CAFE intervenes in Morgane Oger vs Whatcott & prayer request

Get togethers, protests, pickets, activism, discuss it here!

CAFE intervenes in Morgane Oger vs Whatcott & prayer request

Postby Bill Whatcott » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:59 am

Dear Friends,

Please pray for travel mercies for me today as I head to Kamloops today to deliver 500 copies of my truthful and hard hitting "Open Letter to Walter Rolkoff, LGBT Activist and BC Human Rights Tribunal Kangaroo Adjudicator."

To see the open letter go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10641

Also note below that the Canadian Association for Free Expession has intervened in my Human Rights Tribunal kangaroo court process.

In Christ's Service
Bill Whatcott

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
July 7, 2017

Mr. Daniel Varnals, Case Manager,
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Fax: 604-775-2020

Dear Mr. Varnals:
Re: Application for Intervener Status in Oger v Whatcott -- Case Number 16408
                           Pursuant to Section 22.1 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) wishes to seek intervenor status before this Tribunal .
                          Freedom of speech and expression, which are our mandate, are very much at the heart of the matters to be decided. This complaint raises questions of freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of the press and active participation in the political process.
                         CAFE has over 30 years of experience intervening in tribunals and court cases on issues of freedom of expression and this expertise may be of some assistance to the Board of Review.
                         I shall outline our history of interventions.
                        CAFÉ is a non-profit educational organization that was incorporated in the Province of Ontario, on April 13, 1983. According to its founding document, its objects are, inter alia:
a. To operate exclusively as a charitable corporation for the purposes of education and general benefit to the community;
b. To promote respect for and observance of freedom of speech and expression generally;
c. To engage in and to encourage research into and awareness of freedom of speech and expression generally in light of common law tradition and the Charter of Rights of the Constitution of Canada;
                      CAFÉ has  sought intervention and intervened in the following cases:
*  The Canadian Association for Free Expression sought and obtained "interested party" status in the Richard Warman v Marc Lemire case, with particular reference to Mr. Lemire's constitutional challenge – the case at hand. CAFÉ attended at all sessions, unlike certain other parties, and actively participated in questioning witnesses and in making submissions before and during the hearings.
* CAFE was granted intervener or "interested party" status before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal inquiring into the Internet case against Ernst Zundel. This was a Sec. 13.1 complaint and involved over 50 days of hearings (sporadically from 1997-2002). CAFE participated actively and led five days worth of evidence, involving seven witnesses.
* CAFE also participated in a number of applications for judicial review of decisions involving this hearing.
* The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervener status in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a challenge to the constitutionality of Sec. 7(1)(b) of the B.C. Human Rights Code in the Berscheid case.
* As well, in the Autumn of 2000, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervener status in a constitutional challenge to the same section of the code in the Doug Collins/North Shore News case. CAFE was granted the right to cross-examine witnesses, make submissions and introduce evidence. This complaint also raised and relied on the controversial and much disputed Sec. 7(1)(a)(b),
*  In addition, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervener status n a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing in a complaint against the Town of Oliver and Mayor Linda Larson following their refusal to proclaim Gay Pride Week.
* . The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Zundel case, in granting CAFE's motion for "interested party status", ruled:
"We find that the motion brought by Mr. Fromm,  on behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, should be allowed.  We are satisfied that. Mr. Fromm will bring a unique perspective to these proceedings and that his organization has demonstrated a credible interest in the significant issue before this tribunal. ... The focus of Mr. Fromm's organization is on the issue of free expression."
*  In granting the Canadian Association for Free Expression "intervener status" in the complaint against the town of Oliver, Tribunal member Nitya Iyer noted, February 16, 2000:
"The material brought before me shows it [CAFE] has a demonstrated interest in freedom of expression issues in the context of human rights legislation. I am prepared to accept that its participation may assist the Tribunal in its resolution of the constitutional issues raised in this complaint. I also note that the constitutional issue raised in this complaint has implications before the narrow facts of the present complaint. The interpretation of provisions of the code in light of the Charter's guarantee of freedom of expression is a matter of public interest."
*  CAFE was also granted "interested party" status in the Schnell vs. Micka Canadian Human Rights complaint (2001) also under Sec..13.1  involving Mr..Micka's  Internet site. In this seven day hearing, CAFE actively cross-examined witnesses, led expert testimony and made submissions to the Tribunal.
* In 2009, CAFÉ sought and obtained “interested party” status in Harry Abrams v Arthur Topham and a complaint about Internet postings under Sec. 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
* In 2010, CAFÉ was granted “interested party” status in a Reference by the Lieutenant Goverenor in Council Set Out in Order in Council No. 533, Date October 22, 2009, Concerning the Constitutionality of S. 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-46, which was heard by BC Chief  Justice Bauman. CAFE, then represented by Douglas Hewson Christie, actively participated in this reference.
* In April, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeals granted CAFE intervener status in the appeal by Marc Lemire against the judgment of the Federal Court in its judicial review of Warman v Marc Lemire.
* In September, 2013 CAFE sought and obtained intervener status  before the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench in an Application by Isabelle McCorkell to nullify the will of her late brother Robert McCorkill (different spelling) on the grounds that his bequest to the National Alliance was contrary to public policy. CAFE appealed the Court of Queen's Bench decision to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in 2014 and unsuccessfully sought Leave to Appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015.
* In March, 2017, CAFE  sought and obtained interested party status before an Independent  Board of Review, under the Canada Post Corporation Act, inquiring into a decision by the Minister of Supply and Procurement to revoke the mailing rights of Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine, editor and publisher respectively of YOUR WARD NEWS.  In an April 5, 2017, decision the Independent Board of Review ruled:
"The Board of Review has determined that you are a person who has an interest in this matter within the meaning of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
You may participate in the review in any one of the following ways: 1. You may send written submissions to the Board of Review stating your views and any relevant information. Please send your submissions to by May 31, 2017. All submissions will become part of the public record in this proceeding and will be shared with the parties. If you wish your email which was received on March 27, 2017 to stand as your submissions, please advise us.

2. You may present evidence relevant to the issue before the Board at the public hearing. In addition, regardless of whether you choose to give evidence you may make oral submissions to the Board.
                    The Canadian Association for Free of Expression has an interest in sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically,  freedom of expression under Section 2(b), and freedom of belief..
                      The Canadian Association for Free of Expression has subscribers across Canada.
Proposed Submission:
            CAFE has concerns that the complaint infringes Mr. Whatcott's rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of belief, and freedom to participate in the political process. The complainant had presented as a candidate in an election and thus had become a public figure subject to comment and discussion. Politics, religion and social ideologies mean conflicting views and opinions in an increasingly diverse society. The state should not favour or advantage one ideology over another. These concerns are very much at play in this case.
            CAFE seeks intervener status to make submissions, written and oral; to participate in the hearings;  to question witnesses and, if circumstances warrant, to call witnesses.

Hoping that this is of assistance, I remain,  Respectfully yours
Paul Fromm, Director
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Posts: 6778
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Return to Gatherings and Activism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest