TRANS ARTIST CENSORED AFTER DOING PORTRAIT OF BILL WHATCOTT

Trans artist censored after doing portrait of Whatcott and o

Trans artist censored after doing portrait of Whatcott

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:10 am

Dear Friends,

Much has happened and is going on for me this upcoming month.

To start with some good news. In the past few months as a result of NDP Vice President and transvestite activist, Mr. Ronan Oger’s human rights complaint against me, I have become friends with a rather interesting fellow by the name of Brooklyn Fink.

I followed Brooklyn’s story with some interest a couple years back, and though my ministry has made me a few friends and a pile of enemies amongst homosexual and cross dressing activists, I never seriously considered the possibility of getting to know Brooklyn one day.

Anyways, Brooklyn gained some notoriety when he burned the homosexual pride flag on the UBC campus back in 2016. You can read about his act of civil disobedience here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- … -1.3553719

Anyways, today Brooklyn wrote me a rather nice e-mail and let me know he drew a portrait with my face on it and that was temporarily censored at a downtown Vancouver art gallery. Brooklyn gave me permission to share his e-mail and work of art with you, so here it is.

Dear Bill,

I have a solo show exhibiting this month in Vancouver. One of my paintings in the exhibition is St George smiting the Dragon, and I used your face as the model for St George.

I attached two photos. One from the front, showing the main illustration. And one from the side, showing the little decorative St George’s Crosses on the edges of the painting.

Anyways, Friday was opening night. And Morgane Oger sent her girlfriend to spy it out. She comes, armoured in her “smash the patriarchy” hoodie, emblazoned with LGBT buttons, and introduces herself to me, “hi I’m Heidi, I’m the president of the community association” (the gallery is in the community room of a miniature village type block in downtown Vancouver). Immediately another attendee at the opening shot up, “she’s Morgane’s girlfriend!” And I couldn’t help but smile and ask out loud, “Oh really?” She was visibly disappointed that her cover was blown.

Anyways she noticed you were the model for the St George painting. She asked, “is that Bill Whatcott?” And I confirmed that, yes, it was. And she thought about it for a moment, then asked, “then who’s the dragon?” And I replied, “That’s up to the viewer to decide.” And so she defensively said, “Well I just think he’s slaying his own inner demons” and I gave her a look that just said “whatever you say”.

So flashforward to Sunday, and I get an email from the gallery. They have received a complaint. The complaint is that “one possible interpretation of the work is that if Whatcott is St George, then that makes Oger the Dragon, and you are then depicting the literal murder of a community tenant”. I put two and two together and knew where the complaint came from, and the gallery director accidentally confirmed it when I just talked to him like I knew what I was talking about. Because of the complaint, the gallery took the painting down, leaving a bare spot on the wall.

I told the gallery I would be forced to take them to the Tribunal for discrimination based on political and religious belief if this was not remedied.

So at first, there was going to be a meeting on Wednesday for the board to vote on whether to uphold my censorship or put the painting back. I was going to present my case, and if it failed, I would quickly make a new painting, The Martyrdom of St George, before the gallery re-opens on Friday.

But as it turns out, the gallery director has convinced Oger’s girlfriend to withdraw the complaint. So my painting is back up.

Thought you’d like to know about that.

God bless you,
Brooklyn

The work of art that was temporarily removed, but is now apparently restored:

Image

Image

I do appreciate what Brooklyn did for me and given our mutually entrenched differences on gender, I was pleasantly surprised that Brooklyn would show such kindness to me and display such courage to make a controversial, Christian friendly, painting (complimenting a notorious guy like me no less) in such a left wing place! Please pray for God to bless and touch Brooklyn in a special way. My wife and I are really looking forward to meeting Brooklyn and spending some time with him when we get to Vancouver for my Kangaroo inquisition before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in December.

My wife and I will be attending the “In One Accord” conference coming up in Edmonton on Friday, November 9th. This conference is designed to inform and equip believers to become united and effectively deal with the challenges facing us in present day Canada as it pertains to protecting our religious liberty in an increasingly hostile environment.

To learn more about this Christ centred and informative conferance and to register please go here: https://www.in1accord.ca/

On November 27th, my Judicial Pre-Trial Conference for my so-called “hate crime” (actually ministering the Word of God and accurate medical information to Toronto’s homosexual shame parade) will begin in Toronto’s College Park Courthouse. Pray for God to provide an agent to represent me so I don’t have to fly to Toronto again, unless God actually wants me there to do more preaching and ministering to that once great city that has now become a bastion of cultural Marxism. Please pray for this.

I have been invited to speak at the “Biblical view on homosexuality and sexuality” seminar in Calgary on Saturday, December 1, 2018 from
10 AM – 2 PM.

I will be speaking on the impact of homosexual activism on religious and other civil liberties in Canada.

This conference is hosted by Pastor Artur Pawlowski and the Calgary Street Church and is RSVP.
If you would like to attend please contact Pastor Pawlowski via:

Street Church Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/streetchurch.ca/
Phone: 403-607-4434
E-mail: art@streetchurch.ca

My kangaroo trial before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) is fast coming up for December 11-14.

As you can see in the latest judgment released by Devyn Cousineau, the homosexual activist adjudicator; my lawyer and I won some small victories. Ronan (he calls himself Morgane) Oger, the NDP Vice President and tyrannical transvestite activist, and his lesbian activist lawyer Susanna Quail were looking for an immediate pay out of $5000 cash from me for “misconduct” during this so-called human rights tribunal process. My alleged “misconduct” being calling Ronan a biological male (which he is) and a tyrant (a reasonable person looking at his online threats of litigation, attempts at career destruction, and attempts to hunt down and bully anyone who refuses to call him a woman can reasonably draw the same conclusion as me). Indeed, I am far from alone in seeing Ronan as a petty tyrant. Anyways, Devyn deferred judgment on whether I should pay Ronan and his lawyer $5000 in costs until the kangaroo trial is over.

We also won a small victory perhaps (I must admit my lawyer seems more excited about the development than me) in that Devyn Cousineau asked for two other members of the BCHRT to hear and adjudicate my case, in addition to her. Even though Cousineau appears dismissive of my concerns about her lack of impartiality, I suspect she really can’t ignore the fact that I dug up evidence of her donating money to transvestite rights organizations, her affiliation with the NDP, etc…. By having my case heard by three pro-homosexual/left-wing kangaroos, instead of just one kangaroo (Devyn), she probably hopes to give the process more of a veneer of impartiality. Of course, I expect the outcome to be the same. I have pointed out for years human rights tribunals are systemically kangaroo show trials. The Chairpersons overseeing these abominations tend to be left wing, pro-homosexual, dismissive of religious liberty concerns, and restrictive in terms of their view of free speech. The types of adjudicators these Chairpersons appoint to hear human rights cases are lawyers who share the same views as them. I do not believe a single conservative lawyer has ever been appointed to a Canadian human rights tribunal in the last three decades and hence why I will never dignify this process with any title more flattering than kangaroo court. Anyways, here is Devyn’s latest ruling:

November 1, 2018 Via Email

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

170 — 605 Robson Street Vancouver BC V6B 513
Phone: 604-775-2000
Fax: 604-775-2020
TTY: 604-775-2021
Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844 http://www.bchrt.bc.ea

Susanna Quail
Allevato Quail & Worth
405 – 510 West Hastings St.
Vancouver, BC V6B 1L8

Charles Lugosi
Crease Harmon LLP
800 – 1070 Douglas Street
Victoria, BC V8W 2C4

Dear Parties:

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

This letter addresses the following issues:

1. Ms. Oger’s application for costs
2. Mr. Whatcott’s request that I recuse myself on my own motion
3. The conduct of the Canadian Association for Free Expression [CAFE]
4. Mr. Whatcott’s witness list
5. The hearing panel

Application for costs

Ms. Oger applies for an award of costs against Mr. Whatcott for improper conduct during the course of this complaint: Human Rights Code [Code], s. 37(4)(a). The application concerns. Mr. Whatcott’s public comments that denigrate her, her counsel, the Tribunal, and me in my capacity as Tribunal Member managing the complaint. He made the impugned comments on his personal website and social media accounts, and in a podcast interview.

Mr. Whatcott opposes the application on the bases that his conduct was not improper and that, in any event, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs for a party’s behaviour outside its process.

There is no question that Mr. Whatcott’s public comments are deliberately derogatory towards Ms. Oger. In many ways, his statements reflect those which have given rise to this complaint in the first place. He is also, in colourful terms, highly critical of the Tribunal and me personally,

and clear in his view that this process is a “kangaroo show trial”. He refers to Ms. Oger’s counsel as a “lesbian lawyer” and does not intend the phrase as a compliment.

The issue is whether these comments, made outside the Tribunal’s process but clearly related to it, can give rise to an order for costs under s. 37(4) of the Code.
Mr. Whatcott argues that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award costs is limited to instances where misconduct that impacts upon “practice or procedure in the proceeding itself”. He cites Routkovskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2012 BCCA 141, where the Court of Appeal described the Tribunal’s discretion to order costs as limited to circumstances “when there is misconduct or breach of a BCHRT rule or order regarding practice and procedure”: para. 34.

This passage of Routkovskaia is not controversial. It merely summarizes what is apparent from the plain language of s. 37(4) itself. The discretion to award costs is not limited to circumstances where a party contravenes a rule or order. Rather, it also applies where a party has engaged in “improper conduct during the course of the complaint”. The phrase “during the course of” clearly signals that there must be a connection to a complaint. In that regard, I agree with Mr. Whatcott that the Tribunal does not have powers to punish a party’s conduct beyond what is conferred expressly by the Code and the applicable provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

The issue in the application is whether Mr. Whatcott’s comments, made on social media and his website, are “during the course of the complaint”. Ms. Oger relies on Stone v. BC (Ministry of Health Services) and others, 2004 BCHRT 221 and Bakhitiyari v. BCIT (No. 6), 2007 BCHRT 320. In Stone, the costs award was based on more than Mr. Stone’s online comments alone. In Bakhitiyari, the complainant’s impugned conduct occurred both within and outside the Tribunal’s process. Neither case required the Tribunal to interpret “during the course of the complaint” in s. 37(4). Nor was the Tribunal in those cases called upon to consider Charter values in the exercise of its discretion: Dore v. Barreau du Quebec, 2012 SCC 12 at para. 24.

I do not have the benefit of legal submissions on the issue of whether the phrase “during the course of complaint” in s. 37(4) should be interpreted in light of Charter values or, alternatively, how Charter values may be relevant to the exercise of discretion under s. 37(4).

In my view, it will be most efficient to address Ms. Oger’s costs application at the conclusion of the hearing. At that point, the Tribunal will benefit from the submissions of all participants about the scope of Mr. Whatcott’s rights under ss. 2(a) and (b) of the Charter, and how those rights inform the interpretation of the Code. Within this framework, the Tribunal can interpret and apply s. 37(4) in a way that achieves its purpose of protecting the integrity of its process, and the vulnerable people who appear before it, and remains consistent with Charter values.

My decision on this application is therefore deferred to the conclusion of the hearing. I will allow all participants, including the intervenors, to make further submissions about the interpretation and application of s. 37(4) in light of the Charter.

Mr. Whatcott’s request that I recuse myself

Mr. Whatcott earlier applied to have me recuse myself because of a reasonable apprehension of bias. I denied that application and set out my reasons in Oger v. Whatcott (No. 3), 2018 BCHRT 183 at paras. 28-57.

