New-christian-white-supremacist-entity-on-the-block Resurrection Europa has Very Deep Concerns Indeed about anyone who they do not recognize as cisgender, heterosexual, caucasian, and Christian. Something tells me that even in that subset, they have their own pecking order that places SOME of this demographic above others.
Considering its short existance and its other remarkably white-supremacist and anti-semitic work, this months-old account is surprisingly popular with nearly 10,000 subscriptions.
This latest newcomer (to the hot mess of extreme-right social media propaganda) recently posted a video seemingly critical of my own advocacy work and of the Oger v Whatcott complaint currently before the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
In a preview segment for a documentary to be called “Whatcott vs. Globohomo[sic] Mafia“, the unknown filmmakers deliver a segment after segment illustrating what they perceive to be an overreach of Canadian law on their apparently fundamental religiously appointed right to discriminate against others.
Something tells me this documentary will not be kind to the rest of us.
The liner notes on their YouTube trailer claim that:
“Bill Whatcott is the first person in Canadian history to be put on trial for “hate speech” for “misgendering” a person. He is also being sued for $104 million dollars in a class action lawsuit for handing out Bible scripture at a gay pride parade in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.”
— Resurrection Europa youtube Feb 19 2019 post
This is actually not true. Bill Whatcott is not being tried in Oger v. Whatcott at the BC human rights Tribunal but in a quasi-juridic process under civil complaint, and it was not about misgendering me but about publishing an incitement to discriminate against me on the basis of my gender identity. In his criminal trial in Ontario he faces an indictment for inciting hatred against members of the LGBTQ2+ community due to their homosexuality.
I am fully aware that in my complaint against Mr. Whatcott, the most I can hope for is symbolic damages and an order to stop what he is doing which he is likely to choose to put himself in contempt of. I do recognize the contempt of court does carry serious consequences in the event that one chooses to ignore an order from a court.
Refusing to recognize the laws of Canada rarely ends well for the intransigent party no matter if it is over a speeding ticket, contract law, or civil rights law.
Bill Whatcott got himself into trouble with me not for his irritating inability to address me appropriately but for publishing discriminatory material demonizing me and saying prohibitedly discriminatory things on the basis of my being transgender.
In an interim ruling, Mr. Whatcott was ordered by the tribunal not to refer to me with masculine pronouns, and to not call me a man during the proceedings because it was inappropriate to do so. Whatcott was not however told how to comply with this requirement and English grammar offers rich options ranging from the singular they, using my legal name only, or referring to me as “the complainant”.
The rulings in Oger v Whatcott can be found on the canlii legal decision archivehere.
There is a vast difference between telling people not to do something and ordering them to do something else. Mr. Whatcott is in trouble because he refuses to comply with other people’s civil rights and insists his Gods law is supreme and overrides Canada’s laws. This position is not allowed for in Canadian law.
There are numerous ways to comply with someone else’s civil rights without acknowledging them as valid or as who they are, and the onus is on him not to violate our laws.
Simple examples illustrating the ability to comply without agreeing with the validity of others include any person subscribing to supremacist ideology who chooses do not act on it and still hire people they hate or look down on, through smiling gritted teeth…because there are consequences.
Mr. Whatcott only needs to comply with prohibitions from action, not with any compelled app. Like Jordan Peterson, he has utterly lost the plot. The explicit protection of gender identity or expression that Whatcott rejects is just another civil right in Canada which affords people in Canada the same protections as all the other civil rights.
As was argued during the hearings for my complaint against Mr Whatcott, there is ample precedent in Canada where people were found guilty of discrimination or were criminally convicted on the basis of their violation of civil or criminal laws related to actions that touch oh their expression.
In those cases, the argument was also often made that it was an unacceptable curtailing of free expression to stop hate propaganda. In the supreme court decisions put forward in the Oger v Whatcott arguments by me and by three intervenors, the need to impinge on the charter rights of free expression or belief is justified in Canada in very specific circumstances. Taken together, the actions of the respondents that led to a decision by a court combined to form a sufficient violation of other charter rights to justify curtailing the right to expression.
The Regina v Keegstra case was a seminal criminal case about criminal provisions related to hatred. The most recent decision in this ecosystem is the Your Ward News case in January 2019, and the most recent Supreme Court of Canada case was Saskatchewan v Whatcott which I mentioned previously in the context of Meghan Murphy’s Jan 2019 talk at the Vancouver Public Library.
In the Your Ward News case, two men behind a free Toronto-area newspaper that promoted legalizing rape and denied the Holocaust occurred were found guilty on Thursday of promoting hatred against women and Jews.
There is nothing special about what is happening with Mr. Whatcott when it comes to Civil Right laws. as for my complaint before the tribunal, I sincerely hope that the BC human rights tribunal rules in my favor.
I write about inclusion and political issues while working to narrow the gap between the laws we took great pains to create and their real-world implementation.