, uninhibited obscene lewd erotic behavior, blasphemous costumes, which were obscene and insulted Christians and other people of faith, and biased free speech extolling the hedonistic gay lifestyle … ”

The defendants also claim that there were men and women paraders “exposing their sexual organs to children” and breaking the Criminal Code in other ways.

Such illegal behavior provoked the protest by the “gay zombies,” the factum asserts, adding, “Equity in these circumstances does not entitle the plaintiffs to equitable remedies.”

The defendants also address the plaintiffs’ demand that Whatcott reveal the names of his supporters, arguing their Charter freedoms would be endangered if their identities were exposed, especially given the plaintiff’s expressed intent to “stamp” them “out. ” The factum recounts the historic importance of anonymous pamphleteers in the cause of civil and religious rights in Great Britain and America, at times when publication of certain arguments could draw the death penalty. The factum states:

Freedom of expression is constitutionally protected even when done anonymously. The disclosure of identity is the choice of the individual who has chosen to remain anonymous. The freedom to remain anonymous is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression.
The factum concludes by charging the plaintiffs with “abuse of process” and calling for the suit’s dismissal with all costs awarded to Whatcott.

User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Posts: 6647
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB