$\"Image\"$ <\/a>\u00a0–\u00a0 $\"Image\"$ <\/a>
\nRonan (picture left) when he was a husband and father of two children 5 years ago. Ronan (picture right) campaigning for NDP in Downtown Toronto riding Vancouver False Greek.<\/p>\n
Bill Whatcott’s response to Ms. Susanna Quail’s long winded letter to the BCHRT asking the member Walter Rilkoff to reconsider his decision to not rewrite one sentence in his decision on interveners in Oger vs Whatcott to suit Ronan Oger’s gender delusion.<\/p>\n
\n
October. 1, 2017
\nBC Human Rights Tribunal
\n1170-605 Robson St
\nVancouver BC V6B 5J3
\nSeptember 27, 2017<\/p>\n
ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager<\/p>\n
Re:\u00a0Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)<\/p>\n
The defendant hereby responds to the spurious and factually erroneous arguments of the complainant and his counsel, Ms. Quail.<\/p>\n
Ms. Quail started this circus by claiming in her e-mail exchange with the BCHRT that the complainant\u00a0\u201cwas not born as male.\u201d<\/p>\n
The defendant, the complainant’s obstatrician who gave birth to him, the French government and the complainant’s ex-wife to only name a few, know otherwise. The bottom line is, if the complainant and his counsel are deluded on a fact as basic as the complainant’s sex at birth then they won’t be credible on just about anything else. Indeed the defendant can demonstrate that Ms. Quail is light on facts with just about everything she says in her latest letter by doing a very quick and superficial critique of her arguments in her September 27th, \u201cApplication for reconsideration.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ms. Quail claims\u00a0\u201cThe Complainant\u2019s gender identity is not on the record.\u201d<\/p>\n
Actually, the complainant’s gender identity is on the record.<\/p>\n
On page 1 of the original complaint against me, Ms Quail wrote:\u00a0\u201cThe Flyer attacks Ms Oger’s gender identity. It says Ms. Oger’s gender identity is false and an \u201cimpossibility\u201d and that transgender people like Ms. Oger are at elevated risk of various diseases and violent acts.\u201d<\/p>\n
As the Tribunal can see in the above paragraph Ms. Quail refers to the complainant with a female pronoun and Ms. Quail tells the tribunal and anyone reading the complaint that the complainant is transgender.<\/p>\n
Ms. Quail states\u00a0\u201cThe Complainant\u2019s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint.\u201d<\/p>\n
With all due respect the complainant seems to believe his gender identity is relevant to the complaint. On Twitter three days after launching his complaint, the complainant wrote:\u00a0\u201cMonday I filed a BC #Human Rights tribunal (sic) complaint against Bill Whatcott due to hateful acts over my gender identity + expression.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ms. Quail incorrectly states,\u00a0\u201cIt is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the Complainant\u2019s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of their identity as their sex.\u201d<\/p>\n
In actual fact defendants are entitled to discovery, especially in matters that are pertinent to the defendant’s defense. In any event the complainant’s so-called gender identity is not really all that personal or private of a matter. A quick perusal of the CBC, Globe & Mail, Youtube, Vancouver Province, Xtra, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, etc….. will show quite definitively that the complainant’s gender identity is just about the only thing he actually talks about when speaking to the public. And a quick check will confirm the complainant likes to talk about his gender identity in public often.<\/p>\n
Some pertinent questions that the defendant believes should be answered by the complainant’s counsel if the BCHRT is actually going to entertain this request for the reconsideration of Walter Rilkoff’s\u00a0September 13, 2017\u00a0decision in regards to interveners in the\u00a0Oger vs Whatcott\u00a0case where Mr. Rilkoff aptly noted\u00a0\u201cMs. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female.\u201d<\/p>\n
1. What does the complainant’s French Birth Certificate identify him as?
\n2. Did the complainant’s obstetrician and\/or midwife identify him as a male or a female when he was born?
