CAFE

Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity

CAFE

We Warned You: Gender Identity Legislation Would Lead to Compelled Speech, Being Forced to call a Mixed-up She “They”

We Warned You: Gender Identity Legislation Would Lead to Compelled Speech, Being Forced to call a Mixed-up She “They”

[The woman who handed down this compelled speech ruling and brutal fine, Devyn Cousineau was also a key member of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that nuked Bill Whatcott, crushing his rights to free speech and religious opinion when he criticized transgendered activist and candidate Morgane Oger.]

B.C. server who was fired after asking to be addressed by correct pronouns awarded $30K

Social Sharing

Human rights tribunal found Jessie Nelson was discriminated against because of their gender identity

Michelle Ghoussoub · CBC News · Posted: Sep 29, 2021 7:02 PM PT | Last Updated: September 30

Buono Osteria has also been ordered to implement mandatory training for all staff and managers about human rights in the workplace, and to include a statement in its employee policies that affirms every employee’s right to be addressed with their correct pronouns. (Buono Osteria/Facebook)

A former server at a Gibsons, B.C. restaurant has been awarded $30,000 after a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision found they were unfairly terminated for asking managers and co-workers to call them by their proper pronouns.

The decision, by the tribunal’s Devyn Cousineau, found that Jessie Nelson, a non‐binary, gender fluid, transgender person who uses they/them pronouns, was terminated because of “how they responded to discrimination” from their employer and a colleague.

In 2019, Nelson was hired as a server at Buono Osteria, a restaurant run by Michael Buono and Ryan Kingsberry in Gibsons, on B.C.’s Sunshine Coast. The 42-page decision describes a work environment where some colleagues respected Nelson’s pronouns, while others were unhappy when they raised issues about inclusion.

The decision says bar manager Brian Gobelle was particularly hostile, repeatedly and persistently referring to Nelson with she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like “sweetheart,” “honey,” and “pinky” — a reference to their pink hair.

The situation eventually escalated into a verbal altercation between Nelson and Gobelle, during which Nelson touched Gobelle’s shoulder and called him “sweetheart” in return — though Cousineau determined this did not amount to a physical assault.

Termination after tensions rose

Four days later, Nelson was told over the phone they were being terminated, a conversation that was overheard by co-worker Stacy Coplin.

“Eventually [Kingsberry] told Jessie Nelson that they had just come off ‘too strong too fast’ and were too ‘militant’ — a word that reminded Jessie Nelson of what Mr. Gobelle had said about them,” Cousineau wrote.

“They challenged Mr. Kingsberry that they were being fired because of their pronouns. Ms. Coplin recalls Mr. Kingsberry telling Jessie Nelson that ‘part of the problem is making sure you vibe with the team,’ and that they had made people uncomfortable.”

According to the decision, Kingsberry did not say that Nelson’s termination had anything to do with their final conflict with Gobelle or the restaurant’s view that Nelson had assaulted him. There was also no complaint about their performance.

Following their termination, Nelson alleged that Gobelle’s conduct towards them, and the employer’s response, amounted to discrimination in employment based on their gender identity and expression.

In her decision, Cousineau wrote that “like a name, pronouns are a fundamental part of a person’s identity. They are a primary way that people identify each other.”

“Using correct pronouns communicates that we see and respect a person for who they are. Especially for trans, non‐binary, or other non‐cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity.”

Mandatory training ordered

Cousineau found that while managers at the restaurant seemed committed to providing an inclusive workplace, their response to Nelson’s complaints lacked any sense of urgency.

“This suggests that they did not appreciate how serious those complaints were. I have a hard time imagining that the restaurant would have responded in the same way to other serious complaints of discrimination,” she wrote.

“There is a clear connection between Jessie Nelson’s gender identity and their termination. They were terminated because of how they responded to discrimination. They were held to a higher standard of conduct than Mr. Gobelle, and the discriminatory context of the dispute was ignored.”

Buono Osteria has been ordered to implement mandatory training for all staff and managers about human rights in the workplace, and to include a statement in its employee policies that affirms every employee’s right to be addressed with their correct pronouns.

CBC News was unable to reach the restaurant for comment.

BREAKING: Canada tribunal rules beauticians don’t have to wax genitals of man claiming to be ‘female’

Featured Image
Jonathan ‘Jessica’ Yaniv. @trustednerd / Twitter
LifeSiteNews staff

News

BREAKING: Canada tribunal rules beauticians don’t have to wax genitals of man claiming to be ‘female’

October 22, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled today against transgender activist Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv who had made formal “discrimination” complaints against a number of female beauty technicians for refusing to wax his genitals on the premise that as a “woman” he was entitled to be serviced by them. The court ruled that aestheticians who work from home have a right to refuse to handle male genitalia against their will.

“Human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax,” the decision stated.

The decision further found that Yaniv “engaged in improper conduct,” “filed complaints for improper purposes,” and that Yaniv’s testimony was “disingenuous and self-serving.”

The Tribunal finally noted that Yaniv was “evasive and argumentative and contradicted herself [sic]” while giving evidence.

“Self-identification does not erase physiological reality,” stated Jay Cameron, the Justice Centre’s Litigation Manager, and counsel for the aestheticians. “Our clients do not offer the service requested. No woman should be compelled to touch male genitals against her will, irrespective of how the owner of the genitals identifies.”

The trans activist, who calls himself a “proud lesbian,” made international headlines this summer for his discrimination complaints launched against 16 beauticians for refusing to wax his male genitals.

