Tag Archives: Ronan Oger

CAFE’S SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF BILL WHATCOTT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRANSGENDERED OGER’S COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION BEFORE B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

Posted on by

CAFE’S SUBMISSIONS  IN SUPPORT OF BILL WHATCOTT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRANSGENDERED  OGER’S COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION BEFORE B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS  TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before

the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

Morgane Oger

COMPLAINANT

AND:

Bill Whatcott

RESPONDENT

 

SUBMISSION BY INTERVENER CAFÉ (CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION) ON RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL

1.     The BCHRCode is narrow + specific as to what it covers, + doesn’t allow tribunal leeway to invent or make up rules or concepts not specifically provided for.

2.     The concept of “hatred” or “hate” has been narrowly defined by SCC in Whatcott v Sask. (HRC), [2013] SCJ no. 11. These passages from the SCC Whatcott decision confirm “a Modified Definition of ‘Hatred’ “: [56]  First, courts are directed to apply the hate speech prohibitions  objectively . In my view, the reference in  Taylor  to “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions” (at p. 928) should not be interpreted as imposing a subjective test or limiting the analysis to the intensity with which the author of the expression feels the emotion. The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances surrounding the expression, would view it as exposing the protected group to hatred. [57]  Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred and contempt” is to 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. [58]  Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue. Is the expression likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others? The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not, in itself, sufficient to justify restricting the expression. The prohibition of hate speech is not designed to censor ideas or to compel anyone to think “correctly”.

In light of these three principles, where the term “hatred” is used in the context of a prohibition of expression in human rights legislation, it 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. [85]…prohibiting…any representation which “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

The words “ridicules”, “belittles” or “affronts the dignity of” are said to lower the threshold of the test to capture “hurt feelings” and “affronts to dignity”that are not tied to the objective of eliminating discrimination. To the extent that they do, they are said to infringe freedom of expression in ways not rationally connected to the legislative objectives. [87]  Since the decision in  Taylor , the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has interpreted s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code , including the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of”, to prohibit only those publications involving unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification: see  Bell  at para. 31;  Owens , at para. 53, and  Whatcott (C.A.) , at paras. 53-55. [88]  Although the expansive words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” have essentially been ignored when applying s. 14(1)( b ), it is a matter of concern to some interveners that “the legislation has never been amended, and no declaration has ever been made to read down the impugned law” (Christian Legal Fellowship factum, at para. 22), and that the express wording of the provision contributes to its chilling effect (Canadian Journalists for Free Expression factum, at para. 5). [89]  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. . . .”[90]  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 distain or superiority, it does not expose the targeted group to hatred. [91]  There may be circumstances where expression that “ridicules” members of a protected group goes beyond humour or satire and risks exposing the person to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. In such circumstances, however, the risk results from the intensity of the ridicule reaching a level where the target becomes exposed to hatred. While ridicule, taken to the extreme, can conceivably lead to exposure to hatred, in my view, “ridicule” in its ordinary sense would not typically have the potential to lead to the discrimination that the legislature seeks to address. [92]  Thus, in order to be rationally connected to the legislative objective of eliminating discrimination and the other societal harms of hate speech, s. 14(1)( b ) must only prohibit expression that is likely to cause those effects through exposure to hatred. I find that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in s. 14(1)( b ) are not rationally connected to the legislative purpose of addressing systemic discrimination of protected groups. The manner in which they infringe freedom of expression cannot be justified under s. 1 of the  Charter  and, consequently, they are constitutionally invalid. [93]  It remains to determine whether the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” can be severed from s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code , or whether their removal would transform the provision into something which was clearly outside the intention of the legislature. It is significant that in the course of oral argument before this Court, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan endorsed the manner in which the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” were read out in  Bell . I accept his view that the offending words can be severed without contravening the legislative intent. [94]  Given my determination that these words are unconstitutional, it is time to formally strike out those words from s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code . The provision would therefore read: (b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground. [95]  Accordingly, I will proceed on the basis that the only word in issue on this appeal is “hatred”. Interpreting that term in accordance with the modified  Taylor  definition of “hatred”, the prohibition under s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code  is applied by inquiring whether,  in the view of a reasonable person aware of the context and circumstances, the representation exposes or tends to expose any person or class of persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. [99] Having concluded that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in s. 14(1)( b ) are not rationally connected to the objective of prohibiting speech which can lead to discrimination, I also find them constitutionally invalid because they do not minimally impair freedom of expression. [109]  Restricting expression because it may offend or hurt feelings does not give sufficient weight to the role expression plays in individual self-fulfillment, the search for truth, and unfettered political discourse. Prohibiting any representation which “ridicules, belittles or affronts the dignity of” protected groups could capture a great deal of expression which, while offensive to most people, falls short of exposing its target group to the extreme detestation and vilification which risks provoking discriminatory activities against that group. Rather than being tailored to meet the particular requirements, such a broad prohibition would impair freedom of expression in a significant way. [110]  The Saskatchewan legislature recognized the importance of freedom of expression through its enactment of s. 14(2) of the  Code . To repeat, that provision confirms that “[n]othing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of expression under the law upon any subject”. The objective behind s. 14(1)( b ) is not to censor ideas or to legislate morality. The legislative objective of the entire provision is to address harm from hate speech while limiting freedom of expression as little as possible.

3.     All Code-created prohibitions + offences can only be read + interpreted subject to the superior freedoms + rights enacted in the Charter, especially section 2(b) thereof, namely, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion + expression, including freedom of the press + other means of communication.

4.     The Courts in Canada + USA have given paramount importance to freedom of expression in the context of elections, as evidenced in the Canadian SCC decisions of Figueroa v Canada [2003] 1 SCR 912, + Thomson v Canada [1998] 1 SCR 877, + the USSC decision of Citizens United v FEC. Free expression must be given free rein in the vital matter of free democratic elections.

5.     Any member of the public, any citizen, has the absolute right to raise any matter about an election candidate, including: fitness for office, good character, honesty + truthfulness, trustworthiness, faithfulness to others (including one’s spouse and/or children), lying about anything including about oneself, sexual misconduct, sanity (being free of mental disorder or delusion), political agenda (including candidate’s desire, as here, to punish, harrass or bully citizens.

6.     Nobody has a right not to be offended, to protection of so-called “dignity”, “feelings”, “reputation” or “self-respect”. These aren’t in the Code, and no Tribunal has the right to make up or invent concepts from “whole cloth”. It’s not the purpose for which Code was initially enacted, to protect people from actual tangible + palpable harm from true discrimination in matters like employment, houding, + services offered to the public.

7.     Each citizen has the right to express his/her doubt or disbelief that any person has the right to claim any special privilege under the Code.

8.     Each citizen has the right to question the validity of any claim by a person to be of a gender or sex that doesn’t correspond to reality, & to question any demand by someone to be addressed as or referred to as being of a certain gender or sex, or to be referred to by certain pronouns if that does not correspond to reality.

9.     It is submitted that any cases decided by BCHRT or any other tribunal, contrary to the charter or the Code, are wrongly decided + must not be followed. This would include the Browne, Sheridan, waters + dawson decisions. Alternatively, these cases must be distinguished on the basis the facts differed from those in the present case.

 

All of which is respectfully submitted by the Intervenor, the Canadian Association For Free Expression (CAFÉ), this 22nd day of December, 2017.

  Per:  _______________________________

Paul Fromm, Director

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

Posted on by
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

A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election

Posted on by

A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election

From CAFE meeting in Vancouver, Saturday, October 7, 2017

https://youtu.be/1AcgrV6pBXU

A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election
Christian Bill Whatcott put out flyers questioning a trasgendered candidate for Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Vancouver, BC Canada. Here he is …
YOUTUBE.COM
 
0 replies

Whatcott Replies to Oger’s Lawyer’s Demand that the Tribunal Say O is a Woman

Posted on by

Whatcott responds to delusional letter from Ronan’s lawyer

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:22 am

Image – Image
Ronan (picture left) when he was a husband and father of two children 5 years ago. Ronan (picture right) campaigning for NDP in Downtown Toronto riding Vancouver False Greek.

Bill Whatcott’s response to Ms. Susanna Quail’s long winded letter to the BCHRT asking the member Walter Rilkoff to reconsider his decision to not rewrite one sentence in his decision on interveners in Oger vs Whatcott to suit Ronan Oger’s gender delusion.

October. 1, 2017
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017

ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager

Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)

The defendant hereby responds to the spurious and factually erroneous arguments of the complainant and his counsel, Ms. Quail.

Ms. Quail started this circus by claiming in her e-mail exchange with the BCHRT that the complainant “was not born as male.”

The defendant, the complainant’s obstatrician who gave birth to him, the French government and the complainant’s ex-wife to only name a few, know otherwise. The bottom line is, if the complainant and his counsel are deluded on a fact as basic as the complainant’s sex at birth then they won’t be credible on just about anything else. Indeed the defendant can demonstrate that Ms. Quail is light on facts with just about everything she says in her latest letter by doing a very quick and superficial critique of her arguments in her September 27th, “Application for reconsideration.”

Ms. Quail claims “The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record.”

Actually, the complainant’s gender identity is on the record.

On page 1 of the original complaint against me, Ms Quail wrote: “The Flyer attacks Ms Oger’s gender identity. It says Ms. Oger’s gender identity is false and an “impossibility” and that transgender people like Ms. Oger are at elevated risk of various diseases and violent acts.”

As the Tribunal can see in the above paragraph Ms. Quail refers to the complainant with a female pronoun and Ms. Quail tells the tribunal and anyone reading the complaint that the complainant is transgender.

Ms. Quail states “The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint.”

With all due respect the complainant seems to believe his gender identity is relevant to the complaint. On Twitter three days after launching his complaint, the complainant wrote: “Monday I filed a BC #Human Rights tribunal (sic) complaint against Bill Whatcott due to hateful acts over my gender identity + expression.”

Ms. Quail incorrectly states, “It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of their identity as their sex.”

In actual fact defendants are entitled to discovery, especially in matters that are pertinent to the defendant’s defense. In any event the complainant’s so-called gender identity is not really all that personal or private of a matter. A quick perusal of the CBC, Globe & Mail, Youtube, Vancouver Province, Xtra, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, etc….. will show quite definitively that the complainant’s gender identity is just about the only thing he actually talks about when speaking to the public. And a quick check will confirm the complainant likes to talk about his gender identity in public often.

Some pertinent questions that the defendant believes should be answered by the complainant’s counsel if the BCHRT is actually going to entertain this request for the reconsideration of Walter Rilkoff’s September 13, 2017 decision in regards to interveners in the Oger vs Whatcott case where Mr. Rilkoff aptly noted “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female.”

1. What does the complainant’s French Birth Certificate identify him as?
2. Did the complainant’s obstetrician and/or midwife identify him as a male or a female when he was born?
3. Did the complainant’s mother think she had a boy or a girl when she gave birth to the complainant?
4. Did the complainant identify as a woman when he first met his ex-wife? Did the complainant’s ex-wife think the complainant was born male or female when she got married and had children with the complainant?
5. Did the complainant’s foundational Canadian identity documents (passport, citizenship papers) identify him as a boy or a girl 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
6. When the complainant applied for entry into the University of British Columbia in 1986 did he check the male or the female box?
7. If the complainant presented himself as a male when applying for university or when courting his ex-wife, why should the BCHRT or Defendant think the complainant was born a female?

Shouldn’t the defendant have a right to have an answer to these questions if the defendant is being charged under Section 7a and b of the BC Human Rights Code, because the defendant allegedly offended the complainant’s alleged gender identity?

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

Ms. Quail’s long letter not letting go of a BCHRT member’s decsion to not waste more time and money pandering to Ronan’s neurosis over a sentence referring to him as “born a male.”

BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017

ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager

Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)

The Complainant hereby applies for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision
communicated in a letter dated September 13, 2017, in which the Tribunal declined to
correct an error in decision number 2017 BCHRT 195, at paragraph 2.

For clarity, the Complainant is not seeking reconsideration of the merits of 2017 BCHRT
195, granting intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression and
denying intervenor status to Gordon Watson. The Complainant only seeks
reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision not to correct an error made in 2017 BCHRT 195
at paragraph 2.

The first sentence of that paragraph says: “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a
female.”

Counsel for the Complainant brought this error to the Tribunal’s attention on September
12, 2015, by email (attached hereto as Appendix A). As set out in that email, the
Complainant was not born male. The Tribunal responded stating that the Tribunal
Member did not understand where the error was, and asked counsel for the Complainant
to describe how this sentence was in error.

Counsel responded, stating: “Ms. Oger was not born as male.”

