Oger v. Whatcott

Supplementary Submissions of the Respondent Whatcott

December 16, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24      Footnote 4 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles I. M. Lugosi, Counsel for William Whatcott

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

Whatcott, January 8, activist and hate crime charge update

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

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

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

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

For those who would like to support us you can do so here: … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

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

Report on Day 4 of the BC Human Rights Tribunal Ronan, the Transgendered, versus Preacher Whatcott: Abolish the Human Rights Commission!

Report on Day 4 of the BC Human Rights Tribunal Ronan, the Transgendered, versus Preacher Whatcott: Abolish the Human Rights Commission!

Tribunal enforces transgendered agenda and compelled speech. Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi repeatedly admonished for calling Oger “he.”

Tribunal enforces transgendered agenda and compelled speech. Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi repeatedly admonished for calling Oger “he.” 
Exclusive report by Paul Fromm
* Tribunal threatens to ban Bill Whatcott from his own hearing & fine him for speaking out saying ,”Stop harassing my lawyer!” 
Paul Fromm joins Brian Ruhe at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, Dec. 11, 2018. This was after the first day of…

Day 1 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal & News Coverage

Day 1 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal & News Coverage

Day 1 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal & News Coverage

Postby Bill Whatcott » Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:31 am

Bill Whatcott at 8:30 am standing with supporters in front of a coffee shop next to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) on Robson St in Vancouver

Whatcott with supporters

Pro-homofascism supporters fail to show love and acceptance to Bill Whatcott

In fact they called the police on Bill and attempted to get him arrested when he started handing out his newest flyer exposing the corrupt workings of the BCHRT. You can see Bill’s newest hard hitting flyer here if you scroll to the bottom of the post here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10738

Anyways, a lady with the pro-homo group attempted to get me arrested by asking me when the cop was talking to me “Were you not arrested for a hate crime for handing out a similar flyer in Toronto?” I looked at her and as politely as possible asked her to “go flush your head down a toilet.” I then got back to handing out my flyers and the two cops after reading my flyer left.

Once it got close to hearing time I went upstairs and here is the last picture I was allowed to take before the kangaroo inquisition began

The kangaroo inquisition began poorly enough. My side asked for one extra chair and Mr. Ronan Oger (the transvestite complainant) interjected himself into our request and said I should not be able to have an extra chair for my side. I commented “Ronan being his usual gracious self.” I then went outside of the hearing room to stand with my supporter until he could get a chair and notwithstanding Ronan’s lack of class, my supporter was eventually given a chair in the hearing room and after that little kerfuffle, my lawyer, Mr. Oger’s lawyer, and the lawyers for the interveners, Justice Centre, CAFE, West Coast LEAF and BCTF each gave 10 minute opening remarks.

My lawyer argued for a functioning democracy to work we have to be free to criticize all aspects of a candidate’s life. Ronan Oger’s lawyer spoke nonsense that my words could lead to violence and were preventing Ronan from participating in the political discourse.

The lawyer for West Coast LEAF went on about “non-binary,” “Two spirited,” “Trans,” gender expressions needing human rights protection. She seemed to reject the notion that wishing to speak in a way that is grounded in reality should be a human right.

The West Coast LEAF lawyer also accused me of wanting to remove Mr. Oger from the political debate. She didn’t understand, Ronan could run for office just fine, but in a democracy would have to deal with the fact I don’t agree he is a woman.

The BCTF lawyer understood what was at stake, though she is on the other side. She warned this case will set a precedent that will effect the entire country.

I enjoyed the JCCF lawyer’s submission. He warned election freedom its self is at stake in this case and passionately defended freedom of speech.

Early in the proceedings Ronan’s lawyer Susanna Quail disrupted the hearing and complained my lawyer was “misgendering” Mr. Oger.

At lunch hour Mr. Oger’s lawyer complained I was posting on Facebook during the trial and clearly her client was unhappy that my Facebook posts were critical of his claims he is a woman. I was ordered by the Tribunal Chair to quit posting in the hearing room.

Ronan went on for awhile under cross examination about his alleged fear for his personal safety and how my flyer ruined his life.