Mr. Whatcott now says that he has learned more information about my past charitable, volunteer, and political affiliations that he says show conclusively that I am “hopelessly biased”. He says my failure to disclose those affiliations earlier “taints the integrity of the entire process”. He asks me to recuse myself “on my own motion”.

I do not intend to exhaustively address this argument again. I have set out the high bar for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias in Oger (No. 3), and the law which makes clear that a judge’s “prior conceptions, opinions, or sensibilities” do not, on their own, operate to displace the weighty presumption that they are able to approach “each case with an open mind”: Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v. Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25 at para. 34. Mr. Whatcott has not identified any new circumstances that would persuade “an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through … that (I), whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly”: Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 Can1_112 (KC), [1978] 1 SCR 369 at 394.

Mr. Whatcott’s energy would be better spent making arguments about the scope of s. 7 of the Code in light of the Charter rights to freedom of religion and expression. Indeed, I observe that the highest purpose of protecting free expression is to encourage “the exchange of opposing views”: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 [Whatcott] at para. 117. There is no merit to an argument that a judge must share the views of a speaker in order to impartially adjudicate a claim engaging their right to express those views.

I decline Mr. Whatcott’s invitation for me to recuse myself.

The conduct of the Canadian Association for Free Expression [CAFE]

CAFE was granted leave to intervene in this complaint on September 8, 2017: Oger v. Whatcott, 2017 BCHRT 195. In that decision, Tribunal Member Rilkoff set out several conditions that applied to its participation, including that its role would be “limited to making oral and written submissions in regard to … whether the two flyers violated s. 7 of the Code.” Member Rilkoff was clear that “CAFE does not have standing to take part in any procedural matters before the Tribunal unless the Tribunal asks them for submissions”: at para. 30.

Notwithstanding these conditions, CAFE has repeatedly made unsolicited submissions in respect of the parties’ interim applications.

In a letter to all the participants dated August 10, 2018, I wrote:

I remind the intervenors that they do not have standing to make submissions or take positions in respect of the procedural matters that may arise, or applications that may be brought by the parties, unless their participation is invited. Their role is restricted to legal arguments — and possibly the introduction of evidence — at the hearing. [emphasis in original]

The Tribunal did not seek submissions from the intervenors on Ms. Oger’s application for costs. Notwithstanding this clear direction about the scope of its participation, CAFE filed another unsolicited submission in response to Ms. Oger’s costs application. The submission is 25 pages of dense text. Ms. Oger quite properly did not respond to it.

I have not read the entire submission because it was submitted contrary to the Tribunal’s direct, and repeated, instruction that intervenors not file submissions on interim applications unless they are invited to do so. This is important because the role of the intervenor is to help the Tribunal with the substantive issues presented by the complaint. In doing so, they are not to descend into the fray or take the litigation away from the parties. It would be unfair to Ms. Oger to allow CAFE to act as a second respondent alongside Mr. Whatcott and require her to expend time and resources addressing arguments against a party she did not name and which is not directly involved in the complaint.

I am concerned, therefore, that CAFE has demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the Tribunal’s clear instructions, and a persistent misunderstanding about its role in these proceedings. Although I did not read the full submission, I read enough to develop additional, more significant, concerns about its content. In the submission, CAFE directly attacks Ms. Oger based on her gender identity and her decision to bring forward this complaint. it argues that Mr. Whatcott’s comments about her are “true”, that she cannot produce “evidence of being actually a woman”, refers to Ms. Oger’s name as a “fantasy name”, and calls her a “transvestite… with tyrannical tendencies” and a “cruel or terrifying person”. And it goes on.

These submissions, though unsolicited, have been made to the Tribunal in the context of an application before it. As such, the concerns that I have identified about Mr. Whatcott’s speech — which has occurred outside the process —do not apply here. In my view, CAFE’s comments about Ms. Oger are completely improper and could fairly be the subject of a costs award if made by a party: Stone at para. 61; Colbert v. District of North Vancouver, 2018 BCHRT 40 at para. 54.
The circumstances are, in my view, more egregious because they come from an intervenor who is a participant in the process by invitation of the Tribunal. The role of the intervenors in this case is to assist the Tribunal with the substantive question of law. These types of submissions are not helpful and, more importantly, are inflammatory, derogatory, disrespectful and inappropriate. No person should be subjected to that kind of treatment while bringing forward or defending a complaint.

I hereby put CAFE on notice that if this type of behaviour is continued, I will revoke its status as intervenor in these proceedings. In future, it must only make submissions when invited —namely at the hearing. Those submissions should focus on how s. 7 of the Code should be interpreted in light of ss. 2(a) and (b) of the Charter. It should refrain from personal attacks against Ms. Oger, or further attempts to prove the truthfulness of Mr. Whatcott’s statements. I will not tolerate further such conduct in this proceeding.

Mr. Whatcott’s witness list

Mr. Whatcott was required to submit a copy of his witness’s will-say statements by October 25, 2018. Aside from his summary of Dr. Gutowski’s proposed testimony, he has not done so.

If Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses other than Dr. Gutowksi, he is required to give notice to Ms. Oger and file will-say statements forthwith. If he does not do so, he may be precluded from introducing such evidence at the hearing.

Hearing panel

As I have repeatedly observed, this complaint raises the important issue of how s. 7 of the Code is to be interpreted in light of the Charter and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 5CC 11.

Because of the novel legal issue at stake, I have asked the Chair of the Tribunal to appoint a three-person panel to hear the complaint. She has agreed to do so. As a result, I will hear and decide this matter along two other members of the Tribunal.

Conclusion

In summary:

The panel will hear further submissions about whether and how s. 37(4) should be interpreted in light of Charter values or, alternatively, how Charter values may be relevant to the exercise of discretion under s. 37(4). It will decide the application after the hearing.

• I decline to recuse myself from this complaint.
• CAFE is cautioned that its conduct in respect of Ms. Oger’s costs application was improper, and that I will revoke its intervenor status if its attacks on Ms. Oger continue.

• If Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses aside from Dr. Gutowski, he must give notice of who he intends to call forthwith, along with a summary of the subject matter of their evidence.

• This complaint will be heard by a panel of three members of the Tribunal.

cc: Paul Fromm
Lindsay A. Waddell
Rajwant Mangat
Jay Cameron.
Marty Moore
Kerri Fisher
Freya Zaltz

Dr. Lugosi and his firm understand I have absolutely no capacity to cover his full legal fees. So far for all three of my cases that Dr. Lugosi is litigating ($104 million lawsuit, hate crime charge, and this BCHRT Human Rights Complaint) I have raised $60,000 or so, which actually isn’t bad for a small budget and somewhat controversial activist like me. However, the actual bill if the full hourly rate was applied is somewhere around $250,000 – $300,000 or so….. The sixty thousand I have raised over the past year and a half is long gone on disbursements, research, a little bit for Lugosi’s rent and to eat, etc…..

That a legal bill can get this high and none of the cases have even made it to trial yet, makes me sad and leads me to think the system is systemically flawed and intrinsically unjust. Truly justice can only be attained for the rich or in my case because there is a Christian lawyer willing to martyr his financial well being in the pursuit of justice.

Anyways, while Dr. Lugosi knows $300,000 is not coming his way in this life, he asked if I could at least raise another $1000 or so this month so he can at least have his food during the trial, a modest hotel for 5 days, and his fairy fare from Vancouver Island to Vancouver covered. So far I have $800 set aside for Dr. Lugosi that I will be mailing to him this month. If I could get another $200 or preferably a little more for Dr. Lugosi that would be much appreciated.

To mail directly to Dr. Charles Lugosi:

Bill Whatcott Legal Defense Fund
Crease Harman Lawfirm:
#800 – 1070 Douglas Street
Victoria, B.C. V8W 2C4

or

Go Get Funding: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … t-family/#

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“Put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
Ephesians 4:22-24

Politicized Cops & Leftist Media Gang Up on Bill Whatcott

Politicized Cops & Leftist Media Gang Up on Bill Whatcott

[The rot is deep. Canadian society is increasingly like the degenerate Weimar Republic. Public media and many politicians glorify the sexually unusual, the nmost recent favourite class being the switcheroos — the transgendered.We have a politicized Vancouver police force investigating a political/religious pamphlet distributed by Bill Whatcott about a flamboyant, transgendered political candidate Ronan (now styling himself as Morgan) Oger. Of course, the violently biased media is doing a boo-hoo-hoo for the transgendered Oger who is also a vice-president of the provincial New Democratic Party. And in all this, what about a healthy respect for Bill Whatcott’s religious beliefs and his right to engage in the political process by criticizing a candidate’s character? — Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression]

Vancouver Police & Lamestream Media respond to Bill’s flyers

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:11 pm

Image

Vancouver police investigate potential hate crime, fliers attack school board candidate

BY LAUREN BOOTHBY
Posted Oct 12, 2018
https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/10/12 … candidate/

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – Fliers posted around Vancouver last weekend attacking a Vancouver School Board candidate Morgane Oger may have gone too far.

Vancouver police are investigating the situation as a potential hate crime. The posters attack her because she is a transgender woman.

Oger says she was contacted by police recently who told her the same person who handed out fliers attacking her in 2017 was planning to do it again. She’s already filed a human rights complaint against him for those fliers, arguing they were hate speech.

As for the new ones she says they’re unacceptable as well.

“It feels terrible to have someone target you like this. This man is trying to shame me about who I am, that means he believes I should be ashamed for who I am,” she says. “That hurts.”

Those posters say that God doesn’t want people to vote for her, and attacks her because of her gender identity.

They also make disparaging comments about other LGBTQ people. Oger says she’s also concerned for others who may be affected by reading the hand-outs.

“Imagine that you are a youth, and you’re not out to your family for being gay or being trans, and you find this flyer in your home, in your mailbox,” she says. “That would be terrible experience.”

Victim hopes for justice

Oger also wonders why, in 2017, crown prosecutors did not pursue criminal charges against the person who made the fliers. She’s hoping this time they might make a different choice.

“I have heard a lot of ugly, ugly stories about justice not being carried out from the victim’s side, and there are too many of those stories,” she says. “I hope that our newfound human rights protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression will energize the Crown and the police forces to ensure that justice is carried out.”

Vancouver police are saying this about the incident.

“The VPD is aware of the posters and is investigating. We don’t have any additional information to share publicly at this time,” reads the statement. “We encourage anyone who feels they have been a victim of a crime, or has information about a crime, to make a report with their local police.”

“Victim” hopes for justice? I wonder if 1130 Am News is so deferential to Donald Trump when the public says bad things about him?

Anyways, I see some forms of actual hate is acceptable to Lauren Boothby on her Twitter wall….

F-bombs, name calling, and a certain Peter McCartney (who calls himself @Climate_Pete) who states he wants to punch me in the face is fine with her.

https://twitter.com/laurby/status/1050937709638737920
Image

I note her media buddy Brett Mineer from CHNL 610 AM radio is one of the three leftists who “liked” the above post advocating physically assaulting me because I put out unflattering, but accurate election information on Mr. Oger, the transvestite, NDP Vice President, who is running for school board and in addition to calling Christianity a “death cult” has also called for the removal of children from homes of parents who don’t agree with their minor children being given puberty blocking hormones and cosmetic surgery if the kid is a boy who at some point says he is a girl.

And somehow the media acts like Mr. Oger, an outspoken public figure and hard left LGBT activist, is the “victim” because someone is morally coherent enough to criticize him during an election. Utter fake news….. vomit21

Transphobic flyers target Vancouver school trustee candidate
Angela Jung, Reporter / Web Journalist
@AngelaJungCTV
Published Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:19 PM
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/transphobic-flyer … -1.4133247

Hateful handouts asking voters not to cast their ballots for an openly transgender woman is being distributed in Vancouver by a man who can’t vote in the civic election, or any election in B.C., because his home is two provinces away.

“What a horrible thing to do, to hunt someone down from Saskatchewan – that’s crazy stuff,” Morgane Oger said.

Oger is running as an independent candidate for Vancouver school board trustee.

She learned about the flyers from police earlier in the week. Unfortunately, she has faced this before in 2017 when she ran for a seat in the provincial legislature.

Peter Quily recorded anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott handing out the posters in Kerrisdale.

“I’m just representing the point of view of Jesus Christ and his teachings on marriage and religious liberty,” Whatcott said in the video.

Oger believes many Christians would reject Whatcott’s beliefs, calling his actions “a horrible hijacking of a beautiful faith.”

“The worst part is that he thinks that, or he says he thinks that, I should be shamed for who I am,” she said.

Whatcott has a history of handing out homophobic literature across the country over the last two decades.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled he violated Saskatchewan’s human rights rules when he distributed pamphlets denouncing homosexuals.

He is currently facing one charge of willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group for an incident during Toronto’s Pride Month in 2016.

Oger has submitted a police complaint against Whatcott; it is unclear if charges will be laid

With files from CTV Vancouver’s Breanna Karstens-Smith

Constable Anne Marie Clark feels sorry that Mr. Oger has to deal with a flyer advising Vancouver voters that God did not want them to vote for him, correctly gendering him, and informing potential voters that he bilked his ex-wife out of $120,000 and an Indian band out of a year’s worth of rent.
https://twitter.com/VPD2Fox15
Image
Claiming my flyer distribution is “harming an awful lot of people” is a bit of a stretch, these leftists have no problem trashing conservative candidates and digging up sordid details of the personal lives of conservatives and outlets like CTV have no problem making conservative dirty linen public. But I could see why Mr. Oger might not like my flyer distribution. Sorry Mr. Oger, I believe speaking the truth, so Vancouverites can make an informed vote is more important than making the election your “safe space.” What Mr. Oger and his fellow NDP whackjobs want to do to children in our public schools and to our supposedly democratic elections is really harmful to an awful lot of people.

To see the accurate election flyer that Mr. Oger claims is illegal, that a climate alarmist wants to punch Bill Whatcott in the face over, the lamestream media seems to be behaving like it is illegal, and that a police constable is giving a transvestite political candidate condolences over go here:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10723

“For your steadfast love is before my eyes,
and I walk in your faithfulness.
I do not sit with men of falsehood,
nor do I consort with hypocrites.
I hate the assembly of evildoers,
and I will not sit with the wicked.”
Psalm 26:3-5

User avatar
Bill Whatcott

Whatcott 5,000 anti-Ronan/NDP flyer update and court dates: Ongoing persecution of Christian preacher Bill Whatcott.

Whatcott 5,000 anti-Ronan/NDP flyer update and court dates

Ongoing persecution of Christian preacher Bill  Whatcott.

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:02 am


Whatcott went to the Burnaby All Canadidates Meeting at Gilmore Community School on October 11th, after delivering his 5,000 flyers letting Vancouver voters know God did not want them to vote for “Morgane” (actually Ronan) Oger, to voice his support for pro-family Christian School Trustee candidate Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson. Leftist SOGI supporters in their usual nasty fashion tried to censor Whatcott as he tried to share this video with you.

