Rebellion rising; the people have had enoughby Jon Rappoport Signs of the times—
Large anti-lockdown protests are sweeping across Europe. Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Poland. The media are trying to put a lid on coverage of these momentous events.
In Southern California, five sheriffs of populous counties (17 million people) are refusing to enforce Governor Newsom’s new curfew order. A petition to recall the governor is gaining steam.
In New York, members of the Chasidic sect held a wedding attended by several thousand people, sitting closely packed without masks.
In a more intimate setting, up close and powerfully personal, gym members and owners in Buffalo, New York, shouted down cops and a public health officer, who had entered the gym because the gathering exceeded the prescribed limit. The gym personnel drove out the cops and followed them, to make sure they left the property.
In Buffalo, protestors came to the house of Erie County Executive, Mark Poloncarz, to express their anger at new lockdown restrictions. The protest was also aimed at New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Sheriffs in Fulton and Erie Counties (New York) are refusing to enforce Thanksgiving lockdowns which limit the number of people in private homes. In various areas of England, police have warned government officials they’re “sitting on a time bomb,” because lockdown rules make it illegal for two or more families to gather together for Christmas—and law-enforcement personnel are permitted to invade homes where violations are occurring. The time bomb is, of course, huge numbers of outraged citizens. In Australia, Qantas airline CEO Alan Joyce announced that travelers will be able to fly only after receiving the COVID vaccine, once it is approved. Soon afterwards, Joyce stood at a podium at an event to give a speech, and a grizzled Aussie walked up to him and shoved a pie in his face. Two women saw New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy eating dinner at a restaurant with his family. He was maskless. “You’re such a dick!” one woman told him. Murphy has just extended his state’s lockdown, the ninth time he has done so since March. At his dinner table, Murphy tried to remain calm. He put on his mask.
Andrew Kudrick, the police chief of Howell Township in New Jersey, says he won’t enforce the governor’s “draconian” limit of 10 people for Thanksgiving dinners.
The CDC has told Americans to stay home for Thanksgiving. Last weekend, two million Americans boarded flights.
In a form of silent protest, 300,000 residents of New York have left the city since pandemic restrictions began.
It should be noted that, among the several hundred thousand (or more) Trump supporters who gathered in Washington DC, at a Stop The Steal rally, few people wore masks, and no one paid attention to social distancing regulations.
Across America, without fanfare, pockets of the economy are wide open—no masks, no distancing, no one is paying attention to government regulations.
The walls of lockdown Medico-Stalinism are cracking, in large ways and small. Actually, there is no small. Every act inspired by the fire of freedom counts.
AND BRITISH
COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
MORGANE OGER
Respondents
PETITION TO
THE COURT
as amended November
24th 2020
ON NOTICE
TO : DAVID EBY Attorney General of British Columbia
PO
Box 9290 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria British Columbia V8W 9J7
BRITISH
COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
1170 605
Robson Street Vancouver BC
V6B 5J3
MORGANE OGER
C/o Allevato Quail and Roy
405 510 West Hastings Street Vancouver
V6B 1L8
Let
all persons whose interests may be affected by the Orders sought TAKE NOTICE that the Petitioner applies to Court for the
Relief set out in this Petition
This
proceeding has been started by WILIAM WHATCOTT, Petitioner, for the relief set out in Part 1, below
If
you intend to respond to this Petition, you or your lawyer must
(
a ) file a Response to Petition in Form 67 in the above-named Registry of this
court within the time for Response to
Petition described below, and
( b ) serve on the Petitioner
( i ) 2 copies of the response to Petition, and
( ii ) 2 copies of each filed
affidavit upon which you intend to rely at the hearing
Orders,
including orders granting relief claimed, may be made against you, without any
further notice to you, if you fail to file the response to petition within the
time for response.
Time for response to Petition
A
response to Petition must be filed and served on the Petitioner,
( a ) if you reside anywhere
within Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed
petition was served on you,
(
b ) If you reside in the united states of America, within 35 days after the
date on which a copy of the filed petition was served on you
( c ) if
you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the
filed petition was served on you, or
(
d ) if the time for response has been set by order of the court, within that time
( 1
) The address of the Registry is :
800 Smithe
Street Vancouver British Columbia
(
2 ) The ADDRESS FOR
SERVICE of the Petitioner, is :
Post
Office Box 47034 Langford British Columbia V9B 5T2
( 3 ) the Petitioner speaks for himself
CLAIM OF
THE PETITIONER
PART 1:
ORDERS SOUGHT
FIRST
For
an Order that, because therewas a reasonable apprehension of bias in
the tribunal from before it even got underway,
its ruling is thus set aside
SECOND
For Declaration that
sections 2 ( a ) 2 ( b ) 2 ( c ) and 2 ( d ) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms do override section 7 ( 1 ) of the B C Human
Rights Code. And for an Order that the ruling of the
Tribunal in the matter of OGER versus WHATCOTT
is thus a nullity
THIRD
For Declaration that section
2 ( b ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms entrains the right of a citizen to receive
expressions of particular information previously unknown to him or her. And for an Order that, as the Tribunal failed to consider
the right of each elector in Vancouver Fraserview riding to receive information
via the publication in question, the Tribunal erred in law
FOURTH
For Declaration that by excluding certain witnesses whom WHATCOTT had called to
testify in his defence, the Tribunal denied him the right to make full answer
in defence
FIFTH
For Declaration that, by preventing the
Defendant testing the veracity of the proposition central to the case, ie,
Complainant’s assertion that he ‘is a woman’ then relying upon it as a fact when there was
no evidence supporting it, the Tribunal
made an error in law
SIXTH
For an Order that
Commissioner Cousineau’s ruling in the BC Human Rights Tribunal matter of OGER versus WHATCOTT,
having been predicated in abovementioned errors of law, is therefore set
aside ; a nullity
PART 2: FACTUAL BASIS
01 the FACTS which form the basis of this
matter are set out best in pages 1 to 3 of the
Amended Additional Response which is Item One in
the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON. At all
times material to his complaint OGER was a vice president of the New Democratic
Party. In the provincial election in
June 2017 he was that party’s candidate in the Vancouver False Creek riding
02 OGER was
born in France. Official records in that
country reflect that he was born a male child, with the birth name “RONAN”.
[ page 44 lines 28 to 47 of the
transcript ] In
Canada, OGER married a woman and had
children with her. At the time those
children were born, Complainant identified himself as “Ronan Oger”.
Official records of the birth of each of his children show ‘Ronan Oger’
as their father. The transcript of the hearing shows OGER pitching to the
Tribunal that the flyer and subsequent commotion arising from it, affected his children. At no time in his
political activity, particularly in his campaign in the 2017 provincial
election, while declaring himself their parent, did OGER ever say that he was not the natural father of those children. Apparently – from his campaign literature /
public appearances – Complainant manipulated the Vital Statistics Branch of
British Columbia to change certain information in official records to pretend
he is now female.