Reports the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms:

Jessica Yaniv identifies as a woman but possesses male genitalia. In March 2018 Yaniv approached the aestheticians and requested a “Brazilian” to remove pubic hair from the groin area. When the aestheticians refused to provide the requested service due to a lack of personal comfort, safety concerns, a lack of training, and/or religious objections, Yaniv filed complaints against them alleging discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. In total, Yaniv filed 15 complaints against various aestheticians in the Vancouver area seeking as much as $15,000 in damages against each aesthetician.

Yaniv has made numerous public comments against immigrants. At the hearings, Yaniv contended that immigrants use their religion to discriminate against trans people because they refused to wax the male genitals of those who identify as women.

The Justice Centre represented Blue Heaven Beauty Lounge and its owner, Sandeep Banipal, who is an adherent to the Sikh religion. Ms. Banipal testified that she was not trained to wax male genitals and that it “is not something I am comfortable with.” The Justice Centre also represented Sukhi Hehar Gill, who was forced to close her business due to the complaint against her. Ms. Gill, also a practicing adherent of the Sikh faith, provided waxing services only to female clients, attending alone at her clients’ homes. She explained in her response to Yaniv’s complaint against her that it “is contrary to my faith” to provide waxing services to a biological male. Yaniv had requested that Gill attend at Yaniv’s personal residence to provide arm and leg waxing services. Finally, the Justice Centre represented Marcia Carnauba, a third aesthetician who was suspicious about Yaniv’s behaviour in advance of the appointment and canceled it as a precaution. Ms. Carnauba also does not have the necessary training, tools or comfort level to perform waxing services on male genitalia. Ms. Carnauba closed her aesthetic business following the complaint against her.

The Justice Centre noted that an expert in genital waxing testified at the hearing, informing the Tribunal that aestheticians who are not trained in male genital waxing should not attempt to wax a penis and scrotum due to the risk of serious injury to the customer.

“The expert also testified that the necessary prolonged manipulation of a client’s penis and scrotum often results in sexual arousal and a request for sexual services. The expert said her salon’s refusal to provide sexual services has resulted in name calling, intimidation and customer requests to masturbate in her salon,” the Justice Centre reported.

The Justice Center noted that most of the women who were the target of Yaniv’s complaints work out of their own home, are of immigrant background, and have small children with them in the house during the day. A publication ban had identified Yaniv only as JY for most of the proceedings until the aestheticians successfully brought an application to have it lifted.

The Tribunal ordered costs against Yaniv in the amount of $2000.00 payable to both Banipal and Carnauba.

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson on The Transgender Agenda, Misgendering, the RCMP & The Decline of Our Society

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson on The Transgender Agenda, Misgendering, the RCMP & The Decline of Our Society
[To Henry Makow] Further to the reference in your twitter feed, about  the $50,000 penalty for ‘mis-gendering’ the complainant in the Ogre vs. Whatcott thing :

in fact : about 4 years ago, I moved  to Sidney British Columbia.  Driving a taxicab around town gave me a special perspective on the quiet, prosperous charming little burg.   I encountered a certain RCMP officer but I did not know her name at that time.  She was unremarkably just a lumpy broad with a crewcut lesbian hairstyle, in a rumpled regular duty  RCMP brown uniform with the yellow stripe down the pantleg, I’d guess not more than 40 years old. Back in my day  you’d never see an RCMP officer so sloppily dressed. I found it curious that she was obviously in such poor physical shape for a police officer.

A few years later,  I had trouble at the house I was renting ;  street people, to whom I’d rented rooms – not knowing  how verminous they are – had turned on me.  It was pan-demonium.  The cops were there 9 times in the last 3 weeks before I vacated as the place before it was  demolished.  This particular officer, then the RCMP Watch Commander, attended  a couple of the incidents. She was instrumental in cooling-out the altercation by taking charge of the little witch who was the worst troublemaker.   For which I was grateful.  I had no complaint about the officer’s  policing. She was always pleasant to me when we’d cross paths on the street, later.   At that point in time – spring 2018 – the woman RCMP officer had a noticeable beard, but it was very thin like a teenage boy.

A few weeks ago ( early 2019 )  driving the cab out to the ferry, a passenger remarked that she worked as a civilian employee at Sidney North Saanich RCMP detachment.  In a roundabout delicate way, I mentioned that I’d seen the RCMP officer with a more-or-less full beard. And my understanding was,  that the RCMP dress code prohibits an officer having a beard.  The passenger told me that the uniform code had been changed very recently.  Without me asking, she told me the name of the particular officer whom I’ll call Corporal X.   Even though I’d described the police officer as a woman,  my passenger was careful to refer to Corporal “X” as “he“.
century ago, Canadians considered the Bearded Lady a freak of nature, to be pitied. They were found in sideshows when the Circus came to town.   Yesterday I saw her go by on patrol in the Commander’s car. Worst of all,  as the Mao-ists informed us :  “political power flows out of the barrel of a gun!” .   Corporal X wears a loaded sidearm on her hip,  with power to imprison someone if he were to disobey the Order uttered by the BC Human Rights Commission arising from the case of Oger versus Whatcott. In that Soviet-style showtrial, we saw the naked face of evil … when the Tyrant figures she controls the Man with the Gun.  Namely =  fanatical Devyn Cousineau,  one of the ‘change agents’  seconded by BC’s Attorney General to ensure that thepolitical opponent of the New Democratic Party was vilified as an Enemy of the State.  If there’s one thing the antichrists cannot abide, it’s the prophetic type such as Bill Whatcott,  out in the public square,   denouncing sin … naming names. The Free Press is   the People’s Friend, The Tyrant’s Foe

I can’t help an ironic smile when I go in to the local copshop and see the big poster on the wall …    A classic image of a Mountie in full red serge, posed on a coal black horse, against a picturesque mountain backdrop. The propaganda we all grew up with … so far-removed from the present reality.   Would the white Christian men who made up the Force a generation ago …  upon whose dedication to duty our respect of the RCMP was based  … countenance ( so-called ) “trans-gender-ism” ?  Would they take orders from a female demanding to be addressed as a male?   What would they say about 2 Sodomites disgracing their uniform by dressing in it as they  ostensibly!  got “married”?

Like it or not, the Oger Whatcott ruling is the last word on “hate speech” in this poor suffering Dominion.   Cousineau’s Order  puts me in a quandary.   I had given Bill $60 to publish his flyers.  Even though I announced that I was his accomplice in the dastardly deed,   the Tribunal wouldn’t let me come on the hearing as an Intervenor.  So I have not yet had my say as to the validity of the 104 pages of Cousineau’s gobble-de-gook absurdity.   When I do, one of my chief arguments will be that when my Dad marched away from the RCR Barracks in London Ontario, in 1940, he assumed he was going to war against the very same mindset of the God damned fascisti as I face, here, 2 generations later. It cannot be that one of the foundational precepts in this country – preaching of the Gospel —  is illegal.   Adolph Hitler and his pals were national socialists who sent their critics to concentration camps  : Devyn Cousineau & the NDP are international socialists who send their critics to gaol.     See the difference?

I stood as a candidate in the BC provincial election in 2001.  I expect to do so again. Last time round, I had some very harsh things to say about the NDP ; all true.    There’s more of the same, and worse, that needs to be said, now.   Do I have to put me-self in jeopardy of going to prison, for publishing my political and religious opinion, which is ; that the New Democratic Party administration in BC is nothing less than Marxist thugs in 3 -piece suits … antichrists whose handmaids from Hell – Cousineau, Juricevic and Trerise –  formally outlawed the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven?

How the above relates to the curiousity of Corporal; X the bearded lady RCMP officer, is :

Cousineau’s wicked Order in the Oger Whatcott Order thing, legitimizes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regiment policy re   ‘trans-gender-ism” …  a textbook demonstration of how the Frankfurt school of Marxists do their damn’d’st …  sabotaging genuine Christianity so sexual perversion becomes normalized.   No mere co-incidence that the lame-stream newsmedia published not a line of print,  informing the public what’s going on in the office of the RCMP Commissioner.    You sure didn’t see a fullpage article in the Trawna Grope & Flail about trans-gender-ism polluting police forces.  Rather =  puff-pieces as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau crows about his new version of “Core values” in this post-national state.  All the while he and his treasonous pals in high places undermine the very foundation of the Dominion  = ie.  presumption that we are a white, Christian society.  Evidence that Justin Trudeau was sired by Fidel Castro, is overwhelming, for those who can muster the intellectual honesty to examine the facts.  No surprise then that ‘the apple didn’t fall very far from the tree’.  Papa Fidel would be so proud of him … infiltrating the soft underbelly of capital-ism by stealth.    The antichrist Marxists know full well what they’re doing = installing rebellion to God at every position  in the institutions of government.

the ruling of the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the  Whatcott v. Oger matter is of utmost importance to all right-thinking Canadians : penalty of $55,000 against Whatcott … $20,000 of it punishment for  “mis-gendering”  the pathetic creature, Oger the Ogre ( or is it the other way ’round? )  … for the sake of him publishing his political and religious opinion during an election, mind you!   It directs Bill Whatcott  henceforth, to use the pronoun “he” when referring, in public, to the man in the dress, Complainant Ronan aka Morgane Oger.  Or go directly to gaol. ‘And no more posting to social media/ the public square, your quibbles about how  color of law was used to disguise Oger’s mental illness’.

Words fail me to define how profoundly evil is Cousineau’s monstrosity.   Suffice to use the Biblical language :   Wrong was put in place of right : right is now called ‘wrong’.    Such absurdity cannot be allowed to stand.  The good news, is: this too = the bizarre fad of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria =  will pass. But it’s going to take some ugly skirmishing and persistence and serious amounts of $$s  in the courts and on the hustings to re-establish our right to freedom of the Press.

Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians

Metchosin British Columbia
April 30 2019

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson Seeks Transcripts of Oger v Whatcott Tribunal

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson Seeks Transcripts of Oger v Whatcott Tribunal

 

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:30 PM Kelly, Ainsley AG:EX <Ainsley.Kelly@gov.bc.ca> wrote:

Dear Gordon,

 

Thank you for your email. I am writing to advise you that the Tribunal Registrar Steven Adamson is away from the office until April 29, 2019 and will respond to your inquiry after his return.

 

 

From: Gordon S Watson <watson.gordons@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 1:19 PM
To: BC Human Rights Tribunal AG:EX <BCHumanRightsTribunal@gov.bc.ca>
Cc: watson.gordons <watson.gordons@gmail.com>
Subject: Publicity is the soul of Justice

 

Steven Adamson, Registrar

BC Human Rights Commission

 

following below is a 2-page letter which I faxed at 12:45 pm today to the HR Commission

please acknowledge receipt of my fax.
And also, acknowledge that you’re aware I have requested the Transcripts described.
If this letter does not suffice as a proper request, then I need to know what the BC Human Rights Commission wants, in order for me and others, to get the Transcript of the Oger Whatcott hearing

Gordon S Watson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

April 18th 2019
British Columbia Human Rights Commission

Attention : Steven Adamson, Registrar

This is the first page of 2 pages, total, faxed to 604 775 2020

Re : Oger versus Whatcott your file # 16408

1. When the first session of the Tribunal in this matter convened I was in the audience. 
My notes show that Chairwoman Juricivic stated 
‘this matter is being recorded. A transcript may be available if a person requests it stating his reasons’.
2. at paragraph 14 of the Reasons for the ruling in this matter, Devyn Cousineau folded-in a paraphrase of what Bill Whatcott had said while testifying. Apparently, a transcript has been made of – at the very least – his testimony. Unless told otherwise by you, I’m going to assume that the testimony of Ronan/ Morgane Oger has also been transcribed.

