No injunction to save Christmas, but court action continues

No injunction to save Christmas, but court action continues

Dec 21st, 2020

EDMONTON: The Justice Centre is reviewing a ruling from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, which denied a preliminary application for a temporary injunction to restore Charter rights and freedoms being denied by restrictions imposed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) and Alberta Government.

The full hearing of the Justice Centre’s application will take place sometime in 2021. The date has not been set yet. The Court will be asked to consider fully all of the various harms which lockdowns have inflicted, and are inflicting, on Albertans. The CMOH and other government officials will be required to answer questions under oath, and to provide evidence to justify the violation of Charter freedoms to move, travel, associate, assemble and worship.

In December, the Justice Centre filed a court challenge to Orders made by the CMOH, including an injunction application seeking a temporary suspension of certain lockdown measures until the Court fully considers the case. The Justice Centre is representing two churches and two individuals, alongside Rath & Company, who represents another individual.

Among other things, the Justice Centre argued that the Court should lift restrictions that effectively outlaw friends and family from gathering at each other’s homes to celebrate Christmas, and the public health order that prohibits outdoor hockey and other gatherings. Under this Order, grandparents cannot visit their grandchildren, and immediate family cannot be together if they do not live in the same household.

Since March 16, 2020, Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) has pronounced 42 public health orders that have violated constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the heart of the case is a challenge to the constitutionality of Orders issued by one person without any consultation or review by the Alberta Legislature, contrary to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

The latest CMOH Order declares illegal the celebration of Christmas among friends and family in a private home, restricts weddings and funerals to only 10 people, and completely prohibits all outdoor gatherings.

“On this application for a temporary injunction, the government was not required to demonstrate that its violation of Charter freedoms were justified. The fact the injunction was not granted does not mean the lockdown measures that violate people’s Charter rights are justified – that will be decided at the main hearing, to come in 2021,” states Justice Centre staff lawyer James Kitchen.

“The Court upheld the CMOH Orders simply by presuming that the Orders must be in the public interest. In regard to this application, the Court did not consider evidence as to whether the Orders actually are in the public interest or not. This, too, will be ruled on in 2021,” continues Mr. Kitchen.

“Dr. Deena Hinshaw swore and filed a cursory affidavit, with very little evidence in support of her opinions. Cross-examination prior to the injunction hearing was not possible, but will take place in 2021,” continues Mr. Kitchen.

“Justice Kirker agreed that Albertans are suffering irreparable harm – harm that cannot be remedied or compensated for – from the indoor and outdoor gathering restrictions imposed by the CMOH Order,” notes Mr. Kitchen.

Profile of Ontario Independent MPP & Anti-lockdown Freedom Fighter, Randy Hillier

Ontario’s Randy Hillier stands athwart Ford and the lockdowners

The Western Standard’s Ernest Skinner spoke with Hiller about his opposition to lockdowns, mandatory-masking, and why he is putting his neck on the line to fight them.


Published 3 days ago

on December 12, 2020

ByErnest Skinner

Rogue Ontario MPP Randy Hillier doesn’t mince words. He never has. The Tory-turned-independent from the notoriously populist-conservative Ottawa Valley has always been on the outside looking in, even when he was on the inside of the PC Caucus. In November 2020 he was charged for leading an anti-lockdown protest at the Ontario Legislature.

The Western Standards Ernest Skinner spoke with Hiller about his opposition to lockdowns, mandatory-masking, and why he is putting his neck on the line to fight them.

1.  Who is Randy Hillier, the MPP?

Well, I’m an independent member the legislature and the provincial Parliament for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston. I’ve been in elected office since 2007. My political views don’t always get met with enthusiasm as I am a bit of a maverick you could say. Besides that, I’m a dad, a husband, a father of four kids, and have 6 grandkids.”

2. Would you consider yourself an outlaw or bohemian in the realms of your political views at times?

“Well, listen, I’m a very independent-minded person, and I speak my mind, regardless of what others may or may not think, and that often has me swimming against the currents of political correctness and accepted dogma. I’ve often been in the penalty box, but I have an absolute foundational view that to be in elected office, one must be truthful and honest at all times, regardless of the consequences.”