On September 13, 2017, the Tribunal responded by letter (attached hereto as Appendix
B), stating that it would not correct this error. The Tribunal stated that the burden is on
the person seeking a correction to persuade the Tribunal that the particular statement
said to be in error was indeed an error, and Ms. Oger had not done so.

page 2

Demanding that the Complainant, a transgender person, prove her identity is
itself discriminatory

It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the
Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of
their identity as their sex. To do so would be (and is in this case) highly invasive.
Individuals are taken at their word that they are male, female, transgender, or any other
applicable gender identity.

The Tribunal has required Ms. Oger to persuade it that the statement that she was “born
a male” is false. Ms. Oger telling the Tribunal that that is not her gender identity is
sufficient proof.

Ms. Oger has offered to provide a copy of her identity document, which indicates that her
sex, in the eyes of the law, is female. It is not “born male but now identifies as female.”
Ms. Oger stated and continues to assert that she should not be required to furnish
identity documents for the Tribunal to accept that her gender identity is as she says it is.
This is a burden imposed on her, a transgender person, but not on any other party to any
other case before the Tribunal to the Complainant’s or counsel’s knowledge.

The Complainant is not aware of any case in which a cisgender complainant has been
required to persuade the Tribunal that they are the sex or gender they say they are.
Transgender persons are routinely challenged on the veracity of their gender identity. In
fact, that is what this case is about: the Respondent and Intervenor refuse to accept that
Ms. Oger’s, and other transgender individuals’, gender identity is real.

For the Tribunal to require Ms. Oger to furnish proof of her sex or gender identity is a
further perpetuation of this very discrimination. It relies on and extends the stereotype
that transgender people’s own statements about who they are cannot be accepted as true.

The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record

There was nothing in the application or anywhere in the record for the Tribunal member
to make the statement made in paragraph 2, that Ms. Oger was born male. The Tribunal
member invented this fact.

It is not open to the Tribunal to invent facts about parties and then require parties to
persuade them that those invented facts are false.

The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint

Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to this complaint. Ms. Oger is a transgender
woman, not a person “born as male who now identifies as female”, but even that fact is

page 3

irrelevant. As determined in School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran, 2005
BCCA 201, a complainant need not actually possess the personal characteristic forming
the basis of the discrimination in order to succeed in establishing a breach of the Code.
The Tribunal Member has asserted a fact that is not only false, but entirely irrelevant to
the complaint before the Tribunal.

This is not a case in which the applicant for reconsideration seeks to submit
information they should have previously put forward

Reconsideration applications cannot be used to put information before the Tribunal that
should have been, but was not, put before the Tribunal at an earlier stage: Hanlon v City
of North Vancouver and another (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 152 at para 7.

In this case, argument about or proof of Ms. Oger’s gender identity is not information
that the Complaint ought to have previously put forward. It is not the case, ever, that a
complainant must prove that they possess the characteristic that is the subject of
discrimination in order to succeed in a complaint before the Tribunal. As stated above, it
perpetuates discriminatory stereotypes to assert that transgender complainants must
prove their gender identity in order to pursue a complaint before the Tribunal.

The question of the Complainant’s gender identity will not be resolved in a
determination of the merits of this complaint

The Tribunal’s letter of September 13, 2017 refers to the fact that this is an interim
decision and suggests that “even that simple sentence” (describing Ms. Oger as “born as a
male”) will be the subject of argument at a hearing of the complaint on the merits.

Ms. Oger’s gender identity will not be the subject of argument at a hearing of the
complaint on the merits.

Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to the merits of her complaint.

The question before the Tribunal at a hearing on the merits of the complaint will be
whether the Respondent has breached section 7 of the Code. There is no reason for the
Tribunal to make a finding of fact as to the Complainant’s gender identity in order to
answer that question.

In any event, the parties do not dispute that Ms. Oger is transgender: the parties dispute
whether transgender people’s gender identity is real, and whether persons like the
Respondent may publish hateful materials about transgender people without offending
the Code. The Tribunal is not asked to determine Ms. Oger’s gender identity at any point
in this complaint.

The Complainant suffers prejudice by having the decision stand uncorrected

page 4

The erroneous statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is
based on pernicious, discriminatory stereotypes about transgender people, and is wrong
in law.

When transgender people legally change the sex marker on their birth certificates or
other foundational identity documents, that change is not prospective only. A birth
certificate that was formerly marked “M” is not now marked “Born M but now identifies
as F”. It is marked “F”. In the eyes of the law, the individual was always female but was
mis-identified as male prior to the correction of the birth certificate.

More importantly, transgender people experience their own gender identities in many
different ways. While some people might experience that they used to be one gender but
now identify as a different gender, many transgender people experience that they have
always been one gender, but were misidentified by the world around them.

The idea that transgender people were “born” one way but “identify” differently rests on
the assumption that there is a true, biological gender of each person, determinable by the
shape of their external genitalia, and that a transgender person has deviated from that
true, biological gender.

The statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is false and
perpetuates stereotypes about her and other transgender people. It now exists in a
published decision of a legal decision-making body. It is available on CanLII and on the
Tribunal’s website. There exists a binding legal statement that Ms. Oger’s sex and gender
are something other than what they are. Ms. Oger is a prominent activist for transgender
rights and other social causes, and the impacts of this false statement on her sense of self
and public reputation are significant.

The interests of fairness and justice and the purposes of the Code militate in
favour of reconsideration

Reconsideration may be granted where to do so would serve the interests of fairness and
justice: Grant v City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 at para 8.

The erroneous statement is not only patently false, it perpetuates the very discriminatory
thinking that is at the centre of this case. The erroneous statement makes a finding of fact
on something that is wholly irrelevant to the complaint. The Tribunal has gratuitously
invented a fact about the Complainant and then required the Complainant to prove that
this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” is false.

The inclusion of this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” in 2017 BCHRT 195
is contrary to the purposes of the Code.

page 5

It is contrary to promoting a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are
equal in dignity and rights (s. 3(b)): it creates a standard where cisgender people are who
they say they are, but transgender people have to persuade the Tribunal that their selfdeclarations
are true.

It is contrary to the prevention of discrimination prohibited by the Code (s. 3 (c)), because
it perpetuates stereotyped thinking that assumes that transgender people have a “true”
biological sex, assigned at birth, and change from that true sex to something else that is
merely an identity.

It is contrary to the provision of a means of redress for persons discriminated against
contrary to the Code (s. 3(e)): transgender people will be dissuaded from seeking redress
through the Tribunal if the message to them is that they will have to prove their sex or
gender, or risk having a false statement about who they are published by the Tribunal in a
binding decision, which the Tribunal refuses to correct.

For all of the above reasons, the Complainant asks that the Tribunal’s decision refusing to
correct the error in 2017 BCHRT 195 at paragraph 2, communicated by letter dated
September 13, 2017, be reconsidered.

All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Complainant,

ALLEVATO QUAIL & WORTH
per Susanna Allevato Quail
Barrister & Solicitor

cc Morgane Oger
Bill Whatcott
CAFE

WHATCOTT DEFIES B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL EFFORTS TO IMPOSE GENDER LANGUAGE TYRANNY

Posted on by

WHATCOTT DEFIES B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL EFFORTS TO IMPOSE GENDER LANGUAGE TYRANNY

—————————————————————————————————-

Image Image

Open Letter to Walter Rilkoff, LGBT Activist and BC Human Rights
Tribunal Kangaroo Adjudicator

Re: Morgane Oger vs Bill Whatcott (case number: 16408)

Dear Mr. Rilkoff,

I have received your letter incorrectly accusing me of unilaterally attempting to determine what the complainant will call himself. On June 9, 2017 you wrote, “The Complainant is entitled to use her name in the complaint process. It is certainly not for Mr. Whatcott to determine what the Complainant will call herself, and his unilateral attempt to do so is disrespectful and will not be tolerated.”

In actual fact I have no power or capacity to determine what either you or Ronan Oger will call himself. If you and Ronan want to indulge his gender confusion and refer to him as “Morgane Oger” have at it. If you want to call Ronan a tomato, a dog, or a cat; I can’t stop you from doing that either. The problem I have with this process is you are exhibiting obvious bias that gives me no confidence you are even capable of arriving at an impartial decision regarding this matter and it is you who is unilaterally determining what the Defendant can and cannot say and indeed you are backing your unilateral attempt to control my speech with threats of legal sanctions. You wrote “He (Whatcott) may not refer to the Complainant as “Ronan Oger,” “he” or “him.” You further go on to say, “Further instances of such behaviour may also subject Mr. Whatcott to an order to pay costs pursuant to s. 37(4)(a) of the Human Rights Code.”

Of course the complaint you are appointed to adjudicate stems from my election flyer delivered during BC’s recent provincial election arguing Mr. Oger is a biological male and that his so-called transgender activism and proven history of wanting legal protection for his fake identity enshrined into law, is incompatible with God’s will for humanity and what I perceive to be good government. Your letter to me on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal letterhead clearly indicates you believe punitive measures employed by state organs (even before the case goes to trial) are an acceptable measure to employ to prevent me from arguing what I argued in my election flyer (that the NDP candidate for Vancouver False Creek is a gender confused male). Hence, it appears to me that the ruling you will make is already decided in favour of LGBT falsehood and you simply want me to politely go along with this fraudulent process, so that your ruling which will be an affront to democratic freedom and the right to speak what is true can have a veneer of legal respectability.

Please be advised I have no interest in cooperating with such a biased and fraudulent process and I will not use the fake pro-nouns you prescribe “she” or “her,” nor will I use Ronan’s transvestite fantasy name “Morgane,” even if the government gave him a birth certificate with that obviously feminine name, nor will I use your gender neutral alternative “the Complainant,” as I believe to do so will mean I am cooperating with LGBT tyranny and falsehood. I am only open to using male pronouns when referring to biological males, or as a possible compromise if the Tribunal and Ronan’s counsel finds it acceptable, I can refer to Ronan in this process as the “biological male.” Various media reports even while calling Ronan a woman acknowledge he was born a biological male and I assume the Tribunal and Ronan’s lawyer acknowledge the reality that Ronan is a biological male, even as you insist the Defendant and presumably all BC residents refer to him with female or gender neutral pronouns.

If you find the term “biological male” unacceptable when referring to Mr. Oger and you have no acceptable (to me) alternative, then please be advised I will continue to use Mr. Oger’s birth name and male pronouns when referring to him, as God has clearly created him male and you should have no authority to coerce me into saying otherwise. In the absence of a mutually acceptable compromise on how to address Ronan Oger, the NDP Vancouver-False Creek candidate, who is now a human rights complainant because I referred to him as a biological male; I will continue to speak what is true regardless of any financial penalties or other measures you decide to impose on me.

In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott, Ph: 778-837-3650, e-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com, website: http://www.freenorthamerica.ca

For more background information on how Bill Whatcott’s election flyer calling on Vancouver- False Creek residents to reject the false concept of “transgender” (no one can change their gender, one can only mutilate their body and cross dress to look like the gender they are not), and to turn to Jesus Christ in repentance and vote according to Godly and Biblical values, resulted in him being dragged before the BC Human Rights Tribunal and is now being threatened with legal sanctions if he continues to use correct male pronouns go to:

To see Bill Whatcott’s truthful election flyer go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10624
To see Mr. Oger’s human rights complaint and Bill Whatcott’s response go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10638#p26188
To see the biased adjudicator Walter Rilkoff’s threat letter go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10640

“Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill? He who walks uprightly, And works righteousness, And speaks the truth in his heart.” Psalm 15:1, 2

Whatcott Ordered to Use Transgendered’s Pronoun of Choice in Referring to Complainant

Posted on by

Whatcott Ordered to Use Transgendered’s Pronoun of Choice in Referring to  Complainant

Christian evangelist and activist Bill Whatcott handed out some 1,500 leaflets in the Vancouver-False Creek riding prior to the May 8 provincial election in British Columbia challenging transgendered activist Ronan Oger, who now styles him/her/itself as Morgane. Auger was born male and fathered children but now acts as female. Mr. Whatcott argued that if Auger is confused about his sexually identity and rebelling against the law of God, he might not make a very good MLA. Auger, running for the NDP, hoped to be the first transgendered MLA. Whatcott’s leaflet went viral on the social media. He was assaulted and cursed by some in the heavily homosexual riding. In one building, two beefy lesbians rushed him and tried to drive him out. Whatcott feels he influenced many Chinese who received the leaflet. The Chinese take a traditional approach to sexuality. Auger was narrowly defeated and Whatcott’s witnessing may well have played a role. Predictably, all three parties — Liberals, NDP and Greens — denounced Whatcott. Vengeance came swiftly. Shortly after the election,  on May 22, Auger filed a complaint of discrimination with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. He claimed Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets exposed the transgendered to “hatred or contempt”, And, of course, among other things, he wanted money —  “damages for injury to his dignity and reputation.”

 

Mr. Whatcott filed a spirited response: “I refuse to refer to the complainant as ‘Morgane.’ Morgane is a French female name. The baby boy who was named Ronan Oger at the time of his birth is and always will be a biological male and should have a male name that reflects his biological sex.  I am writing this letter to request the BC Human Rights Commission dismiss Ronan Oger’s human rights complaint against me.  As Dr. Paul McHugh in his article  … “Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme” correctly pointed out, “Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men.” While Ronan Oger may believe himself to be a woman and while his fervent activism seems to indicate he wants everyone else to believe he is a woman, the reality that is rooted in biology clearly testifies that Ronan is a man. No government identification with a fake gender designation, no media decorum guide insisting on the use of fake pronouns, no human rights commission ruling trying to silence the truth that God has created two sexes, male and female and they cannot be changed, is going to change what is reality.

Inline image 1


While Ronan’s complaint alleges my truthful flyer (validated by attached studies and opinion articles) has attacked his “dignity, feelings, reputation and self respect,” the fact is he chose to run as an NDP candidate in a provincial election. I’ve attached two Globe & Mail articles written by him. In one article Ronan disparages social conservatives in the Christy Clark government and clearly insinuates if one expresses an opinion that so-called transgenderism is problematic, that such an opinion according to Ronan could render a politician unsuitable for political office. The other article argues that people should be able to identify as whatever suits them when it suits them.

A practical outworking of the flawed philosophy that people should be able to self-identify and switch genders as they see fit is co-ed bathrooms and de facto co-ed women’s shelters. Thanks to ideas like Ronan’s actually being implemented in Ontario. A deaf woman was sexually assaulted by a male sex offender who self identified as a “trans-woman” to gain access to a women’s homeless shelter in Toronto where he was able to gravely harm a vulnerable biological woman. The University of Toronto reported males trying to film females when they were bathing in “trans-friendly” change rooms without the women’s consent. At the University of Calgary panic buttons exist in the bathrooms now that they are co-ed due to so-called transgender ideology. Before this madness became policy panic buttons were not needed in segregated sex bathrooms.

Clearly Ronan has a political agenda that is informed by his transvestite identity and activism. (Ronan is not “transgender” nor is any other human being “transgender” who identifies as such.) Ronan has not and never will “transform” into a female, he will only ever be a male who cross dresses and who, unfortunately,  appears to be using female hormones to give himself feminine characteristics. As a BC resident I perceive that Ronan’s political advocacy for homosexuality and cross dressing, not to mention his antipathy towards social conservatives who do not agree with his ideology, is going to have a negative impact on me and my community. Therefore, as far as I am concerned I have a civic duty to speak frankly and without inhibitions imposed by political correctness or vague human rights codes, on so-called transgenderism and its harmful effects on BC in ridings like Vancouver-False Creek where it looked possible that a transvestite was going to win the riding and use [his] political power to impose a harmful agenda on my province.  I hope this helps in assisting the BC Human Rights Tribunal in arriving at the only conclusion that is consistent with moral coherence, true democratic principles, and biological reality; that you will toss Ronan (he is not Morgane) Oger’s spurious human rights complaint into the waste basket immediately.”

 

A Tribunal slap down was swift in coming. Tribunal chairman Walter Rilkoff, in a June 9 letter, threatened Mr. Whatcott with financial penalties for not referring to Ronan as a “she”. “The complainant  is entitled to use her name in the complaint process. It is certainly not for Mr. Whatcott to determine what the Complainant will call herself, and his unilateral attempt to do so is disrespectful and will not be tolerated.  If Mr. Whatcott chooses not to use the name ‘Morgane Oger’ or refer to Ms Oger as she or her, he may use ‘the Complainant’. … He may not refer to the Complainant as ‘Ronan Oger’, ‘Mr. Oger’, ‘he’ or ‘him’. [This is just the mind-bending linguistic tyranny we warned about in regards to Bill C-16 above.] … Further instances of such behaviour may also subject Mr. Whatcott to an order to pay costs pursuant to Sec. 37(4)(a) of the Human Rights Code.”

Ronan the transvestite wants Whatcott prosecuted for wrecking his campaign

Posted on by

Ronan the transvestite wants Whatcott prosecuted for wrecking his campaign

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun May 14, 2017 2:50 am

Image
Ronan Oger (calls himself Morgane) doing photo op on election night. Ronan blames Bill Whatcott for “harming” his election campaign and is seeking to prosecute Bill for saying he is a 100% biological male who is sorely in need of Jesus and is completely completely unfit to serve in the provincial legislature.