3. I wish to have a copy of the transcript of what witnesses Oger and Whatcott testified before the Tribunal. Please advise me of the cost of each item and how to go about getting them?
My Reasons for having a copy of the Transcripts are :

4. I stood as a candidate to be a member of the Legislature in the general election of 2001. 
I intend to do so in the next provincial election. An essential part of my platform will be ; informing electors and taxpayers as to the implications of what went on in the Oger Whatcott Tribunal. It is of utmost importance for Canadians to appreciate how the ruling in this matter effectively outlaws the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, as proclaimed by Jesus Christ and the prophets of Israel. The submission by Dr Lugosi on behalf of Bill Whatcott responding to the Attorney General’s position in this case, sums-up what’s at stake : liberty to participate in democracy during an election, at all. I require the transcripts of the witnesses in order to make them available to the public : this matter is a perfect example of the maxim “Publicity is the soul of Justice” The written record of what was said is crucial for them to make up their own minds about the fitness for office of candidates of the New Democratic Party … for deciding who to vote for, or not vote for.

5. The Bible tells us that “by two or three witnesses a thing is confirmed”. I was not in the room when Complainant Oger gave his testimony. But two of my friends were. They each told me that he related an incident which – ostensibly – demonstrated why the Whatcott flyer was “hate speech” i. e. because a man was so moved by it that he attempted to assault NDP candidate Oger. Ronan / Morgane Oger is a classic example of the fragile homosexual. His type will do and say anything for attention. Had such a thing really happened then he – masterful at using social media – would have maximized it in cyberspace for purposes of his campaign. The lack of any report in the public record, of anything like unto what he pretended, speaks volumes.

6. The Commission is no doubt aware that I have a complaint underway to the Attorney General as to Devyn Cousineau’s fitness to sit on that Tribunal. Cousineau is a longtime partisan political activist on the issue which is the centrepiece of the Oger Whatcott matter. There is hard evidence of her contributing funds to a group which advocates for still more special treatment for the ?L?G?B?T?Q?/whatever? people. It doesn’t take a degree in law or political science, to realize that Devyn Cousineau was biased in the very first instance. It is outrageous that the thing went ahead with her on the panel
7. The notion that Oger ‘was about to be attacked and was only saved by intervention of a police officer’, is a classic example of emotional blackmail / playing on the sympathy of the public conscience – one of the favourite tactics of the Marxists. Had such an incident taken place, Devyn Cousineau would certainly have known about it : she would have used it as part of her Reasons. The fact that she didn’t, tells us that ‘it never happened’.

8. I am unlearned in the law. Nevertheless, I am one of Canada’s most experienced laymen in the laying of private Informations. I have good reason to believe and I verily do believe that, while testifying under Oath, Ronan Oger aka Morgane Oger committed Perjury. I require the transcripts as evidence for substantiating charges against him of Perjury and obstruct/ pervert Justice.

9. The Commission will be aware that at the Supreme Court of British Columbia Lawcourts at 800 Smithe Street Vancouver, anyone may arrange to listen to the recording of a proceeding, for free. As well, a party to it may obtain a copy of the entire proceeding of his or her case, on CD …. called ‘the DARS disc’. Someone asking for it, must apply to a Justice, and swear an Affidavit that such a disc will be used ONLY for purposes of refreshing their memory. But not for publication. Then, if the Order is granted, they pay a fee of $25

10 Please advise me if Bill Whatcott or his lawyer may obtain a copy of the DARS disc of the entire hearing before the Tribunal of file 16408 ?. I need that information in order for me to subpoena them to the Process Hearing when I lay the private information against Oger.

Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians

ReplyReply allForward

Fighting for Information & Transparency in Prosecution of Christians by BC Human Rights Tribunal

Kelly Ainsley

and to : those who care about good governance in British Columbia

your email to me, above, is not good enough.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia does business, everywhere in the province, at all times.

apparently  … just dealing with my simple request for information about due process within a judicial ?   proceeding triggered a case of the heebie-jeebies … so bad that  Mr Adamson bailed-out of his  safe space there at the Seat of All Wisdom, ie.  the BCHRC HQ.   Back in my day, civil servants were made of sterner stuff.

if one of the Queen’s bureaucrats cannot take the stress of blowback from the non-sense for which he’s the flak-catcher,  he does not have the luxury of taking a time-out while the scandal dissipates.    The BC Human Rights Commission would like us to believe it’s  a Person. Thus : the Commission is obliged to co-operate with me in its functioning … not just put out ‘gone fishin’ sign. Text Mr Adamson at his hideout  that :   I’m just getting warmed up.

we have in hand a transcript of the seminar given by psychiatrist W Wong, boasting that he has “over 500 patients going through transition, all in care of the Ministry’ .  Meaning : Wong and his  pals are running a   racket in which they manipulate children to align demselves with the sexual perversions of the Apotemnophilia cult, then bill  provincial accounts for concomittant services / drugs / etcetera.  Point being : many many children are being mutilated by a bunch of quacks. BC taxpayers are being bilked out of funds by monsters – Wong and the rest, especially the proponents of the SOGI propaganda – as they ruin lives with “experimental medicine” .  I remind all concerned that war criminal Joseph Mengele was involved in much the same kind of “research’.  The excuse used by Wong et al. is not any different in principle than what the ghouls who run Red China do there … = harvest organs from living human beings.    What went on in the show-trial of Oger vs Whatcott, and now the Commission’s refusal to provide a transcript of it,  exemplify  how tyrants resort to censorship when they’re being exposed.

