Lawyer accuse Whatcott: comparing transvestites to murderers

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

Lawyer accuse Whatcott: comparing transvestites to murderers

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:51 pm

Beginning of the flyer that homosexual activist lawyer Susanna Quail asserts compares her client Ronan (he calls himself Morgane) Oger to murderers.
-------------------------------------------------


Transgenderism vs Truth in Vancouver-False Creek

ImageImage
Ronan Oger (picture left) is a biological male who has renamed himself “Morgane Oger” after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle. Ronan is running for the NDP in the Vancouver-False Creek riding and BC's media and the NDP are promoting a false narrative that Ronan is a woman born into a male body. Walt Heyer (picture right) lived as a transvestite for eight years, cut off his penis, and injected himself with female hormones, in an effort to delude himself and everyone around him into thinking he was a female. Walt repented of his sin, reclaimed his God given male identity, and is now living as a born again Christian helping others to avoid the mistake he made of embracing transgender propaganda and trying to live a lie that he was a different gender from the one God made him.

Dear Vancouver-False Creek residents:

I am writing this flyer this election to share my concern about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God given gender.

The truth is there are only two genders, male and female and they are God given and unchangeable. Ronan may have government ID that refers to him by the French female name “Morgane” and the media, NDP, and everyone in the riding might try to pretend Ronan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan's DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts.

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:27

Because gender is God given and immutable, “transgenderism” is an impossibility. A male cannot “transition” into a female, nor can a female “transition” into a male. One can only cross dress and disfigure themselves with surgery and hormones to look like the gender they are not. This practice is harmful and displeasing to God. Those who embrace the transvestite and homosexual lifestyles put themselves at greatly increased risk of diseases such as HIV, syphilis, HPV of the rectum, anal gonorrhea, Hepatitis A,B & C, etc.... Homosexuals and transgenders are also at increased risk of drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and domestic violence.

In addition to the physical and social consequences of adopting a false sexual and gender identity, there are spiritual consequences too. Our God is a God of truth. Those who promote falsehoods like the NDP and BC's major media and say it is ok to indulge in homosexuality or embrace a transvestite lifestyle do so to their eternal peril. Liars and the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, nor will cowards. The truth is many BC residents know that promoting homosexuality and transvestitism is wrong, but are too cowardly or morally corrupt to speak up and defend what is true:

As for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 2:8

Thankfully Jesus Christ paid the price for your sin. You can turn to the merciful Christ and ask for forgiveness and when the NDP come knocking at your door you can tell them you won't vote for them because you believe in God's definition of gender and marriage. Truth matters and God wants you standing for what is true!

In Christ's Service,
Bill Whatcott, Ph: 778-837-3650, Email: billwhatcott @gmail.com, Web: http://www.freenorthamerica.ca

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” St. John 1:14

-----------------------------------------------
End of flyer




Homosexual activist lawyer Susanna Quail's submission on behalf of Ronan Oger (the NDP transvestite candidate for Vancouver-False Creek) arguing against my Application for Dismissal. Susanna is claiming the above flyer refers to Ronan Oger and transvestites in general as the equivalent of murderers, liars, and sexually immoral.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Alevato, Quail and Roy

January 12, 2018
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St


Sent via email: bchumanrightstribunal@gov.bc.ca

ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager

Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)

This is the complainant's submission in response to the respondent's application to dismiss and the submission of the intervenors in support of the respondent's application to dismiss.

The applicable law

1. To succeed in an application to dismiss pursuant to section 27(1)(c), the applicant bears the burden of establishing that there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed: Stonehouse v Elk Valley Coal Corp, 2007 BCHRT 305. The applicant must establish that there is no reasonable prospect the complainant will be able to establish the necessary elements for a finding of a violation of the Code.

2. This complaint alleges violations of both sections 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b).

3. To succeed in a complaint under section 7(1)(a), the complainant must establish on a balance of probabilities that the respondent "published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons because of one or more of the grounds protected under this provision": Koehler v. Carson and others (No. 2), 2,0°6 BCHRT 178 at pars 5o.

To succeed in a complaint under section 7(1)(b), the complainant must establish on a balance of probabilities that they have "suffered an adverse discriminatory effect by reason of the impugned publication, or that the impugned publication was intended to cause such an adverse discriminatory effect, or that the

page 2

publication has exposed [them] to hatred or contempt": Xu v. Ubyssey, 2014 BCHRT 194 at para 25. The Tribunal in Elmasry v Roger's Publishing Ltd, 2008 BCHRT 378, framed the test for section 7(1)(b) thus:

objectively considered by a reasonable person aware of the relevant context and circumstances, does the publication in question expose the target group to feelings of an ardent nature and unusually strong and deeply felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification?

(para 8o)

5. The Tribunal in Elmasry elaborated:

The harm addressed by s. 7(1)(3) is that when messages are conveyed that arouse "unusually strong feelings and deeply felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification" they will undermine the promotion of equality, guaranteed in the Charter and reflected in one of the Code's purposes, as outlined in s. 3.

(para 86)

6. In an application to dismiss, the applicant (here, Mr. Whatcott) must establish that the complainant has no reasonable prospect of being able to establish these required elements.

Response to the applicant's submissions

7. The applicant's submissions frame the question as whether the content of his flyers can be defined as "hate speech". The applicant submits: "simply expressing the opinion that the Complainant is a man does not possible rise to the level of hate speech."

8. The impugned publications do not "simply express the opinion that the Complainant is a man", nor do they merely state that people should not vote for the Complainant, as the applicant also submits.

9. The impugned publications describe transgender people, including Ms. Oger, as well as those who support transgender equality, as "liars and the sexual immoral", "cowards", and "morally corrupt". The impugned publications refer to them as among "the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, ... murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars". The impugned publications rejects the reality of transgender identities and describes transgender people as attempting to delude themselves and others, and as mutilating and disfiguring their bodies.

page 3

10. The complaint has a reasonable prospect of establishing that publications that rejects the reality of transgender identities indicate discrimination, per section 7(1)(a). The content of the publications is blatantly discriminatory. To take the position that transgender people are not truly who they say they are, and only cisgender men and women are truly who they say they are, is to assert that transgender people are inferior to cisgender people, which is bare discrimination. To deny the very existence of transgender people clearly undermines their dignity and humanity, contrary to the Code.

11. The complaint also has a reasonable prospect of establishing that describing transgender persons, including the complainant, as detestable and equivalent to murderers, among the other epithets used in the impugned publication, is likely to expose transgender persons to hatred or contempt, per section 7(1)(b). The publications on their face describe transgender persons as people who should be hated. "Detest" and "hate" have the same meaning: "feel intense dislike for" (Oxford English Dictionary). The publications explicitly vilify transgender persons, lumping them in with murderers and labelling them "sexually immoral".

12. In fact, the test as the applicant sets out and which the complainant agrees applies specifically uses the word "detestation". It is difficult to see how the impugned publications could fall outside the scope of "detestation" given that they describe transgender people as "detestable".

13. The applicant submits that there is no reasonable prospect of success because the community to which he distributed the publications ignored him or rejected his message. The fact that the applicant tried but failed to convince people to hate and detest transgender persons does not mean that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. Section 7(1)(a) makes no mention of the effect of the impugned publication; it prohibits the publication of discrimination (or intention to discriminate) itself. Section 7(1)(b) does refer to the effect of the publication, but only requires that the publication be "likely" to result in hatred or contempt, not that it actually does so. The Code prohibits both successful and failed attempts to expose others to hatred.

14. Moreover, the applicant's blog describes a different reception: see attached printout, page 6 in particular. This is also reflected in the unsolicited submissions and petition sent to the Tribunal by other persons who received, accepted, and acted on the applicant's message. The application does not establish that there is no reasonable prospect of success because the community ignored or rejected his message.
The application fails to establish that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success under either section 7(1)(a) or 7(0 (b).

Response to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom

15. The submission of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, like the applicant's submission, mischaracterizes the impugned publication as merely expressing a difference of opinion about whether it is possible for a person to be transgender. As set out above, the impugned publication goes beyond expressing 4/pinions about the nature of transgender identities and expressly describes transgender people in a manner that is both discriminatory (and thus in violation of section 7(1)(a)) and likely to expose transgender people to hatred or contempt (and thus in violation of section 7(1)(13)).

16. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms further submits that the impugned publication merely reproduces biblical comments about the afterlife. The biblical comments the impugned publication reproduces are used by the applicant to liken transgender persons to murderers and to describe them as cowardly, detestable, sexually immoral, and liars. That this quotation comes from the Christian bible or that it contains some predictions about what happens after people die do not change the fact that, in the context of the impugned publication, it is used for the purpose of discriminating against transgender persons and likely exposing them to hatred or contempt.

17. The complainant agrees with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide what happens to people after they die, and further adds that nothing in the complaint nor the application to dismiss requires the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction over this question.

18. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms further submits that the Code should not be interpreted in a manner that conflicts with the Charter, including sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter.

19. The applicant did not make any arguments related to section 2(a) of the Charter and it would be improper for the Tribunal to permit an intervenor to raise new arguments, in effect making its own application to dismiss the complaint.

20. The applicant did refer to section 2(b) and the line between section 7 prohibited speech and section 2(b)'s protection of freedom of expression. In order for the applicant to succeed under section 27(1)(c) on this basis, the applicant would have to establish that there is no reasonable prospect that he will fail to establish that the impugned publication is within the scope of section 2(b) of the Charter - that is, that he is sure to be able to establish a 2(b) defence. The applicant asserts that the impugned publication is within the scope of section 2(b) of the Charter because it merely expresses opinions that transgender identities are not real and that people should not vote for the complainant. As described above, this is a blatant mischaracterization of the impugned publication, which goes much further and describes transgender people as liars, sexually immoral, detestable, and

page 4

equivalent to murderers. The application to dismiss does not establish that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will fail to establish that the impugned publication is within the scope of section 2(b) of the Charter.

Response to the Canadian Association for Free Expression

22. The submissions of the Canadian Association for Free Expression have all been addressed above.

23. In conclusion, the application to dismiss does not establish that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success and therefore should be dismissed.

All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the complainant.

Allevato Quail & Roy

Susanna Allevato Quail

Barristers & Solicitors*
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
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: No registered users and 4 guests

cron