Canadian tribunal fines Bill Whatcott $55,000 for expressing Christian views on “transgenderism”

Unbelievable 104-page ruling – “mis-gendering” is now a “hate crime”

Watch out: This is what is coming to America!

April 3, 2019

Last week the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined Christian activist Bill Whatcott $55,000 for the crime of "mis-gendering." They ordered him to “refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention.”

Whatcott’s “offence” is still considered perfectly legal in the United States. But for how long? (We are already seeing private censorship regarding transgenderism on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Vimeo!) Passage of the pending federal “Equality Act” (H.R. 5) will insert “gender identity protections” throughout federal law.

Bill Whatcott was convicted of “mis-gendering” – telling people that a male wearing women’s clothes is actually a male, not a female. You read this correctly. This is how insane things have become in Canada. But the Tribunal declared that Whatcott’s (true) statements caused injury to the cross-dressing man’s “dignity, feelings, and self-respect,” and therefore Whatcott must be punished. The Tribunal noted that truth is no defense.

The 104-page B.C. Huiman Rights Tribunal ruling against Bill Whatcott - read it here

In Canada this irrational “gender” ideology now overrules everything. In the 104-page ruling (see below) the Tribunal judge freely admitted that this decision limits Whatcott’s religious freedom and freedom of expression:

There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion… While Mr. Whatcott would remain free to hold his beliefs about transgender people, he would be limited in the manner in which he could spread those views to the general public… There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally. (Sections 75-77)

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “freedom of expression” is necessary for society’s “search for truth.” But there is no longer a need for society to search for truth. The Tribunal has declared what truth is.

It goes even further. Mandated speech in the “transgender” realm is now the law. A “transgender woman” must not be called a man. You must use the pronoun or name the person wants. If you don’t, you are guilty of “hate speech.”

Whatcott is allowed think his thoughts on Christian morality and privately speak them to another person. But his thoughts on transgenderism may not be expressed in the public arena.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the lunacy contained in this irrational ruling. Reading it is like digesting a mix of George Orwell and Alice in Wonderland. It’s tragic what Canada has become.

Bill Whatcott’s “crime”

During the British Columbia elections in the spring of 2017, Christian activist Bill Whatcott passed out hundreds of flyers notifying people that one of the local candidates for Parliament, Morgane Oger — who claimed to be a woman and dressed as a woman — was actually a man named Ronan Oger. (In fact, up until five years ago, Oger lived relatively normally as a father with his wife and two children.)

Besides self-identifying as a “transgender woman,” Oger was no ordinary candidate. He was vice-president of B.C.’s far-left New Democratic Party (NDP). NDP promotes sexual-radical policies and Oger (as chair of the “Trans Alliance Society”) had personally pushed those issues into the British Columbia schools – which as a Christian Whatcott strongly opposes. Oger was also instrumental in the successful 2016 effort to add “gender identity” non-discrimination to B.C. law.

Whatcott’s flyer included Bible quotes affirming the dignity of God’s creation of us all as either man or woman. It went on to describe the medical dangers associated with the “transgender” and homosexual lifestyles.

Oger lost the election to the incumbent, a former Vancouver mayor, by 451 votes. Oger and his attorney admitted that no one can know whether the flyers hurt or helped his vote tally, as his supporters made a big deal of the “discriminatory” flyer (so Oger may even have gained sympathy votes as a result).

Accusation and trial

Oger subsequently filed a human rights complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against Whatcott, alleging that the flyers had exposed Oger to “discrimination, hatred and contempt” under Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code.

Whatcott’s 4½-day hearing before the Tribunal took place in downtown Vancouver starting on Dec. 11, 2018. It was a bizarre event. MassResistance’s Amy Contrada was there to cover it first-hand.

During the hearing, Whatcott refused to buckle and continued to refer to Oger as a male in his testimony, despite being admonished several times by the judges. Whatcott also wore a shirt with a message describing Oger as a man, plus a Bible quote. (Male and female he created them. – Genesis 5:2) He spoke to bloggers and allies during breaks throughout the proceeding. He called the Tribunal what it is, a “kangaroo court.” Ultimately the Tribunal levied additional fines on him for this “improper behavior.” (Ironically, one of the judges slipped up and referred to Oger as a man during the hearing, but he was not fined!)

The unbelievable ruling

One cannot exaggerate how irrational and nonsensical the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s ruling against Whatcott is.

There is no need to analyze their phony legalese or give point-by-point counter arguments. The ruling is simply a cover for a radical, illogical, lunatic ideology that has taken hold with the “elites” controlling the Canadian “justice” system.

The ruling’s statements are all based on the overriding premise that those identifying by their “gender identity” comprise a protected class. Trans persons’ “feelings” are sacred and cannot be hurt. Their “rights” trump everything else, including the facts of human biology.

As noted above, others must address them with the names and pronouns they choose. No further debate on the issue is allowed. Anyone who publicly disagrees with the idea of “gender identity” may be found guilty of discrimination. Anything published that is critical of it can be declared “hate speech” by a court.

(It’s not just political speech criticizing transgenderism that’s now banned. This ruling will also mean that parents organizing to oppose “transgender” lessons in schools can no longer publish anything contrary to this ideology on websites, blogs, or flyers.)

The Tribunal judges were quite clear that they see their role as enforcing that ideology throughout society, whether or not people agree, and whether or not it contradicts citizens’ rights to freedom of religion and expression. The judges see themselves as change agents (not neutral arbiters).