Gordon S Watson

 

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:30 PM Kelly, Ainsley AG:EX <Ainsley.Kelly@gov.bc.ca> wrote:

Dear Gordon,

 

Thank you for your email. I am writing to advise you that the Tribunal Registrar Steven Adamson is away from the office until April 29, 2019 and will respond to your inquiry after his return.

 

 

From: Gordon S Watson <watson.gordons@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 1:19 PM
To: BC Human Rights Tribunal AG:EX <BCHumanRightsTribunal@gov.bc.ca>
Cc: watson.gordons <watson.gordons@gmail.com>
Subject: Publicity is the soul of Justice

 

Steven Adamson, Registrar

BC Human Rights Commission

 

following below is a 2-page letter which I faxed at 12:45 pm today to the HR Commission

please acknowledge receipt of my fax.
And also, acknowledge that you’re aware I have requested the Transcripts described.
If this letter does not suffice as a proper request, then I need to know what the BC Human Rights Commission wants, in order for me and others, to get the Transcript of the Oger Whatcott hearing

Gordon S Watson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

April 18th 2019
British Columbia Human Rights Commission

Attention : Steven Adamson, Registrar

This is the first page of 2 pages, total, faxed to 604 775 2020

Re : Oger versus Whatcott your file # 16408

1. When the first session of the Tribunal in this matter convened I was in the audience. 
My notes show that Chairwoman Juricivic stated 
‘this matter is being recorded. A transcript may be available if a person requests it stating his reasons’.
2. at paragraph 14 of the Reasons for the ruling in this matter, Devyn Cousineau folded-in a paraphrase of what Bill Whatcott had said while testifying. Apparently, a transcript has been made of – at the very least – his testimony. Unless told otherwise by you, I’m going to assume that the testimony of Ronan/ Morgane Oger has also been transcribed.

3. I wish to have a copy of the transcript of what witnesses Oger and Whatcott testified before the Tribunal. Please advise me of the cost of each item and how to go about getting them?
My Reasons for having a copy of the Transcripts are :

4. I stood as a candidate to be a member of the Legislature in the general election of 2001. 
I intend to do so in the next provincial election. An essential part of my platform will be ; informing electors and taxpayers as to the implications of what went on in the Oger Whatcott Tribunal. It is of utmost importance for Canadians to appreciate how the ruling in this matter effectively outlaws the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, as proclaimed by Jesus Christ and the prophets of Israel. The submission by Dr Lugosi on behalf of Bill Whatcott responding to the Attorney General’s position in this case, sums-up what’s at stake : liberty to participate in democracy during an election, at all. I require the transcripts of the witnesses in order to make them available to the public : this matter is a perfect example of the maxim “Publicity is the soul of Justice” The written record of what was said is crucial for them to make up their own minds about the fitness for office of candidates of the New Democratic Party … for deciding who to vote for, or not vote for.

5. The Bible tells us that “by two or three witnesses a thing is confirmed”. I was not in the room when Complainant Oger gave his testimony. But two of my friends were. They each told me that he related an incident which – ostensibly – demonstrated why the Whatcott flyer was “hate speech” i. e. because a man was so moved by it that he attempted to assault NDP candidate Oger. Ronan / Morgane Oger is a classic example of the fragile homosexual. His type will do and say anything for attention. Had such a thing really happened then he – masterful at using social media – would have maximized it in cyberspace for purposes of his campaign. The lack of any report in the public record, of anything like unto what he pretended, speaks volumes.

6. The Commission is no doubt aware that I have a complaint underway to the Attorney General as to Devyn Cousineau’s fitness to sit on that Tribunal. Cousineau is a longtime partisan political activist on the issue which is the centrepiece of the Oger Whatcott matter. There is hard evidence of her contributing funds to a group which advocates for still more special treatment for the ?L?G?B?T?Q?/whatever? people. It doesn’t take a degree in law or political science, to realize that Devyn Cousineau was biased in the very first instance. It is outrageous that the thing went ahead with her on the panel
7. The notion that Oger ‘was about to be attacked and was only saved by intervention of a police officer’, is a classic example of emotional blackmail / playing on the sympathy of the public conscience – one of the favourite tactics of the Marxists. Had such an incident taken place, Devyn Cousineau would certainly have known about it : she would have used it as part of her Reasons. The fact that she didn’t, tells us that ‘it never happened’.

8. I am unlearned in the law. Nevertheless, I am one of Canada’s most experienced laymen in the laying of private Informations. I have good reason to believe and I verily do believe that, while testifying under Oath, Ronan Oger aka Morgane Oger committed Perjury. I require the transcripts as evidence for substantiating charges against him of Perjury and obstruct/ pervert Justice.

9. The Commission will be aware that at the Supreme Court of British Columbia Lawcourts at 800 Smithe Street Vancouver, anyone may arrange to listen to the recording of a proceeding, for free. As well, a party to it may obtain a copy of the entire proceeding of his or her case, on CD …. called ‘the DARS disc’. Someone asking for it, must apply to a Justice, and swear an Affidavit that such a disc will be used ONLY for purposes of refreshing their memory. But not for publication. Then, if the Order is granted, they pay a fee of $25

10 Please advise me if Bill Whatcott or his lawyer may obtain a copy of the DARS disc of the entire hearing before the Tribunal of file 16408 ?. I need that information in order for me to subpoena them to the Process Hearing when I lay the private information against Oger.

Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

28, 2019 – 11:51 am EST
Court orders Christian to pay $55,000 to trans politician for calling him ‘biological male’
VANCOUVER, March 28, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A B.C. human rights tribunal has ruled that a Christian activist discriminated against a man who claims to be “female” by distributing flyers that referred to the man, who was running for political office at the time, as a “biological male.”
The court ruled for transgender activist “Morgane” Oger, born Ronan Oger, and against Christian activist Bill Whatcott by declaring it’s discriminatory not to accept transgender people as the gender they claim to be.
In a 104-page ruling released Wednesday (read full ruling below), the tribunal further declared there’s no room for any public debate in the matter, according to theVancouver Star.
The tribunal also ordered Whatcott to pay Oger $35,000 in compensation for injury to his “dignity, feelings and self-respect,” and an additional $20,000 to Oger for Whatcott’s alleged improper conduct during and before the hearings, it reported.
Whatcott, 52, described the tribunal hearing as a “kangaroo show trial” and said he’s not surprised by the decision.
“Jesus Christ is still Lord and he will come again, I put my hope into that,” he told LifeSiteNews.
John Carpay, president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom, which intervened in the case, decried the ruling as harming democracy.
“The Supreme Court of Canada has long held that freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy,” Carpay said in a press release.
“Society is full of people with diverse views and the Tribunal’s decision undermines the foundational principles of the free society and jeopardizes the health of Canada’s democracy,” he said.
Oger, who is vice president of the B.C. NDP, launched a discrimination complaint against Whatcott after the Christian activist distributed flyers in Vancouver-False Creek riding in 2017 when Oger was running as MLA for the B.C. NDP.
Whatcott’s flyer asserted Oger “is a biological male who has renamed himself ‘Morgane Oger’ after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle,” and can be found here.
The flyer also stated that “[t]hose who promote falsehoods like the NDP and BC’s major media . . . do so to their eternal peril.”
Oger, who narrowly lost to a former Vancouver mayor, alleged the flyer was discriminatory and exposed him to “hatred and contempt” under Section 7 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code.
In a December 11 to 14 hearing, the JCCF and the Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened on Whatcott’s behalf, while West Coast LEAF and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation intervened for Oger.
Whatcott’s lawyer, Dr. Charles Lugosi, intended to give evidence that Oger was, in fact, a biological male as a defense.
Tribunal judge Devyn Cousineau, however, ruled “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.”
“Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses to establish the truth of his impugned publications, that evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue and will not be heard by this Tribunal,” she wrote.
Lugosi also argued Whatcott’s Charter rights of free speech and religion allowed him to express his views. A summary of Lugosi’s legal defense of Whatcott can be found here.
The tribunal, which was composed of lawyers Cousineau, Diana Juricevic, andNorman Trerise, disagreed.
The ruling, penned by Cousineau, declared that even questioning transgenderism is discriminatory.
“[T]he proposition that we should continue to debate and deny the existence of trans people is at the root of the prejudice and stereotypes that continue to oppress them,” wrote Cousineau.
“It rests on the persistent belief, held by people like Mr. Whatcott, that a person’s genitals are the essential determinant of their sex and, therefore, gender. The result of this belief is to necessarily cast transgender people as either ‘deceivers or pretenders’,” she wrote.
Cousineau also censored Whatcott’s original flyer in her ruling.
“Throughout his testimony, Mr. Whatcott refused to recognize Ms. Oger as a woman, or to abide by the Tribunal’s frequent orders not to call her a man,” she wrote in a footnote.
“I will return to this in respect of Ms. Oger’s application for costs, but in the meantime, I have replaced his male pronouns with the correct, female, ones.”
“(It) is really so encouraging … to have the tribunal say you know you can’t argue that you are just commenting on a legitimate public issue because this is not a public issue. There is no debate about whether people are or should be transgender,” Oger’s lawyer, Susanna Allevato Quail, told the Star.
The December tribunal hearing sometimes appeared to be “rancorous,” according to an earlier LifeSiteNews report describing the conduct Cousineau ruled as improper.
“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,” Whatcott reported then.
When Cousineau “berated” Lugosi for having “misgendered” Oger five times, Whatcott demanded that the tribunal stop bullying his lawyer and shouted, “The Emperor has no clothes; even Norman accidentally called Roman what he is: a guy.”
In response, Trerise allegedly told Whatcott to shut up, and Juricevic allegedly warned Whatcott that if he had an “outburst” like that again, he would be removed from his own hearing and ordered to pay costs.
Whatcott told LifeSiteNews he’s not sure if he will appeal the decision, nor does he have the money to pay the fine.
He is also facing a Criminal Code hate crime charge for infiltrating Toronto’s homosexual Pride parade in 2016 disguised as a “gay zombie” with five others, to distribute pamphlets warning of the spiritual and physical dangers of sodomy. Whatcott’s next scheduled court appearance on that charge is a judicial pretrial in Toronto on April 10.
However, Whatcott does hope to see Oger on Saturday in Kamloops where Oger is speaking on the “living the transgender lifestyle faithfully” at a Lutheran church.
“I’m going to be there,” he told LifeSiteNews. “I’ve got a thousand flyers to put out.”

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Free speech and the rights to express one’s religious beliefs were very much on trial during a five day hearing (December 11-17) before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.  Ronan Oger, a transgendered advocate and activist and a vice-president of the provincial New Democratic Party, had laid a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distribution of 1,500 copies of a leaflet during the May, 2017 provincial election. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet called into question Oger’s fitness for public office, on the basis of his sexual confusion. Relying on the Bible’s account that God created two sexes, Mr. Whatcott argued that if Oger couldn’t get his sexuality right, should be really be entrusted with making decisions on such matters as the provincial budget.

The original one-person tribunal, just before the proceedings opened expanded to three, consisted of Devyn Cousineau, an outspoken social justice warrior and donor to LGBT causes. The defence tried unsuccessfully to have her recuse herself for a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” In preliminary proceedings, the Tribunal rejected all the defence character and expert witnesses. The final defence witness-to-be was Dr. Willi Gutowski, a medical doctor and psychiatrist with over 30 years of clinical experience treating patients in Chilliwack and the U.S. He had frequently been called as an expert witness before U.S. courts. He had treated transgendered people in the past. He said, during testimony seeking to qualify him, that he “has a particular interest in dissociative disorders.” No one can make you hate, he said: You will yourself to have the thoughts that lead to the emotions of love or hate. “Love and hate are both a choice of the will.” His expertise would have been crucial as Oger’s lesbian lawyer had contended that Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet was likely to expose the transgendered candidate to hatred or contempt. The panel decided to reject Dr. Gutowski concluding: “The burden has not been met as to his qualification on this topic.” Thus, the defence had but one witness — Bill Whatcott.

The defence was not allowed to challenge the nature of transgenderism. Is it mistaken and immoral, as Bill Whatcott argues on biblical grounds? Is it a state of delusion — in short, mental illness — as many psychiatrists and scientists contend? Humans are born with one of two and only two chromosomal combinations: two “X Chromosomes” — female; and X and a Y Chromosome — male. Apparently, if you’re born a man but identify as a woman, or vice versa, then you are whatever you feel you are or want to be. Thus, a hulking, hairy man with a penis who identifies as a woman should be able to prance into the girls’ washroom and ogle 13-year old girls.

The panel made their prejudice crystal clear. On at least eight separate occasions, Devyn Cousineau  who seemed to be keeping careful count, interrupted Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi for “misgendering” Oger by referring to him as “he”, instead of she.

CAFE has been an active intervenor in this long and costly case. In its oral submissions, December 14, Director Paul Fromm argued that Oger had not been the victim of discrimination. No candidate is entitled to anyone’s vote. A voter may discriminate in his or her choice by voting for or against a candidate for ANY reason — sexual identity, policies, history. Not all “discrimination” or advocacy of discrimination  is banned under human rights laws, only discrimination in the provision of certain goods and services. Mr. Fromm protested the discriminatory rules imposed upon the Defence side.  Oger had complained that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet intimidated him and prevented him from being his authentic self. Mr. Fromm said forcing the defence to refer to Oger as “she” or more awkwardly as “the complainant said in the complainant’s complaint” violated the Defence’s ability to be their authentic selves. “Mr. Whatcott questions Oger self-identification on religious grounds; I and others question his identity on scientific, psychiatric or common sense grounds. We should not be compelled to say what we don’t believe or end up speaking in stilted 1984 Newspeak. If I wake up and believe I am Napoleon, no one is under any obligation to call me ‘Emperor,'” he said.

CAFE argued Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet was not about “hate”. Oger had testified that he had felt fearful. Mr. Fromm pointed out that his alleged fear had not prevented him from continuing as the NDP candidate in Vancouver-False Creek, from holding rallies and running again, in 2018 for school trustee. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet did not advocate “hate” much less violence, but urged voters to tell NDP canvassers they would not be voting for that party.

The following are portions of Dr. Lugosi’s masterful summation on behalf of Bill Whatcott:

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 Christophobia. 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.”

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.

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. [The Tribunal reserved judgement.]

IF YOU CARE ABOUT RIGHTS FOR CHRISTIANS & FREE SPEECH, WE NEED YOUR HELP TODAY!

A Battle for Freedom of Speech and Religious Liberty: Bill Whatcott, the Evangelist, versus Ronan Oger, the Transgendered

                This will be a very expensive Autumn for CAFE. We have intervenor status in the complaint by Ronan Oger, now calling himself Morgane, a transgendered activist who filed a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distributing some 1,500 leaflets during the May, 2017 British Columbia provincial election. Oger, it was publicized,  a vice president of the NDP in B.C., might be the first elected transgendered creature in Canada. Oh, wow!

                But it was not to be. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet argued that the Bible says there are only two sexes: man and woman. If Oger can’t even get his sexuality straight, can he really be trusted to make weighty decisions on finance and other matters. Oger lost in an election that was trending NDP in urban areas. He threw a hissy fit and filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets were discriminatory and wounded his “dignity” on the basis of his sexual identity. It might be argued that a guy who puts on a dress, earings and lipstick has already damaged his own dignity.

 

Ronan, now “Morgane” Oger

                As bizarre as all this may sound, it’s actually quite serious. Part of our democratic freedoms is the right to support or challenge a candidate on the basis of character and policy. Bill Whatcott very skillfully challenged Oger’s delusions about sexual identity — he was married to a woman and fathered two children — and argued that such confusion raised questions about his suitability for public office. Should the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal find against Mr. Whatcott, we shall be seeing the limiting of one’s right even to criticize someone’s sexual identity. If I wake up one morning and feel I am Napoleon, no one should be compelled to address me as “Emperor”.

             The Tribunal is already insisting that participants play in Oger’s delusional sandbox. In our submissions, we must refer to him as her/she. CAFE refuses to say the Earth is flat. So, our written submissions may seem awkward. Thus, “Oger’s complaint [we will not say, “Morgane”] was filed as retaliation for Oger’s having lost the 2017 election”. You get the picture.

                There is strong reason to suspect that the Tribunal chair (no, that’s a piece of furniture), chairman (oops, that might be sexist), chairwoman (? whatever) is hopelessly biased. As of November 11,  defence has not yet won a single motion. The chairman, Devyn Cousineau (that’s a woman) is a radical pro-lesbian activist and financial donor. For instance, in  each of 2014, 2015, and 2016, she contributed between $100 and $249 to Qmunity, a group dedicated to “building better, queer, trans and 2-spirited lives 365 days of the year” and in 2013 an unspecified sum to the  same cause. We have challenged her to recuse herself on the basis of “a reasonable apprehension of bias”. She has refused, but, perhaps, feeling vulnerable, late in the day asked the government to appoint two more adjudicators to make it a panel of three. The proceedings are getting nasty.

                Oger’s lesbian lawyer is demanding $5,000 in costs before the hearing is even held. Cousineau has not yet ruled on this but notes: “Mr. Whatcott’s public comments are deliberately derogatory towards Ms. Oger. He is also, in colourful terms, highly critical of the Tribunal and me personally and clear in his view that this process is a ‘kangeroo court’.

                CAFE, apparently, is limited to making submissions only on the main argument but not in procedural matters. Because we did make several other submissions, we, too, are under fire. We’ve been threatened. On November 1, Cousineau wrote: “CAFE is cautioned that its conduct in respect of Ms Oger’s costs application was improper [we were not supposed to make a submission] and that I will revoke its intervenor status if its attacks on Ms Oger continue.” [So, you shut up!]

                Let’s just say, things are getting nasty. Mr. Whatcott has an excellent Victoria-based lawyer Charles Lugosi. We have paid for some legal work for our submissions thus far. The Tribunal will run from December 11-17 in Vancouver. I reckon the costs of our participation during the hearing will be $5,000. We desperately need your support today!

              I am heading to Vancouver and the bank account is almost empty! We need your support TODAY. Earlier this year, the globalist censors at PayPal arbitrarily cancelled our account. Thus, we must rely on two old fashioned payment methods:

  1. Mail us a cheque or money order TODAY to CAFE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M94 5L3, CANADA.
  2. Or, if you feel comfortable, send your VISA or Mastercard number in two e-mails (number in one, expiry date in second) topaul@paulfromm.comOR call in this information to 416-428-5308.

                Thanking you in advance for your support for the cause of free speech and, if it is not too politically incorrect, wishing you and your family a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS, I remain,

                                                                                                                Sincerely yours,

                                                                                                                Paul Fromm

                                                                                                                Director

                                        CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Is the Tribunal Member (Judge) in the Whatcott Free Speech Case Hopelessly Biased

Is the Tribunal Member (Judge) in the Whatcott Free Speech Case Hopelessly Biased

 

CAFE, as an intervenor in the Whatcott case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, supported a motion by his lawyer asking Ms Devyn Cousineau to recuse herself as Tribunal member of judge in this case on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.  The arguments offered by Dr. Charles Lugosi dealt mostly with rulings by Ms Cousineau. However, some very powerful further evidence of LGBTQ activism by Ms Cousineau have been discovered by two dogged researchers.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Whatcott BC Human Rights trial date change, judge exposed

by Bill Whatcott » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:02 am

Devyn Cousineau claims her pro-homosexual activism demonstrates “experience” with human rights law and is not an indicator of bias that would prevent her from deciding Oger vs Whatcott fairly.

In Devyn Cousineau’s recent decision where she declined to recuse herself from Oger vs Whatcott the homosexual activist kangaroo judge Devyn Copusineau wrote:

[54] Finally, Mr. Whatcott argues that my actions prior to being appointed to this Tribunal demonstrate that I was a “vigorous advocate of LGBT rights”. He says that I will be predisposed to decide this complaint based on my “personal subjective view … through the lens of political correctness”.

[56] What this demonstrates is that I came to this Tribunal with experience and engagement in human rights law. This is a pre-requisite for the position. It does not, in my view, amount to evidence that I would not decide this matter fairly.

To read the rest of Devyn’s flawed judgment go here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12zQr1Z … sp=sharing

Anyways….

It is touching to see Devyn Cousineau has complete confidence in her so-called impartiality. However, If you look at these screen shots below of one of Ms. Cousineau’s favourite LGBT activist groups and her support of it, you will see why I have no confidence in this far left, pro-homosexual activist who is attempting to pass herself off as a credible judge at all.

I have discovered that Ms. Cousineau is a financial supporter of “Qmunity.” Qmunity chose an interesting pic for their homepage here. This is a shot of two male drag queens who belong to the homosexual activist group “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.” The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are highly visible at homosexual pride parades and seem to exist mostly to blaspheme Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Toronto homosexual shame parade in 2016. Note the sodomite on the left who has a silhouete of Jesus Christ on his crotch

Screenshot of a message from the Qmunity Board of Directors. Note “gender affirming garments” consist of giving free bras, girdles and other women’s clothes to gender confused boys. The site claims these are sometimes given to children in “conservative” homes without parental knowledge or consent. Bill 27 was an amendment that added protection of transvestitism to the BC Human Rights Code. Mr. Ronan Oger sat on committees that brought this amendment into law.

Qmunity marching in the 2017 Vancouver homosexual pride parade.

Ronan Oger (cross dresser wearing pink cowboy hat) smiling at a bare bummed homosexual marching in the 2017 Vancouver homosexual pride parade. Ronan (he calls himself Morgane) is the Vice President of the BC NDP and the complainant in Oger vs Whatcott who wants Bill Whatcott punished for calling him a biological male and telling voters in Vancouver-False Creek that God didn’t want them to vote for him. Bill Whatcott notes Mr. Oger is a well known volunteer at Qmunity and travels in the same far left/regressive/pro-homosexual circles in Vancouver that Devyn Cousineau travels in. It is highly probable Ronan and Devyn know eachother at least socially.

In the Qmunity 2016 annual report Devyn Cousineau (the woman tasked with impartially adjudicating Oger vs Whatcott) was recognized for financially donating to the homosexual activist organization.

The date for my Kangaroo show trial has been changed. Please cancel Sept 10-13 in your dayminders. The new dates for my kangaroo show trial are:

Here is my latest interview done two days ago with Press for Truth Media:

“These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
“Therefore they are before the throne of God,