\n3. Did the complainant’s mother think she had a boy or a girl when she gave birth to the complainant?
\n4. Did the complainant identify as a woman when he first met his ex-wife? Did the complainant’s ex-wife think the complainant was born male or female when she got married and had children with the complainant?
\n5. Did the complainant’s foundational Canadian identity documents (passport, citizenship papers) identify him as a boy or a girl 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
\n6. When the complainant applied for entry into the University of British Columbia in 1986 did he check the male or the female box?
\n7. If the complainant presented himself as a male when applying for university or when courting his ex-wife, why should the BCHRT or Defendant think the complainant was born a female?<\/p>\n
Shouldn’t the defendant have a right to have an answer to these questions if the defendant is being charged under Section 7a and b of the BC Human Rights Code, because the defendant allegedly offended the complainant’s alleged gender identity?<\/p>\n
In Christ’s Service
\nBill Whatcott<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Ms. Quail’s long letter not letting go of a BCHRT member’s decsion to not waste more time and money pandering to Ronan’s neurosis over a sentence referring to him as “born a male.”<\/p>\n
\n
BC Human Rights Tribunal
\n1170-605 Robson St
\nVancouver BC V6B 5J3
\nSeptember 27, 2017<\/p>\n
ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager<\/p>\n
Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)<\/p>\n
The Complainant hereby applies for reconsideration of the Tribunal\u2019s decision
\ncommunicated in a letter dated September 13, 2017, in which the Tribunal declined to
\ncorrect an error in decision number 2017 BCHRT 195, at paragraph 2.<\/p>\n
For clarity, the Complainant is not seeking reconsideration of the merits of 2017 BCHRT
\n195, granting intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression and
\ndenying intervenor status to Gordon Watson. The Complainant only seeks
\nreconsideration of the Tribunal\u2019s decision not to correct an error made in 2017 BCHRT 195
\nat paragraph 2.<\/p>\n
The first sentence of that paragraph says: \u201cMs. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a
\nfemale.\u201d<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Complainant brought this error to the Tribunal\u2019s attention on September
\n12, 2015, by email (attached hereto as Appendix A). As set out in that email, the
\nComplainant was not born male. The Tribunal responded stating that the Tribunal
\nMember did not understand where the error was, and asked counsel for the Complainant
\nto describe how this sentence was in error.<\/p>\n
Counsel responded, stating: \u201cMs. Oger was not born as male.\u201d<\/p>\n
On September 13, 2017, the Tribunal responded by letter (attached hereto as Appendix
\nB), stating that it would not correct this error. The Tribunal stated that the burden is on
\nthe person seeking a correction to persuade the Tribunal that the particular statement
\nsaid to be in error was indeed an error, and Ms. Oger had not done so.<\/p>\n
page 2<\/p>\n
Demanding that the Complainant, a transgender person, prove her identity is
\nitself discriminatory<\/p>\n
It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the
\nComplainant\u2019s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of
\ntheir identity as their sex. To do so would be (and is in this case) highly invasive.
\nIndividuals are taken at their word that they are male, female, transgender, or any other
\napplicable gender identity.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal has required Ms. Oger to persuade it that the statement that she was \u201cborn
\na male\u201d is false. Ms. Oger telling the Tribunal that that is not her gender identity is
\nsufficient proof.<\/p>\n
Ms. Oger has offered to provide a copy of her identity document, which indicates that her
\nsex, in the eyes of the law, is female. It is not \u201cborn male but now identifies as female.\u201d
\nMs. Oger stated and continues to assert that she should not be required to furnish
\nidentity documents for the Tribunal to accept that her gender identity is as she says it is.
\nThis is a burden imposed on her, a transgender person, but not on any other party to any
\nother case before the Tribunal to the Complainant\u2019s or counsel\u2019s knowledge.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is not aware of any case in which a cisgender complainant has been
\nrequired to persuade the Tribunal that they are the sex or gender they say they are.
\nTransgender persons are routinely challenged on the veracity of their gender identity. In
\nfact, that is what this case is about: the Respondent and Intervenor refuse to accept that
\nMs. Oger\u2019s, and other transgender individuals\u2019, gender identity is real.<\/p>\n
For the Tribunal to require Ms. Oger to furnish proof of her sex or gender identity is a
\nfurther perpetuation of this very discrimination. It relies on and extends the stereotype
\nthat transgender people\u2019s own statements about who they are cannot be accepted as true.<\/p>\n
The Complainant\u2019s gender identity is not on the record<\/p>\n
There was nothing in the application or anywhere in the record for the Tribunal member
\nto make the statement made in paragraph 2, that Ms. Oger was born male. The Tribunal
\nmember invented this fact.<\/p>\n
It is not open to the Tribunal to invent facts about parties and then require parties to
\npersuade them that those invented facts are false.<\/p>\n
The Complainant\u2019s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint<\/p>\n
Ms. Oger\u2019s gender identity is irrelevant to this complaint. Ms. Oger is a transgender
\nwoman, not a person \u201cborn as male who now identifies as female\u201d, but even that fact is<\/p>\n
page 3<\/p>\n
irrelevant. As determined in School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran, 2005
\nBCCA 201, a complainant need not actually possess the personal characteristic forming
\nthe basis of the discrimination in order to succeed in establishing a breach of the Code.
\nThe Tribunal Member has asserted a fact that is not only false, but entirely irrelevant to
\nthe complaint before the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
This is not a case in which the applicant for reconsideration seeks to submit
\ninformation they should have previously put forward<\/p>\n
Reconsideration applications cannot be used to put information before the Tribunal that
\nshould have been, but was not, put before the Tribunal at an earlier stage: Hanlon v City
\nof North Vancouver and another (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 152 at para 7.<\/p>\n
In this case, argument about or proof of Ms. Oger\u2019s gender identity is not information
\nthat the Complaint ought to have previously put forward. It is not the case, ever, that a
\ncomplainant must prove that they possess the characteristic that is the subject of
\ndiscrimination in order to succeed in a complaint before the Tribunal. As stated above, it
\nperpetuates discriminatory stereotypes to assert that transgender complainants must
\nprove their gender identity in order to pursue a complaint before the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
The question of the Complainant\u2019s gender identity will not be resolved in a
\ndetermination of the merits of this complaint<\/p>\n
The Tribunal\u2019s letter of September 13, 2017 refers to the fact that this is an interim
\ndecision and suggests that \u201ceven that simple sentence\u201d (describing Ms. Oger as \u201cborn as a
\nmale\u201d) will be the subject of argument at a hearing of the complaint on the merits.<\/p>\n
Ms. Oger\u2019s gender identity will not be the subject of argument at a hearing of the
\ncomplaint on the merits.<\/p>\n
Ms. Oger\u2019s gender identity is irrelevant to the merits of her complaint.<\/p>\n
The question before the Tribunal at a hearing on the merits of the complaint will be
\nwhether the Respondent has breached section 7 of the Code. There is no reason for the
\nTribunal to make a finding of fact as to the Complainant\u2019s gender identity in order to
\nanswer that question.<\/p>\n
In any event, the parties do not dispute that Ms. Oger is transgender: the parties dispute
\nwhether transgender people\u2019s gender identity is real, and whether persons like the
\nRespondent may publish hateful materials about transgender people without offending
\nthe Code. The Tribunal is not asked to determine Ms. Oger\u2019s gender identity at any point
\nin this complaint.<\/p>\n
The Complainant suffers prejudice by having the decision stand uncorrected<\/p>\n
page 4<\/p>\n
The erroneous statement that Ms. Oger \u201cwas born as male but identifies as female\u201d is
\nbased on pernicious, discriminatory stereotypes about transgender people, and is wrong
\nin law.<\/p>\n
When transgender people legally change the sex marker on their birth certificates or
\nother foundational identity documents, that change is not prospective only. A birth
\ncertificate that was formerly marked \u201cM\u201d is not now marked \u201cBorn M but now identifies