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. My lawyer found it hard to question and while he tried to stay neutral with pronouns and mostly referred to Ronan as “The Complainant,” a couple times he slipped up and called Ronan “he,” thereby eliciting the wrath of all three Tribunal members. (Devyn Cousineau, Diana Juricevic, Norman Trerise)

After Devyn Cousineau (NDP supporter and financial contributer to tranvestite political groups) berated my lawyer harshly and warned Dr. Lugosi he “misgendered” Mr. Oger “5 times,” Tribunal member Norman Trerise accidentally refered to Mr. Oger as a “he” and promptly apologized.

I got upset and demanded the Tribunal members quit bullying Mr. Lugosi and I yelled out “The Emporer has no clothes, even Norman accidentally called Ronan what he is, a guy.”

The adjudicator Norman Trerise got upset with me for saying that and ordered me to shut up. After a short recess, adjudicator Diana Juricevic warned me if I had an “outburst” like that again I would be removed from my own hearing and ordered to pay costs.

Kari Simpson of Culture Guard who is helping my lawyer, was also ordered not to talk anymore as she asked the Tribunal to quit offending her by misgendering Mr. Oger with their pretending he is a female.

The Tribunal ended at 4:30 pm and is set to resume tomorrow.

Please pray for us…….

“They traded God’s truth for a lie, and they worshipped and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed forev



Please read BELOW even if you don’t sign …… You may not agree
with him but we all have a RIGHT to our Beliefs.
Without that RIGHT, we are no longer a democracy but a dictatorship!
I don’t usually sign these  Petitions but this is “overkill”  IMHO.
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 6:22 AM
To: Laurell
Subject: Fwd: Free Speech on Trial This Week in BC

Send  it around to as many on your list as possible.

Subject: Free Speech on Trial This Week in BC

Dismiss the Complaint Against Bill Whatcott in BC

TO: BC Human Rights Tribunal

RE: Case# 16408 (Oger v. Whatcott)

In the case of Oger v. Whatcott, I ask
that the complaint against Mr. Whatcott be dismissed immediately.

Mr. Whatcott freely admits producing
flyers that identify the complainant’s biological sex. He did this to
provide the voting public with information about a public figure
running for public office. The public has a right to know about the
lives and backgrounds of those who are elected to represent them. This
is necessary for a free and open society to function.

Mr. Whatcott’s further comments on
transgenderism are based both in scientific fact and in his Christian
faith. Science has shown that it is impossible to truly change one’s
biological sex, and the Bible teaches it is sinful to try. The
complainant may be personally offended by these statements, but they
are a far cry from being an attack on anyone’s dignity, feelings,
reputation, or self-respect, as the complainant asserts.

Mr. Whatcott produced his flyer not as
an act of hatred or hostility, but out of concern for the truth, for
God’s Word, and for the complainant’s eternal soul.

If an ordinary citizen is no longer free
to express his beliefs, opinions, and thoughts, especially when those
are well-grounded in science and Christian tradition, then our society
is no longer truly free. Our human rights code must never be used as
an instrument of suppression, but rather as a force for freedom and
liberation for all.


Dear Sally,

I have been following the “hate crimes trial”
of Bill Whatcott since the summer. This Christian activist from
Alberta was charged with the “willful promotion of hatred” against
“gays” – a very serious offence that could land him in prison for two

Bill was charged because he had the courage to
peacefully pass out some flyers during a “gay pride” parade in Toronto
back in 2016. Those flyers warned about the health hazards of
homosexuality and presented a Gospel message of hope for those who
repent and turn to Christ. There was absolutely no hatred in his
messaging – and he was certainly not calling on anyone to hurt, harm,
or harass LGBT practitioners.

Bill’s hate crimes trial is set to continue in
Ontario in the new year. (You can read more about it on our petition

Meanwhile, all the way across the country in
British Columbia, Bill Whatcott is facing another frivolous legal
battle. This week, from Tuesday to Friday, Bill will be appearing
before the BC Human Rights Tribunal in order to face a complaint
brought by a person who goes by the name of Ms. Morgane Oger.


Ms. Morgane is actually a Mr. – he is a
biological male who was once married and has even fathered children.
He also happens to be the vice-president of the BC NDP – which gives
him a certain political clout.