Dear Friends,

The mission to bring three essential truths to the Vancouver civic election and provide Vancouver’s voters with a Biblical and reality based framework on how not to vote if they wish to obey God’s will is now completed.

Here is the flyer that informed Vancouver voters God did not want them to vote for “Morgane” (actually Ronan) Oger
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10723

The three essential truths that were made known in spite of the left’s nastiest efforts to silence them is.

1. “Morgane” Oger was born Ronan Oger and even though he adopted a woman’s name, calls himself a female, got the Canadian government to recognize his fake name and gender identity, and threatens people with prosecution who question his delusion; Ronan is in fact still Ronan and is 100% a biological male.

2. Ronan bilked his ex-wife out of $120,000 and a native band out of a year’s worth of rent.

3. God does not want Ronan Oger to be a School Trustee or hold any other political position until he repents of his gender delusions, homofascism and makes things right with his ex-wife and the native band that he bilked.

Notwithstanding, considerable opposition from the LGBT left, they really seem to believe and act like public disagreement with their degenerate agenda is against the law, in the final analysis the 5,000 flyer truth offensive against Morgane (actually Ronan) Oger’s candidacy to become a Vancouver School Trustee was a success.

While no small number of NDP supporters followed me down the street in a menacing manner, F-bombed me, called the cops on me, reported me to Elections BC, and in a couple of instances threatened me, still a handful of recipients thanked me for the flyers and in one case confirmed that they will vote against Ronan.

For a guy who is quite capable of dishing out verbal abuse, name calling, threats of prosecution, and routinely insults those who he disagrees with, it is amusing watching the guy whine about being the target of a truthful flyers, with unflattering information about him. Indeed, only a NDP transvestite could seriously believe they are entitled to behaving in an abusive manner for years and then run in an election and have it turned into their personal “safe space” where no one can say bad things about them, on pain of being arrested and incarcerated.

Ronan’s whine…. yawn1

Image

Yup, the same guy who called SOGI opponents a–holes and who Tweeted that parents who fail to approve of their children being given transgender hormones and surgery should lose their kids, is now whining that I am giving voters accurate and unflattering information about him….

After the 5,000 flyers were delivered, I headed to Burnaby to support Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson in her bid to become school trustee.

The leftists putting on the event wanted to ban all videotaping of the All Candidates Debate, presumably to hide their bad behaviour towards Laura Lynn and others who oppose their SOGI, child perversion/abuse agenda. I videotaped my support of Laura Lynn anyways, and you can see the result above.

Please keep these dates in your prayers and join us if you can…

I have been ordered to appear in court to have a discretionary bench warrant removed. My appearance will be at College Park Courthouse, Courtroom 503, Tuesday, October 16, 10:00 am. College Park Courthouse is located Downtown Toronto, at the corner of Yonge and College St.

After court I will be preaching at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, I will be standing at Hoskin Ave and Queens Park Cr 3:30 pm -4:30 pm, Tuesday, October 16th.

Please also pray for my kangaroo trial for the “crime” of correctly gendering “Morgane” (actually Ronan) Oger, the tyrannical NDP transvestite activist who seems to believe elections are his safe space when he runs in them. The trial is coming up at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal is located at 605 Robson St, Vancouver, BC, and will be going from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm, December 11-14.

To help us with court and living expenses until these trials are over:
https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pers … tt-family/

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
Jeremiah 29:11

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

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

 

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

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Whatcott BC Human Rights trial date change, judge exposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyways….

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

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

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

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

Qmunity marching in the 2017 Vancouver homosexual pride parade.

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

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

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

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

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

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

https://youtu.be/evAP1qI7Ay4

*Updates on the Alison Chabloz, & Monika & Alfred Schaefer

* Updates on Canadian cases — YOUR WARD NEWS, Bill Whatcott, now charged by the outgoing Pakistani, Moslem AG for “hate” & other

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

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

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

A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election

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

https://youtu.be/1AcgrV6pBXU

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

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

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