03 After the election OGER originated a
formal complaint to the Human Rights Commision about the flyer in which
WHATCOTT critiqued OGER’s fitness to be elected. Devyn Cousineau was appointed to be the
sole commissioner presiding on the tribunal considering that complaint.
Appointment of Commissioners to preside over Administrative Tribunals falls
under the Ministry of Attorney General.
In the run-up to the hearing,
various citizens notified Attorney General Eby that Cousineau was a
long-time activist promoting the cause of “transgender rights”. AG Eby never dealt with complaints that her
presence on the tribunal was a reasonable apprehension of bias. Rather,
AG Eby appointed two more people to the tribunal with Cousineau in
charge.
04 The
Tribunal proceedings are best described in modern parlance as a charade trying
to give the pretence of impartial adjudication of law but in reality, it was
nothing more than a pro-LGBT kangaroo court in which there was not defence that
WHATCOTT was able to employ that would
have brought about a different result, other than him renouncing the truth that
Mr. Oger is man. To the chagrin of its
members, WHATCOTT correctly referred to
OGER as male, using the correct pronouns
‘he’ and ‘him’ when giving testimony in his own defence. During the hearing
adjudicator Norman Trerise in advertently spoke the truth, referring to OGER
four times using the correct pronouns even though he later concurred with the
other two adjudicators in finding WHATCOTT guilty and assessing additional
costs because WHATCOTT did the same. Diana Jurecivic revealed her bias by
ordering WHATCOTT to remove his teeshirt
that said Mr. Oger was a man, and had the Bible verse “God made them male and
female”
Genesis 5:2. But Jurecivic did
not order the homosexual and transgender activists in the room, to remove their
shirts with pro-LGBT slogans. Ms Jurecivic kept a score of the times WHATCOTT
refused to lie ( as he was ordered by the Tribunal, allegedly, to protect Mr
Oger’s feelings) And tallied each time
WHATCOTT used the correct male pronouns in his defence. The Tribunal refused to
consider that WHATCOTT would literally
be discrediting his own defence, his beliefs and his moral character if he
referred to the Complainant with female or gender-neutral pronouns. In its ruling the Tribunal assessed
WHATCOTT an additional $20,000 in costs,
because he refused to participate in the charade i.e ‘Mr. Oger is a woman’.
05 The
Tribunal delivered its ruling in March 2019.
On May 24th 2019 lawyer Daniel Mol originated a Judicial
Review on behalf of WHATCOTT. On
November 13th 2019 a private
citizen – acting completely independent of lawyer Mol nor WHATCOTT – took it
upon himself to serve Respondents with a copy of the Petition, only. UN-learned in the law, assuming that there
was no requirement to serve them because they were available electronically,
that individual did not serve hard copies of Affidavits which had been filed
when the Petition was originated.
Neither Respondent submitted a Response to that partial service. After May 29 2019 professional lawyer Daniel
Mol took no further step in the matter.
On October 15th 2020 William WHATCOTT took back
personal conduct of this matter. Mr
Mol is not counsel of record.
PART 3 LEGAL
BASIS
06 This Petition is brought in accordance
with the Judicial Review Procedure Act to have a Justice of the Supreme Court review
a ruling of a provincial body. For his
argument for setting aside the ruling of the Tribunal, Petitioner adopts the
reasoning including the authorities, published by his counsel at the hearing,
the Summary a copy of which is Item Three in the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED
UPON. And for certainty : said
reasoning is set out in this PART using letters defining paragraphs instead of
the numbers used in the original.
Reply
to Attorney General Submissions OGERversusWHATCOTT
( a ) At stake is the future of political free
speech. The question is whether the
Province has jurisdiction to regulate the content of political free speech uttered
or stated in a publication in the course of an election campaign.
Is
the Subject Matter Within the Scope of Section 92 (13) read together with 92
(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867
and Within Provincial Jurisdiction ?
General
Response to Paragraphs 30, 36-49 of Attorney General Factum
( b )
In Scowby, Estey J. at p. 233i, determined that the test for deciding
whether a section of a provincial human rights code falls within the
jurisdiction of the province, boils down to the
activities legislated. Housing, employment and
education were all activities that
are in relation to property and civil rights or were matters of a local and
private nature.
( c
) The activity of political free speech is at
issue here. Is there absolute
freedom to discuss the moral fitness of a political candidate running for
public office?
( d
) The Respondent says
that his liberty, personal autonomy, psychological integrity rooted in security
of the person, all guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, is impaired by the coercive reach of s. 7 of the BC Human Rights Code (“Code”). Moreover, his deprivation of these
constitutional freedoms is done by a governmental adjudicative process that
violates fundamental principles of justice.
Rulings made by the Tribunal,
both before and during the hearing, resulted in the abandonment of the
search for truth, a prohibition upon cross-examination of the complainant to
test credibility, the application of a
legal test for liability that eliminates mens
rea, a legal test that eliminates
good faith, a legal test that deems
truth to be irrelevant, deprivation
of a finder of fact composed of a representative jury, and the imposition of an
order compelling speech to conform to gender specific pronouns.
( e
) The result is the
imposition of strict liability based on an objective test of a hypothetical
reasonable person. Although the norm
in judicial review of administrative action is reasonableness, the Respondent says that the appropriate
legal standard can only be one of correctness. This is because what is reasonable to the
average person who forms part of the majority, does not take into consideration
what is reasonable to discrete and insular minorities, who are powerless and
marginalized because of unpopular views.
To counter this imbalance, a finder of fact assessing this case, that is
essentially about democracy, must give weight to unpopular dissenting views
that are perceived as unreasonable or even hateful, by adopting a correctness
standard, instead of a reasonableness standard that will only be certain to
impose liability upon the Respondent.
( f
) The Respondent says
that there is no authority, express or implied, within the scope of s. 92 of the
Constitution Act, 1867 that grants jurisdiction to the province to
regulate the content of political speech in the course of an election
campaign. Section 7 of the Code
strikes at the heart of democracy.
Here is why.
( g
) The prohibition of
alleged hate speech during an election campaign will exacerbate social problems
and not relieve them. Banning free
speech will bottle up steam that needs a way to peacefully vent. Restricting free speech disrespects
individual autonomy and self-determination. The concept of democracy is
self-government by the people. For
the system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be
knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and
ideas. Democracy will not be true to
its essential ideal if there is law that can manipulate the electorate by
withholding information to stifle criticism of the moral fitness of a political
candidate.
( h
)
Democracy thrives when
there is no regulation of the content of free speech during an election. Good
intentions to prevent hurt feelings to targeted candidates harms the political
and democratic process. Free speech,
not human rights law, is the antidote to the social diseases of prejudice and
hate. In this war on free speech, the ultimate casualties are truth and
democracy.
( i
) Whatcott’s flyer
created a golden political opportunity and platform for Oger to expose Whatcott
as a prejudiced bigot and to attack the Bible as a fount of hate
literature. The activities of Whatcott
identified him as a political opponent and revealed the precise nature of his
thinking. This allowed Oger to counter with a strategic political response, by using religious clergy to oppose the
biblical authorities cited by Whatcott.
( j
) The effect of legally supressing
unwelcome political speech will outrage and alienate those who share Whatcott’s
beliefs and views. This consequence
marginalizes minorities who may then view the legal order as illegitimate and
regard the electoral and democratic process as a one-sided sham. History teaches us that suppressing
peaceful political speech in the short term can eventually lead to violence and
illegal means to accomplish political goals.
Conflicts are inevitable in any society, but what sets democracy apart
from other political systems is that it offers the means to resolve conflicts
peacefully without violence.
( k
) Regulating political speech means
that the majority and “reasonable” viewpoint in society will attain power that
can lead to abuse. Classifying dissenting minority speech as unprotected “hate”
speech, will be an easy means to attack moralists who quote the Bible, and to
expose people like Whatcott to detestation and vilification by the general
public. People like Oger will use s.
7 as a shield to defend dominant groups that have protected status in law, and
used like a sword to punish Whatcott, by stifling his political speech and to
financially and socially destroy him, labeling him a hater and relegating him
to marginal existence, all because Whatcott decided to meaningfully participate
in the democratic electoral process and to manifest his religious faith.
( l
) The irony is that outliers and
dissenters who are most in need of speech protection, will be denied that
protection by any finding that s. 7 of the Code is constitutional and may
regulate the content of political free speech. If the Tribunal disempowers those who
advance biblical authority to justly criticize the moral fitness of a political
candidate for public office, the enemies of Whatcott and what he stands for,
will have cleverly set the stage for a direct attack on the Bible itself, as
cesspool filled with hate literature, that condemns the immoral to eternal
suffering and punishment for sin.
All this will flow from an innocuous complaint regarding the content of
a political and religious flyer that has not a shred or hint of posing any
clear or present danger of criminal activity or hatred to the person of Oger or
to anyone else associated with Oger’s gender identity.
( m
) All these aforementioned
activities cannot be said to have any rational connection to the powers granted
to a provincial government under s. 92.
The inevitable conclusion is that s. 7 of the Code poses a grave threat
to the very foundations of democracy itself.
( n )
Regulating the content of political
free speech and thus restricting Whatcott’s public participation in the
democratic electoral political process is incompatible with a free and
democratic society.
( o
) If s. 7 of the Code is
constitutional, then the provincial government will have the authority to
regulate the content of political expression during an election. Such a finding
is opposite to the conclusion of the Tribunal in CJC v.
North Shore News, para. 190, “Thus
s. 7(1)(b) does not in any way restrict hateful expressions that are likely to
expose … politicians … to hatred or contempt, because of their political affiliations
…” Close scrutiny of Whatcott’s flyer
reveals that his goal was to persuade other voters not to vote for the
NDP, a political party advocating the
political, legal, and social agenda of Oger,
who is the current Vice-President of that same party.
( p
) The content of political free
speech cannot be limited by provincial law, as this activity is outside the
scope of s. 92 and arguably also s. 91.
The written and unwritten constitution of Canada is a legal instrument
that is superior to any positive law passed by any provincial government or by
the federal government. Unregulated political free speech is in its own
right, is a political institution of the highest order, enshrined by both the
implied bill of rights found in the unwritten constitution and in the Constitution Act, 1982. Support for this is found in the Keegstra decision, where freedom of
expression is regarded as the most powerful of all the s. 2 Charter rights. See: Brunner, p. 302.
( q
) In Switzman v. Elbing, at p. 328 [SCR], Abbott J. stated, “… neither a
provincial legislature nor Parliament itself can ‘abrogate this right of
discussion and debate.’” Political free
speech is the lifeblood of democracy.
Political free speech, like the air itself, is not confined to the
physical limits of a building housing the elected members of parliament or the
legislature, but extends everywhere as a treasured political institution that
is at its highest level of importance, during an election campaign, when the
freedom to choose a candidate is at stake.
( r
) In this case, the Whatcott flyer
injects truth and Christian morality into the political debate, to dissuade
voters from electing a party that nominated an individual perceived by Whatcott
to be morally unfit. To mischaracterize
a flyer intended to be the sunlight of truth as the darkness of hate,
disregards the rule of law, which permits citizens to “explain, criticize,
debate and discuss in the freest possible manner such matters as the qualifications
… and social principles …” of a political candidate. See pp. 327-8, per Abbott J. in Switzman.
( s
) Do moral virtues and social
principles derived from Judeo-Christian authority that informed the genesis and
development of the common law and the rule of law still matter today? If the
answer is yes, the message that Whatcott preached through his flyer cannot be
properly interpreted as hateful at all.
( t
) While gender identity and
expression is be legal as a protected class under human rights legislation,
there is a hot political opposition from some feminists who argue that this
kind of activity is unwelcome gender misappropriation, offensive to biological
women. Does this mean that all
political opposition to the legal status
quo is uniformly hateful, whether based in feminist theory or in Christian
doctrine? If only Christian doctrine is
viewed as hateful, is this not bigotry and hate toward Christianity itself,
manifested as Christphobia?
( u
) The human rights legislation
includes religion as a protected class too.
Is not the depiction of Whatcott’s flyer as hate, also an indirect
attack on the Bible itself as hate literature? Where is the jurisdiction in the
province to make a determination that the holy book of a major established
religion is hate speech and cannot be quoted in an election to oppose the
morality, political platform, and social principles of a political
candidate? Assuming there is a hate
finding against Whatcott, is this not State discrimination against Christian
evangelists and activists, contrary to the statutory policies of the Code? Where is the jurisdiction in the division
of powers that allocates such a sweeping mandate to a province? There is none.
( v
) A political proposal to repeal the
protection of those people who identify as transgender might be regarded by
some as hateful, and the subject of a complaint to the human rights tribunal.
But however repulsive Whatcott’s political actions might be to Oger, who lobbied
to amend the Code to protect gender identity, CJC Duff ruled in Reference re Alberta Statutes, at pp.
133-4 that “every point of view” is legitimate in both the advancement and in
the attack upon political proposals.
This freedom is governed by criminal laws that protect public order from
violence and protects by tort law the reputation of individuals from
defamation. Duff CJC does not identify the truth as a limitation that may be
restricted by law.
Is
the Subject Matter Within the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Criminal Law, s. 91
(27) Constitution Act, 1867 ?
Specific Response to Paragraph 40,
AG Factum
( w
) The imposition of a penal
sanction, such as the deprivation of physical liberty for a predetermined
period of time, is not the only identifying characteristic of criminal law
regarding the classification of legislation to be in pith and substance
criminal law. Whatcott faces the
possible lifetime deprivation of his liberty to evangelize, to manifest his
religion in the public square, and to use the pronouns he chooses. He also risks losing his freedom to express
his conscience and to publicly rebuke immorality, as part of his participation
in a democratic election to urge voters not to vote for a candidate or a
political party, or both, that he believes is morally unfit to hold public
office and to exercise power. These
infringements of liberty are far more insidious and restrictive of personal
liberty and his psychological integrity, which is integral to his security of
the person, than incarceration that imposes no control over the mind.
( x
) Section 7 of the Code resurrects
the crime of seditious libel that was once regulated in the Criminal Code. Exclusive jurisdiction
for the regulation of hate speech as a crime is conferred upon the federal
government by s. 91(27). The Keegstra decision is an illustration of
the exclusive authority of the federal government to regulate hate speech.
( y
) In this case, Oger asked the
police to bring a hate crime prosecution against Whatcott. No charges were laid. That ought to
have been the end of the matter. It is a
violation of the rule of law and the division of powers to use human rights
legislation as criminal law to accomplish the suppression of Whatcott’s views.
( z
) Had Whatcott been charged with a
hate crime, he was entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt, to test the credibility of Oger, to rely upon the defence
of truth, to the admission of expert evidence from Dr. Gutowski, allotted more
time to cross-examine and to make legal submissions, and if indicted, to be
tried by a judge and a jury, just to name a few due process protections
available under criminal law. Whatcott
would have been far better off to be criminally charged and undoubtedly
acquitted.
( aa )
The test for charge approval is that there is no likelihood of conviction and
that it is not in the public interest to proceed. That was the right decision.
( bb
) However, s. 7 of the Code is
bereft of the due process requirements of criminal law. In effect, Whatcott is unconstitutionally
prosecuted for a human rights hate crime that is not only outside the
jurisdiction of the province, but also
is shamefully lacking legislative safeguards that ensure due process.
( cc
) The penal sanctions test deserved
more than just a cursory look by the Attorney General to see if the Tribunal
has the power to jail Whatcott or not. A proper analysis begins with the finding
of liability. A finding of liability under the applicable statute attaches
moral culpability and social stigma to the offender. The sanctions imposed by
both a sentencing judge for a criminal offence and for a human rights offence
are the same. The sanctions are designed to compel behaviour modification.
( dd
) Behaviour modification is the goal
of sanctions that are designed to denounce, deter, rehabilitate and make
reparations to the complainant and to society at large. In this case, this Tribunal is asked by
Oger to make a finding of liability; to make a declaration that s. 7 of the
Code was violated; to impose costs of $35,000 for alleged defiant and
disrespectful behaviour, both in and out of the sight of the Tribunal members;
to assess a severe monetary penalty of $35,000 to punish for the public
expression of alleged hateful thoughts and ideas that allegedly harmed Oger’s
dignity and reputation, to pay an unspecified large sum of money to a
transgender-rights organization to pay for harm done to the larger transgender
societal community; for an order that Whatcott be compelled to be re-educated
by participating in a school designed to teach him a better understanding of
gender identity, with the goal to humble and humiliate Whatcott by indoctrinating
him with the Tribunal’s view of Whatcott’s legal obligations under the
Code.
( ee
) Denunciation is accomplished by
the declaration that Whatcott violated the Code and amounts to a societal
miscreant who is a hateful bigot. The
monetary penalty of $35,000 for harming Oger’s dignity and reputation serves as
a deterrent to both Whatcott and others who might follow his example.
The monetary penalty of $35,000
in costs also serves to deter Whatcott and others from criticizing the lack of
due process, coercion and bias alleged by Whatcott to have permeated the human
rights proceedings. The coerced
donation to an organization supporting what Whatcott considers to be immoral
political, social and cultural goals is designed to make reparations to a
certain segment of society that identifies with the political advocacy of
Oger. The order for coerced
re-education is designed to rehabilitate Whatcott in the hopes that his
thinking and behaviour will conform in the future to transgender values and
objectives. The individual and
collective sum of all these sanctions amount to behaviour modification through
a combination of financial penalties, social stigma, and forced re-education of
his mind by social engineering.
( ff
) These sanctions are indeed penal
and to anyone with a sound knowledge of criminal law, recognize that these
sanctions follow the basic principles of criminal law sentencing. In fact, the
sanctions sought are more comprehensive and more draconian than simply a fine
and a term of probation with conditions that is normally imposed as sanctions
for summary conviction offences that result in a criminal record.
( gg
) A human rights record is no less
odious than a criminal law record, and is perhaps even worse, because there is
no process for a human rights pardon.
Whatcott faces a lifetime of unemployment. No employer is required to
hire an individual deemed by law to be a hate monger. He will be discriminated
against, in spite of his Christian beliefs. Social isolation, ostracism and
expulsion are other consequences. For
an indigent individual like Whatcott, bankruptcy looms, and the financial
penalties affect not only him, but his wife and two young children. Compulsory
re-education imposes the state’s will upon Whatcott’s security of the person,
in a similar manner to a judge unconstitutionally ordering the castration of a
convicted sexual offender or the forced ingestion of unwanted prescription
drugs upon a convicted person, to modify that individual’s behaviour and mental
state. Compulsory re-education at a
facility amounts in principle to a form of temporary incarceration to brainwash
Whatcott so that he will modify his Christian beliefs to accept transgenderism. This sanction is similar to the current
situation in China where over a million Muslim Chinese are confined to a
detention facility to modify their religious beliefs so that the prevailing
orthodox view of the secular state is unchallenged in society.
( hh ) For the Attorney
General to conclude without any substantive analysis in paragraph 40 that “there is no penal sanction that could
possibly make this [legislation] criminal law,” ignores the provisions of the
human rights legislation, that permit
sanctions that follow the principles of behavior modification and sentencing
utilized in criminal and human law.
( ii )
There is no doubt that s. 7 of the
Code in pith and substance is criminal law.
Rand J. at pp. 12-13 [SCR] ruled in Switzman
that prohibiting any part of political free speech “as an evil would be within
the scope of criminal law,” and then referred to sections of the Criminal Code that dealt with sedition.
( jj
) Section 7 of the Code, according
to the AG in para. 40, does not specifically ban the propagation of a political
belief. If that is the case, why was
this case not dismissed at an early stage upon the application of
Whatcott? The evidence in this case
is clear that Whatcott was expressing a political belief that was grounded in
Christian morality.
( kk
) Duff, CJC read s. 92(13) and s.
92(16) together in Reference re: Alberta
Legislation. At p. 26 [SCR] Duff
summed up the law that leaves no doubt that s. 7 of the Code falls outside
provincial jurisdiction: “Democracy
cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all
matters affecting the State within the limits
set by the criminal code and the common
law. Every inhabitant … is also a
citizen … The province may deal with his property and civil rights of a local
and private nature within the province;
but the province cannot interfere
with his status as a Canadian citizen and his fundamental right to express
freely his untrammelled opinion about government policies and discuss matters of public concern.” [My emphasis]
( ll
) This conclusion is supported in
para. 47 of the AG factum. In OPSEU, Beetz J. held, “… neither
Parliament nor the provincial legislatures may enact legislation the effect of
which would be to substantially interfere with the operation of this basic
constitutional structure.” The
structure is the right to abrogate the right of free public discussion and debate
referred to in the immediately preceding authorities cited, of Switzman and Alberta Statutes.
( mm )
The law is clear: the mandatory and
prohibitory provisions of s. 7 of the Code are ultra vires of the provincial legislature.
07 Section 32 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code Application of Administrative Tribunals Act to
tribunal, particularly, its section ( i ) states section 45 [ tribunal without jurisdiction over Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues ]. Cousineau et al. were statute-barred from
entertaining the OGER complaint until Charter issues had been canvassed in the Supreme
Court of B C. As a
lawyer knowing perfectly-well that
the matter invokes the Charter ab initio, and that the Defendant had
already voiced such defence to the Commission in the run-up to the
hearing, Commissioner Cousineau ought
not to have gone ahead with OGER’s complaint, at all.
08 UN-learned
in the law as he was prior to the hearing,
it was not incumbent upon WHATCOTT to point out to the tribunal that the
BC Human
Rights Code is fatally-flawed. Even if he was remiss in not challenging
that aspect in the run-up, he hereby
raises it now pursuant to section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
AS REGARDING
THE THIRD DECLARATION
AND ORDER SOUGHT
09 Several
people applied to Intervene in the hearing but were denied standing. One of them being Gordon S Watson, who had
stood as a candidate in the provincial election of 2001. He funded part of the cost of publishing the
flyer in question. Watson’s submission
to the Tribunal prior to the hearing proves he did intend to argue that the
reciprocal of the right to expression, is the right to receive information.
Thus every one, whether known to a
publisher or not, has the right to receive new information by any and all
media, especially the free press. And
that as an Intervenor he could best make this argument. Shutting out his pitch re such right directly
on-point legitimacy of speech in the fray of the election, the Tribunal evaded its duty to hear from a
stake-holder as it dealt with a kind of complaint never encountered before.
REASONABLE APPREHENSION
OF BIAS
10 Because of
the fact that political activist Cousineau had been appointed to preside over
the OGER WHATCOTT matter, when it was well known she was a longtime activist in
the “trans-gender” cause, there was apprehension of glaring bias such that the
Tribunal was convened illegally ab initio.
Item four the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON, find a photograph of her in
full throat in her activist mode. The
location, ie. on the public sidewalk outside the MLA constituency office of
Premier Clark, is important.
MLA Christie Clark – miraculously – moved the “transgender” amendment to the B C
Human Rights Code through the Legislature via
3 readings in one day, while the gallery was packed with supporters of that
political cause.
11 Any
reasonable person who learned that AG EBY had picked Cousineau to preside on
the OGER WHATCOTT matter, involving this vice president of the New Democratic
Party ( OGER ) can see that that was done so the goal of OGER and Cousineau’s
personal political campaign would have the color of law. Allowing this matter
to go ahead under Cousineau, after
her bias had been brought to his attention, AG Eby knowingly evaded his duty to
ensure WHATCOTT’s civil right to due process of law
: ‘the fix was in’ and the Attorney General himself was in on the fix.
12 After
the fact, Cousineau’s prejudice is
proven in her Reasons where she changed the very words spoken in the hearing,
inserting feminine pronouns where the official transcript shows WHATCOTT having
used “he” “his” “him” when referring to OGER.
13 The nature of evidence is
that it can be tested. If it cannot be tested, it isn’t evidence
Had
OGER’s core delusion been put to the test in cross-examination, his credibility
would have been ruined. Example being, at page 47 lines 43- 44 of the
transcript of examination in Chief, where OGER
relates an exchange with someone who believes he is mentally ill. For
the Tribunal to prevent WHATCOTT’s counsel from testing OGER’s assertions that
he was somehow ‘a mom … her children … who she is’ [ lines 17 to 20 page 41 transcript of his
evidence in Chief ]
while relying upon that absurdity as a fact, is an error of law.
14 Compelling
his accuser to take the witness stand so he can be exposed as a liar is a
fundamental right of a Defendant within British jurisdiction. This right is long established … predating
the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. WHATCOTT was entitled to exercise that right
in order get at the facts regarding OGER’s mental state, especially the
delusion that he “is a woman”. The term for the mental
illness suffered by OGER is gender dysphoria. Such people are
“brittle” personalities. When their
preposterous self image is challenged, they come un-glued. Based on its acceptance that what the
Complainant said was so, but for which there was not a scintilla of evidence
then the Tribunal’s ruling is as patently absurd as OGER’s belief he “is”
a woman.
PART 4: MATERIALS TO
BE RELIED UPON
Item One Amended Additional Response
Item Two Supplemental Submissions
December 16th 2018
Item Three Summary of Whatcott’s
defence December 21 2018
Item Four photograph of political
activist Devyn Cousineau in full throat
outside the
constituency office of MLA Christie Clark
Item Five application by Gordon S
Watson for status as Intervenor
Such other affidavits as Petitioner may come up with, and be permitted, prior
to the hearing
Petitioner
estimates that the Review will take one full day of Court.
All of which is respectfully submitted
Dated
this 24th day of November 2020 A. D.
______
__________________
signature
of Gordon S Watson
Agent for Petitioner WILLIAM WHATCOTT
A number of Canadian journalists and pundits are not happy about a Toronto small business defying Ontario’s lockdown orders.
On Wednesday, the owner of Adamson Barbecue Adam Skelly opened his
doors a second time for indoor dining in defiance of the province’s
latest coronavirus restrictions.
Although Skelly received a lot of support from Canadians, a few
journalists expressed their unhappiness with his business re-opening.
CTV pundit tells business owner to “get bent” calls for restaurant to be chained up
On Tuesday afternoon, CTV News correspondent Scott Reid tweeted in
response to Adamson Barbecue’s re-opening by saying that authorities to
“chain the joint” and for Skelly to “get bent.”
According to Reid’s LinkedIn, he has been a correspondent with the
national news agency since 2011 and he was once the Director of
Communications for Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin from 2003 to
2006.
CP24 editor gloats about small business getting shut down
While local officials were notifying Skelly that his business had
been ordered to close, CP24 Managing Editor Stephanie Smyth commemorated
the event by taking a jab at the small business owner on Twitter.
The tweet which has since been deleted shows Smyth telling Skelly “you’re getting shut down.”
Nora Loreto accuses business owner of “extreme white guy energy” and cries racism
Controversial freelance writer and commentator Nora Loreto took the
opportunity to lecture fellow journalists for not making the Adamson
Barbecue story about race.
Loreto then went on to say that “it’s just extreme white guy energy to pull of [sic] what he’s trying in Etobicoke…”
Far-left journalist and editor says business owner is trying to make “more of a profit”
Journalist and editor of the far-left publication, Passage, Davide
Mastracci suggested in a tweet on Wednesday that Skelly was violating
lockdown orders to try and make a profit for his business.
Earlier this month, Mastracci was advocating for TV journalists to be banned from wearing a Remembrance Day poppy while on air.
Toronto Star journalist complains about Trump hats and children eating inside
Toronto Star reporter Jennifer Pagliaro, who was on scene for Adamson
BBQ’s opening on Wednesday live-tweeted a thread in which she
complained about restaurant patrons wearing Trump hats and a family with
children enjoying their dine-in meal.
In an opinion article
published that day, Pagliaro was also quoted as saying that being at
the restaurant “felt the way I imagine it felt like at Trump rallies.”
We’ve been asked to stay off the property so I can’t see what enforcement is up to but @rlautens tells me one possible patron has a Trump hat on— Jennifer Pagliaro (@jpags) November 24, 2020
A family with small children continues to enjoy their food at a windowside table as a country tune plays— Jennifer Pagliaro (@jpags) November 24, 2020
Columnist accuses business owner of having a “child’s selfishness”
In a column
published on Wednesday, Toronto Star columnist Bruce Arthur referred to
Skelly’s actions as “a child’s selfishness” and of having
“misinformation brain.”
“This is misinformation brain, in action,” wrote Arthur.
“We shouldn’t join the people who confuse a child’s selfishness with
freedom; instead, we should support our local businesses as best we can
without endangering one another, and governments should add to that
support, as soon as it can.”
Unfortunately, due to
the recent orders by the B.C. Gov’t, including Bonnie Henry and Mike Farnworth, our planned November
29, 2020 CLEAR opening has been postponed until January. This was brought to our
attention on Tuesday.
We are looking at all possible options right now and hope to be able to re-schedule this important event and
presentation as soon as possible. If you have informed anyone of our event, please let them
know of this postponement.
We are truly sorry for any inconvenience this may have
caused. Fortunately, the organization in
charge of the building we were going to use, is taking serious pro-active
actions against the gov’t in relation to what has happened. However, a decision was made by the organization
to postpone our opening to accommodate the actions that they are
planning.
I understand and respect their position, and courage to
challenge the Government on these issues, and we need to remember the blame
lies fully and completely with Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government, none of us
personally. It our hope to be able to offer this presentation and event shortly.
If you have any questions or comments, please email me at: clear2012@pm.me.
Thank
you to everyone for your patience and understanding. If anything, this
should strengthen our resolve to refuse to comply.
Our rallies throughout the Okanagan will continue every Saturday in Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton as part of our
ongoing opposition to theGovernment actions as well. More details in our next email update on Thursday.
Salon owner facing £27,000 fine after quoting Magna Carta to defy lockdown
A salon owner who refused to close during England’s current lockdown has been given a £27,000 fine. Sinead Quinn, who runs Quin Blakey Hairdressers, was initially fined £1,000 for staying open after November 5.
She stayed open and further fines were issued. She tried to use the Magna Carta as a defence of her decision to stay open. However, the law she cited – Clause 61, offering 25 barons the right to lawfully dissent or rebel if they thought they were being governed unjustly – was repealed and never incorporated into English law.
Kirklees Council ordered her to pay £4,000 on Saturday and police issued another two £10,000 fines when she opened again on Monday and Tuesday.
Quinn had previously shared videos of herself arguing with council officials and police on Instagram. In one clip she could be seen telling them she didn’t consent to the ‘unlawful’ fines, and cited ‘common law’ in her defence. On Tuesday Quinn shared a picture of a police car outside the salon and captioned it: ‘This is what your tax paying money goes toward. Sitting outside my business whilst I’m lawfully earning a living.’ In another video she accused the police of ‘stalking’ her.
Hairdresser Sinead Quinn She previously put the Magna Carta up in the salon’s door (Picture: Instagram) Police fine the salon Officers have visited the salon twice this week (Picture: Bradford T&A / SWNS)
Kirklees is currently among the most infected areas in England, with a rate of 446.4 cases per 100,000 people in the seven days to November 19. The council said in a statement: ‘It is absolutely crucial for people’s safety that we all follow the latest Covid-19 rules and guidance. ‘Kirklees currently has the fifth highest rates in the country, with 135 people admitted to hospital last week and 25 sadly losing their lives to a Covid-19 related death.
The salon sign The Magna Carta can not be used as a defence in court (Picture: Bradford T&A / SWNS) Quinn Blakey Hairdressing, on Bradford Road, Oakenshaw is visited by two PCSOs as they appeared to be staying open in defiance of lockdown restrictiond, November 10 2020. See SWNS story SWLEhair.
A hair salon appears to have rebelled against the current lockdown rules by staying open despite the tightened coronavirus restrictions. Quinn Blakey Hairdressing, on Bradford Road, Oakenshaw, was seemingly open for business yesterday and at one point, police community support officers arrived at the premises.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered certain businesses – including hairdressers – to close from November 5 in the face of rising Covid-19 cases. On the same day, a post on the salon?s Facebook page said: ?I earned this week?s rent today, not sure where I would be pulling that money from given the government want self employed business people to wait SIX WEEKS for a payment. She has received £27,000 in fines (Picture: Bradford T&A / SWNS)
‘The law set by the Government is there so we can bring infection rates down, ease pressure on our health services and save lives. ‘But it only works if we all stick to it and realise that no one is above the law. Frankly, the actions taken by this business are selfish and irresponsible. ‘We will not hesitate to take action on anyone who breaches the rules that are in place to keep us all safe. Repeated breaches of Covid-19 regulations result in ever increasing fines up to £10,000 and eventually prosecution.’
Yesterday, a group of public figures, including authors, signed a letter in Harpers, effectively denouncing cancel culture.
They suggest that we are living in a
society where individuals cannot speak out or voice dissenting opinions
because they will face backlash, including being fired from their job, for voicing or giving a platform to controversial views. This is similar to a question employees raise with respect to their employer: can I be fired for what I post on my social media or opinions I express in my workplace?
In Ontario, the short answer is yes.
This answer may be surprising to many because the response I often receive from clients is, “what about my right to free speech?”. While free expression (which is broader than speech) is a Charter protected right, it does not provide the type of protection most people expect it to and is generally misunderstood. This blog attempts to clear up a few of the frequent misconceptions I hear about free expression in Canada and explain why an employer can discipline you for offensive comments.
Free expression (and all Charter rights) only applies to government actions that limit those rights.
Misconceptions about free expression
Free expression (and all Charter rights) only applies to government actions that limit those rights. In other words, if you work for a private corporation the Charter does not
apply to your employer’s actions. If you work for the government, then
you may have a right to express yourself; however even that has limits. So, unless you work for the government, you are not being denied a Charter right if you are fired for voicing an opinion.
Similarly, and contrary to the views of the authors of the Harper’s piece, even if free expression applies,
dissent to your opinions or even telling you to stop voicing those
opinions is not contrary to the principle of free expression. The
concept of free expression comes from the idea of a marketplace of
ideas. The marketplace of ideas is a capitalist concept that in a free
society we allow all ideas to come to a market, where they can be
debated and discussed. The superior ideas thrive and become accepted by society, while the inferior or offensive ideas are rejected.
To use pharmaceuticals as an analogy: when drug companies come to market with new products that help people, those products become widely used. When companies come to market with products that do not
work or hurt people, the market rejects those products. If the drug
company keeps coming back to the market with the same product that hurt
people, or releases one product that seriously harms people, Shoppers
Drug Mart will stop carrying that brand.
Free expression is meant to operate in the
same way. To take Jordan Peterson as an example, he has had numerous
opportunities to express his opinions, including as an author and
university professor. Most people rightfully called out his comments as
offensive and hurtful, stopped reading him, and when he continued to
voice those same opinions, eventually insisted that institutions refuse
to provide him a platform. While numerous people said this was
inconsistent with free expression, it was in fact the point of free
expression: the marketplace has rejected his ideas.
Free expression is not whack-a-mole, where JK Rowling and Jordan Peterson get to keep voicing the same transphobic comments without consequence and society has to keep bashing them with a hammer, despite what the authors of the Harpers letter said. Society can reject, shame and cancel that person for continuing to come to the market to insist that their harmful views be expressed.
In summary, free expression does not apply
to your employer (unless you work for the government) and does not
provide you with a platform to repeatedly voice harmful opinions.
Back to the main question: can I be fired?
In Ontario, you can be fired for almost anything, so the better question that you should ask is: can I be fired for just cause for voicing my opinion. The answer to that is maybe. Just cause is where your employer
terminates you without notice or compensation. Courts apply a highly
contextual approach, particularly for off-duty comments, to determine
whether you can be fired without compensation for what you say. It will
depend on the comments themselves, how often you commented, who you said
it to, whether the employer previously condemned the comments, the
impact the comments had on your employer, and a variety of other
factors.
It is difficult for an employer to convince a judge that it had just cause to terminate someone, so most just fire people without cause, by providing them with notice of termination with no reasons (see our other blogs about the amount of severance you might be entitled to here). In
other words, if your employer is concerned about opinions you have
voiced, and doesn’t want to fight about just cause, it can fire you by
paying you out and you would have no way to fight it. While there are
some exceptions to this (for example if you were voicing concerns
related to health and safety, human rights, or Employment Standards),
you generally have no way of challenging this.
This is particularly true because
employers are beginning to recognize that they must do more to address
racism and discrimination in the workforce. One of the ways they must do this is by immediately addressing harmful expression made both in and outside the workplace that hurts other staff or customers.
As such, if your employer fires you for voicing an opinion, there is very little you can do the challenge that decision, unless they allege cause.
B.C. man faces strict conditions after breaching sentence for anti-Semitic hate crimes
Judge prohibits Arthur Topham from publicly posting about Jewish people, the Talmud, Zionism and Israel
Betsy Trumpener · CBC News · Posted: Nov 23, 2020 3:42 PM PT | Last Updated: November 23
Arthur
Topham enters the Quesnel, B.C., court house in 2015, where he was
convicted of willfully promoting hatred during a jury trial. (Betsy Trumpener/CBC)
A
B.C. man convicted of an online hate crime is facing strict new rules
on his public expression after breaching his sentencing conditions.
Arthur
Topham, who ran a publication from his rural home near the central
Interior city of Quesnel, was convicted in 2015 of communicating online
statements that wilfully promoted hatred against Jewish people.
As
part of his sentence, Topham was forbidden from publishing or publicly
posting information about “persons of Jewish religion or ethnic
origin.”
But In October, a provincial court judge ruled Topham had breached that condition by creating new posts throughout 2018.
Late
last week, the judge sentenced Topham to a 30-day conditional sentence
and three years probation for the breach, placing strict new conditions
on Topham’s public posts.
“Justice has been served,” the B’nai Brith’s Ran Ukashi. “There’s a price to pay for these kinds of actions. (B’nai Brith/Contributed)
For
the next three years, Topham is forbidden from publishing or printing
publicly any reference to or information about the Talmud, Zionism,
Israel, and the Jewish religion, ethnicity or people.
Topham is also forbidden from publicly posting the names of people he knows to be of Jewish origin.
According
to court documents, he will still be allowed to publicly name his wife
and her family, but not to mention their ethnicity or origin. During his
original trial, Topham told the court his wife is Jewish.
In
addition to the terms of his three-year probation, Topham will serve
a 30-day conditional sentence, with a nightly curfew and a requirement
to remain in B.C. He’s also prohibited from having weapons, liquor, or
alcohol.
“Justice
has been served,” said Ran Ukashi, National Director with B’nai Brith, a
Jewish advocacy group that’s been closely following the case.
“It serves as a deterrent for others, to realize there are consequences, there’s a price to pay,” said Ukashi.
Self-proclaimed
“white nationalist” Paul Fromm contributed to Arthur Topham’s defence
fund and travelled to Quesnel to attend Topham’s 2015 trial. (Betsy Trumpener/CBC)
“There
are limits to … free speech and promoting hatred against identifiable
groups is not on,” he said.”This person has been given opportunity after
opportunity to not behave this way.”
A retired teacher now in
his 70s, Topham was first charged in 2012. A website he produced
featured frequent posts with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and
demonized Jewish people, according to evidence at his trial.
Arthur
Topham arrived at the Quesnel courthouse for sentencing on his hate
crime conviction in 2017. He’s since been convicted of breaching the
terms of his sentence. (Faith Fundal/CBC News)
At
his original trial in 2015, Topham’s lawyer argued the posts were
political satire, did not incite violence, and included materials that
could easily be ordered on Amazon.
Topham’s case was the first hate crime prosecution in B.C. in almost a decade.
It
drew support from the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, which
champions free speech, as well as from self-proclaimed “white
nationalists,” who attended Topham’s jury trial in the Quesnel
courthouse, 700 km northeast of Vancouver.
Paul Fromm helped to fund Topham’s defence and covered his trial through video blogs from Quesnel. Monika Schaefer, who served jail time in Germany for Holocaust denial, also attended court.
Euro ‘Anti-Hate’ Group Boss Discussed ‘Necessity’ of Killing Whites
Concern After European ‘Anti-Hate’ Group Boss Discussed ‘Necessity’ of Killing White People
PATRICIA DE MELO MOREIRA/AFP via Getty ImagesChris Tomlinson24 Nov 20204102:20
Mamadou
Ba, head of the Portuguese “anti-hate” group SOS Racismo, spoke of the
need to “kill the white man” at a recent online conference on “hate
speech”.
Ba,
a Portuguese citizen originally from Senegal, attended the conference
on Saturday which was on the topic of “Racism and the Advancement of
Hate Speech in the World”.
During
the conference, which was attended by Portuguese speakers from Portugal
and Brazil, Ba stated “it is necessary to kill the white man, murderer,
colonial, and racist” to “prevent the social death of the black
political subject”.
According to a report from Portuguese daily newspaper Correio da Manhã,
the statement was a quote from Algerian far-left anti-colonialist
political philosopher Frantz Fanon, who openly advocated for violence
during the French rule of Algeria in his seminal work The Wretched of the Earth.
The
newspaper states that it is not clear whether Ba was quoting the
far-left philosopher, but said it was presumed he did so in agreement.
“Refutation
is part of the proposition, but what matters most to combat hate speech
is to propose a new narrative,” Ba said during the online meeting.
Earlier
this year, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), which is
partnered with Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros’s Open
Society Foundations, called for support of SOS Rascimo, which it described as one of the “founding members” of the ENAR.
According
to the ENAR, Ba and other activists had been sent threats online, and
Ba himself had received a letter with a bullet casing inside it.
The
incident is not the first controversial moment for a so-called
“anti-hate” group in Europe, many of which have direct ties to both Open
Society Foundations and George Soros, such as Hope Not Hate in the UK
which was identified in a Swedish military report on far-left extremism in 2018.
In Germany, the anti-hate Amadeau Antonio Stiftung, headed by former Stasi informant Anetta Kahane, sparked controversy after releasing a guide for schools to spot “Nazi parents”.
Hanover minister fined twice for breaking pandemic rules
Written by Shannon Dueck
Tuesday, Nov 24, 11:42 AM
A minister in southeastern Manitoba has been issued two separate tickets for failing to comply with COVID-19 regulations.
Tobias Tissen is with Church of God, located off Highway 12, about
nine miles south of Steinbach. On Monday, he was visited by several RCMP
officers and provincial officers who issued him two tickets worth
$1,296 each. The visit was filmed by Tissen and shared on Facebook.
In the video, the officers identified that the first ticket was for
attending a large gathering. The gathering they are referring to is the
anti-mask protest held in Steinbach on November 14th. The second ticket
was for failing to comply with a public health emergency order under the
Public Health Act. This was with respect to the fact his church held a
service on November 22 with well over 100 people in attendance.
“I’m drawing very close similarities to the Gestapo in Germany. I’m
from Germany, my ancestors are from there,” says Tissen in the video.
“And what you are doing is very similar, enforcing laws that are making
the citizens vulnerable, losing sleep, making them stressful. And I pray
to God that one day all these unjust things will be straightened. And
I’m confident that it will.”
Meanwhile, the province today provided an update on enforcement
related to the protest held in Steinbach on November 14. To date, 16
tickets have been sworn and more are expected to receive tickets as the
investigation continues. One person who attended a subsequent event at
the Legislative Building in Winnipeg on November 21 was identified and
served with a ticket for their participation in the earlier event.
According to the province, enforcement officials are also
investigating the church service held over the weekend. It says, one
individual received a $1,296 ticket and more tickets for other
participants are expected as the investigation continues.
A Toronto restaurant is reopening for indoor dining to defy lockdown orders
Stay in the loop
Sign up for our free email newsletter. Unsubscribe anytime or contact us for details.
The owner of Toronto’s popular Adamson Barbecue restaurant is kicking up COVID-related controversy once again
this week in what might be his boldest (and riskiest) move to date:
Opening up for indoor dining while the region is under lockdown.
“Hello Adamson Barbecue fans!” said outspoken restaurateur Adam Skelly in a video posted to his brand’s Instagram account Monday evening.
“I’m coming on here today to let you guys know that our Etobicoke
location, tomorrow — that’s Tuesday — will be opening for in-restaurant
dining against provincial orders at eleven o’clock.”
Adamson Barbecue Etobicoke, which opened as the brand’s third location
earlier this fall, is expected to resume full operations today at 11:00
a.m. at 7 Queen Elizabeth Blvd., just off Royal York Road near the
Gardiner Expressway.
Any restaurant found to be in contravention of public health orders currently faces fines of up to $25,000 per day
from the municipal government alone. Individuals, such as Skelly, would
be personally liable for another $5,000 per day on top of that under
City rules.
Bolstered by the support of his fans, Skelly doesn’t seem to care.
“For those of you who have eyes to see why I’m doing this, thank you
guys so much. Thank you for the messages of support, thank you for
filling out my little polls, thank you for letting me know that we have
people in our corner,” he said in his Instagram dispatch Monday night.
“This is a risky move and you guys gave me the gas to do this, so I just want to thank you guys so much.”
Judging by the number of views on his video — more than 100,000 in
less than 24 hours — and the hundreds of comments, Skelly does indeed
have many supporters — as well as detractors.
The controversial businessman, who opened the first of his wildly-popular Texas-style BBQ joints in Leaside four years ago, explained in his video why he was taking such a bold stance.
“Top to bottom, this thing stinks — it reeks of corruption,” said
Skelly of the lockdown, noting that he didn’t have enough time to lay
out everything in detail.
“I’m going to start with just one point: We’re using PCR tests with a
cycle threshold of over 40 to drive hysteria around case counts,” he
continued.
“If you guys understand what’s going on with these PCR tests and
their cycle thresholds, you know that they’re picking up all sorts of
other stuff that’s not COVID — bacterial infections, other coronaviruses
including the common cold, fragments from the flu shot… If you know
that, then you know we’re going to be about 2.5 per cent positivity rate
until the end of spring.”
“How many businesses — how many people — are going to lose everything?” said Skelly. “Enough is enough.”