Thus, even before the hearing began, all the participants were warned that they may not “mis-gender” anyone, or they would face punishment.

To add more insult, the 104-page ruling was written by Devyn Cousineau, one of the three members of the Tribunal. By any normal standard, Cousineau should have been banned from even participating. She had donated money to transgender organizations and was affiliated with the NDP. She was also clearly a pro-LGBT activist. Whatcott’s lawyer unsuccessfully tried to have her recused from the case.

It’s clear that Whatcott was determined to be guilty before the trial even started. Here are some results of that mindset that came out in the hearing, and were reiterated in the ruling:

Whatcott’s witnesses excluded. At the hearing Whatcott called four prominent clergymen to testify as witnesses on his behalf. All four were denied. In the ruling, the judge explained that, “Their views of, and response to, the Flyer are no more relevant to our analysis than the views of any individual on the street. ” (So much for “sincerely held religious belief” as a defense.) [25]

At the hearing Whatcott called four prominent clergymen to testify as witnesses on his behalf. All four were denied. In the ruling, the judge explained that, “Their views of, and response to, the Flyer are no ” (So much for “sincerely held religious belief” as a defense.) [25] Whatcott’s expert witness excluded. Whatcott called a distinguished Canadian psychiatrist to testify on transgenderism and mental illness. He was not permitted to testify. The judges deemed him to be “not qualified” because “there was no evidence that he had any particular expertise with respect to the origins of love and hate” despite many decades of clinical practice. [29-37]

Whatcott called a distinguished Canadian psychiatrist to testify on transgenderism and mental illness. He was not permitted to testify. The judges deemed him to be “not qualified” because “there was no evidence that he had any particular expertise with respect to the origins of love and hate” despite many decades of clinical practice. [29-37] Whatcott’s lawyer’s cross-examination of Oger labeled “not relevant”. The judge flatly states that “the bulk of Dr. Lugosi’s [Whatcott’s lawyer] cross examination was not relevant to any issue that this Tribunal had to decide ... Many of the questions were intended to show that Ms. [sic] Oger was either overly sensitive or vindictive towards Mr. Whatcott." Among other things, Lugosi had questioned Oger about any backlash he might have gotten from the flyer, which allegedly causedinjury to his “dignity, feelings, and self-respect.” Furthermore, Lugosi was not allowed to question Oger on his biological sex.

The judge flatly states that “the bulk of Dr. Lugosi’s [Whatcott’s lawyer] cross examination was not relevant to any issue that this Tribunal had to decide ... Many of the questions were intended to show that Ms. [sic] Oger was either overly sensitive or vindictive towards Mr. Whatcott." Among other things, Lugosi had questioned Oger about any backlash he might have gotten from the flyer, which allegedly causedinjury to his “dignity, feelings, and self-respect.” Furthermore, Lugosi was not allowed to question Oger on his biological sex. Bizarre civil rights comparison. The judge wrote: “In my view, the Flyer is the modern version of a ‘whites only’ sign. It is an attempt to block the doors of government with a message that the political realm is for ‘cisgender’ [i.e., normal] people only." [141]

The judge wrote: “In my view, the Flyer is the modern version of a ‘whites only’ sign. It is an attempt to block the doors of government with a message that the political realm is for ‘cisgender’ [i.e., normal] people only." [141] Complaint that Whatcott’s flyer denies reality. The judge writes that “the Flyer denies the reality of transgender people.” This is because the flyer says, “The truth is there are only two genders, male and female and they are God given and unchangeable … 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.” In other words, the truth does not matter! [155]

The Tribunal ordered the following:

Bill Whatcott must cease passing out flyers and other communication that “mis-genders” Oger or anyone else. He must pay Oger $35,000 to compensate for injury to his “dignity, feelings, and self‐respect.” He must pay Oger $20,000 because of his “improper conduct” – purposefully mis-gendering Oger, wearing his T-shirt during the Tribunal hearing, and speaking to reporters during breaks. He must pay Oger interest on the amounts until they are paid off.

At this point, however, paying anything is nearly impossible. Bill has been fired from his regular job as a bus driver and is virtually unemployable anywhere in Canada because of his official “hate criminal” label and bullying of his employers by LGBT activists. He is supporting his wife and two children the best he can from savings and any odd jobs he can pick up. (Yet after leveling this enormous fine, the Tribunal had the gall to claim that they are following the intent of the Human Rights Code which is “remedial” – but admit they are punishing Whatcott.)

And more

Appeal. Bill Whatcott has an attorney ready to appeal this ruling, and is beginning the process this month. However, we are not confident that this will be worth the effort in the Canadian justice system.

More “justice” coming Bill’s way. As we’ve also reported, Bill Whatcott is facing another “hate crime” trial in Toronto later this year, as well as an absurd $104 million lawsuit from LGBT activists, for passing out Christian material critical of homosexuality at the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride parade. Like the B.C. situation, his “crime” would barely raise eyebrows in the US.

Warning to the United States (and other countries)

Canada is just further along this road than the U.S. We have already seen states and locales enforcing punitive non-discrimination laws and ordinances to silence opposition to “gender identity” (as well as homosexual) ideology and lifestyles. Religious belief and even the truth are no defense!

Mainstream pro-family groups notoriously avoid confronting the “gender identity” issue directly for fear of being called names, etc. They don’t want to say that it’s destructive, perverted behavior based on junk science. Instead, they take the non-confrontational route: they complain that “transgender” legislation causes “privacy” issues and “religious freedom” problems. That kind of cowardice only empowers the radicals more and leads to what Canada has become.