{"id":4985,"date":"2020-11-25T23:17:41","date_gmt":"2020-11-26T04:17:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=4985"},"modified":"2020-11-25T23:18:12","modified_gmt":"2020-11-26T04:18:12","slug":"amended-petition-for-judicial-review-in-the-oger-v-whatcott-case-before-the-b-c-human-rights-tribunal-where-bill-whatcotts-rights-to-freedom-of-expression-religion-were-egregiously-trashed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=4985","title":{"rendered":"Amended Petition for Judicial Review in the Oger v Whatcott case Before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Where Bill Whatcott&#8217;s Rights to Freedom of Expression &#038; Religion Were Egregiously Trashed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"620\" height=\"465\" src=\"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bill-Whatcott.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4986\" srcset=\"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bill-Whatcott.jpg 620w, https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bill-Whatcott-300x225.jpg 300w, https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bill-Whatcott-400x300.jpg 400w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 620px) 100vw, 620px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Court\nfile No S -196032&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\nVancouver&nbsp; Registry<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN&nbsp; THE&nbsp;\nSUPREME&nbsp; COURT&nbsp; OF&nbsp;\nBRITISH&nbsp; COLUMBIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>holden at Vancouver <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN THE MATTER OF THE<strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/strong><strong><em>JUDICIAL&nbsp;\nREVIEW&nbsp; PROCEDURE&nbsp; ACT<\/em><\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[ RSBC 1996 ]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Chapter&nbsp;\n241 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>IN&nbsp; THE&nbsp;\nMATTER&nbsp; OF&nbsp; THE<strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; BC&nbsp; <em>HUMAN RIGHTS CODE&nbsp; <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>[ SBC&nbsp;\n1996&nbsp;&nbsp; ]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Chapter&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\n210&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">BETWEEN&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; \nWILLIAM WHATCOTT&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Petitioner<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">AND&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL<br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MORGANE OGER<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Respondents<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">PETITION&nbsp; TO&nbsp;\nTHE&nbsp; COURT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">&nbsp;<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as amended November&nbsp;\n24<sup>th<\/sup> &nbsp;&nbsp;2020<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br>\n<br>\nON&nbsp; NOTICE&nbsp;\nTO : &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DAVID EBY&nbsp; Attorney General of British Columbia<br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PO\nBox 9290&nbsp;&nbsp; Stn Prov Govt <\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Victoria&nbsp;&nbsp; British Columbia&nbsp;&nbsp; V8W 9J7<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1170&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 605&nbsp;&nbsp;\nRobson Street&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Vancouver&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nV6B 5J3<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MORGANE OGER\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; C\/o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Allevato Quail and Roy <br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 405&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 510 West Hastings Street&nbsp;&nbsp; Vancouver&nbsp;&nbsp;\nV6B 1L8<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\nall persons whose interests may be affected by the Orders sought&nbsp; <strong>TAKE NOTICE<\/strong>&nbsp; that the Petitioner applies to Court for the\nRelief set out in this Petition<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<\/strong>This\nproceeding has been started by WILIAM WHATCOTT, Petitioner,&nbsp; for the relief set out in Part 1, below<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If\nyou intend to respond to this Petition, you or your lawyer must<br>\n<br>\n(\na ) file a Response to Petition in Form 67 in the above-named Registry of this\ncourt within the &nbsp;&nbsp; time for Response to\nPetition described below, and<br>\n( b ) serve on the Petitioner <br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ( i )&nbsp; 2 copies of the response to Petition,&nbsp; and <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ( ii ) 2 copies of each filed\naffidavit upon which you intend to rely at the hearing<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><br>\n<br>\n<strong>Orders,\nincluding orders granting relief claimed, may be made against you, without any\nfurther notice to you, if you fail to file the response to petition within the\ntime for response<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>Time for response to Petition<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A\nresponse to Petition must be filed and served on the Petitioner,&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( a ) if you reside anywhere\nwithin Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed\npetition was served on you, <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(\nb ) If you reside in the united states of America, within 35 days after the\ndate on which a copy of the filed petition was served on you<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( c ) if\nyou reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the\nfiled petition was served on you, or<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(\nd ) if the time for response has been set by order of the court,&nbsp; within that time<br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;(&nbsp; 1\n)&nbsp; The address of the Registry is :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 800 Smithe\nStreet&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Vancouver &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;British Columbia<br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(&nbsp;\n2&nbsp; ) &nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; ADDRESS FOR\nSERVICE&nbsp; of the Petitioner, is : <br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Post\nOffice Box 47034&nbsp;&nbsp; Langford&nbsp;&nbsp; British Columbia&nbsp;&nbsp; V9B 5T2<br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( 3 ) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Petitioner speaks for himself<br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">CLAIM&nbsp; OF&nbsp;\nTHE&nbsp; PETITIONER<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">PART&nbsp; 1:&nbsp;\nORDERS&nbsp; SOUGHT<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FIRST&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For\nan Order that, because therewas a reasonable apprehension of bias in\nthe tribunal from before it even got underway,&nbsp;\nits ruling is thus set aside<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SECOND<br>\nFor Declaration that\nsections 2 ( a ) 2 ( b )&nbsp; 2 ( c )&nbsp; and 2 ( d ) of the <strong><em>Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp; do override section&nbsp; 7 ( 1 ) of the B C <strong><em>Human\nRights Code. <\/em><\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;And for an Order that the ruling of the\nTribunal in the matter of&nbsp; OGER <em>versus<\/em> WHATCOTT&nbsp;\nis thus a nullity <br>\n<br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; THIRD<br>\nFor Declaration that section\n2 ( b ) of the <strong><em>Canadian Charter of Rights and\nFreedoms<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; entrains the right of a citizen to receive\nexpressions of particular information previously unknown to him or her.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; And for an Order that, as the Tribunal failed to consider\nthe right of each elector in Vancouver Fraserview riding to receive information\nvia the publication in question, the Tribunal erred in law<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FOURTH<br>\nFor Declaration that by excluding certain witnesses whom WHATCOTT had called to\ntestify in his defence, the Tribunal denied him the right to make full answer\nin defence<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FIFTH<br>\nFor Declaration that,&nbsp; by preventing the\nDefendant testing the veracity of the proposition central to the case, ie,\nComplainant\u2019s assertion that he \u2018<em>is a woman<\/em>\u2019&nbsp; then relying upon it as a fact when there was\nno evidence supporting it,&nbsp; the Tribunal\nmade an error in law<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SIXTH<br>\nFor an Order that\nCommissioner Cousineau\u2019s ruling in the BC Human Rights Tribunal matter of OGER <em>versus<\/em> WHATCOTT,&nbsp;\nhaving been predicated in abovementioned errors of law, is therefore set\naside ; a nullity<br>\n&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">PART&nbsp; 2:&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FACTUAL BASIS<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>01&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the FACTS which form the basis of this\nmatter are set out best in pages 1 to 3 of the&nbsp;\nAmended Additional Response which is Item&nbsp; One&nbsp; in\nthe MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON.&nbsp;&nbsp; At all\ntimes material to his complaint OGER was a vice president of the New Democratic\nParty.&nbsp; In the provincial election in\nJune 2017 he was that party\u2019s candidate in the Vancouver False Creek riding&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  <br>\n<br>\n02&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; OGER was\nborn in France.&nbsp; Official records in that\ncountry reflect that he was born a male child, with the birth name \u201cRONAN\u201d.&nbsp;\n[&nbsp; page 44 lines 28 to 47 of the\ntranscript ]&nbsp;&nbsp; In\nCanada, OGER&nbsp; married a woman and had\nchildren with her.&nbsp;&nbsp; At the time those\nchildren were born, Complainant identified himself as&nbsp; \u201cRonan Oger\u201d.&nbsp;\nOfficial records of the birth of each of his children show \u2018Ronan Oger\u2019\nas their father. The transcript of the hearing shows OGER pitching to the\nTribunal that the flyer and subsequent commotion arising from it,&nbsp; affected his children. At no time in his\npolitical activity, particularly in his campaign in the 2017 provincial\nelection, while declaring himself their parent, did OGER ever say that he was&nbsp; <strong>not<\/strong>&nbsp; the natural father of those children.&nbsp; Apparently \u2013 from his campaign literature \/\npublic appearances \u2013 Complainant manipulated the Vital Statistics Branch of\nBritish Columbia to change certain information in official records to pretend\nhe is now female.&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>03&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; After the election OGER originated a\nformal complaint to the Human Rights Commision about the flyer in which\nWHATCOTT critiqued OGER\u2019s fitness to be elected.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Devyn Cousineau was appointed to be the\nsole commissioner presiding on the tribunal considering that complaint.\nAppointment of Commissioners to preside over Administrative Tribunals falls\nunder the Ministry of Attorney General.&nbsp;\nIn the run-up to the hearing,&nbsp;\nvarious citizens notified Attorney General Eby that Cousineau was a\nlong-time activist promoting the cause of \u201ctransgender rights\u201d.&nbsp;&nbsp; AG Eby never dealt with complaints that her\npresence on the tribunal was a reasonable apprehension of bias.&nbsp; Rather,&nbsp;\nAG Eby appointed two more people to the tribunal with Cousineau in\ncharge.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  <br>\n<br>\n04&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The\nTribunal proceedings are best described in modern parlance as a charade trying\nto give the pretence of impartial adjudication of law but in reality, it was\nnothing more than a pro-LGBT kangaroo court in which there was not defence that\nWHATCOTT&nbsp; was able to employ that would\nhave brought about a different result, other than him renouncing the truth that\nMr. Oger is man. &nbsp;To the chagrin of its\nmembers,&nbsp; WHATCOTT correctly referred to\nOGER as male, &nbsp;using the correct pronouns\n\u2018he\u2019 and \u2018him\u2019 when giving testimony in his own defence. During the hearing\nadjudicator Norman Trerise in advertently spoke the truth, referring to OGER\nfour times using the correct pronouns even though he later concurred with the\nother two adjudicators in finding WHATCOTT guilty and assessing additional\ncosts because WHATCOTT did the same. Diana Jurecivic revealed her bias by\nordering WHATCOTT to&nbsp; remove his teeshirt\nthat said Mr. Oger was a man, and had the Bible verse \u201c<strong><em>God made them male and\nfemale<\/em><\/strong>\u201d&nbsp;\nGenesis 5:2. &nbsp;&nbsp;But Jurecivic did\nnot order the homosexual and transgender activists in the room, to remove their\nshirts with pro-LGBT slogans. Ms Jurecivic kept a score of the times WHATCOTT\nrefused to lie ( as he was ordered by the Tribunal, allegedly, to protect Mr\nOger\u2019s feelings)&nbsp; And tallied each time\nWHATCOTT used the correct male pronouns in his defence. The Tribunal refused to\nconsider that WHATCOTT&nbsp; would literally\nbe discrediting his own defence, his beliefs and his moral character if he\nreferred to the Complainant with female or gender-neutral pronouns.&nbsp; In its ruling the Tribunal assessed\nWHATCOTT&nbsp; an additional $20,000 in costs,\nbecause he refused to participate in the charade i.e &nbsp;\u2018<em>Mr. Oger is a woman<\/em>\u2019.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n05&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The\nTribunal delivered its ruling in March 2019.&nbsp;&nbsp;\nOn May 24<sup>th<\/sup> 2019 lawyer Daniel Mol originated a Judicial\nReview on behalf of WHATCOTT.&nbsp; On\nNovember 13<sup>th<\/sup>&nbsp; 2019 a private\ncitizen &#8211; acting completely independent of lawyer Mol nor WHATCOTT \u2013 took it\nupon himself to serve Respondents with a copy of the Petition, only.&nbsp; UN-learned in the law, assuming that there\nwas no requirement to serve them because they were available electronically,\nthat individual did not serve hard copies of Affidavits which had been filed\nwhen the Petition was originated.&nbsp;&nbsp;\nNeither Respondent submitted a Response to that partial service.&nbsp; After May 29 2019 professional lawyer Daniel\nMol took no further step in the matter.&nbsp;\nOn October 15<sup>th<\/sup>&nbsp; 2020 William WHATCOTT took back\npersonal conduct of this matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mr\nMol is not counsel of record.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">PART 3&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; LEGAL\nBASIS\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<br>\n<br>\n<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>06&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This Petition is brought in accordance\nwith the &nbsp;<strong><em>Judicial Review Procedure Act<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp; &nbsp;to have a Justice of the Supreme Court review\na ruling of a provincial body.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For his\nargument for setting aside the ruling of the Tribunal, Petitioner adopts the\nreasoning including the authorities, published by his counsel at the hearing,\nthe Summary a copy of which is Item Three in the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED\nUPON.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; And for certainty : said\nreasoning is set out in this PART using letters defining paragraphs instead of\nthe numbers used in the original.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Reply\nto Attorney General Submissions&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/strong><strong>OGER<\/strong><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/strong><strong><em>versus<\/em><\/strong><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;\n<\/strong><strong>WHATCOTT<\/strong><br>\n<br>\n( a ) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;At stake is the future of political free\nspeech.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The question is whether the\nProvince has jurisdiction to regulate the content of political free speech uttered\nor stated in a publication in the course of an election campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Is\nthe Subject Matter Within the Scope of Section 92 (13) read together with 92\n(16) of the <em>Constitution Act, 1867<\/em>\nand Within Provincial Jurisdiction ?<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">General\nResponse to Paragraphs 30, 36-49 of Attorney General Factum<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><br>\n( b )\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In <em>Scowby<\/em>, Estey J. at p. 233i, determined that the test for deciding\nwhether a section of a provincial human rights code falls within the\njurisdiction of the province, boils down to the&nbsp;\n<strong>activities&nbsp; <\/strong>legislated. Housing, employment and\neducation were all <strong>activities<\/strong> that\nare in relation to property and civil rights or were matters of a local and\nprivate nature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( c\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The <strong>activity<\/strong> of political free speech is at\nissue here.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is there absolute\nfreedom to discuss the moral fitness of a political candidate running for\npublic office?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( d\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Respondent says\nthat his liberty, personal autonomy, psychological integrity rooted in security\nof the person, all guaranteed by s. 7 of the <em>Charter,<\/em> is impaired by the coercive reach of s. 7 of the <em>BC Human Rights Code<\/em>&nbsp; (\u201cCode\u201d).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Moreover, his deprivation of these\nconstitutional freedoms is done by a governmental adjudicative process that\nviolates fundamental principles of justice.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nRulings made by the Tribunal,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nboth before and during the hearing, resulted in the abandonment of the\nsearch for truth, a prohibition upon cross-examination of the complainant to\ntest credibility,&nbsp; the application of a\nlegal test for liability that eliminates <em>mens\nrea<\/em>,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a legal test that eliminates\ngood faith,&nbsp; a legal test that deems\ntruth to be irrelevant,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; deprivation\nof a finder of fact composed of a representative jury, and the imposition of an\norder compelling speech to conform to gender specific pronouns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( e\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The result is the\nimposition of strict liability based on an objective test of a hypothetical\nreasonable person.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Although the norm\nin judicial review of administrative action is reasonableness,&nbsp; the Respondent says that the appropriate\nlegal standard can only be one of correctness.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is because what is reasonable to the\naverage person who forms part of the majority, does not take into consideration\nwhat is reasonable to discrete and insular minorities, who are powerless and\nmarginalized because of unpopular views.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nTo counter this imbalance, a finder of fact assessing this case, that is\nessentially about democracy, must give weight to unpopular dissenting views\nthat are perceived as unreasonable or even hateful, by adopting a correctness\nstandard, instead of a reasonableness standard that will only be certain to\nimpose liability upon the Respondent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( f\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Respondent says\nthat there is no authority, express or implied, within the scope of s. 92 of the\n<em>Constitution Act, 1867<\/em>&nbsp; that grants jurisdiction to the province to\nregulate the content of political speech in the course of an election\ncampaign.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 7 of the Code\nstrikes at the heart of democracy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nHere is why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( g\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The prohibition of\nalleged hate speech during an election campaign will exacerbate social problems\nand not relieve them.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Banning free\nspeech will bottle up steam that needs a way to peacefully vent.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Restricting free speech disrespects\nindividual autonomy and self-determination. The concept of democracy is\nself-government by the people.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For\nthe system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be\nknowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and\nideas.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Democracy will not be true to\nits essential ideal if there is law that can manipulate the electorate by\nwithholding information to stifle criticism of the moral fitness of a political\ncandidate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( h\n)&nbsp;\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Democracy thrives when\nthere is no regulation of the content of free speech during an election. Good\nintentions to prevent hurt feelings to targeted candidates harms the political\nand democratic process.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Free speech,\nnot human rights law, is the antidote to the social diseases of prejudice and\nhate. In this war on free speech, the ultimate casualties are truth and\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( i\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whatcott\u2019s flyer\ncreated a golden political opportunity and platform for Oger to expose Whatcott\nas a prejudiced bigot and to attack the Bible as a fount of hate\nliterature.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The activities of Whatcott\nidentified him as a political opponent and revealed the precise nature of his\nthinking. This allowed Oger to counter with a strategic political response,&nbsp;&nbsp; by using religious clergy to oppose the\nbiblical authorities cited by Whatcott. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( j\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The effect of legally supressing\nunwelcome political speech will outrage and alienate those who share Whatcott\u2019s\nbeliefs and views.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This consequence\nmarginalizes minorities who may then view the legal order as illegitimate and\nregard the electoral and democratic process as a one-sided sham.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; History teaches us that suppressing\npeaceful political speech in the short term can eventually lead to violence and\nillegal means to accomplish political goals.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nConflicts are inevitable in any society, but what sets democracy apart\nfrom other political systems is that it offers the means to resolve conflicts\npeacefully without violence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( k\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Regulating political speech means\nthat the majority and \u201creasonable\u201d viewpoint in society will attain power that\ncan lead to abuse. Classifying dissenting minority speech as unprotected \u201chate\u201d\nspeech, will be an easy means to attack moralists who quote the Bible, and to\nexpose people like Whatcott to detestation and vilification by the general\npublic.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; People like Oger will use s.\n7 as a shield to defend dominant groups that have protected status in law, and\nused like a sword to punish Whatcott, by stifling his political speech and to\nfinancially and socially destroy him, labeling him a hater and relegating him\nto marginal existence, all because Whatcott decided to meaningfully participate\nin the democratic electoral process and to manifest his religious faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( l\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The irony is that outliers and\ndissenters who are most in need of speech protection, will be denied that\nprotection by any finding that s. 7 of the Code is constitutional and may\nregulate the content of political free speech.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If the Tribunal disempowers those who\nadvance biblical authority to justly criticize the moral fitness of a political\ncandidate for public office, the enemies of Whatcott and what he stands for,\nwill have cleverly set the stage for a direct attack on the Bible itself, as\ncesspool filled with hate literature, that condemns the immoral to eternal\nsuffering and punishment for sin.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nAll this will flow from an innocuous complaint regarding the content of\na political and religious flyer that has not a shred or hint of posing any\nclear or present danger of criminal activity or hatred to the person of Oger or\nto anyone else associated with Oger\u2019s gender identity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( m\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; All these aforementioned\nactivities cannot be said to have any rational connection to the powers granted\nto a provincial government under s. 92.&nbsp;&nbsp;\nThe inevitable conclusion is that s. 7 of the Code poses a grave threat\nto the very foundations of democracy itself. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><br>\n( n )\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Regulating the content of political\nfree speech and thus restricting Whatcott\u2019s public participation in the\ndemocratic electoral political process is incompatible with a free and\ndemocratic society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( o\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If s. 7 of the Code is\nconstitutional, then the provincial government will have the authority to\nregulate the content of political expression during an election. Such a finding\nis opposite to the conclusion of the Tribunal in&nbsp;&nbsp; <em>CJC v.\nNorth Shore News<\/em>, para. 190,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; \u201cThus\ns. 7(1)(b) does not in any way restrict hateful expressions that are likely to\nexpose \u2026 politicians \u2026 to hatred or contempt, because of their political affiliations\n\u2026\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp; Close scrutiny of Whatcott\u2019s flyer\nreveals that his goal was to persuade other voters not to vote for the\nNDP,&nbsp;&nbsp; a political party advocating the\npolitical, legal, and social agenda of Oger,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nwho is the current Vice-President of that same party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( p\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The content of political free\nspeech cannot be limited by provincial law, as this activity is outside the\nscope of s. 92 and arguably also s. 91.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nThe written and unwritten constitution of Canada is a legal instrument\nthat is superior to any positive law passed by any provincial government or by\nthe federal government. &nbsp;Unregulated political free speech is in its own\nright, is a political institution of the highest order, enshrined by both the\nimplied bill of rights found in the unwritten constitution and in the <em>Constitution Act, 1982<\/em>.&nbsp; Support for this is found in the <em>Keegstra<\/em> decision, where freedom of\nexpression is regarded as the most powerful of all the s. 2 <em>Charter<\/em> rights.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; See: Brunner, p. 302.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( q\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In <em>Switzman v. Elbing<\/em>, at p. 328 [SCR], Abbott J. stated, \u201c\u2026 neither a\nprovincial legislature nor Parliament itself can \u2018abrogate this right of\ndiscussion and debate.\u2019\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp; Political free\nspeech is the lifeblood of democracy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nPolitical free speech, like the air itself, is not confined to the\nphysical limits of a building housing the elected members of parliament or the\nlegislature, but extends everywhere as a treasured political institution that\nis at its highest level of importance, during an election campaign, when the\nfreedom to choose a candidate is at stake. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( r\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In this case, the Whatcott flyer\ninjects truth and Christian morality into the political debate, to dissuade\nvoters from electing a party that nominated an individual perceived by Whatcott\nto be morally unfit.&nbsp; To mischaracterize\na flyer intended to be the sunlight of truth as the darkness of hate,\ndisregards the rule of law, which permits citizens to \u201cexplain, criticize,\ndebate and discuss in the freest possible manner such matters as the qualifications\n\u2026 and social principles \u2026\u201d of a political candidate.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; See pp. 327-8, per Abbott J. in <em>Switzman<\/em>. &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( s\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do moral virtues and social\nprinciples derived from Judeo-Christian authority that informed the genesis and\ndevelopment of the common law and the rule of law still matter today? If the\nanswer is yes, the message that Whatcott preached through his flyer cannot be\nproperly interpreted as hateful at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( t\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While gender identity and\nexpression is be legal as a protected class under human rights legislation,\nthere is a hot political opposition from some feminists who argue that this\nkind of activity is unwelcome gender misappropriation, offensive to biological\nwomen.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Does this mean that all\npolitical opposition to the legal <em>status\nquo<\/em> is uniformly hateful, whether based in feminist theory or in Christian\ndoctrine?&nbsp;&nbsp; If only Christian doctrine is\nviewed as hateful, is this not bigotry and hate toward Christianity itself,\nmanifested as Christphobia? <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( u\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The human rights legislation\nincludes religion as a protected class too.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nIs not the depiction of Whatcott\u2019s flyer as hate, also an indirect\nattack on the Bible itself as hate literature? Where is the jurisdiction in the\nprovince to make a determination that the holy book of a major established\nreligion is hate speech and cannot be quoted in an election to oppose the\nmorality, political platform, and social principles of a political\ncandidate?&nbsp;&nbsp; Assuming there is a hate\nfinding against Whatcott, is this not State discrimination against Christian\nevangelists and activists, contrary to the statutory policies of the Code?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Where is the jurisdiction in the division\nof powers that allocates such a sweeping mandate to a province?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is none. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( v\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A political proposal to repeal the\nprotection of those people who identify as transgender might be regarded by\nsome as hateful, and the subject of a complaint to the human rights tribunal.\nBut however repulsive Whatcott\u2019s political actions might be to Oger, who lobbied\nto amend the Code to protect gender identity, CJC Duff ruled in <em>Reference re Alberta Statutes<\/em>, at pp.\n133-4 that \u201cevery point of view\u201d is legitimate in both the advancement and in\nthe attack upon political proposals.&nbsp;\nThis freedom is governed by criminal laws that protect public order from\nviolence and protects by tort law the reputation of individuals from\ndefamation. Duff CJC does not identify the truth as a limitation that may be\nrestricted by law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Is\nthe Subject Matter Within the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Criminal Law, s. 91\n(27) <em>Constitution Act, 1867 <\/em>?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><br>\n<\/strong><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Specific Response to Paragraph 40,\nAG Factum<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( w\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The imposition of a penal\nsanction, such as the deprivation of physical liberty for a predetermined\nperiod of time, is not the only identifying characteristic of criminal law\nregarding the classification of legislation to be in pith and substance\ncriminal law.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whatcott faces the\npossible lifetime deprivation of his liberty to evangelize, to manifest his\nreligion in the public square, and to use the pronouns he chooses.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; He also risks losing his freedom to express\nhis conscience and to publicly rebuke immorality, as part of his participation\nin a democratic election to urge voters not to vote for a candidate or a\npolitical party, or both, that he believes is morally unfit to hold public\noffice and to exercise power.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; These\ninfringements of liberty are far more insidious and restrictive of personal\nliberty and his psychological integrity, which is integral to his security of\nthe person, than incarceration that imposes no control over the mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( x\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 7 of the Code resurrects\nthe crime of seditious libel that was once regulated in the <em>Criminal Code<\/em>. Exclusive jurisdiction\nfor the regulation of hate speech as a crime is conferred upon the federal\ngovernment by s. 91(27).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The <em>Keegstra<\/em> decision is an illustration of\nthe exclusive authority of the federal government to regulate hate speech. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( y\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In this case, Oger asked the\npolice to bring a hate crime prosecution against Whatcott.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No charges were laid.&nbsp; That ought to\nhave been the end of the matter.&nbsp; It is a\nviolation of the rule of law and the division of powers to use human rights\nlegislation as criminal law to accomplish the suppression of Whatcott\u2019s views. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( z\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Had Whatcott been charged with a\nhate crime, he was entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond\na reasonable doubt, to test the credibility of Oger, to rely upon the defence\nof truth, to the admission of expert evidence from Dr. Gutowski, allotted more\ntime to cross-examine and to make legal submissions, and if indicted, to be\ntried by a judge and a jury, just to name a few due process protections\navailable under criminal law.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whatcott\nwould have been far better off to be criminally charged and undoubtedly\nacquitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( aa&nbsp; ) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nThe test for charge approval is that there is no likelihood of conviction and\nthat it is not in the public interest to proceed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That was the right decision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( bb\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; However, s. 7 of the Code is\nbereft of the due process requirements of criminal law.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In effect, Whatcott is unconstitutionally\nprosecuted for a human rights hate crime that is not only outside the\njurisdiction of the province,&nbsp;&nbsp; but also\nis shamefully lacking legislative safeguards that ensure due process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( cc\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The penal sanctions test deserved\nmore than just a cursory look by the Attorney General to see if the Tribunal\nhas the power to jail Whatcott or not. A proper analysis begins with the finding\nof liability. A finding of liability under the applicable statute attaches\nmoral culpability and social stigma to the offender. The sanctions imposed by\nboth a sentencing judge for a criminal offence and for a human rights offence\nare the same. The sanctions are designed to compel behaviour modification. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( dd\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Behaviour modification is the goal\nof sanctions that are designed to denounce, deter, rehabilitate and make\nreparations to the complainant and to society at large.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In this case, this Tribunal is asked by\nOger to make a finding of liability; to make a declaration that s. 7 of the\nCode was violated; to impose costs of $35,000 for alleged defiant and\ndisrespectful behaviour, both in and out of the sight of the Tribunal members;\nto assess a severe monetary penalty of $35,000 to punish for the public\nexpression of alleged hateful thoughts and ideas that allegedly harmed Oger\u2019s\ndignity and reputation, to pay an unspecified large sum of money to a\ntransgender-rights organization to pay for harm done to the larger transgender\nsocietal community; for an order that Whatcott be compelled to be re-educated\nby participating in a school designed to teach him a better understanding of\ngender identity, with the goal to humble and humiliate Whatcott by indoctrinating\n&nbsp;him with the Tribunal\u2019s view of Whatcott\u2019s legal obligations under the\nCode. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( ee\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Denunciation is accomplished by\nthe declaration that Whatcott violated the Code and amounts to a societal\nmiscreant who is a hateful bigot.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The\nmonetary penalty of $35,000 for harming Oger\u2019s dignity and reputation serves as\na deterrent to both Whatcott and others who might follow his example.\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The monetary penalty of $35,000\nin costs also serves to deter Whatcott and others from criticizing the lack of\ndue process, coercion and bias alleged by Whatcott to have permeated the human\nrights proceedings.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The coerced\ndonation to an organization supporting what Whatcott considers to be immoral\npolitical, social and cultural goals is designed to make reparations to a\ncertain segment of society that identifies with the political advocacy of\nOger.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The order for coerced\nre-education is designed to rehabilitate Whatcott in the hopes that his\nthinking and behaviour will conform in the future to transgender values and\nobjectives.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The individual and\ncollective sum of all these sanctions amount to behaviour modification through\na combination of financial penalties, social stigma, and forced re-education of\nhis mind by social engineering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( ff\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; These sanctions are indeed penal\nand to anyone with a sound knowledge of criminal law, recognize that these\nsanctions follow the basic principles of criminal law sentencing. In fact, the\nsanctions sought are more comprehensive and more draconian than simply a fine\nand a term of probation with conditions that is normally imposed as sanctions\nfor summary conviction offences that result in a criminal record. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( gg\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A human rights record is no less\nodious than a criminal law record, and is perhaps even worse, because there is\nno process for a human rights pardon.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nWhatcott faces a lifetime of unemployment. No employer is required to\nhire an individual deemed by law to be a hate monger. He will be discriminated\nagainst, in spite of his Christian beliefs. Social isolation, ostracism and\nexpulsion are other consequences.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For\nan indigent individual like Whatcott, bankruptcy looms, and the financial\npenalties affect not only him, but his wife and two young children. Compulsory\nre-education imposes the state\u2019s will upon Whatcott\u2019s security of the person,\nin a similar manner to a judge unconstitutionally ordering the castration of a\nconvicted sexual offender or the forced ingestion of unwanted prescription\ndrugs upon a convicted person, to modify that individual\u2019s behaviour and mental\nstate.&nbsp;&nbsp; Compulsory re-education at a\nfacility amounts in principle to a form of temporary incarceration to brainwash\nWhatcott so that he will modify his Christian beliefs to accept transgenderism.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This sanction is similar to the current\nsituation in China where over a million Muslim Chinese are confined to a\ndetention facility to modify their religious beliefs so that the prevailing\northodox view of the secular state is unchallenged in society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( hh ) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For the Attorney\nGeneral to conclude without any substantive analysis in paragraph 40 that&nbsp;&nbsp; \u201cthere is no penal sanction that could\npossibly make this [legislation] criminal law,\u201d ignores the provisions of the\nhuman rights legislation,&nbsp;&nbsp; that permit\nsanctions that follow the principles of behavior modification and sentencing\nutilized in criminal and human law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( ii )\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no doubt that s. 7 of the\nCode in pith and substance is criminal law.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nRand J. at pp. 12-13 [SCR] ruled in <em>Switzman<\/em>\nthat prohibiting any part of political free speech \u201cas an evil would be within\nthe scope of criminal law,\u201d and then referred to sections of the <em>Criminal Code <\/em>that dealt with sedition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( jj\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 7 of the Code, according\nto the AG in para. 40, does not specifically ban the propagation of a political\nbelief.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If that is the case, why was\nthis case not dismissed at an early stage upon the application of\nWhatcott?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The evidence in this case\nis clear that Whatcott was expressing a political belief that was grounded in\nChristian morality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( kk\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Duff, CJC read s. 92(13) and s.\n92(16) together in <em>Reference re: Alberta\nLegislation<\/em>.&nbsp; At p. 26 [SCR] Duff\nsummed up the law that leaves no doubt that s. 7 of the Code falls outside\nprovincial jurisdiction:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; \u201cDemocracy\ncannot be maintained without its foundation: <strong>free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all\nmatters affecting the State<\/strong> within the <strong>limits\nset by the criminal code<\/strong> and the <strong>common\nlaw<\/strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Every inhabitant \u2026 is also a\ncitizen \u2026 The province may deal with his property and civil rights of a local\nand private nature within the province;&nbsp;&nbsp;\nbut the <strong>province cannot interfere\nwith his status as a Canadian citizen and his fundamental right to express\nfreely his untrammelled opinion about<\/strong> government policies and discuss <strong>matters of public concern<\/strong>.\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [My emphasis] <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>( ll\n) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This conclusion is supported in\npara. 47 of the AG factum.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In <em>OPSEU<\/em>, Beetz J. held, \u201c\u2026 neither\nParliament nor the provincial legislatures may enact legislation the effect of\nwhich would be to substantially interfere with the operation of this basic\nconstitutional structure.\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The\nstructure is the right to abrogate the right of free public discussion and debate\nreferred to in the immediately preceding authorities cited, of <em>Switzman<\/em> and <em>Alberta Statutes<\/em>. <br>\n<br>\n( mm )\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The law is clear: the mandatory and\nprohibitory provisions of s. 7 of the Code are <em>ultra vires<\/em> of the provincial legislature. &nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>07&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 32 of the British Columbia <strong><em>Human Rights Code<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp; Application of&nbsp; <strong><em>Administrative Tribunals Act<\/em><\/strong> to\ntribunal,&nbsp;&nbsp; particularly,&nbsp; its section ( i )&nbsp; states section 45&nbsp;&nbsp; [ tribunal without jurisdiction over <strong><em>Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em><\/strong> issues ].&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cousineau et al. were statute-barred from\nentertaining the OGER complaint until <strong><em>Charter<\/em><\/strong> issues had been canvassed in the Supreme\nCourt of B C.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As a\nlawyer knowing perfectly-well that\nthe matter invokes the <strong><em>Charter<\/em><\/strong> ab initio, and that the Defendant had\nalready voiced such defence to the Commission in the run-up to the\nhearing,&nbsp; Commissioner Cousineau ought\nnot to have gone ahead with OGER\u2019s complaint, at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n08&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; UN-learned\nin the law as he was prior to the hearing,&nbsp;\nit was not incumbent upon WHATCOTT to point out to the tribunal that the\nBC <strong><em>Human\nRights Code<\/em><\/strong> is fatally-flawed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Even if he was remiss in not challenging\nthat aspect in the run-up,&nbsp;&nbsp; he hereby\nraises it now pursuant to section 24 of the <strong><em>Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>AS&nbsp; REGARDING&nbsp;\nTHE&nbsp; THIRD&nbsp; DECLARATION&nbsp;\nAND&nbsp; ORDER&nbsp; SOUGHT<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><br>\n09&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Several\npeople applied to Intervene in the hearing but were denied standing.&nbsp; One of them being Gordon S Watson, who had\nstood as a candidate in the provincial election of 2001.&nbsp;&nbsp; He funded part of the cost of publishing the\nflyer in question.&nbsp; Watson\u2019s submission\nto the Tribunal prior to the hearing proves he did intend to argue that the\nreciprocal of the right to expression, is the right to receive information.\nThus every one,&nbsp; whether known to a\npublisher or not, has the right to receive new information by any and all\nmedia, especially the free press.&nbsp;&nbsp; And\nthat as an Intervenor he could best make this argument.&nbsp; Shutting out his pitch re such right directly\non-point legitimacy of speech in the fray of the election,&nbsp; the Tribunal evaded its duty to hear from a\nstake-holder as it dealt with a kind of complaint never encountered before. <br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>REASONABLE&nbsp; APPREHENSION&nbsp;\nOF&nbsp; BIAS<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Because of\nthe fact that political activist Cousineau had been appointed to preside over\nthe OGER WHATCOTT matter, when it was well known she was a longtime activist in\nthe \u201ctrans-gender\u201d cause, there was apprehension of glaring bias such that the\nTribunal was convened illegally ab initio.&nbsp;\nItem four the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON, find a photograph of her in\nfull throat in her activist mode.&nbsp; The\nlocation, ie. on the public sidewalk outside the MLA constituency office of\nPremier Clark, is important.&nbsp; <br>\nMLA Christie Clark &#8211; miraculously &#8211; moved the \u201ctransgender\u201d amendment to the <br>\n<strong><em>B C\nHuman Rights Code<\/em><\/strong> through the Legislature via\n3 readings in one day, while the gallery was packed with supporters of that\npolitical cause.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  Any\nreasonable person who learned that AG EBY had picked Cousineau to preside on\nthe OGER WHATCOTT matter, involving this vice president of the New Democratic\nParty ( OGER ) can see that that was done so the goal of OGER and Cousineau\u2019s\npersonal political campaign would have the color of law. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Allowing this matter\nto go ahead under Cousineau, after\nher bias had been brought to his attention, AG Eby knowingly evaded his duty to\nensure WHATCOTT\u2019s civil right to due process of law\n:&nbsp; \u2018<strong>the fix was in\u2019<\/strong>&nbsp; and the Attorney General himself was in on the fix.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\n<br>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>12 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; After\nthe fact,&nbsp; Cousineau\u2019s prejudice is\nproven in her Reasons where she changed the very words spoken in the hearing,\ninserting feminine pronouns where the official transcript shows WHATCOTT having\nused \u201c<em>he<\/em>\u201d&nbsp; \u201c<em>his<\/em>\u201d&nbsp; \u201c<em>him<\/em>\u201d when referring to OGER.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>\n13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The nature of evidence is\nthat it can be tested. If it cannot be tested, it isn\u2019t evidence&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Had\nOGER\u2019s core delusion been put to the test in cross-examination, his credibility\nwould have been ruined. Example being, at page 47 lines 43- 44 of the\ntranscript of examination in Chief, &nbsp;where OGER&nbsp;\nrelates an exchange with someone who believes he is mentally ill. For\nthe Tribunal to prevent WHATCOTT\u2019s counsel from testing OGER\u2019s assertions that\nhe was somehow \u2018<em>a mom &#8230; her children &#8230; who she is<\/em>\u2019&nbsp; [&nbsp; lines 17 to 20 page 41 transcript of his\nevidence in Chief ]&nbsp;\nwhile relying upon that absurdity as a fact, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;is an error of law.&nbsp; <em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/em><br>\n14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Compelling\nhis accuser to take the witness stand so he can be exposed as a liar is a\nfundamental right of a Defendant within British jurisdiction.&nbsp; This right is long established &#8230; predating\nthe <strong><em>Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em><\/strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp; WHATCOTT was entitled to exercise that right\nin order get at the facts regarding OGER\u2019s mental state, especially the\ndelusion that he \u201c<em>is a woman<\/em>\u201d. The term for the mental\nillness suffered by OGER is <em>gender dysphoria<\/em>. Such people are\n\u201cbrittle\u201d personalities.&nbsp; When their\npreposterous self image is challenged, they come un-glued.&nbsp;&nbsp; Based on its acceptance that what the\nComplainant said was so, but for which there was not a scintilla of evidence\nthen the Tribunal\u2019s ruling is as patently absurd as OGER\u2019s belief he&nbsp; <em>\u201cis\u201d<\/em>&nbsp;\na woman.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">PART 4:&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MATERIALS&nbsp; TO&nbsp;\nBE&nbsp; RELIED&nbsp; UPON<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">&nbsp;<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Item One&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Amended Additional Response <br>\n<br>\nItem Two&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Supplemental Submissions\nDecember 16<sup>th<\/sup> 2018<br>\n<br>\nItem Three&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Summary of Whatcott\u2019s\ndefence December 21 2018<br>\n<br>\nItem Four&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  photograph of political\nactivist Devyn Cousineau in full throat <br>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; outside the\nconstituency office of MLA Christie Clark<br>\n<br>\nItem Five&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; application by Gordon S\nWatson for status as Intervenor&nbsp; <br>\n<br>\nSuch other affidavits as Petitioner may come up with, and be permitted, prior\nto the hearing<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Petitioner\nestimates that the Review will take one full day of Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;All of which is respectfully submitted<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Dated\nthis&nbsp;&nbsp; 24<sup>th<\/sup> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;day of November 2020 A. D. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>______&nbsp;\n__________________<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>signature\nof Gordon S Watson<br>\nAgent for Petitioner WILLIAM&nbsp; WHATCOTT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Court file No S -196032&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Vancouver&nbsp; Registry IN&nbsp; THE&nbsp; SUPREME&nbsp; COURT&nbsp; OF&nbsp; BRITISH&nbsp; COLUMBIA holden at Vancouver IN THE MATTER OF THE&nbsp;&nbsp; JUDICIAL&nbsp; REVIEW&nbsp; PROCEDURE&nbsp; ACT &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[ RSBC 1996 ]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Chapter&nbsp; 241 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; IN&nbsp; THE&nbsp; MATTER&nbsp; OF&nbsp; THE&nbsp;&nbsp; BC&nbsp; HUMAN &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=4985\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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":[94,984,2629],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4985"}],"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=4985"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4985\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4988,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4985\/revisions\/4988"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<br />
<b>Notice</b>:  ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in <b>/home/public/wp-includes/functions.php</b> on line <b>5373</b><br />