{"id":2651,"date":"2019-01-09T23:14:16","date_gmt":"2019-01-10T04:14:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=2651"},"modified":"2019-01-09T23:14:16","modified_gmt":"2019-01-10T04:14:16","slug":"tense-nasty-the-transgendered-versus-the-preacher-before-the-b-c-human-rights-tribunal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=2651","title":{"rendered":"Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Free speech and the rights to express one’s religious beliefs were very much on trial during a five day hearing (December 11-17) before the\u00a0British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.\u00a0\u00a0Ronan Oger,<\/strong>\u00a0a transgendered advocate and activist and a vice-president of the provincial\u00a0New Democratic Party<\/strong>, had laid a complaint against\u00a0Bill Whatcott<\/strong>\u00a0for distribution of 1,500 copies of a leaflet during the May, 2017 provincial election. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet called into question Oger’s fitness for public office, on the basis of his sexual confusion. Relying on the\u00a0Bible’s<\/strong>\u00a0account that God created two sexes, Mr. Whatcott argued that if Oger couldn’t get his sexuality right, should be really be entrusted with making decisions on such matters as the provincial budget.<\/p>\n

\n

The original one-person tribunal, just before the proceedings opened expanded to three, consisted of\u00a0Devyn Cousineau<\/strong>, an outspoken social justice warrior and donor to\u00a0LGBT\u00a0<\/strong>causes. The defence tried unsuccessfully to have her recuse herself for a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” In preliminary proceedings, the Tribunal rejected all the defence character and expert witnesses. The final defence witness-to-be was\u00a0Dr. Willi Gutowski,<\/strong>\u00a0a medical doctor and psychiatrist with over 30 years of clinical experience treating patients in Chilliwack and the U.S. He had frequently been called as an expert witness before U.S. courts. He had treated transgendered people in the past. He said, during testimony seeking to qualify him, that he “has a particular interest in dissociative disorders.” No one can make you hate, he said: You will yourself to have the thoughts that lead to the emotions of love or hate. “Love and hate are both a choice of the will.” His expertise would have been crucial as Oger’s lesbian lawyer had contended that Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet was likely to expose the transgendered candidate to hatred or contempt. The panel decided to reject Dr. Gutowski concluding: “The burden has not been met as to his qualification on this topic.” Thus, the defence had but one witness —\u00a0Bill Whatcott<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The defence was not allowed to challenge the nature of transgenderism. Is it mistaken and immoral, as\u00a0Bill Whatcott<\/strong>\u00a0argues on biblical grounds? Is it a state of delusion — in short, mental illness — as many psychiatrists and scientists contend? Humans are born with one of two and only two chromosomal combinations: two “X Chromosomes” — female; and X and a Y Chromosome — male. Apparently, if you’re born a man but identify as a woman, or vice versa, then you are whatever you feel you are or want to be. Thus, a hulking, hairy man with a penis who identifies as a woman should be able to prance into the girls’ washroom and ogle 13-year old girls.<\/p>\n

\u200b<\/p>\n

The panel made their prejudice crystal clear. On at least eight separate occasions,\u00a0Devyn Cousineau<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0who seemed to be keeping careful count, interrupted Defence lawyer\u00a0Dr. Charles Lugosi<\/strong>\u00a0for “misgendering” Oger by referring to him as “he”, instead of she.<\/p>\n

CAFE<\/strong>\u00a0has been an active intervenor in this long and costly case. In its oral submissions, December 14,\u00a0Director Paul Fromm<\/strong>\u00a0argued that Oger had not been the victim of discrimination. No candidate is entitled to anyone’s vote. A voter may discriminate in his or her choice by voting for or against a candidate for ANY reason — sexual identity, policies, history. Not all “discrimination” or advocacy of discrimination\u00a0\u00a0is banned under human rights laws, only discrimination in the provision of certain goods and services. Mr. Fromm protested the discriminatory rules imposed upon the Defence side.\u00a0\u00a0Oger had complained that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet intimidated him and prevented him from being his authentic self. Mr. Fromm said forcing the defence to refer to Oger as “she” or more awkwardly as “the complainant said in the complainant’s complaint” violated the Defence’s ability to be their authentic selves. “Mr. Whatcott questions Oger self-identification on religious grounds; I and others question his identity on scientific, psychiatric or common sense grounds. We should not be compelled to say what we don’t believe or end up speaking in stilted\u00a01984<\/u>\u00a0Newspeak<\/strong>. If I wake up and believe I am Napoleon, no one is under any obligation to call me ‘Emperor,'” he said.<\/p>\n

CAFE<\/strong>\u00a0argued Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet was not about “hate”. Oger had testified that he had felt fearful. Mr. Fromm pointed out that his alleged fear had not prevented him from continuing as the\u00a0NDP<\/strong>\u00a0candidate in\u00a0Vancouver-False Creek<\/strong>, from holding rallies and running again, in 2018 for school trustee. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet did not advocate “hate” much less violence, but urged voters to tell NDP canvassers they would not be voting for that party.<\/p>\n

The following are portions of Dr. Lugosi’s masterful summation on behalf of Bill Whatcott:<\/p>\n

2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Canadian history records significant litigation brought by\u00a0Jehovah Witnesses<\/strong>\u00a0whose civil rights were upheld by the\u00a0Supreme Court of Canada<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n

3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the\u00a0Christian Holy Bible<\/strong>. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.<\/p>\n

4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda.\u00a0Section 7<\/strong>\u00a0of the\u00a0BC Human Rights Code<\/strong>\u00a0is 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.<\/p>\n

5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0If this Tribunal adopts Oger\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

6\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Oger 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.<\/p>\n

7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The movie\u00a0Minority Report<\/strong>\u00a0described 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\u2019s 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\u00a0Bible.<\/strong><\/p>\n

8\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to\u00a0Christophobia<\/strong>. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.<\/p>\n

9\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Oger 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.<\/p>\n

10\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See\u00a0Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town)<\/em>\u00a02017 ONCA 668, para. 46. \u201cA person\u2019s 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]\u201d para. 49. \u201c\u2026 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.\u201d Para. 50. \u201cCourts should not be quick to conclude that a person\u2019s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken\u2019s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.\u201d<\/p>\n

11\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Was the flyer tantamount to a \u201cdog whistle\u201d directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The\u00a0Ontario Divisional Court<\/strong>\u00a0in\u00a0Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City)<\/em>, [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, \u201c\u2026the 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\u00a0CHP<\/strong>\u00a0have 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\u2026 no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.\u201d<\/p>\n

12\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger\u2019s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger\u2019s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle \u201cdog whistle\u201d message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the\u00a0Tribunal.<\/strong>\u00a0Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See:\u00a0Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority<\/em>, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.<\/p>\n

13\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The \u201clikely to expose\u201d may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the \u201creasonable person.\u201d 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\u2019s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of \u201clikely to expose\u201d is not even remotely met.<\/p>\n

22\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u00a0Charter<\/em>\u00a0values 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\u2019s rights.\u00a0[The Tribunal reserved judgement.]<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal Free speech and the rights to express one’s religious beliefs were very much on trial during a five day hearing (December 11-17) before the\u00a0British Columbia Human … 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":[94,1408,1510,1509,982,1508],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2651"}],"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=2651"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2651\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2652,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2651\/revisions\/2652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}