3. We all know that you’re against the lockdowns. Can you comment on your findings regarding deaths and collateral damage as a direct result of them?

“Yes, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms released a report today (December 3) that lays out an exceptionally strong case of the evidence that the lockdowns and this social experiment that we have undertaken as a result of COVID[-19] have led to substantial and significant harm, injury and fatality for those who were never at risk of COVID. We are seeing at least a 50 per cent increase in deaths in these other areas such as the suicides, addiction, overdoses, etc.”

4. How would you assess Chief Health Medical Officer Dr. Theresa Tam’s handling of COVID-19 and her advice to Canadians since March?

“Professionally, I’d have to do use some diplomatic language, and just call her incompetent. This is the same person who suggested that masks could not stop the spread of COVID at the height of the threat, and then in July thought they were the most wonderful thing. She also said you should wear them when you are having sex, and one of the ways we can reduce the spread is by engaging in masturbation instead of intimate relations.”

5. What are your thoughts on Doug Ford and how he has used his powers since the start of the pandemic?

“He should be singled out for derision. He came into office with a mandate of open economy, that Ontario is open for business, that he is for the little guy. He’s also the one we’ve seen throughout this, telling people that it was too dangerous to go to the cottage; we find he’s going to his cottage. He tells people it’s unsafe to have a wedding, and he’s going to weddings. It’s been an endless contradiction. He told us we have to have a broad-based provincial approach to this and then of course that changed to a regional approach. He’s been flying off-thecuff for nine months and everybody in Ontario has been harmed by this ineptness.”

6. Why do you think that “experts” such as Dr. Tam, Dr. Fauci, and others keep staying on the same path even when they reverse course and contradict themselves? Can you also talk a bit about the wearing of masks.

“Well, I see them as bureaucrats; they’re not engaged in practising medicine even though at some point they may have had a medical degree. We all know that if you are going to wear a mask the benefits have to outweigh the consequences. We know very clearly now that the asymptomatic spread is not an issue. If you are going to contract the virus it’s going to be because you are in a confined space with proximity to infected people for a prolonged period of time. Many studies tell us that” 

7. Have you personally spoken with experts in the field of vaccines and viruses that disagree with the lockdown and mandatory-mask approach?

“Today, [December 3] I’ll be speaking with Dr. Roger Hodkinson who has been slammed by big tech and social media for speaking out at an Edmonton city council meeting. I’ve spoken with Dr. Matt Straus, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur, Dr. Stephen Malthouse and these are credible doctors. Tens of thousands across the world have signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration,stating unequivocally that this social experiment of masking and lockdowns in isolation and confinement is not a solution. Another thing is social media has been engaged in actively suppressing dissenting views, and we’ve also seen it from our mainstream media CTV, CBC, anybody who has a dissenting opinion – is disregarded as some sort of conspiracy theorist. We had Dr. Lawrence Rosenberg, the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Montreal state it’s like a bad flu season, and even our own Minister of Long Term Care stated categorically that it was like a bad flu season; but both the MSM and our social media have been active in suppressing that information and knowledge to the general public.”

8. Regarding your colleagues in the legislature; are there others that you know of that agree with your thoughts and views on COVID-19?

“A great many. These are people that I know in the NDP, the Liberal Party, the CP, who all share my views and my sentiments or a great many of them. They are fearful of speaking out. They’re fearful of being removed from their caucus, being kicked out of their parties, fearful of losing the added perks and benefits of being a parliamentary assistant or a minister.”

9. What would be your overall personal assessment of what people in general are feeling, and the ramifications for the ones in charge of steering the ship?

“People are living in fear, because they have not been exposed to alternative views and dissenting opinions. They are not aware of the facts and evidence that show beyond a reasonable doubt that this situation is exaggerated. At the end of the day – as more and more of these exaggerations are dispelled – people will come to realize that we made some very horrible and tragic decisions during COVID[-19] and there is going to be a price to pay for those officials who failed to do their jobs”

10. What advice would you give to people that are confused by the contradictions and questionable advice that our leaders are giving us? 

