Wacky conversation over transvestite betwn Whatcott & BCHRT

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

Wacky conversation over transvestite betwn Whatcott & BCHRT

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:52 am

Image Image

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female." Matthew 19:4

Dear Friends,

The evidence that state enforcement of transvestite pseudo rights is an exercise of tyranny and madness continues to make its self known. The man whose birth name was Ronan Oger (Ronan now calls himself Morgane after he fathered two children and decided he was a woman at age 44), the NDP transvestite candidate who is prosecuting me for calling him a guy who God did not want people to vote for, is apparently unhappy that the BC Human Rights Tribunal stated the obvious that he was born a male. The following conversation would be funny, except Ronan and his homosexual activist lawyer are using the BC Human Rights Tribunal to take away the right to speak self evident truths away from Canadians in order to accomodate Ronan's narcissistic gender fantasy.

Here is the conversation between me, Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, the BCHRT kangaroo judge who refuses to recuse himself for bias Walter Rilkoff, and Ronan's homosexual activist lawyer Susanna Quail.

(Note: The Decision Regarding Interveners is 8 pages, you can scroll past the 8 pages if you are not interested in the decision or are strapped for time, and just read the e-mails containing a four way argument over the request to change the decision's wording to suit Ronan's gender fantasy.)

Susanna Allevato Quail <saquail@aqwlaw.ca>
to Midhath, BC, me, paul

Dar Mr. Varnals,

Pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tribunals' Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Complainant requests the correction of an error in this decision, 2017 BCHRT 195.

Paragraph 2 of the decision states that Ms. Oger "was born as a male". This is incorrect and is not set out in any of the Complainant's materials. Ms. Oger requests that this sentence be removed, or if it is relevant to specify Ms. Oger's gender identity the sentence could be corrected to state "Ms. Oger is a transgender woman."

Should the Tribunal require further evidence, Ms. Oger can provide a copy of her birth certificate which is marked "female". However, Ms. Oger notes that complainants are not generally required to provide evidence of their sex or gender before the Human Rights Tribunal and would prefer not to give credence to any notion that she must produce evidence to prove that she is who she is.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Susanna Allevato Quail
Barrister & Solicitor

Allevato Quail & Worth

604-424-8637


Here is the offending decision Ronan is complaining about. I highlighted the offending sentence in red and bolded it so you can find it easily.


Date Issued: September 8, 2017
File: 16408

Indexed as: Oger v. Whatcott, 2017 BCHRT 195

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:  

Morgane Oger
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Bill Whatcott
RESPONDENT
 
 
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR STATUS
Rule 13



Tribunal Member: Walter Rilkoff
Counsel for the Complainant: Susanna Quail
On his own behalf: Bill Whatcott
On his own behalf: Gordon S. Watson
Appearing for Canadian Association for Free
Expression:Paul Fromm

Page | 1

INTRODUCTION

[1] Morgane Oger has brought a complaint against Bill Whatcott alleging that he published
two flyers that are likely to expose Ms. Oger in particular and transgender people in general to
hatred or contempt because of her gender identity contrary to section 7 of the Human Rights
Code [Code].

[2] Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female. She was a candidate for the New
Democratic Party in the May 2017 provincial general election in the Electoral District of
Vancouver – False Creek.

[3] The first flyer was distributed during the election campaign and was headed
“Transgenderism vs. Truth in Vancouver – False Creek”. Mr. Whatcott does not deny publishing
this flyer.

[4] The second flyer was published by Mr. Whatcott in response to a directive from the
Tribunal dated June 9, 2017 in which Mr. Whatcott was directed to refer to Ms. Oger as “the
Complainant” if he was not prepared to refer to her as “Ms. Oger”, “Morgane Oger”, “she” or
“her”.

A. Submissions

[5] The Tribunal has received submissions from someone identified only by a signature
which appears to be “B. Gray” with no address or other identifying information and another
from someone who identifies herself variously as “Cecelia von Dehn”, “Cecilia von Dehn” and
“Sissy von Dehn”, says she is a “Ret. RN SCM” and provides a Vancouver address.

[6] No application for intervenor status has been made with either letter (Ms. Von Dehn
wrote two). Neither letter addresses the merits of the complaint: whether Mr. Whatcott’s flyers
violate section 7 of the Code. Rather, the letters simply set out the writer’s views about gender
identity.

Page | 2

[7] The Tribunal is not a forum for debate about any particular issue, in this case, any
individual’s views about gender identity. Rather the Tribunal is a quasi‐judicial body whose
ultimate task is to interpret the Code and to determine whether, on the facts found after a
hearing, the Code has been violated.  

[8] No application to intervene by these two individuals has been received or intervenor
status granted. Accordingly, those letters will not be considered further and are not being
circulated for response.  

B Applications for Intervenor Status

[9] In addition, two applications for intervener status have been made. The first is from an
individual who identifies himself as Gordon S Watson, of Sidney, B.C. and who describes himself
as Justice Critic for the Party of Citizens Who Have Decided to Think for Ourselves and Be Our
Own Politicians. The second is from an organization that calls itself Canadian Association for
Free Expression [CAFE], a not‐for‐profit company situated in Rexdale, Ontario. 
 
[10] The Code provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction to allow intervenors whether or not
they would be affected by any remedy sought. Section 22.1 states:
A member or panel may, at any time after the complaint is filed and on
the terms specified by the member or panel, allow any person or group
of persons to intervene in the complaint, whether or not that person or
group would be affected by an order made by the member or panel
under section 37.

[11] The Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provide for intervenors to be granted
status as the Tribunal’s discretion. Rules13 (3) and (4) state:

(3) A person who may be affected by the remedy sought under under
section 37 of the Code and who wants to participate in the complaint
process must apply to intervene in the complaint and state:  
(a) how they may be affected by the remedy sought; and
(b) how they want to participate.

Page | 3

(4) Any other person or group of persons who wants to participate in the
complaint process must apply to intervene in the complaint and state in
the application:  
(a) their interest in and any expertise regarding the issues they want
to address;
(b) how they want to participate; and
(c) how their participation will be useful to the tribunal.

[12] Neither applicant for intervenor status has set out how they may be affected by the
remedy sought, and accordingly, I address both application under Rule 13(4).
1. Gordon Watson Application

[13] Mr. Watson seeks to make submissions, written and oral, to participate in the hearing,
to question witnesses and, if circumstances warrant, to call witnesses. He does not say what
the circumstances would be that would lead him to want to call witnesses.  

[14] Mr. Watson says he seeks to represent a class of persons yet unascertained who are
“innocent children considering so‐called ’gender re‐assignment’”. In his reply, Mr. Watson says
his participation is important because Mr. Whatcott is not participating in the process.
However, the Tribunal has not received anything from Mr. Whatcott suggesting that he is not
participating.

[15] Mr. Watson notes that a court referred to him as a “longtime political activist”. It
appears from his submissions that he has many causes ranging from opposition to abortion to
distribution of raw milk.

[16] However, Mr. Watson points to no particular expertise on the issue before the Tribunal:  
the proper interpretation of s. 7 and, in light of that interpretation, whether the flyers
published by Mr. Whatcott offended against the Code.

[17] In a seven‐page single‐spaced application and a six‐page single‐spaced reply, Mr.
Watson does not stay focused on the issues relevant to intervening in this case, instead
referring in the course of his submissions to freedom of speech and expression, his anti‐
abortion activism, his version of Biblical principles, homosexuality, raw milk, sex selection,
“Body Integrity Identity Disorder”, allegations of criminal activity by the previous provincial

Page | 4

government, Premier Gordon Campbell and the Harmonized Sales Tax, an allegation that some
of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada who decided Saskatchewan (Human Rights
Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 [Whatcott] were illegally appointed; that the provincial
NDP and the provincial Liberals took bribes, Orwell’s novel Animal Farm; to name just some of
the topics.

[18] In Hughson v. Oliver, 2000 BCHRT 11, the Tribunal in considering an intervention
application by CAFE stated (at paras. 4 and 5):

These cases make it clear that the fact that a potential intervenor brings a
different perspective to an issue is not sufficient to warrant granting
leave to intervene. Rather, considering the nature of the issue, the
Tribunal must determine how likely it is that the intervenor will make a
useful contribution to its resolution. Further, the utility of the
contribution must be balanced against the risk of injustice to the parties:
the parties retain the power to define the issues and should not be
compelled to deal with issues raised by non‐parties. An intervention
should not “take the litigation away” from the parties.  

In general, the Tribunal has granted leave to intervene when a potential
intervenor shows that it is likely to usefully contribute to an issue that is
clearly raised by the complaint. Usually, the Tribunal is able to ensure
that the parties are not unduly burdened by the intervention by placing
appropriate limits on the intervenor’s participation.  

[19] I am denying Mr. Watson’s application to intervene. I am not convinced that he will
make a useful contribution to the resolution of the complaint. While obviously a political
activist, he demonstrates no particular expertise with regard to the task before the Tribunal,
particularly, finding the appropriate balance between the strictures of the Code and Charter
protected freedom of speech and expression.

