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.”

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

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

Oger v. Whatcott

Supplementary Submissions of the Respondent Whatcott

December 16, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24      Footnote 4 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles I. M. Lugosi, Counsel for William Whatcott

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

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

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

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

Dear Friends,

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

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

Here is an accurate article which describes what happens to you when you dare to put out flyers criticizing tax funded parades that celebrate guys like the one in the picture above running around with a pride flag pole stuck in his bum: http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/28/can … sexuality/

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

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

For those who would like to support us you can do so here: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

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

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,