“There’s an individual whose name is Dr. Michael Yeadon. He’s a former chief scientist for Pfizer. He has put out a video which is about  30 minutes long. It is an astonishing, all-encompassing video that covers things such as masks. It covers clearly why the tests that we’re doing are creating so many false-positives and that we ought not to be basing our public policies on a test that is faulty, and faulty to such a high degree. He would be a good one to go to for people that have very limited time to investigate on their own.” 

Ernest Skinner is the WestRock Columnist for the Western Standard

City looks at bolstering COVID-19 penalties amid weekly protests

City looks at bolstering COVID-19 penalties amid weekly protests

[Apparently anti-free speech voices like Councillor Druh Farrell want more repression against freedom fighters trying to exercise their Charter right of freedom of assembly.]

Coun. Farrell said anti-COVID-19 restriction protesters have been ‘intimidating’ nearby businesses, and asked if limits would be placed on the illegal weekly demonstrations at city hall that have attracted several hundred peopleAuthor of the article:Bill KaufmannPublishing date:Dec 08, 2020  •  Last Updated 1 day ago  •  3 minute read

Hundreds of anti-mask protestors rally outside city hall in Calgary on Saturday, Nov. 21, 2020. PHOTO BY DARREN MAKOWICHUK/POSTMEDIA

Article content

Calgary city council voted Monday to consider increasing fines and to review its mask bylaw, which made wearing masks in public indoor places mandatory as of last Aug. 1.

The review includes the possibility of raising the current $50 fine, an amount Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said is insufficient.

At the same time, further recommendations are being presented to the provincial government as COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths show no sign of slowing, chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw said Monday.

“Those measures we put in two weeks ago look to be insufficient in bending the (infection) curve,” said Hinshaw.

Also Monday, Coun. Druh Farrell said anti-COVID-19 restriction protesters have been “intimidating” nearby businesses, and asked if limits would be placed on the illegal weekly demonstrations at city hall that have attracted several hundred people.

“I’ve been getting reports from businesses and some of the residents who live in the area that participants in these protests are going into shops, disrupting (them), in order to intimidate customers as well as staff,” Farrell told council.

Calling the demonstrations “plague-spreaders,” Farrell said the behaviour is harming businesses along Stephen Avenue which anti-restriction activists use as a marching route.

“This is happening frequently. Is there a plan to limit the protests and the damage they cause?” she said, adding she’d prefer a short, sharp so-called circuit breaker business lockdown to smother the virus.

Supporters gather on the sidewalk during a large rally in Municipal Plaza in downtown Calgary on Saturday, November 28, 2020. About 1000 participants, from a few different groups were opposed to a number of things-the federal, provincial and civic governments, anti-masking, and end the lockdown. The group eventually marched up and down Stephen Ave Mall. Jim Wells/Postmedia
Anti-mask protest at Calgary city hall on Saturday, Nov. 28, 2020. Jim Wells/Postmedia

A city bylaw official said peace officers were monitoring the latest protest — as they have in the past — and tickets for those violating a provincial health order, limiting outdoor gatherings to no more than 10 people, are being prepared.

“We have a number of investigations pending from this week’s demonstrations and we anticipate laying more charges,” said Richard Hinse, director of Calgary Community Standards.

“If (businesses) feel threatened, we can get officers there to assist them.”

There will now be more bylaw personnel to do just that, as the city announced Monday its Level 2 Community Peace Officers have been given clearance by the province to enforce public health orders.

“This change means there are now more than 100 peace officers working alongside Calgary Police Service to support the City’s pandemic response in situations where individuals are in blatant violation of the Public Health Act and bylaws,” said Ryan Pleckaitis, Chief Bylaw Officer, Calgary Community Standards.

Article content continued

Peace officers on Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2020. PHOTO BY DARREN MAKOWICHUK/POSTMEDIA

The protesters contend city and provincial mask-wearing mandates and restrictions on gatherings and business operations violate civil liberties and harm livelihoods. Many of them also allege the impact of COVID-19 — which has led to hospitalizations in Alberta more than tripling in the past month — is vastly exaggerated and that measures to quell it are more damaging than the virus.

The legal group Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has filed a constitutional challenge to the pandemic restrictions in Alberta and several other provinces.

Its lawyers have said they’ll work to overturn those tickets, which have included penalties of $50 and $1,200 and have been handed out to at least six participants from a Nov. 28 demonstration.

Nenshi, however, condemned the demonstrations as dangerous, while the city and province grapple to contain the virus.

“You have every right to be an idiot but you don’t have the right to crash shopkeepers, scare away people from their stores at this time of year and to expose your children,” he said.

More protests by Walk for Freedom and other like-minded groups are planned for next Saturday.

— With files from Madeline Smith

on Twitter: @BillKaufmannjrn

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Says COVID Restrictions Violate Charter Basic Right of Freedom of Assembly

Conservative legal group challenges new COVID restrictions on group gatherings in Alberta

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms argues most deaths and severe cases were among the elderly and therefore it’s difficult to justify the restrictions

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms founder John Carpay: “We’re publicly objecting to new restrictions on Charter freedom to associate.” PHOTO BY NATIONAL POST FILE

Article Sidebar



  1. Donald Trump accuses Pfizer of deliberately waiting until after election to release vaccine resultswith Video
  2. Trump rages on Twitter while Biden claims White Housewith Video
  3. Royal family denies Prince Harry’s request to have wreath laid on his behalf on Remembrance Daywith Video
  4. Full pay for ‘wife beater’ Johnny Depp, dropped after filming one scene in Harry Potter spinoffwith Video
  5. U.S. election: William Barr tells prosecutors to probe ‘substantial’ claims of voting irregularitieswith Video

Article content

EDMONTON — A conservative legal group is challenging new restrictions on gatherings in Alberta, saying they are a violation of Charter rights to assembly. The province implemented the group gathering restrictions this week as it faces record-breaking numbers of new COVID-19 cases.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, headed by lawyer John Carpay, has been involved in a number of high-profile cases over the years and has recently taken up a number of anti-COVID-restriction causes.


The Justice Centre is also representing Canada Galaxy Pageants, a beauty pageant for women and girls based in Toronto, against a new human rights complaint made by Jessica Yaniv, a transgender person.

“We’re publicly objecting to new restrictions on Charter freedom to associate,” said Carpay in an interview with the National Post.

As yet, they aren’t filing a lawsuit or anything of that nature — just raising objections.

On Monday, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, the province’s chief medical officer of health, announced private gatherings would be capped at 15 people in Edmonton and Calgary, in response to surges in COVID-19 cases that are putting a strain on the hospital system and leading to the deferral of surgeries and other medical services.

As of Thursday afternoon — before Hinshaw’s daily case update — there were 126 people in Alberta hospitals with COVID-19, 19 of them in ICU. There were 4,793 active cases, and 313 Albertans have died.

Carpay argues most of the deaths and severe cases were among the elderly — the average age of death is 82 — and therefore it’s difficult to justify the restrictions.

Carpay contends the order is based on “cases” of COVID-19, “including thousands of ‘cases’ among people who are not experiencing any symptoms or illness,” he said in a statement about the challenge. He argues today’s cases include completely healthy people who have a positive test, and he disputed the reliability of PCR testing.

Alberta Health Services says the National Microbiology Lab found Alberta’s tests to be 100 per cent accurate.

Hinshaw’s order says voluntary measures in Edmonton haven’t successfully brought the case counts down, necessitating more stringent steps.

Carpay sees it otherwise. “It’s a fundamental freedom that I have as a citizen to invite 16 or 20 people over to my house if I so choose, if we choose to associate with each other,” he said.

“Whether it’s six people or 10 people or 20 people, when the government tells you how many friends you’re allowed or not allowed to have over to your house, that is a very obvious and very direct infringement of freedom of association,” said Carpay.

In her media briefings, Hinshaw has repeatedly pointed out the majority of COVID spread in the province is because of private gatherings, and restrictions protect those who are vulnerable to the disease, as those who are less vulnerable can pass it on to elderly relatives, for example. She has said the current spike in cases is due to families gathering for Thanksgiving celebrations.

Hinshaw has also said the long-term effects of catching COVID-19, even among younger people who aren’t hospitalized, ventilated or dead, are not yet known

In a news release, Carpay said the disease hasn’t killed the early projections of 32,000 Albertans, so it’s not as deadly as initially claimed.

