Pro-family activist in Canada under nationwide arrest warrant -- for passing out ‘anti-LGBT’ flyers. Will turn himself in to police Friday.

by  Mass Resistance

 

Canadian MassResistance ally Bill Whatcott charged in two “hate speech” cases. Being sued by “gays” for $104 million.

Protest planned outside Calgary Police Dept by churches as Whatcott arrives.

Is this what the future of the United States looks like?
Bill Whatcott, an extraordinary pro-family activist in a hostile country!

What is happening in Canada this week should be frightening to all of us.

Here in the United States the government tries to force businesses to make “gay” wedding cakes and schools to have “transgender” restrooms. But in Canada, that train is much further down the tracks. It leads us to wonder: Is this our future?

Earlier this week Bill Whatcott, long-time anti-abortion and pro-family activist and MassResistance Canadian ally, was suddenly informed that there is now a national criminal arrest warrant issued for him – for a supposed “hate speech” crime that took place two years ago in Toronto!

"To be honest I am still shocked myself,” he told MassResistance. The "crime"? “My ministry bringing the Gospel and the truth about homosexuality to Toronto’s homosexual pride parade in 2016.”

“I’ve indeed been persecuted for using accurate MassResistance resources for years,” he says.

So now Whatcott is being dragged into courts in two provinces on criminal “hate speech” charges. For one of the incidents he is also being sued by homosexual activists for $104 million.

All of this for simply passing out pamphlets that the LGBT movement doesn’t like.

National Arrest Warrant shocks supporters

The unusual action of a national arrest warrant being issued against Whatcott — especially for something fairly minor that took place two years ago — has shocked his supporters.  As Whatcott’s lawyer, Charles Lugosi, told The Toronto Star:

Usually, a Canada-wide warrant is issued with somebody alleged to have committed a very serious crime, like murder. Normally, with something like this, it’s never done. It’s abnormal.

Also, Whatcott has appeared when summoned in the past, and his lawyer has made it clear that he intends to continue to cooperate with the police now, though he will certainly challenge every charge against him.

According to published reports, the Attorney General of Ontario personally authorized the criminal charge against Whatcott.

Why did they wait two years before charging him with a crime? It’s not clear at all. According to The Toronto Star:

[Toronto police spokesperson Const. Caroline de Kloet] said part of the reason the warrant was issued two years after the incidents is because police had to “liaise” with the prosecution to approve the charge.

This clearly demonstrates the power of the LGBT movement in Canada.

Whatcott to turn himself in to police on Friday – amid protest

Whatcott has announced that he will turn himself in at a Calgary police station at 10:00 a.m. on Friday morning, June 22. Local churches have also announced that there will be a protest outside the police station to support him.

Members of the Toronto police "hate crime" unit have reportedly already traveled Calgary and will transport him to Toronto.

What did Whatcott do?

Bill Whatcott’s current “hate speech” charges are from two incidents where he handed out flyers that the LGBT movement didn’t like: (1) the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride Parade, which resulted in this latest arrest warrant for a criminal charge and also attracted a $104 million civil lawsuit; and (2) the 2017 British Columbia provincial elections where a man purporting to be a woman ran for Parliament and lost after Whatcott exposed him as a phony “woman.”

The 2016 Toronto Gay Pride Parade

In July 2016, Whatcott used an assumed name to successfully register to march in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. He and a group of supporters called themselves “The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association,” wore green body suits, and handed out approximately 3,000 “zombie safe sex” packets.  

Marching in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. Note the naked men right behind them.

Inside each packet was a folded up two-sided flyer that included medical-related information, plus graphic images of anal warts, genital warts, and a blotched corpse labeled an “AIDS fatality.” It also criticized the Prime Minister and other Canadian political figures for their homosexual activism, and how they have led Canada “on a destructive journey toward sexual anarchy and homosexual inspired oppression.”

The "safe sex" packet with the flyer inside. They passed out 3,000 of these that day!

A month after the parade, homosexual activists filed a civil lawsuit charging defamation and “hate speech.” They asked for an absurd $104 million in damages to various LGBT groups. They demanded that not only Whatcott but the other marchers in the group (who have never been identified) and anyone who supported the effort financially or otherwise be held liable. This was obviously done not only to bankrupt as many pro-family people as possible, but to frighten any others who might also hand out pamphlets against the LGBT agenda.

The lawsuit would also ban Whatcott and his group from leafletting or even posting their information on a website. It would also ban them from marching in any “gay pride” parade.

A judge later ruled that the plaintiffs could not claim defamation for an entire group, only individuals, but that the lawsuit could go forward. He also ordered Whatcott to disclose the names of the other “zombies” who marched as well as all their financial backers. Whatcott’s lawyer is appealing that order.

Such a lawsuit demanding “damages” be paid to the homosexuals seemed particularly hypocritical because the parade itself was a disgusting display of full nudity (particularly by males) and include a large dose of bigoted anti-Catholic and general anti-Christian imagery, according to photos of the event that we’ve seen. But the judges and other officials simply ignore that.

Toronto Gay Pride Parade participants. Exposing one's sexual organs to a child is a crime there (as it is just about everywhere else). But the police and authorities simply ignored that and went after Bill Whatcott's pamphlets.
 

Whatcott’s lawyer filed a very well-written defense brief that makes a very good argument that the parade was a state-funded and basically political event, where all views should be allowed. But the judge, not surprisingly, ignored those points.

(The current warrant for Whatcott's arrest is on a criminal charge of "hate speech" at the Toronto parade.)