\nas F\u201d. It is marked \u201cF\u201d. In the eyes of the law, the individual was always female but was
\nmis-identified as male prior to the correction of the birth certificate.<\/p>\n
More importantly, transgender people experience their own gender identities in many
\ndifferent ways. While some people might experience that they used to be one gender but
\nnow identify as a different gender, many transgender people experience that they have
\nalways been one gender, but were misidentified by the world around them.<\/p>\n
The idea that transgender people were \u201cborn\u201d one way but \u201cidentify\u201d differently rests on
\nthe assumption that there is a true, biological gender of each person, determinable by the
\nshape of their external genitalia, and that a transgender person has deviated from that
\ntrue, biological gender.<\/p>\n
The statement that Ms. Oger \u201cwas born as male but identifies as female\u201d is false and
\nperpetuates stereotypes about her and other transgender people. It now exists in a
\npublished decision of a legal decision-making body. It is available on CanLII and on the
\nTribunal\u2019s website. There exists a binding legal statement that Ms. Oger\u2019s sex and gender
\nare something other than what they are. Ms. Oger is a prominent activist for transgender
\nrights and other social causes, and the impacts of this false statement on her sense of self
\nand public reputation are significant.<\/p>\n
The interests of fairness and justice and the purposes of the Code militate in
\nfavour of reconsideration<\/p>\n
Reconsideration may be granted where to do so would serve the interests of fairness and
\njustice: Grant v City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 at para 8.<\/p>\n
The erroneous statement is not only patently false, it perpetuates the very discriminatory
\nthinking that is at the centre of this case. The erroneous statement makes a finding of fact
\non something that is wholly irrelevant to the complaint. The Tribunal has gratuitously
\ninvented a fact about the Complainant and then required the Complainant to prove that
\nthis erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory \u201cfact\u201d is false.<\/p>\n
The inclusion of this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory \u201cfact\u201d in 2017 BCHRT 195
\nis contrary to the purposes of the Code.<\/p>\n
page 5<\/p>\n
It is contrary to promoting a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are
\nequal in dignity and rights (s. 3(b)): it creates a standard where cisgender people are who
\nthey say they are, but transgender people have to persuade the Tribunal that their selfdeclarations
\nare true.<\/p>\n
It is contrary to the prevention of discrimination prohibited by the Code (s. 3 (c)), because
\nit perpetuates stereotyped thinking that assumes that transgender people have a \u201ctrue\u201d
\nbiological sex, assigned at birth, and change from that true sex to something else that is
\nmerely an identity.<\/p>\n
It is contrary to the provision of a means of redress for persons discriminated against
\ncontrary to the Code (s. 3(e)): transgender people will be dissuaded from seeking redress
\nthrough the Tribunal if the message to them is that they will have to prove their sex or
\ngender, or risk having a false statement about who they are published by the Tribunal in a
\nbinding decision, which the Tribunal refuses to correct.<\/p>\n
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant asks that the Tribunal\u2019s decision refusing to
\ncorrect the error in 2017 BCHRT 195 at paragraph 2, communicated by letter dated
\nSeptember 13, 2017, be reconsidered.<\/p>\n
All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Complainant,<\/p>\n
ALLEVATO QUAIL & WORTH
\nper Susanna Allevato Quail
\nBarrister & Solicitor<\/p>\n
cc Morgane Oger
\nBill Whatcott
\nCAFE<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Whatcott responds to delusional letter from Ronan’s lawyer by\u00a0Bill Whatcott\u00a0\u00bb Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:22 am \u00a0–\u00a0 Ronan (picture left) when he was a husband and father of two children 5 years ago. Ronan (picture right) campaigning for NDP in … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[94,1127,982,988],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2012"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2012"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2012\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2013,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2012\/revisions\/2013"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/public/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5373