Free speech victory as Court rules against University of Alberta $17,500 security fee

Free speech victory as Court rules against University of Alberta $17,500 security fee

Posted on Jan 6, 2020 in Featured, Justice Update, Latest Updates, News Releases

EDMONTON:  The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( is pleased with the January 6, 2020 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which rejects the University of Alberta’s imposition of a $17,500 security fee on UAlberta Pro-Life. Demanded by the University in 2016, this security fee had prevented the small student club from hosting educational displays on campus. Analysis of the decision is ongoing.

The case arose in March of 2015, when the University of Alberta condoned the behaviour of a mob that physically obstructed a peaceful, stationary pro-life display on campus, which had been authorized and approved by the University. The mob used sheets, towels, banners, and mega-phones, making it impossible for passers-by to view the signs. The mob effectively silenced intellectual discussion and inquiry, in violation of the Code of Student Behaviour. Prior to this physical obstruction and disruption of a university-approved campus event, the University’s president had stated publicly that the pro-life group was entitled to express its opinions on campus. Then-president Indira Samarasekera stated the University must facilitate and protect the peaceful expression of all views, regardless of popularity.

Dr. Samarasekera’s statement was not taken seriously by campus security or by the students who violated the Code of Student Behaviour. The University’s campus security repeatedly told members of the obstructing mob that they were violating the Code of Student Behaviour, which expressly prohibits interrupting and obstructing university-related activities and events. Yet campus security took no action to stop the obstruction, or to discipline the students who identified themselves publicly and boasted on social media about their success in silencing a message they disagreed with.

In 2016, UAlberta Pro-Life applied again for a two-day campus event with a stationary display. The University then demanded a $17,500 security fee as a condition for going ahead with this campus event.

In an email, the University demanded that pro-life students pay for the wages of security guards and police, and costs of barricading the venue, and pay for the potential misconduct of people violating the University’s Code of Student Behaviour by obstructing and disrupting the display. Rather than render an invoice to the self-identified and self-confessed rule-breakers, the University instead told the small pro-life club that it could no longer set up a display on campus unless it first paid $17,500 in security fees. Unable to pay $17,500, UAlberta Pro-Life was forced to cancel the event that was planned for February 2016.

“In issuing this demand, the University of Alberta ignored the fact that any threat to safety and security that may have existed on campus came uniquely from those who physically obstructed and loudly interrupted a university-approved event,” stated lawyer John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which represents the students in their court action.

In its court application, filed in April of 2016, UAlberta Pro-Life sought a declaration that the University’s imposition of the $17,500 security fee on the club was illegal and unjustifiably violated the fundamental Canadian value of freedom of expression, protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court application asked for an order prohibiting the University from imposing such financial burdens on law-abiding students in future.

The court application also sought a ruling that the University made an unreasonable and therefore illegal decision in March of 2015 to condone the conduct of students who disrupted and blockaded the University-authorized UAlberta Pro-Life campus event, in violation of the Code of Student Behaviour. Although the University had advance notice that a mob was being organized to obstruct the display, and although Dr. Samarasekera had warned that any misbehaviour would be investigated and prosecuted, the University of Alberta Protective Services (UAPS) did nothing to stop the blockading and physical obstruction. UAPS also did not photograph or seek to identify any blockading student, even though the Code clearly prohibits students from disrupting or obstructing University-related functions.

Before taking court action, UAlberta Pro-Life first filed a formal complaint in March 2015 with UAPS against the disruptive students who had violated the Code of Student Behaviour. It took UAPS over eight months to release a decision. On November 30, 2015 UAPS confirmed that the University would not charge or prosecute students who had disrupted, blocked and obstructed the March 2015 display on campus. This decision came in spite of UAPS possessing ample photographic and video evidence as to which students had violated the Code of Student Behaviour, in addition to social media posts in which these blockading students publicly boasted about their own behaviour.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruled in favour of the University in October 2017. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) intervened before the Alberta Court of Appeal, in support of freedom of expression. The students appealed, and now have a decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal.

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


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.

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

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

​Ronan Oger                                                                                                    Now “Morgane” Oger

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