Hear Bill Whatcott — The War to Silence Christian Dissent 

Hear Bill Whatcott — The War to Silence Christian Dissent 

The  Alternative Forum & the Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Present

Bill Whatcott

* The man the LGBTQ Lobby has sought to destroy

* Fined $55,000  by B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for criticizing flamboyant tranny NDP candidate Ronan Oger

* Victim of a class action suit for $104-million by Liberals and homosexual lawyers

*Now facing “hate” charges in Ontario

 

The War to Silence Christian Dissent: Oger & My Upcoming “Hate” Trial for Christian Witnessing

BILL WHATCOTT.jpg
Mr.Whatcott was threatened with a 104 million dollar lawsuit for giving out religious information at a Toronto gay pride parade. He had a Canada wide warrant out for his arrest for this. The B.C. Human Rights Commision fined him in the amount of I believe $55,000 for a misgendering that occurred in a provincial election in B.C. He still faces hate crime charges for the pride parade thing. Antifa communists violently repress political discussions and remain free to reoffend, but a guy like Bill who has a double dip of religious fervor and physically harms no one is in deep trouble. The lecture was sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression and was facilitated by Paul Fromm.
 

All Aboard with Transgender Ideology


All Aboard with Transgender Ideology

RAINBOW FLAG

 BC Ferries—steering a course set by the transgender lobby and its political agents

On Thursday night I attended a Campbell River meeting of the Freedom Defence Council, a growing grass roots made-in-Vancouver Island group of some 200 social conservatives.. The meeting was intense, informative and geared for action. The discussion moved from the broader picture—the demolition of our Christian heritage and culture and the war on free speech —to the immediate threat posed by the aggressively imperialistic transgender lobby, insatiable in its appetite for more public spaces to occupy.

Specifically, it was about the alarming imposition of LGTBQ posters and banners and flags on city owned facilities, and the implementation of a trans-friendly curriculum in schools.  To give you a measure of these conquests,   on Pride Day, the public library even hosted a Drag Queen Folk Tales event for children! Lesbian sex toys were  on full display at a nearby waterside public park—with  children in close proximity! Dolls are apparently passé. Dildos are the rage now.

The conclusion is inescapable.  Children are being sexualized with few ‘safe’ spaces to find refuge.  One powerful lobby group has claimed the public space.  Their message:  Move over or go home—and shut up.  The media and the politicians are on our side and the BC Human Rights Tribunal stands behind us.

Hmm.  This sounds pretty alarmist. Are things really that bad? Are the barbarians really at the gates, or inside them?  The answer came soon.

When I took the returning ferry to Quadra Island, I noticed that the ship was flying the rainbow Pride flag,  17 days after Pride Day! This is on  a taxpayer subsidised ship! Which made me think that it would be appropriate if the BC Ferries Corp. was renamed the” BC Fairies Corp”.  Should that change transpire, I may one day feel compelled to do something I would never have dreamed of doing.  I may have to run to catch a fairy. But I will be damned if I’m ever made to ride one! I’d rather swim.

If the BC Ferries Corp was indeed to become the BC Fairies Corp maybe the CEO should be replaced in favour of a Rear Admiral, eg. Svend Robinson. After all, every vessel in the fleet can unload at either end, although docking can be problematic at times.   Since most ships are referred to as “she”, as in “there she blows”, it is certain that this sexist practice will be soon come to an end when our progressive provincial NDP-Green government realizes that the fate of the nation depends on its immediate termination.  Every ship must eventually be referred to using a non-binary pronoun, or maybe a traditional pronoun with a gay male connotation, as in “there he blows”.

 Perhaps BC Fairies vessels could be gender fluid. They could leave one terminal as a ‘she’, and arrive at the destination terminal as a ‘he’, depending on the fluctuating mood of the non-binary captain who was hired to meet the new quota targets. “ The Queen of New Westminster” could leave the Tsawassen terminal at 11 am and be received 90 minutes later in Swartz Bay as “The King of New Westminster”.  Alternatively, the vessel could simply be called the “Drag Queen of New Westminster”, a venue for reading Queer Folk Tales to children with or without parental approval or supervision. Tsawassen-to-Swartz Bay and back could then become a world class trans-portation route.

 If the vessel should collide with another, take on water and begin to sink, the “women and children first” protocol would have to be changed to a “gender dysphoric children and gender fluid mothers first” rule. Biological male passengers eager to claim a seat on a lifeboat would not need to offer proof that they are actually women–they need only declare that they presently ‘identify’ as a woman. Any ship officer or crew who would challenge such an assertion would be subject to immediate dismissal and a BC Human Rights complaint adjudicated by political hacks.  To hammer that point home, vessels would be re-christened to honour the contributions of trans activists who have contributed so much to our progressive and tolerant society, especially in the area of free speech. How does “MTV Morgane Oger” sound? It would be designated as the Mother Ship of the fleet, but It wouldn’t need a wide berth owing to the fact that it can’t give birth.