Some of the Canadian-based media has written about this (the best is from LifeSiteNews):

Lawsuit takes aim at anti-gay ‘zombie’ from Pride parade, Toronto Star, 8/12/16

$104 million lawsuit against Bill Whatcott threatens free speech, Canadian Catholic News, 8/31/16

Bill Whatcott fights $104 million lawsuit over ‘gay zombies’ Pride protest, LifeSiteNews, 11/11/16

Police issue Canada-wide arrest warrant for Christian accused of LGBT ‘hate’ crimes. LifeSiteNews, 6/20/18

Anti-gay activist wanted for promotion of hatred will surrender in Calgary, lawyer says, Toronto Star, 6/19/18


Exposing a British Columbia "transgender" politician

A second trial for “hate speech” awaits Whatcott in early September 2018 before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (i.e., “kangaroo court”).

Bill Whatcott is going to trial in B.C. for simply stating the truth. Incredibly, the judge has already said that the truth is not a legitimate defense in this case! Could this happen here eventually?

He distributed a flyer in 2017 criticizing a male-to-female transsexual running for Parliament. Whatcott simply alerted voters that the Vancouver socialist candidate was a biological man, not the woman he claimed to be.

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

The truth is there are only two genders, male and female and they are God given and unchangeable. Ronan may have government ID that refers to him by the French female name “Morgane” and the media, NDP, and everyone in the riding might try to pretend Ronan is a woman. But the truth is Ronan's DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change these facts.
“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:27
An interesting question: Will the Toronto police let him out in time for his September hearing in British Columbia?

Whatcott a dedicated activist

Whatcott is used to legal harassment employed against him. He has been subject to other “hate” charges, including a case that went all the way to the Canada Supreme Court (decided in 2013). His flyers in question were entitled, "Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon's Public Schools!" and "Sodomites in our Public Schools."

Reading the articles about how the Court decided this issue conjures George Orwell – or Alice in Wonderland. The logic is confounding on how the Canadians determine what “hate” legally is. The flyers contained documented facts about homosexual behavior backed up by peer-reviewed studies. They also included the term “sodomite” which obviously distressed the Court.

See media reports:

Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphleting, National Post, 2/27/13

Whatcott: Supreme Court labelled truth ‘hate speech’ in homosexuality case, LifeSiteNews, 3/4/13

What is Canadian “hate speech”?

As we have seen in the United States, so-called “hate speech” has no firm definition except what the liberal establishment decides it doesn’t like.

In Canada, hate speech is indictable under Section 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code and carries a punishment of up to two years imprisonment and possible forfeitures.

The offenses include:

  1. Public incitement of hatred – “communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace,” or
  2. Willful promotion of hatred – “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group”

Permitted defenses:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under sub-section (2):

  1. if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
  2. if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  3. if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
  4. if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
In both cases where he’s being currently charged, Whatcott was simply telling the truth, and was also making legitimate religious arguments. There was no “breach of peace.” Thus, even by their own rules, he should not be held liable. But as in the United States, Canada’s activist judges mold the law as they wish.

Don’t let this happen here!

Obviously, Canada doesn’t have a First Amendment like the US. But as we’ve seen here with the Second Amendment, Constitutional guarantees are very tenuous and can start to disappear pretty easily.

As we say over and over, it’s absolutely critical for people to speak out and tell the truth as frequently as possible. That kind of confrontation forces the oppressors to back down. Otherwise the government simply takes over and fills the void with tyranny. Not enough people in Canada have been doing that, and so Bill Whatcott is taking the brunt of that.

On Friday, Bill Whatcott turns himself in to the Calgary police, amid a protest at the police station. We will have a full report on that!


Federal Judge Rules: Way Trump Uses Twitter Is Illegal

by George Upper


There’s been a lot of theorizing about the effect of social media on the 2016 presidential election, most of it — in the establishment media, anyway — focused on how Donald Trump’s campaign, with or without the help of the Russians, “stole” the election from Hillary Clinton by selectively planting “fake news” on Facebook.

But Trump’s social media advantage during the campaign was never on Facebook; it was always on Twitter, from his announcement through the election and inauguration.

And, while it wasn’t obvious at the time, that’s when swamp water began seeping into Trump’s online presence, with the ultimate result being that federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump cannot block users from access to his Twitter account without violating the First Amendment to the Constitution after seven plaintiffs — we don’t have their names, but I’m guessing they don’t hail from right-of-center heartland America — sued over the practice.

The judge ruled that, because blocking accounts that disagree with him on Twitter prevents those users from expressing their disagreement with him on what was essentially a public forum amounted to government suppression of their right to free speech, according to The New York Times.

Now, given the circumstances, the judge could hardly have decided anything differently. It’s not the judge in the wrong here; it’s the circumstances surrounding the judge’s decision.

Essentially, Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that, because Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, “exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account,” the account is an official government account and blocking the seven plaintiffs from it because of their political views violated their First Amendment rights. 

Again, that’s true. But that’s not the problem.  The problem is that this should never have been an “official government account” in the first place. 

Donald Trump — with the help of media experts in his employ, one would imagine — built his following on Twitter long before he ever ran for office, and he continued to build it — and expertly so — during his campaign.  If the account had remained under his personal control, he could block or not block anyone he chose.

But that’s not what happened.

“The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president’s personal First Amendment interests,” the judge, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, wrote in her decision.  The White House is apparently considering an appeal, although the basis for such an action was not mentioned and remains unclear, given the present circumstances.  

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps,” said the Justice Department, which is representing the president in the case.

‘The right thing for the president and his social media director to do would be to log into the president’s account and unblock everyone who has been blocked on the basis of viewpoint,” said Jameel Jaffer, the plaintiffs’ attorney and the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which joined the case as a plaintiff itself.

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account?  

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account? 

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?