[20] In addition to not being convinced that Mr. Watson has any argument or submissions
that may be useful, I am convinced that allowing his participation, even under strict guidelines,
would raise a very real possibility of the litigation being taken from the parties.

[21] Ms. Oger asserts that the case falls to be decided on the principles established by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Whatcott. Mr. Watson disagrees but wants to argue, among other

Page | 5

things, that some of the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada were illegally appointed. The
Tribunal is not the proper forum for such an argument, even assuming such an argument has
any validity.  

[22] I find that Mr. Watson’s participation as an intervenor would not be useful to the
Tribunal; I deny his application for intervenor status. 
 
2. CAFE Application

[23] CAFE is a non‐profit organization incorporated in Ontario which specializes in issues of
freedom of speech and freedom of belief. It has been granted intervenor status in court and
tribunal hearings in various jurisdictions in Canada.

[24] It has been granted intervenor status by this Tribunal on more than one occasion,
including in Hughson v. Oliver.

[25] In this case, CAFE seeks intervenor status to make submissions, oral and written, to
participate in the hearings, to question witnesses, and “if circumstances warrant, to call
witnesses” It has not set out what circumstances would warrant its calling witnesses, who the
witnesses might be or what evidence those witnesses might give.

[26] Aside from prolonging a hearing and taking the litigation away from the parties, there
can be an unfairness to parties if their witnesses have to undergo two sets of cross‐examination
where the parties are taking the same position, as is the case here from what I can tell.
Certainly CAFE has not set out the value to the Tribunal of having a second party cross‐examine
witnesses called by an opposing party.

[27] As it acknowledges, in Hughson v. Oliver, CAFE was afforded intervenor status but was
not permitted to call or examine witnesses. In its reply, it says that it is “aware of at least 2
witnesses that we propose to produce.” It does not name the witnesses or what evidence those
witnesses would give.

[28] CAFE says that its participation is necessary because Mr. Whatcott is impecunious and
cannot afford a lawyer, while CAFE’s arguments, according to its Director, will be prepared by a

Page | 6

“qualified senior lawyer of four decades experience”. It does not appear that the lawyer would
participate but rather Mr. Fromm, CAFE’s director would. Mr. Fromm is not a lawyer.

[29] Given CAFE’s extensive participation in other fora in Canada, I have decided that its
submissions may be of assistance but only for the purpose of making written and oral
submissions. There may also be circumstances in which a witness may be able to provide useful
evidence.

[30] I am granting CAFE’s application on the following terms:  

1. CAFE’s participation will be limited to making oral and written submissions in
regard to the question before the Tribunal, namely whether the two flyers
violated s. 7 of the Code. CAFE does not have standing to take part in any
procedural matters before the Tribunal unless the Tribunal asks them for
submissions.

2. CAFE may apply to call one or more witnesses. Any such application must be in
writing and made least 120 calendar days prior to the commencement of the
hearing. Any application must set out the name and contact information of the
proposed witness, the evidence in detail that the witness is expected to provide
and why the witness’ evidence will assist the Tribunal in resolving this complaint.
If CAFE proposes to introduce any documents as that term is defined in Rule
20(1), through a proposed witness, then it must provide a Form 9.2 to the
Tribunal and to counsel for Ms. Oger as though it were a respondent in this
complaint. Copies of those documents listed must be provided to counsel for Ms.
Oger and to Mr. Whatcott.

3. If CAFE proposes to call expert evidence, it must also set out the witness’
qualifications to provide the evidence and apply in sufficient time to allow it to
comply with Rule 21. If the Tribunal provides consent to call a witness as an
expert witness, then copies of any literature referred to in the expert witness’
summary of the opinion or report must be provided to counsel for Ms. Oger and

Page | 7

to Mr. Whatcott at the same time that the written summary referred to in Rule
21(1) or the report referred to in Rule 21(2) is provided.  

C Disclosure

[31] Ms. Oger’s Form 9.1 was due to be filed with the Tribunal on July 7, 2017 and a copy of
the form and any documents listed provided to Mr. Whatcott. Even if no documents are being
disclosed the Form is to be filed saying so. The flyers are themselves obviously relevant
documents and must be listed.

[32] Amending the complaint does not postpone the dates for disclosure. Rule 20.2 makes
clear that disclosure is an ongoing obligation.

[33] In that regard, I bring the provisions of Rules 20(4)‐(6) and Rule 22 to the attention of
both parties.