Seriously, as one speaker at the meeting said, “Things are moving so fast that if we don’t soon get off our butts, organize and ACT now, it will be game over….for one thing, we need the ability to call upon a quick response group to counteract Antifa and LGBT bully groups who show up to shout us down…..of those in our congregations who feel as strongly as we do, many feel too intimidated to stand up to them……as a result, our children are being abducted by this evil cult, made ever more powerful by the ardent support it receives from local council, the provincial government, and the local media…. (words to that effect).

The issue here is not just about free speech, but the flagrant transgression of the formerly respected boundary between ideology and state.  The former is the privilege of the elected custodians of the state, and the latter is, or should be, a neutral instrument employed impartially for the benefit of all taxpayers regardless of their political orientation.  In an authentically democratic nation, civil servants, public sector employees and the institutions they work in should be politically neutral.  In Canada, neither the RCMP, nor a City Hall, nor a public school, nor a public library, nor a publicly subsidized ferry—to cite a few examples—should dare display a political message that promotes a given ideology no matter how many citizens there are who may ascribe to it.  That’s basic Canadian Civics 101.

But in the emerging soft totalitarian society, the Party that controls the state, feels little compunction in using public resources to propagate a partisan line and commandeering  state property for use as a platform for that same purpose.  In this case, they frame their shameless display of rainbow flags and posters as an acknowledgement and celebration of the ‘diversity’ that exists in our society. But they celebrate cultural or sexual ‘diversity’  to the utter neglect of the ideological diversity that is as much a reality in the community as anything else.  The Left is keen on the diversity of people, but not on the diversity of ideas.  They are all for “inclusion”, but their inclusion is not inclusive of ideas and views they detest.

 They assume that all taxpayers are on the same page. They pretend that Christians and social conservatives do not exist, or if they do, are too marginal and too out of sync with the times to warrant consideration. In their eyes, conservative thought or expression is an atavism that needs to be suppressed, silenced and ignored, until its aged proponents  pass into the dustbin of history. The implication is clear.  Bigots pay taxes, but they do not deserve representation—or an audience for that matter. Consequently, our entreaties and LTEs are ignored.

 Soon, it seems, the rainbow flag will be a permanent feature of every flag pole every day of every week in the calendar. The most worrisome part of this story is, as a few speakers pointed out, the active dissidents are predominantly male, white and over 60, and the pastors are too timid and ostrich-like to lead them or rally younger parishioners to the cause.  They choose to ignore the fact that if the bullies continue to have their way,  ten years hence their churches may be on life support. If that.  The window is rapidly closing and having feasted on blood,  the sharks are circling ever closer. We need the younger generation to step up and pick up the torch. That was the consensus.

Tim Murray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metchosin British Columbia
April 30 2019

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

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

 

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

Dear Gordon,

 

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

 

 

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

 

Steven Adamson, Registrar

BC Human Rights Commission

 

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

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

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

April 18th 2019
British Columbia Human Rights Commission

Attention : Steven Adamson, Registrar

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

Re : Oger versus Whatcott your file # 16408

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon S Watson

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

ReplyReply allForward

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

Kelly Ainsley

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon S Watson

 

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

Dear Gordon,

 

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

 

 

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

 

Steven Adamson, Registrar

BC Human Rights Commission

 

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

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

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

April 18th 2019
British Columbia Human Rights Commission

Attention : Steven Adamson, Registrar

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

Re : Oger versus Whatcott your file # 16408

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon S Watson

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

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

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

Whatcott vs. Globohomo Mafia [PREVIEW]

Whatcott vs. Globohomo Mafia [PREVIEW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7QGV7xQxzI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0roubYvuEuy8-TuwzHw8YL377fdVPWxw6y1DuhPYjjGzo7R1e9f76Y8hA

This is a preview of the upcoming short documentary ‘Whatcott vs. Globohomo Mafia’. Bill Whatcott is the first person in Canadian history to be put on trial …

Bill Whatcott is the first person in Canadian history to be put on trial for “hate speech” for witnessing to the traditional Christian view of human sexuality and denouncing the highplaced politicians promoting the LGBTQ agenda. . He is also being sued for $104 million dollars in a class action lawsuit for handing out Bible scripture at a gay pride parade in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The media has barely mentioned these historical cases, churches throughout Canada have been largely silent, and alleged “free speech activists” such as Jordan Peterson have not said a word about any of this. Bill Whatcott is potentially facing up to $100,000 or more in fines from the BC Human Rights Tribunal. He is accepting donations to help cover his legal fees and keep a roof over his family’s head during this time of hardship: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pe… You can contact Bill Whatcott by posting on his web forum at: http://freenorthamerica.ca/ An article with more details about Bill Whatcott’s persecution: https://www.americanthinker.com/artic…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oger v. Whatcott

Supplementary Submissions of the Respondent Whatcott

December 16, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24      Footnote 4 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles I. M. Lugosi, Counsel for William Whatcott