When Mr. Oger was running in the recent
election, Bill put together some pamphlets to advise BC citizens of
Mr. Oger’s deceptive lifestyle. They rightfully informed otherwise
unknowing voters that this individual on the ballot is presenting
himself falsely. They also shared the Biblical and scientific truth of
our human gender identity: God created us male and female – and it is
impossible to switch from one sex to the other.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with
transgenderism and its underlying “gender theory”, we cannot allow the
BC Human Rights Tribunal to close all debate on the subject. It is not
up to this quasi-judicial body to decide which groups of people do and
do not enjoy freedom of expression and religion. We ALL have the right
to share our sincerely-held beliefs – whether other people like it or
not. Without that right, we are no longer a democracy but a

Please join me in signing this new petition in
support of Bill Whatcott, addressed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.


Yours for Freedom,

David Cooke and the Entire CitizenGO Team

P.S. If you are in the Vancouver area, there
will be a gathering of support for Bill in front of the BC Human
Rights Tribunal at 605 Robson St. on Wed. Dec. 12th at noon. Please
join in if you are able.


A Battle for Freedom of Speech and Religious Liberty: Bill Whatcott, the Evangelist, versus Ronan Oger, the Transgendered

                This will be a very expensive Autumn for CAFE. We have intervenor status in the complaint by Ronan Oger, now calling himself Morgane, a transgendered activist who filed a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distributing some 1,500 leaflets during the May, 2017 British Columbia provincial election. Oger, it was publicized,  a vice president of the NDP in B.C., might be the first elected transgendered creature in Canada. Oh, wow!

                But it was not to be. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet argued that the Bible says there are only two sexes: man and woman. If Oger can’t even get his sexuality straight, can he really be trusted to make weighty decisions on finance and other matters. Oger lost in an election that was trending NDP in urban areas. He threw a hissy fit and filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets were discriminatory and wounded his “dignity” on the basis of his sexual identity. It might be argued that a guy who puts on a dress, earings and lipstick has already damaged his own dignity.


Ronan, now “Morgane” Oger

                As bizarre as all this may sound, it’s actually quite serious. Part of our democratic freedoms is the right to support or challenge a candidate on the basis of character and policy. Bill Whatcott very skillfully challenged Oger’s delusions about sexual identity — he was married to a woman and fathered two children — and argued that such confusion raised questions about his suitability for public office. Should the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal find against Mr. Whatcott, we shall be seeing the limiting of one’s right even to criticize someone’s sexual identity. If I wake up one morning and feel I am Napoleon, no one should be compelled to address me as “Emperor”.

             The Tribunal is already insisting that participants play in Oger’s delusional sandbox. In our submissions, we must refer to him as her/she. CAFE refuses to say the Earth is flat. So, our written submissions may seem awkward. Thus, “Oger’s complaint [we will not say, “Morgane”] was filed as retaliation for Oger’s having lost the 2017 election”. You get the picture.

                There is strong reason to suspect that the Tribunal chair (no, that’s a piece of furniture), chairman (oops, that might be sexist), chairwoman (? whatever) is hopelessly biased. As of November 11,  defence has not yet won a single motion. The chairman, Devyn Cousineau (that’s a woman) is a radical pro-lesbian activist and financial donor. For instance, in  each of 2014, 2015, and 2016, she contributed between $100 and $249 to Qmunity, a group dedicated to “building better, queer, trans and 2-spirited lives 365 days of the year” and in 2013 an unspecified sum to the  same cause. We have challenged her to recuse herself on the basis of “a reasonable apprehension of bias”. She has refused, but, perhaps, feeling vulnerable, late in the day asked the government to appoint two more adjudicators to make it a panel of three. The proceedings are getting nasty.

                Oger’s lesbian lawyer is demanding $5,000 in costs before the hearing is even held. Cousineau has not yet ruled on this but notes: “Mr. Whatcott’s public comments are deliberately derogatory towards Ms. Oger. He is also, in colourful terms, highly critical of the Tribunal and me personally and clear in his view that this process is a ‘kangeroo court’.

                CAFE, apparently, is limited to making submissions only on the main argument but not in procedural matters. Because we did make several other submissions, we, too, are under fire. We’ve been threatened. On November 1, Cousineau wrote: “CAFE is cautioned that its conduct in respect of Ms Oger’s costs application was improper [we were not supposed to make a submission] and that I will revoke its intervenor status if its attacks on Ms Oger continue.” [So, you shut up!]

                Let’s just say, things are getting nasty. Mr. Whatcott has an excellent Victoria-based lawyer Charles Lugosi. We have paid for some legal work for our submissions thus far. The Tribunal will run from December 11-17 in Vancouver. I reckon the costs of our participation during the hearing will be $5,000. We desperately need your support today!

              I am heading to Vancouver and the bank account is almost empty! We need your support TODAY. Earlier this year, the globalist censors at PayPal arbitrarily cancelled our account. Thus, we must rely on two old fashioned payment methods:

  1. Mail us a cheque or money order TODAY to CAFE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M94 5L3, CANADA.
  2. Or, if you feel comfortable, send your VISA or Mastercard number in two e-mails (number in one, expiry date in second) topaul@paulfromm.comOR call in this information to 416-428-5308.

                Thanking you in advance for your support for the cause of free speech and, if it is not too politically incorrect, wishing you and your family a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS, I remain,

                                                                                                                Sincerely yours,

                                                                                                                Paul Fromm


                                        CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Radical left planning demo to get Bill Whatcott convicted by BCHRT

Radical left planning demo to get Bill Whatcott convicted by BCHRT

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:16 am
Stacey MacLeod Wakelin’s Facebook Post

It appears the totalitarian left is organizing in support of Mr. Oger’s quest to have me punished by the BC Human Rights Tribunal for correctly gendering him during the last provincial election when he ran as an NDP candidate for the Vancouver-False Creek riding.

I find Stacey’s post fascinating and frustrating. Calling on people to “come out to support Morgane” I get. Though, I can’t think of a more unworthy cause than helping Mr. Oger in his quest to get handsomely compensated for “hurt feelings and loss of dignity” and saddle me with a debt of up to $75,000, because I called him a man (which he is) and told constituents in his riding that God did not want them to vote for him (a democratic activity).

How what they are doing is “standing up to hate” is completely beyond me. I note Stacey is calling on her activists to “not engage with Mr. Whatcott or his supporters.” By not engaging, I suppose they don’t have to answer the simple question of how my flyer is so hateful that they need to support Mr. Oger in his quest to have me dragged before a Tribunal for four days and fined tens of thousands of dollars?

An even more pertinent question I would like to ask Stacey and her protesters, but if they refuse to engage, I guess I can’t is: why do they think it should be illegal to call Mr. Oger a man when indeed he was born with a penis, fathered a child, has 100% male DNA, and self identified as a man until age 43?

Anyways, here is the flyer Stacey and her activists feel strongly enough about to get out on the street to demonstrate in support of Mr. Oger’s quest to have me punished and fined tens of thousands of dollars:


As for me, I am in the process of getting 2,000 flyers printed and I have a number of helpers willing and able to deliver the flyers.

I hope to have signs denouncing BCHRT tyranny, praising Jesus Christ, telling the truth men are men and women are women, all of this is depending on helpers willing to donate time to make the signs and come down to the BCHRT to stand for Christian liberty and the freedom to tell the truth.

Gospel preaching on the steps of the BCHRT, will be Wednesday, December 12, 12:00 pm. Bring a sign and make your presence felt!!!!

For those in Calgary, I will be preaching and teaching at the “Biblical view on homosexuality and sexuality seminar,” December 1st, 2018, Time: 10:00 am – 2:00 pm

If you would like to attend please pre-register with Pastor Art Pawlowski, E-mail:, Phone: 403-607-4434

To help the Whatcott family with the Vancouver Mission and Bill’s trial before the BCHRT: … tt-family/

In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott

“Seek good, and not evil,
that you may live;
and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you,
as you have said.
Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts,
will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.”
Amos 5:14, 15


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: … -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,

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



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:

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:
Phone: 403-607-4434

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.


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


Go Get Funding: … 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