[34] At this point in time, as Ms. Oger has not complied with her document disclosure
obligations, her complaint is being held in abeyance unless and until she complies with those
obligations. Mr. Whatcott will then have the number of calendar days by which the Form 9.1 is
late‐filed plus 35 calendar days to file his Form 9.2 and comply with his document disclosure
obligations.  

Signed
Walter Rilkoff, Tribunal Member


Anyways, I responded to Susanna's request to change the decision to suit her client's gender fantasy with common sense.


Bill Whatcott <billwhatcott@gmail.com>
to Susanna, BC, paul, Midhath,

To all:

Is not homosexual activist lawyer Susanna Quail's request that the written decision regarding interveners in Oger vs Whatcott be amended not more evidence that this prosecution of me is really a tyrannical and ill concieved act of madness?

Susanna and Ronan don't like paragraph two of the decision and they want to change it to something that better suits Ronan's refusal to deal with reality. At the moment it correctly reads:

"Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female."

Actually Mr Oger was born a male and he still is a male and no fake birth certificate or judgment that is executed against me by the Tribunal is going to change this fact.

Susanna goes on to say:

"Ms. Oger can provide a copy of her birth certificate which is marked "female".

What Susanna fails to say and what is the big elephant in the room is that Mr. Oger's first birth certificate had him correctly identified as a male and his name was Ronan.

Furthermore Ronan's birth certificate had him identified as a male as recently as ten years ago when he was married to a woman and was fathering children. Ronan's DNA as of this writing is still 100% male.

Ronan's and Susanna's accusations of "hate speech" against me is completely without merit. The BC Human Rights Tribunal's attempt to pretend that Ronan is a woman in need of so-called human rights protection when he decides to run for the NDP as a "trans activist" is an absolute perversion of true justice. To prosecute someone like me because I decided as a right thinking taxpayer to question this fake narrative and because I gave accurate information on the downside of the transvestite lifestyle and told voters that one can be redeemed from the quagmire and delusion of so-called transgenderism is an abomination.

In Christ's Service
Bill Whatcott



Susanna ignored my common sense and pressed on in her attempt to convince the Tribunal to reword its decision to suit her client's gender fantasy.


Susanna Allevato Quail <saquail@aqwlaw.ca
to BC, me, paul, Midhath

Dear Mr. Varnals,

In my email below I stated that Ms. Oger could provide a copy of her birth certificate which is marked "female". I mis-spoke. As Ms. Oger was born outside of Canada, it is her proof of citizenship rather than her birth certificate that is her foundational Canadian identity document.

We reiterate our request that the decision be corrected. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Susanna Allevato Quail
Barrister & Solicitor

Allevato Quail & Worth

604-424-8637



The Tribunal responds to Susanna's ludicrous request.

BC Human Rights Tribunal JAG:EX
to saquail, me, paul

Dear Susanna Quail,

You state that the sentence is in error. The Tribunal Member does not understand where the error is and the letter does not say. Please describe how it is in error and the Member will consider your request.

Regards,

Daniel Varnals
CASE MANAGER
BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
Tel: 604-660-0931 or 1-888-440-8844 toll free
Fax: 604-775-2020


In response to the Tribunal's query Susanna ignores that Ronan indeed identified as a male for most of his life and married a heterosexual woman and fathered children with her and writes.

Susanna Allevato Quail <saquail@aqwlaw.ca>
to BC, me, paul, Midhath

Ms. Oger was not born as a male.

Sent from Nine


I point out that Ronan's original ID would have him identified as a male.

Bill Whatcott <billwhatcott@gmail.com>
to Susanna, BC, paul, Midhath,

Dear Tribunal, Susanna and other concerned parties:

I believe Ronan's French birth certificate will say he was a male at the time of his birth. So will Ronan's DNA attest to this fact. Susanna has allowed so-called transgender ideology to bring her to a place where she is demanding that the defendant and the Tribunal deny unalterable biological reality. I have already taken screen shots of the judgment, paragraph two in particular and this conversation. What will be interesting is how does the Tribunal respond to this demand by Susanna to deny what is in essence biological reality?

What kind of penalty should be assessed against the defendant for refusing to partake in this madness and shining a light on it during a provincial election????

In Christ's Service
Bill Whatcott


Paul Fromm from the Canadian Association for Free Expression chimed in.

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

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

RE: Oger v Whatcott -- Case Number 16408

Dear Mr. Varnals:

I write in response to the September 12 letter from Susanna Allevato Quail on behalf of Complainant Oger. Pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tribunals Rule and Practices, she demands rewording of the Tribunal's September 8th ruling granting CAFE "intervenor status" in this matter.