“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Genesis 1:27

Morgane Oger says she’s unlikely to defeat Sam Sullivan in final count
But close race in her riding shows trans candidates have a real chance of winning, she says
Published on Thu, May 11, 2017 9:02 pm.
James Goldie
Daily Xtra
http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news … unt-220859

After a rollercoaster of an election night, when at times she seemed poised to become the first transgender person elected to Canadian public office, Morgane Oger is coming to terms with the fact this is not likely going to be the case.

The preliminary election results in Vancouver-False Creek show BC Liberal incumbent Sam Sullivan ahead of the NDP’s Oger by 560 votes. Although absentee ballots have yet to be counted, Oger acknowledges it would be a long shot for those votes to sway the election in her favour.

“Indications are that Sam Sullivan won this election. And we will really know on the 22nd [of May] by how much,” she says. “We need to see what the final count is.”

In an email to Xtra, Andrew Watson, communications manager for Elections BC, says his office estimates there were roughly 176,000 absentee ballots cast in this year’s election province-wide. It’s not known how many of those ballots were cast in Vancouver-False Creek.

“We don’t have an electoral district breakdown yet but will publish one before final count starts on May 22,” Watson says.

In the wake of May 9’s preliminary results, Oger says she’s staying positive. Like their respective parties more broadly, the race between Oger and Sullivan was neck and neck for most of the night. One candidate would take the lead only to later be overtaken by the other.

“I think I had every emotion. There was this elation that [our campaign] had worked, and then this horror as it went from ‘it worked’ to ‘it failed,’ and then relief that it worked and then dismay again,” she says.

At 11pm, with just six ballot boxes remaining, Oger was leading by 48 votes. She and her team came to NDP headquarters preparing for what looked like victory.

“At one point I was practising my speech — and then at another point I was looking at the numbers and it said the votes were 100 percent counted,” she says.

But despite the outcome so far in Sullivan’s favour, Oger says her campaign can be proud of how close she came to winning as an NDP candidate in a Liberal stronghold.

“This riding was considered almost un-winnable,” she says. “It means finally in Canada a transgender person can — if properly supported and properly engaging with the experience required to have credibility as a candidate — a transgender person can take a fight to [an establishment] candidate.”

Image
Ronan Oger heads to NDP headquarters on election night to concede his defeat. Bill Whatcott delivered 1500 flyers denouncing Ronan’s attempt to become Canada’s first transvestite MLA. Bill’s flyers were widely shared on social media and in e-mail mass mailings. Because the race was so close it is possible Bill Whatcott’s flyers played an important role in assuring the gender confused homofascist Ronan did not attain the inluential possition of MLA for Vancouver-False Creek. In fact by keeping Ronan out of office Bill’s flyers might have also kept the hard left pro-abortion/homofascist NDP from taking power in BC as things are so close one seat could literally make the difference between an NDP or Liberal government.

Oger attributes the closeness of the race to public fatigue with the BC Liberals. She also suggests that her work on a broad range of issues, such as education, and her background in the tech sector made her relatable to a larger constituency. She believes her advocacy work on trans and human rights issues alone would not have been enough to propel her to office.

“It’s important to appreciate that being an advocate for a tiny percentage of the population is not enough to get elected. One has to have done things that touch the mainstream,” she says. “This is what I encourage the transgender community and the LGBT community to do. Touch the mainstream. It’s the mainstream that elects you.”

She says it’s unclear what impact a series of transphobic flyers plastered throughout her riding may have had on her chances of being elected, but she describes them as “horrifying” and “destabilizing” to her campaign.

“They forced us to focus on that some days. And that was detrimental, that harmed us,” she says, referring to time diverted to speaking with the police, filing a complaint with Elections BC, and crisis-management team meetings. She says the team was forced to cancel some engagements while dealing with the poster issue. “Cancelling an engagement within the last 10 days of an election — that has consequences.”

Still, though neither Oger nor the other three openly trans candidates were elected May 9, Oger says this election has been groundbreaking.

“I was very encouraged within our community to see the love and the hope,” she says. “I hope that everybody appreciates this was a major win for the transgender and the LGBT community, that we can be satisfied that anybody can run who’s credible.”