Category: Dysgenics

Posted on

9th Circuit Pulls Federal Funds Planned Parenthood Uses For Baby Chop-Shop

(David Daleiden Fined $195,000 Exposed PP Selling Aborted Baby Parts)


(Interview With David Daleiden)

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

CLICK HERE, for #1: universities fighting against pro-life groups.
CLICK HERE, for #2: citing abortion stats now considered violence.
CLICK HERE, for #3: up to birth abortion now legal in VA/NY.
CLICK HERE, for #4: letting babies who survive abortion die.
CLICK HERE, for #5: UN supports abortion rights, even for kids.
CLICK HERE, for #6: fallout and some pushback on abortion.
CLICK HERE, for #7: ONCA rules docs must provide service or referral.
CLICK HERE, for #8: hypocrisy in summer jobs grant, purity tests.

CLICK HERE, for trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation series.

2. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the 9th Circuit ruling.

CLICK HERE, for an article on Planned Parenthood. PP would stand to lose $50-$60 million a year from defunding.

CLICK HERE, for PP suing Idaho over new reporting requirements.
CLICK HERE, for Idaho’s House Bill 638.

CLICK HERE, for a Politico article which covers ongoing cases
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood & Ohio.
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging a ban on aborting fetuses with Down’s Syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for Kentucky banning abortions based on race, sex or disability, which Planned Parenthood and ACLU plan to challenge.
CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 23 “Heartbeat Bill”. (Hearts beat 45 days into pregnancy).
CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 27, Medical Tissue Disposal Bill.
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging Indiana law requiring the remains of aborted babies to be either cremated or buried.
CLICK HERE, for an article on selling aborted baby parts.
CLICK HERE, for David Daleiden fined $195,000.
CLICK HERE, for Daleiden charged for illegal recordings.

3. Quotes From Ruling

BACKGROUND:
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (“Title X”) to create a limited grant program for certain types of pre-pregnancy family planning services. See Pub. L. No. 91-572, 84 Stat. 1504 (1970). Section 1008 of Title X, which has remained unchanged since its enactment, is titled “Prohibition of Abortion,” and provides: None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

Pretty straightforward. Title X was never meant to be a means which to funnel money to fund abortions.

In ruling on a stay motion, we are guided by four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although review of a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003), “[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law,” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).

This is the 4 part test to decide on a motion to stay a ruling. Is the applicant likely to succeed? Is there public interest? What harm will come to the parties?

As a threshold matter, we note that the Final Rule is a reasonable interpretation of § 1008. Congress enacted § 1008 to ensure that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6. If a program promotes, encourages, or advocates abortion as a method of family planning, or if the program refers patients to abortion providers for family planning purposes, then that program is logically one “where abortion is a method of family planning.” Accordingly, the Final Rule’s prohibitions on advocating, encouraging, or promoting abortion, as well as on referring patients for abortions, are reasonable and in accord with § 1008. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that § 1008 “plainly allows” such a construction of the statute. Rust, 500 U.S. at 184 (upholding as a reasonable interpretation of § 1008 regulations that (1) prohibited abortion referrals and counseling, (2) required referrals for prenatal care, (3) placed restrictions on referral lists, (4) prohibited promoting, encouraging, or advocating abortion, and (5) mandated financial and physical separation of Title X projects from abortion-related activities). The text of § 1008 has not changed.

This makes a great deal of sense. If abortion was never intended to be covered as “family planning” under Title X, then organizations that openly promote, encourage, or otherwise facilitate it shouldn’t be allowed to receive federal monies. It would do an end run around rules.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that—
(1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care;
(2) impedes timely access to health care services;
(3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;
(4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
(5) violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professionals; or
(6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient’s medical needs.

Pub. L. No. 111-148, title I, § 1554 (42 U.S.C. § 18114) (“§ 1554”). These two provisions could render the Final Rule “not in accordance with law” only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule’s regulatory provisions

So these limitations would not be violate, specifically because § 1008 would need to be repealed or amended. Or the “Final Rule’s” provisions would have to be violated.

Plaintiffs admit that there is no irreconcilable conflict between § 1008 and either the appropriations rider or § 1554 of the ACA. E.g., California State Opposition to Motion for Stay at p. 14; Essential Access Opposition to Motion for Stay at p.14. And we discern no “clear and manifest” intent by Congress to amend or repeal § 1008 via either of these laws—indeed, neither law even refers to § 1008. The appropriations rider mentions abortion only to prohibit appropriated funds from being expended for abortions; and § 1554 of the ACA does not even mention abortion.

The US Congress has no intent to rewrite or amend § 1008. And § 1554 of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) does not even mention abortion. It looks pretty weak to attempt an end run around what the law explicitly forbids.

Although the Final Rule does require the provision of referrals to non-abortion providers, id. at 7788–90, such referrals do not constitute “pregnancy counseling.” First, providing a referral is not “counseling.” HHS has defined “nondirective counseling” as “the meaningful presentation of options where the [medical professional] is not suggesting or advising one option over another,” 84 Fed. Reg. at 7716, whereas a “referral” involves linking a patient to another provider who can give further counseling or treatment, id. at 7748. The Final Rule treats referral and counseling as distinct terms, as has Congress and HHS under previous administrations. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 300z-10; 53 Fed. Reg. at 2923; 2928–38 (1988); 65 Fed. Reg. 41272–75 (2000). We therefore conclude that the Final Rule’s referral requirement is not contrary to the appropriations rider’s nondirective pregnancy counseling mandate.2

It is not “counselling” to refer a woman for abortion procedures. Counselling, as repeatedly held, is explaining options to a person.

Because HHS and the public interest would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, harms to Plaintiffs from a stay will be comparatively minor, and HHS is likely to prevail in its challenge of the preliminary injunction orders before a merits panel of this court (which is set to hear the cases on an expedited basis), we conclude that a stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending appeal is proper. The motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

4. PP Sued Idaho Over Reporting Rules


Chapter 95: Abortions Complications Reporting Act

(f) Abortion and complication reporting do not impose undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose whether she terminates pregnancy. Specifically, the “collection of information” with respect to actual patients is a vital element of medical research, so it cannot be said that the requirements serve no purpose other than to make abortions more difficult.

This raises a valid point. If abortions, or any particular technique were leading to health complications later down the road, then it would be useful to know that information.

Here is Planned Parenthood’s response when filing suit.

This law require providers in the state to report on more than 37 new “complications,” ranging from medical conditions that have no link to abortion, like breast cancer, to the inability to come in for a follow-up appointment, which is not a medical condition. The reporting requirement doesn’t exist for any other medical procedure. The bill was signed into law by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter in March.

Yet none of this actually prevents abortions from going on. It is a bit confusing. Does PP “not” want the patients (specifically), or the public (generally) to know what kinds of health and follow-up issues are going on?

5. PP Sued Ohio Over Heartbeat Bill

(1) At least twenty-four hours prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion, a physician meets with the pregnant woman in person in an individual, private setting and gives her an adequate opportunity to ask questions about the abortion that will be performed or induced. At this meeting, the physician shall inform the pregnant woman, verbally or, if she is hearing impaired, by other means of communication, of all of the following: (a) The nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used and the medical risks associated with that procedure; (b) The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus; (c) The medical risks associated with the pregnant woman carrying the pregnancy to term. The meeting need not occur at the facility where the abortion is to be performed or induced, and the physician involved in the meeting need not be affiliated with that facility or with the physician who is scheduled to perform or induce the abortion.

(3) If it has been determined that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion shall comply with the informed consent requirements in section 2919.192 2919.194 of the Revised Code in addition to complying with the informed consent requirements in divisions (B)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of this section

While “controversial”, this bill (and similar ones) make a very valid point. How is it not “alive” if there is an actual heart beating?

All of this talk about the right to an abortion, but no concern over the life of the unborn child. Why?

Perhaps Senate Bill 27 will explain it. Planned Parenthood not only sues to make abortion “more accessible”, but it opposes efforts to “force the disposal” of the bodies either by burial or by cremation. Those aborted babies are worth a lot of money, if you harvest the organs.

6. Real Reason PP Is So Pro-Abortion


Let’s connect the dots here

  1. PP supports abortion with federal funds.
  2. PP supports aborting babies with Down’s Syndrome.
  3. PP supports abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
  4. PP supports abortion up to (and beyond) birth.
  5. PP opposes abortion complication reporting requirements.
  6. PP opposes laws mandating burial or cremation of fetus.

While all of these are troubling, it is the last point that explains it: Planned Parenthood doesn’t want States mandating the disposal of fetal tissue, because there is a lot of money to be made in that.

From the Washington Examiner:

When pro-life activist David Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released the tapes in 2015, Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was parroted immediately by a servile press, despite that Planned Parenthood never explained what additional context would have exonerated its senior director of medical services saying on tape that the group was “doing a little better than” breaking even for donated organs (it is illegal to profit from the donation of fetal tissue. It is also illegal under federal law to perform partial birth abortions).

From the Christian Post article:

The undercover journalist who in 2015 exposed Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts selling operation is fighting a nearly $200,000 fine amid an ongoing court battle.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal from David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress last week, an appeal of a $195,000 imposed on him for using video footage which supposedly violated a gag order imposed by a lower court judge.

“The federal judge presiding over related civil lawsuits, District Judge William Orrick, had held that criminal defense counsel’s use of the videos violated a gag order he imposed in one of the federal civil actions. Daleiden and his defense counsel appealed, arguing that Orrick had improperly imposed a criminal contempt penalty without granting the accused due process and that the federal civil injunction should not apply to Daleiden’s state criminal proceeding,” according to a statement from the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden.

While the court proceedings are likely not over, David Daleiden performed a much needed service by exposing what really goes on. Aborted (a.k.a. murdered) children are worth a lot of money dead, as their organs can be harvested and sold.

It also explains why Planned Parenthood has such an unwavering pro-abortion stance. These are not babies, but raw supplies. It further makes clear why PP doesn’t want aborted babies buried or cremated. Not much of a business model if you final products are required to be thrown out.

Aborted babies are essentially in a chop-shop for spare parts. Nothing humane or compassionate about it.

Posted on

Hypocrisy In Canada Summer Jobs Grants Between Religious Groups

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-5-un-endorses-abortion-as-human-right-even-for-kids/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-6-fallout-and-some-pushback/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-7-ontario-coa-rules-doctors-must-provide-abortions-euthanasia-or-provide-referal/

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/screening-eligibility.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/agreement.html
(3) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/groups-scramble-for-replacement-funding-after-dissenting-on-canada-summer-jobs-abortion-attestation
(4) https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/18/canada-summer-jobs-program-radical-cleric/
(5) https://globalnews.ca/news/4277082/canada-summer-job-grant-islamic-group-peter-braid/
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
(7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/

3. Employer Attestation

12.0 Employer attestation
12.1 The Employer attests that:
I have read, understood and will comply with the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement;
I have all the necessary authorities, permissions and approvals to submit this application on behalf of myself and my organization;
The job would not be created without the financial assistance provided under a potential contribution agreement;
Any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.

4. Screening For Grants

Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.

The way this is worded, it could be interpreted to mean that even expressing views which are pro-life or critical of SOGI agenda could be seen as threatening.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of charities, non-profits, and businesses have absolutely nothing to do with abortion of the gender agenda.

Nonetheless, since the Government of Canada has insisted on this, at least it will be uniformly enforced throughout all of the groups applying for summer grants, right?

Not really.

5. Double Standard For Christian & Islamic Groups

From the National Post article:

Youth for Christ’s chapters across Canada have used the grants for years to fund more than 100 student jobs annually. Toronto City Mission, which runs day camps in impoverished neighbourhoods, received $70,000 last year for 16 positions. Winnipeg’s Centerpoint Church has used the grants for 24 years to hire two summer students; Mill Bay Baptist Church on Vancouver Island used a grant last year to hire a First Nations student. All have seen their applications sent back this year over the attestation.

Your project may have nothing to do with gender or abortion, but if you won’t sign those forms, prepare to have your grant request denied. However, “values” seem to be pretty flexible, depending on the group.

From the Daily Caller article:

The Trudeau government won’t allow pro-life groups to access the Canada Summer Jobs program without violating their principles, but it is funding an Islamic group with a cleric who was a keynote speaker at the anti-Israel al-Quds day rally in Toronto.

As the Toronto Sun reports, the federal government gave the thumbs-up to the Islamic Humanitarian Service (IHS) based in Kitchener, Ont., to hire summer students with taxpayer money. (RELATED: Trudeau Government Cuts Off Pro-Life And Faith Groups From Jobs Funding)

Yes, you are reading that correctly. The Trudeau Government refused pro-life groups access to the Summer Jobs Program because of their beliefs, even if they were unrelated to the job. Yet it was okay to fund Al Quds, an Islamic, anti-Semitic group, which openly calls for violence against Israel.

It would take some serious mental gymnastics to not see moral inconsistency here. However, it appears to be about politics, not principles.

6. Canadian Charter & Human Rights Code

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

These demands quite clearly violate both 2(a) and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter. The specific religion is irrelevant, but these groups were clearly targeted because of their views. The double standard with Islamic groups makes it more absurd, but is not necessary.

From the Canadian Human Rights Code:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Discriminatory policy or practice
10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Section 3 very clearly lists religion as a protected group.

And consider this: if the Government is awarding contracts, is the Government not the employer in this case?

7. Some Interesting Cases

R. v. Lewis, 1996 CanLII 3559 (BC SC) ruled that protesting abortion within a certain “protected area” was an offence, not shielded by freedom of religion. Not really related to the above, but still an interesting read.

BCM International, asking the Federal Court for a review of the decision to turn down a grant. The Attestation is cited as the reason. (Case: T-917-19)

BCM International, asking for another review, on essentially the same grounds (Case: T-918-19)

An article on a pending challenge.

8. Other Double Standards In Free Speech

In Toronto a Christian Preacher is arrested for disturbing the peace in the Gay Village. However, Muslims condemning gays and Israel is apparently okay.

In the UK as well, a Christian Preacher can be arrested even for behaving peacefully. Yet, Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance openly.

9. Final Thoughts

The Canada Summer Jobs Program discriminates against those who object to being forced to sign onto a political agenda, when it has no relevance to their cause. It has overwhelmingly effected religious groups. While this may seem trivial, it is understandable to object to “bending the knee”.

If abortion and gender are not related to the work that a group is doing, then there is no reason to bring it up. This is just virtue signalling.

There is a double standard with how Christians are treated with how Muslims are treated. The former must cow-tow, while the latter’s views are “more understood”.

Posted on

Under 1948 UN Convention, Multiculturalism and Replacement Migration Are Genocide

(Trudeau, speaking to the media)

(1948 Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide)

(Canadians encouraged to have less children)

(Russian Pres. Putin: woke on the myth of civic nationalism. “We may be a multiethnic country, but we are one civilization. We are Russian, first and foremost.”)

(Al Quds in Toronto: We execute gays, and Canada will at some point follow Sharia law. We are making babies. Your population is going down the slumps).

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is in the news again. This time the MMIWG Inquiry (Missing or Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls) Inquiry has laid accusations of genocide against Canada, for doing nothing to prevent targeting killings of one group of people.

Apparently, Trudeau believes that the findings amount to a pattern of genocide committed against Indigenous women and girls. In an effort to virtue signal, this had lead to admissions that Canada “does” engage in genocidal practices.

As such, it is now reasonable to ask: will the UN and other foreign bodies be able to investigate Canada for genocide? Will this lead to an even bigger erosion of our sovereignty? Sadly, this is not where this article is heading. Sorry for misleading you.

Strangely, this led to another thought: What if Canada actually “did” commit genocide, but in an entirely different way? What if mass migration, multiculturalism, forced diversity and speech codes actually led to the destruction of a nation and its people?

The article looks at the actual 1948 UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It will unironically be compared to some existing laws and practices in Canada. This should be interesting.

1. Important Links


(1) https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/
(2) https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_2_Quebec_Report-1.pdf

(3) https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/cbc-propaganda-14-lets-replace-the-canadian-population/
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-18.7/page-1.html#h-3
(6) Dumping Feminism And Multiculturalism
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid(88849)/Motions?documentId=8661986%2520
(8) http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf
(9) https://www.fmreview.org/sites/fmr/files/FMRdownloads/en/FMRpdfs/Human-Rights/cairo.pdf
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/the-cairo-declaration-on-so-called-human-rights/

2. Quotes From UN Convention On Genocide


Having people killed or go missing is horrible, no doubt about it. However, it is not the only way to breach the Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. See the following sections.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Although killing and mass executions are an obvious and overt form of genocide, there are more subtle ways. Government, media and private organizations can work together in ways to bring about a group’s destruction “over time”. As will be demonstrated, there are ways to erase groups that don’t involve firing a shot.

Keep in mind, Article 2 refers to “bring out the destruction, in all or in part” of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This will be demonstrated in the coming sections.

3. Replacement Migration


This topic was covered in an earlier article, shown here, but the topic is worth bringing up again. While the Government is not explicitly calling for the replacement of the Canadian population, it does push 2 competing narratives:

(A) Canadians should have less children.
(B) Canada needs more mass migration.

Here is the contrast from the previous article.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
(a) https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/i-have-one-child-its-not-my-husbands-and-were-not-planning-for-another-and
(b) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-august-20-2018-1.4791395/smaller-families-are-pushing-the-middle-child-into-extinction-study-suggests-1.4793682
(c) https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/chip-joanna-gains-pregnancy-1.4481165
(d) https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/the-real-reason-i-have-only-one-child
(e) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-194-tv-news-in-israel-and-gaza-rise-of-the-no-mos-and-more-1.2905673/no-mos-women-who-aren-t-having-children-1.2905664
(f) https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/im-not-teaching-my-daughter-to-be-polite
(g) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/emissions-reduction-choices-1.4204206

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
(a) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-february-24-2019-1.5029453/how-did-multiculturalism-become-so-central-to-canada-s-identity-1.5029456
(b) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-january-24-2019-1.4989844/always-a-way-to-go-around-border-walls-create-insecurity-not-remove-it-says-expert-1.4989854
(c) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-december-24-2017-1.4451296/why-nothing-will-stop-people-from-migrating-1.4451437
(d) https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-migrant-deaths-creed-fire-calif-1.4911425
(e) https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-soros-analysis-lawrynuik-1.4725089
(f) https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-orban-parliament-session-1.4651185
(g) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alexander-scheer-trudeau-un-compact-1.4932698
(h) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-14-2018-1.4858401/canada-s-population-needs-to-be-100-million-by-2100-1.4860172

The above are just a small sample of what the CBC, our state funded broadcaster, has been putting out. While calling for Canadians to have fewer (or no) children, our government also advocates for increased immigration to cover for “declining birthrates”.

It is untrue that Canada was “always multicultural”. In the 1971 census, the population was 96% European descent. This “multiculturalism” is a phenomenon of the last 50 years. This was imposed on the population, without any democratic consent.

While CBC is an easy target, it should be noted that politicians of all political parties promote mass migration of very different people, from very different backgrounds and cultures. Diversity is our strength, so the saying goes.

Is this not pushing for the destruction of a group of people? Or is anything and anyone Canadian who wants to be?

4. 1988 Multiculturalism Act


Section 3 of the Act is the most interesting for the purposes of this article. Here it is, in its entirety:

3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.”

Throughout, the Act refers to Canada’s “multicultural history”. This is a complete rewrite of history. For over 100 years, Canada had been built largely as a British colony, with heavy French regions in the east. There are also great swaths of land which belong to various Indigenous groups, and many treaties are still discussed today.

This leaves out that the more extra cultures who gain prominence, the host(s) become diluted and weakened. They become just one of many.

(I) and (J) are nonsensical. They want to promote languages “other than” English and French, while strengthening the status of the official languages. Newsflash, of you promote “other” languages, it leads to the weakening of the status of English and French.

Missing from Section 3 (or any section) is a description of what Canada actually is. All this says is that it is a “collection of identities”. We are told repeatdly that “diversity is our strength”, but with no explanation of how so.

This part, while nice, omits a crucial detail: how does a group preserve their language and culture? Simple, get like people together, form an enclave, and preserve their identity. This type of legislation directly leads to balkanization.

5. Destruction of Religious Groups

Let’s address the elephant in the room: Islam. Liberal idiots seem to believe we can co-exist with a group whose stated (and practiced) goals are the destruction of anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs.

Despite plenty of available evidence, Liberals believe that mass Islamic migration and nurturing the growth of Islam is somehow “showing diversity and tolerance”.

Look familiar?

M103 – Systemic racism and religious discrimination
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Islam does not permit the survival of non-muslims. To help achieve this goal, efforts are being made to shut down and ban criticism of Islam. But hey, diversity is our strength.

6. Erasing Our Heritage


Removing the statue of our nation’s founder is a pretty overt symbol of our nation being established.

Naming a park in Winnipeg, MB, after an Islamic warlord named Jinnah (hence Jinnah Park), to celebrate the Muslim takeover of half of India is another symbol of our history being erased.

There are too many cases to cite, but those are a few recent and obvious ones. Canadian history is being erased.

7. Is Multiculturalism & Mass Migration “Genocide”?


Let’s go through the list

  • Founding people of a nation are replaced.
  • Culture is replaced in favour of “multiculturalism”.
  • Common language becomes just one of many.
  • Main religion (Christianity) is removed, often through violence.
  • Heritage and history are removed.

The ironically named “Conservatives” do nothing to actually conserve what our nation is. As such, they are complicit in its breakdown.

Yes, it is fair to say that Canadian laws are in fact leading to the genocide of certain groups in Canada. But hey, diversity is our strength.

8. What Was IN MMIWG Report Anyway?


It would not be fair to readers to not at least address this topic.

The conclusions of the MMIWG Report is that these victims are not given the care and seriousness they should have.

1.1. The National Inquiry’s Mandate The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec entrusted a very broad mandate to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, for Quebec.

First, according to Order 711-2016 that created the provincial commission of inquiry, the National Inquiry had to “investigate” and “report on” two main topics: the systemic causes of all forms of violence, and the institutional policies and practices implemented in response to the violence against Indigenous women and girls. To that end, the National Inquiry’s mandate included reviewing the factors that could be associated with the relationships between public services under Quebec’s constitutional jurisdictions, including police forces, health facilities, social and educational services, and Indigenous people more generally.

In addition, the National Inquiry had a mandate to “make recommendations.” These recommendations had to focus on two objectives: to propose concrete and sustainable actions to be implemented to prevent situations of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and to significantly improve the quality of relationships between Indigenous people and public services.

Noticeably absent is any mention of “solving the cases” of these women and girls. In fact, the mandate is not about solving any of these murders or disappearances.

In fact, it is a report about various “marginalization” that these women face. Very little of it has anything to do with the cases of the missing/murdered women.

Posted on

Court Of Appeal Rules Doctors Must Provide Abortions/Euthanasia, or Provide Referal

(article from Christian Legal Fellowship)

(Lifesite news also covered this)

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-universities-fighting-against-free-speech-and-free-association-in-court/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/the-new-lindsay-shepherd-statistics-are-now-violence-infanticide-2/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-3-ny-virginia-to-legalise-up-to-birth-abortion/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-part-4-leave-no-survivors/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-5-un-endorses-abortion-as-human-right-even-for-kids/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/infanticide-6-fallout-and-some-pushback/

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeals ruling, May 15, 2019.
CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Divisional Court ruling, January 31, 2018.
CLICK HERE, for R.v. Oakes (balancing test)
CLICK HERE, for Carter v. Canada (struck down assisted suicide laws).
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Human Rights Code.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
CLICK HERE, for some Charter cases.
CLICK HERE, for Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 (standard for review)

Miscellaneous Articles
CLICK HERE, for woman who tries to drown newborn gets only 1 year.
CLICK HERE, for a Maclean’s article on “assault on women’s rights”.
CLICK HERE, for Roe (as in Roe v Wade), becomes anti-abortion activist.

3. Brief Introduction


The case above is one of Ontario doctors refusing to provide certain “reproductive health services” (a.k.a. abortion), and “medical assistance in dying” MAiD (a.k.a. euthanasia). Not only did they refuse to provide these services, they refused to help with the referrals procedures to others who would.

The Appellants refused on religious grounds. They claimed that requiring them to participate in these “medical services” violated their consciences and religious convictions. To be fair, we are talking about killing unborn children, eldery, and terminal patients. The other extreme would be more disturbing.

Their regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, says if they won’t perform such “health care services”, then they must help the patients get referred to doctors who will.

The Ontario Divisional Court agreed that this was the case. And now the Ontario Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling. Will this go to the Supreme Court of Canada? We will see.

4. Court of Appeal Exerps

E. Issues
[57] The appeal raises the following issues:
(1) What is the applicable standard of review and is the Doré/Loyola framework or the Oakes framework applicable to this case?
(2) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion?
(3) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 15(1) equality rights?
(4) If there is an infringement of the appellants’ Charter rights and/or freedoms, is it justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

Standard Of Review

[59] The normal rules of appellate review of lower court decisions, articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, apply on this appeal. Questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, and questions of fact and mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error: Housen, at paras. 8, 10, 36-37. The Divisional Court’s selection and application of the correctness standard to the Policies is a question of law and is accordingly reviewed by this court on a correctness standard.

If it is a question of fact, the standard is “overriding palpable error”. In essence, Appeals Courts tend to “give deference” to the Trial Judge since he/she is in a much better position to actually judge the case.

In questions of law, the standard is the correctness of the law itself.

In questions of mixed law and fact are viewed more towards “overriding palpable error”.

Religious Freedom

[62] In Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293, at para. 62, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of religious freedom expressed in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 336:

[T]he right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.

[63] At para. 63, the court set out the requirements of the test:
[F]irst, that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion; and second, that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief.
This was the test applied by the Divisional Court, referring to Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, at para. 56. See also Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567, at para. 32.

[64] The sincerity of belief and interference are conceded. But the College contends that the interference is trivial and insubstantial and does not contravene s. 2(a).

[65] I disagree. To explain my reasons, it is necessary to examine the appellants’ beliefs and their objections to performing or referring patients for the procedures at issue.

All parties agree the beliefs are sincere. The College says it is trivial, while the Panel disagrees.

Section 15 and Equality

[87] The Divisional Court referred to the two-part test for establishing a breach of s. 15(1) articulated in Taypotat, at paras. 19-20: (1) whether, on its face or in its impact, a law creates a distinction on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) whether the impugned law fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of the members of the group and instead imposes burdens or denies benefits in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating their disadvantage.

[88] The focus of the inquiry is “whether a distinction has the effect of perpetuating arbitrary disadvantage on the claimant because of his or her membership in an enumerated or analogous group” such that it is a “discriminatory distinction”: Taypotat, at paras. 16, 18; and Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 331

[89] Applying this test, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ claim that the Policies infringe their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Without deciding whether the Policies create a distinction on the basis of religion, the Divisional Court held that the Policies do not have the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating a disadvantage or promoting prejudice against religious physicians. Nor do they restrict access to a fundamental social institution or impede full membership in Canadian society.

To put it mildly, the Courts have decided that not all “equality rights” are treated equally. In other words, it is okay to discriminate on the basis of “protected grounds” as long as it falls within certain guidelines.

Allowed Under Section 1?

[97] The onus at this stage is on the College to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion is a reasonable limit, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society: Multani, at para. 43.
[98] In Oakes, at pp. 135 and 138-39, Dickson C.J. articulated a framework for the s. 1 analysis, which can be summarized as follows:
(a) the Charter-infringing measure must be “prescribed by law”;
(b) the objective of the impugned measure must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom;
(c) the means chosen must be reasonable and demonstrably justified – this is a “form of proportionality test” which will vary in the circumstances, but requires a balancing of the interests of society with the interests of individuals and groups and has three components:
(i) the measure must be rationally connected to the objective – i.e., carefully designed to achieve the objective and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
(ii) the means chosen should impair the Charter right or freedom as little as possible; and
(iii)there must be proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the measure.

This is a fairly lengthy section, but this lays out the groundwork for determining whether Charter violations can otherwise be “saved”. Are there justifiable public interests in the breaches that are affirmed? Ultimately, the Court of Appeals said yes. These violations were justified on other grounds.

[186] The Fact Sheet identifies options that are clearly acceptable to many objecting physicians. Those who do not find them acceptable may be able to find other practice structures that will insulate them from participation in actions to which they object. If they cannot do so, they will have to seek out other ways in which to use their skills, training and commitment to patient care. I do not underestimate the individual sacrifices this may require. The Divisional Court correctly found, however, that the burden of these sacrifices did not outweigh the harm to vulnerable patients that would be caused by any reasonable alternative. That conclusion is not undermined by the fresh evidence before this court. Even taking the burden imposed on physicians at its most onerous, as framed by the appellants, the salutary effects of the Policies still outweigh the deleterious effects.

[187] As the Divisional Court observed, the appellants have no common law, proprietary or constitutional right to practice medicine. As members of a regulated and publicly-funded profession, they are subject to requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than their interests. In fact, the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship requires physicians to act at all times in their patients’ best interests, and to avoid conflicts between their own interests and their patients’ interests:

5. Closing Thoughts


This is the heart of the conclusion:
(A) Doctors have other options
(B) Doctors can alter their practice
(C) Public interest comes first
(D) Medicine is a publicly regulated profession.

One thing needs to be pointed out though: just because something is LEGAL, doesn’t make it MORAL. Abortion and euthanasia are killing. Period.

Although both abortion and assisted suicide have no criminal penalties against them, there are still huge scientific and moral arguments against both. This will be a topic for a coming piece.

If a person believes that carrying out just “health care services” amounts to murder, that is okay. But wouldn’t referrals of such procedures make a doctor an accessory to murder? Although one degree removed, the moral objection would be the same.

Bottom line: provide the service, or refer to someone else who will. You’re here to serve the public.

Posted on

Opinion: Why Pride is Obsolete

(We’re tolerant, except to police officers)

(Pride: lesbians v.s. transgenders)

(Brown and black added for “racial inclusion”)

Serious question: What is the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement?

  1. Achieving equality and acceptance in mainstream life
  2. Constantly viewing itself as a victim in need of protection
  3. Both (1) and (2)

We live in a country where gays and trans have full equality under the law, and have for many years.

So called “marriage equality” was settled in Canada back in 2005. That’s right, 14 years ago. There are also provisions in every Provincial human rights code to protect sexual orientation. And hate crime provisions have existed for many years in the Criminal Code.

We also live in a country where being trans is protected, and employers and schools are required to make accommodations. Bill C-16 seems to be both poorly written and overkill.

You would think all is great, but not so. Despite the very limited scientific knowledge on gender dysphoria, we are prohibited from questioning it, even in young children. Even in our children. Questioning if changing gender is possible will now net a hefty fine. Bake-my-cake-or-I’ll-sue is no longer just a punchline, at least in Colorado. And SOGI has creeped into elementary schools.

Note: The issues and concerns with how gender dysphoria is treated will be a topic for another post. Likewise with having young children transition.

The problem with advocacy groups is that they eventually run out of grievances to protest. And the need to celebrate a movement becomes less and less important.

If misgendering people, or suing over wedding cakes is the worst we have going on, then what genuine causes are left?

Answer: No serious causes.

Since LGBT people enjoy full rights, and equality under the law, why does this need to be flaunted in public every Spring/Summer? Isn’t the ultimate goal to live freely and without stigmatization as your true self? This is what activists don’t seem to realize.

And while a small march or parade seems harmless enough, some larger Prides are downright raunchy (Toronto is a specific example). Nudity and lewd behaviour do often happen, at sites where children are present. For the sake of readers, I’ll spare the details. What this does to promote equality is beyond me.

If LGBT people want to just go about their lives, nothing stops them. Legally, nothing can stop them, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Prides (and other such events) detract from this by bringing the issue up again and again, throwing it in the public’s face.

Yes, people had their rights violated in the past, but that ended decades ago. It doesn’t help to bring it up with people who had absolutely no involvement. It also doesn’t help when municipalities fund (all or in part) of these movements.

As an aside, LGBT activists often get triggered at the idea (often trolling) of a “straight pride”. Well, identity cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

Having equality is an important part of this nation, but your orientation or identity isn’t. It doesn’t need to be forced on the public. Rather, Canada should focus more on what built the nation, and what holds it together.

The question at the start seemed rhetorical, but is not. Activists want option (3).

Guys, you won. Go live your lives.

Posted on

Morgane Oger Further Weaponizes Human Rights Codes, $55K Ruling

(BC “Human Rights” Commission Ruling)

(Morgane Oger Foundation)

(Proposed “Hate Map” Across Canada)

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.pdf
(2) ttp://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96210_01
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-16-adding-gender-identity-to-human-rights-code-and-criminal-code/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/weaponizing-the-human-rights-codes-and-refugee-boards/

Some Thoughts

Our favourite “serial-victim” Morgane Oger, is in the news again, this time for getting a $55,000 award ($35K for hurt feelings, and $20K in punitive damages). This was William Whatcott for calling Oger “a man”. (Oger is transgender).

A few interesting observations in reading the ruling:

(1) Morgane Oger seems perfectly content silencing William Whatcott’s free speech and right to religious expression in the name of gender identity.

(2) The BC Tribunal deliberately and repeatedly skirted the truthfulness of Whatcott’s claim that Oger is biologically male. Hormones, surgery and legal paperwork don’t change biology.

(3) The BC Tribunal awarded $35,000 in damages without any damages being proven. How exactly does one prove “hurt feelings and dignity”?

3. BC Human Rights Code

Discrimination and intent
2
Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Section 2 makes it very clear: absolutely no intent is required on the part of anyone in order to be found to violate someone’s human rights. For a “quasi-judicial” board, this is very disturbing. However, it seems to be the case with all provinces.

Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

Oger claims that the publications were contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the code.

Evidence
27.2 (1) A member or panel may receive and accept on oath, by affidavit or otherwise, evidence and information that the member or panel considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not the evidence or information would be admissible in a court of law.
(2) Nothing is admissible in evidence before a member or panel that is inadmissible in a court because of a privilege under the law of evidence.
(3) Despite section 4, subsection (1) of this section does not override an Act expressly limiting the extent to which or purposes for which evidence may be admitted or used in any proceeding.
(4) A member or panel may direct that all or part of the evidence of a witness be heard in private.

(4) flies in the face of an open inquiry, and doesn’t set any guidelines as to “when” it would be appropriate.
One of the problems Whatcott cited was the Commission refusing to hear all the evidence.

Remedies
37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
(b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
(c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
(ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
(ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
(iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

In short, the BC Human Rights Code can award money if it rules that your feelings were hurt, or your dignity or self respect was hurt. No need to prove “actual” damages.

4. Section 2(b) Of Charter

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association

5. From HRT Ruling

William Whatcott identifies himself as a Christian activist. When he learned of Ms. Oger’s candidacy, he resolved to stop her being elected. He was not a member of her riding, nor did he research her platform or the policies which she sought to advance. The sole basis for his campaign against her was that she is a transgender woman and therefore, in his view, unsuitable to hold public office. 

Very interesting choice of words. Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “actually is” a woman.

Mr. Whatcott was not a resident in Ms. Oger’s riding. She came to his attention after he had decided there were no suitable political options within his own riding. He says that he had decided not to vote in the election at all, but then turned to prayer. He asked God how he could help in the election. He started researching the candidates across the province and, in this way, came across Ms. Oger. He learned that she had been active in lobbying for amendments to the Code to add the grounds of “gender identity and expression”, and in promoting education about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools. Most importantly, however, he was upset that the media and public at large were “pretending” that Ms. Oger was a woman. He fundamentally believes that gender is static and derived from the genitalia that a person has at birth. He believes that Ms. Oger is a man. He sees himself as the small boy in the fairy tale about the Emperor with no clothes the only one brave enough to speak the truth about Ms. Oger’s gender. He decided to focus his energies on her campaign. In doing so, he describes Ms. Oger herself as “incidental” and “small” within his larger fight for social order and freedom. 

The first part gets glossed over. Oger is trying help enact 2 policies that Whatcott is bothered by:
(A) Bill C-16, to add “gender identity” to the Criminal Code and Human Rights Code.
(B) Bringing SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) into schools and have it taught to young children.

In all fairness, “both” of the above issues rub a lot of people the wrong way.

[53] To the extent that s. 7 is unique, it is because it expressly and exclusively targets speech. Mr. Whatcott argues that, in doing so, it violates his Charter‐guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and expression ss. 2(a) and (b). In his final reply, he added an argument that it violates his right to life, liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter.  

[54]This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply the Charter: Administrative Tribunals Act, s . 45; Code, s. 32(i). I cannot find s. 7 of the Code unconstitutional, or that any of Mr. Whatcott’s Charter rights have been violated in the course of Ms. Oger’s human rights  complaint against him.

 

[55]There is no question, however, that this complaint engages Charter protections. In these circumstances, I must interpret and apply the Code in a manner that proportionately balances its purposes with those protections. The framework for this analysis has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in three cases: Doré v. Québec (Tribunal des Professions), 2012 SCC 12 [Doré]; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 [Loyola]; and Trinity  Western University v. Law Society of BC, 2018 SCC 32 [TWU]. 

While simultaneously claiming not to be able to apply the Charter, the Tribunal says it will balance the rights of the Charter v.s. the Code.

A. Factual context 
1. Discrimination against transgender people 
. This is a significant time for trans and gender diverse people. Their long fight for equality is bearing some fruit, as society begins to adjust its traditionally static and binary understanding of gender, and its tolerance for people to identify and express their gender authentically. One indicator of this progress is the 2016 amendment to the Code that added the grounds of gender identity and expression. 

[61] However, as this hearing made clear, the journey is far from over. Unlike other groups protected by the Code, transgender people often find their very existence the subject of public debate and condemnation. What flows from this existential denial is, naturally, a view that transpeople are less worthy of dignity, respect, and rights. In the hearing room for this complaint, we were witness to repeated, deliberate, and flagrant attacks on Ms. Oger based on nothing more than a belief that her very existence is an affront. 

(A) The Tribunal actually referred to this section as “factual context”, but then goes on to make a number of straw man arguments.
(B) It is not a fight for equality. That was never the issue.
(C)”Traditionally static and binary understanding of gender”? Actually, there has never been evidence that there are more than 2 genders. Simply passing a law does not erase science. A government could conceivably pass a law saying that dogs are cats, but it would not be based in reality.
(D) Gender identity and expression? Don’t these contradict reality? Merely expressing oneself or identifying oneself a certain way does not make it so.
(E) Questioning the reality of something not based on science is a hate crime now? Got it.

[62] And so, despite some gains, transgender people remain among the most marginalized in our society. Their lives are marked by “disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping, and vulnerability”: F(C) v. Albert (Vital Statistics), 2014 ABQB 237 at para. 58; see also Rainbow  Committee of Terrace v. City of Terrace, 2002 BCHRT 26 at paras. 47-51. They are stereotyped as “diseased, confused, monsters and freaks”: Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society, 2002. 
BCHRT 1 at paras. 136137, overturned 2005 BCCA 601 (not on this point). Transpeople face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation, as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide, and poverty: XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at paras. 164-166. For transgender children, antitrans bullying leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes, which then has ripple effects for their health and future prospects: Christophe Cornu (2016), “Preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in  education; A human-rights based approach using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Journal of LGBT Youth, 13:1‐2, 6‐17 at pp 7‐8. 

(A) How are they marginalized? They have entire government bodies to fight specifically for their rights.
(B) Substance abuse, suicide, and mental health problems? Doesn’t that signify that there might be something seriously wrong with what they are doing?
(C) Children should not be transitioning. Period.

[64] Mr. Whatcott and the JCCF sought to rely on statistics about the poor health and social outcomes for transgender people as proof that – at best – the merits of being transgender was a matter for ongoing study and debate and – at worst –it was a bad lifestyle choice, whichought to be publicly discouraged. I agree with Ms. Oger that this is an illconceived attempt to “take the data about the consequences of being a victim of oppression, or the consequences of being marginalized, and turn that into the root cause of the issue”.  

[65] The poor health, economic, and social outcomes for many transgender people are not a signal of their inherent worth but rather of the significant degree to which they continue to face marginalization, stigma, and discrimination. They illustrate how much work remains to be done to make the Code’s objective of an equal society into a reality. 

(A) The Tribunal specifically states they will not consider statistical data. How very “scientific and reasoned” of them.
(B) Another straw-man argument. No one is saying these people are not worthy, but that there are very serious mental health issues that need to be addressed. Issues the tribunal has no interest in addressing.

[75] There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion. Ms. Oger concedes that Mr. Whatcott has a sincerely held religious belief that it is his duty to spread his views about transgender people: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 65. This concession was appropriate. Mr. Whatcott identifies as Christian and describes himself as a “flawed Christian activist”. He says that his theology largely lines up with that of the Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Evangelical Christians, and I believe it is fair to count Mr. Whatcott as one, “carry their religious beliefs and values beyond their private lives and into their work, education, and politics”: TWU at para. 67. This is certainly true of Mr. Whatcott. For many years, he has manifested his religious beliefs through activism, beginning with antiabortion activism and then, in more recent years, in activism against the LGBTQ community. His beliefs about transgender people namely that they do not exist and are engaged in a falsehood  stem from his interpretation of the Christian Bible. He believes it is God’s will that he spread the Christian gospel and his views about the “morality” of being transgender. 

(A) Now we get to the heart of it. This would actually limit religious freedom.
(B) The Tribunal knows this, and will act against it anyway.

[77] There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally, and Ms. Oger specifically. This engages his right to free expression. As I will discuss below, the scope of freedom of expression, and the significance of any possible infringement, varies according to the type of speech and the extent to which it furthers or detracts from the core values underlying the freedom. However, at this threshold stage, it is sufficient that the Flyer was a form of expression and that any decision restricting Mr. Whatcott’s right to distribute it publicly would limit his expressive rights to some extent. 

[78] With respect to Mr. Whatcott’s s. 7 Charter rights, I agree with the Attorney General that it would not be fair to consider that argument, which was raised for the first time in Mr. Whatcott’s final reply, after the hearing of this complaint had concluded. Regardless, the argument has no merit. A decision by this Tribunal would not restrict Mr. Whatcott’s life, liberty, or security of the person. The remedial jurisdiction conferred by s. 37 of the Code is in no way equivalent to penal consequences. It does not threaten Mr. Whatcott’s life or liberty. While I accept that individuals found to violate the Code may encounter, as a consequence, a degree of stigma and social disapproval, such consequences do not rise to a level of “serious  state imposed psychological stress

(A) No threat to his security? Try not paying the fine and see what happens.
(B) You also say the Commission “will” order the so-called bad behaviour to stop. And if it doesn’t, you’ll fine him again.
(C) Who cares if this is the first time the argument has been brought up?

Now a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada:

First and foremost, free expression is essential to the proper functioning of democratic governance. As Rand J. put it, “government by the free public opinion of an open society . . . demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas”: Switzman, at p. 306. 
.
  Second, the free exchange of ideas is an “essential precondition of the  search for truth”: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 803, per  McLachlin J. This rationale, sometimes known as the “marketplace of ideas”, extends beyond the political domain to any areaof debate where truth is sought through the exchange of information and ideas. Information is disseminated and propositions debated. In the course of debate, misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing  emerges as truth. 
.
  Third, free expression has intrinsic value as an aspect of self‐realization for both speakers and listeners. As the majority observed in Irwin Toy, at p. 976, “the diversity in forms of individual selffulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, uut also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed”.  Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at paras. 4750; see also R v. Keegstra,  [1990] 3 SCR 697 [Keegstra], at paras. 87‐89; 

This is quite laughable, as the Tribunal has no interest in the factual basis of Whatcott’s claim (that Oger is male), nor in the statistical research and evidence regarding transgenders in general.

[119] I reject this proposition in the strongest possible terms. The question of whether transgender people exist and are entitled to dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another. This does not mean that all expression that criticizes or questions the existence of transgender people violates the Code. Here I distinguish between public debate about, for example, the scope of rights that different groups in society may be afforded, and commentary like that which is in the Flyer, which denies the very existence of transpeople. Understood in its proper context, it is simply not accurate to place this type of expression at the core of s. 2(b) values. 

(A) False equivalence. The reality of transitioning is not the same thing as racial supremacy.
(B) False equivalence. Questioning whether trans-people exist is not the same thing as saying a person should not have dignity.
(C) The flyer is inappropriate, but once again the Tribunal dodges the issue of “truth”.

[125] This argument confuses distinctions with discrimination. Efforts to increase the participation and representation of groups which have historically been excluded from political life serve the goals of achieving substantive equality and enriching Canada’s democracy. But to advocate against including those groups in politics is not the same thing as arguing for their deliberate inclusion. The law has long understood that identical treatment of groups is often the very source of serious inequality: Kapp at para. 27, citing Andrews. Put another way, “different treatment in the service of equity for disadvantaged groups is an expression of [substantive] equality, not an exception to it”: P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed. Supp. 2007), vol. 2, at p. 5553; cited with approval in Kapp at para. 37. It is simply not reasonable to equate efforts to increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in government with those which would seek to continue to exclude them. While I acknowledge that individual voters may choose to discriminate within the privacy of a ballot box, it does not further Canada’s democracy to suggest that a person’s connection with a historically disadvantaged group is a legitimate point on which to openly campaign against them. 

To summarize this word salad: ACTUAL equal treatment of people can be wrong, since it doesn’t take “historical marginalization” into account. Hence the idea of 15(2) of the Charter (affirmative action). This is essentially different rules for different groups in order to “increase representation”.

The decision is long one (100 pages), but this covers the main points. The Tribunal also goes on at length about Whatcott refusing to refer to Oger as “she” despite being repeatedly told not to.

While Whatcott comes off as a bit of a jerk, it is hard to come up with much sympathy for Oger, who is essentially a professional victim. The proposed “hate map” is essentially a doxing tool for opinions that they don’t agree with.

It is also disturbing to see the Tribunal so uninterested in fact or truth. Legitimate concerns about whether a person can transition are deemed hate speech. Further, the tribunal doesn’t care for evidence presented regarding statistics of trans-people. If anything, it is deemed as more of a reason to grant special status.

Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “really is” a woman. The Tribunal is inconsistent in their own standards.

And as seems to be the case in all provinces, the “human rights” code stipulates that no intent is necessary for a finding against a person or group.

Will there be an appeal (in the form of an application for judicial review)? We will find out. But this sets a very bad precedent.