In our respectful submission, it is improper to demand the rewording of such an interlocutory decision. Submissions by respondent Bill Whatcott show that wording is very controversial and sexual identity is very much at the heart of this case.

The proper approach would be for the Complainant to seek judicial review and not to try to negotiate a changing in the wording of the decision.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm
Director


Walter Rilkoff releases his decision regarding Susanna's request the Intervener Judgment's wording be changed to suit her client's gender fantasy.


British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
1170 — 605 Robson Street Vancouver BC Y6B 5J3
Phone: 604-775-2000
Fax: 604-775-2020
TTY: 604-775-2021
Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844

September 13, 2017

Susanna Quail
Allevato Quail & Worth 405 - 510 West Hastings St. Vancouver, BC V6B 1L8

Via Email

Bill Whatcott XXXXX
Vancouver, BC VXXXX

Paul Fromm CAFE
Box 332
Rexdale, ON M9W 5L3

Re: Morgane Oger v. Bill Whatcott

(Case Number:16408)

Ms. Oger has asked the Tribunal to amend what she says is an error in decision number 2017 BCHRT 195, paragraph 2. She disputes that she was born a male but provides no further description of how she says that this statement is in error. She would like the description changed to: “Ms. Oger is a transgender woman.”

Mr. Whatcott, not surprisingly opposes the change asserting that Ms. Oger was born a male and remains so.

The decision is an interim decision addressing applications for intervenor status and does not contain findings of fact related to the merits of Ms. Oger‘s complaint. It is obvious however that even that simple sentence will be hotly contested and argued in the course of the hearing of this complaint on the merits, assuming that the complaint reaches that point.

Changing a decision after it is published is an extraordinary step designed to correct obvious errors. It is for the person seeking the correction to persuade the Tribunal that the particular statement said to be in error was indeed an error. Ms. Oger has not done so. For that reason, I deny the request to change the decision as published.

This brings me to Mr. Whatcott’s submissions. They are disrespectful (and in my view deliberately so). He refers to counsel for Ms. Oger as “Susanna” and Ms. Oger as “Ronan”. He has already been admonished that if he does not wish to refer to Ms. Oger as such, or refer to her as “she” or “her", he is to refer to Ms. Oger as “the Complainant“.

In referring to Ms. Quail or others, appropriate respect is to be shown and first names are not to be used unless quoting what someone has said.

Mr. Whatcott is to refer to Ms. Quail as Ms. Quail and not "Susanna”. As noted, Mr. Whatcott is to refer to Ms. Oger as the Complainant, if he chooses not to use "Ms. Oger“, “she” or “her”.

Failure to abide by this directive will likely lead to an order of costs against Mr. Whatcott and may lead to the Tribunal refusing to accept or to hear submissions that violate this directive.

Walter Rilkoff
Tribunal Member


In Christ's Service
Bill Whatcott

"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ."
Philippians 3:8
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Wacky conversation over transvestite betwn Whatcott & BC

Postby fathers4fairness » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:03 pm

Bill,
Thank-you for posting your correspondence of the IDIOT calling himself Walter Rilkoff.
I intend to send him a shrill letter asking if he is a male or female Kangaroo (with a copy to his boss)
I think we can all see how this ends and hopefully you will be able to expose this case to the wide ridicule it deserved when you appeal in in Provincial Court.
I will send a copy to Ezra Levant as a reminder that the BCHRT has not really ammended its ways since he described his odessy in 2009.
http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/ezra-levant-mark-steyn-vs-the-idiotic-yuman-rites-circus/

Blessings Brother,
CRJ
User avatar
fathers4fairness
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Wacky conversation over transvestite betwn Whatcott & BC

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:42 pm

fathers4fairness wrote:Bill,
Thank-you for posting your correspondence of the IDIOT calling himself Walter Rilkoff.
I intend to send him a shrill letter asking if he is a male or female Kangaroo (with a copy to his boss)
I think we can all see how this ends and hopefully you will be able to expose this case to the wide ridicule it deserved when you appeal in in Provincial Court.
I will send a copy to Ezra Levant as a reminder that the BCHRT has not really ammended its ways since he described his odessy in 2009.
http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/ezra-levant-mark-steyn-vs-the-idiotic-yuman-rites-circus/

Blessings Brother,
CRJ


Thanks Bro.

They are crazy.....

God Bless
Bill
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB


Return to Gatherings and Activism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests