Canadian Man Fined $55K For Calling Biological Male Biological Male

Our Canuk, one Bill Whatcott, distributed a flyer which said that a certain man who pretends to be a woman is a “biological male.” The man who would be a woman, but is in fact a biological male, took exception to this and had our Canuk hauled in front of one of Canada’s “rights” kangaroo courts.

Whatcott had brought a doctor with him to certify that the man who pretended to a woman was, indeed, a biological male. Here, according to Lifesite, is what the judge, who if this were America we’d suspect was an Affirmative Action appointee, said:

Tribunal judge Devyn Cousineau, however, ruled “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.”

“Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses to establish the truth of his impugned publications, that evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue and will not be heard by this Tribunal,” she wrote.

Nice scare quotes around truth, eh?

Now it’s not unnatural to suppose Cousineau took one too many pucks to the head. But it’s a better bet her raving ideological stance is sincere. For she also wrote “even questioning transgenderism is discriminatory.” There’s the state of Canadian science, right there. “Discrimination” was the real reason for the fine (or most of it).

“‘[T]he proposition that we should continue to debate and deny the existence of trans people is at the root of the prejudice and stereotypes that continue to oppress them,’ wrote Cousineau.”

“‘Throughout his testimony, Mr. Whatcott refused to recognize Ms. Oger as a woman, or to abide by the Tribunal’s frequent orders not to call her a man,’ she wrote in a footnote.” Stones.

There no such things as “trans people”, of course. Not in any essential sense. There are lots, and growing numbers, of men pretending to be women, and women pretending to be men. And some even elevate the pretending to full scale delusion. These people exist, all right.

Prejudice should be applied to those who are not quite all there. Prejudice in this sense is a good thing. I mean, you wouldn’t want these people to, say, read books to your kids at story hours at libraries, and in doing so encourage your own flesh and blood to abandon reality for fantasyland. You’d love them far too much for that. Right?

Stereotypes are also important—and largely true. Can you, even if you were in support of sexual LARPing, think of a stereotype about a man pretending to be a woman that is not true? Enter it below.

Anyway, what’s with all this negativism about stereotypes? They are largely true everywhere they are applied. They are useful and almost always correct distillations of information about certain groups of people. Even people like bloggers.

Never mind that. Whatcott is going to be out 55-thousand loonies. We are not the first to recognize the appropriateness of this nickname. It’s a lot of money. Imagine it’s you. Imagine you called a biological male who is a biological male a “biological male”, and this biological male then caused you to pay an extraordinary sum for saying a simple truth. It would sting, wouldn’t it?

And it would cause other people inclined to tell the truth about Reality to keep their mouths shut.

Now my ignorance of Canadian jurisprudence is vast, so I have no idea how this will all play out in its courts. Maybe Whatcott can convince some higher-level entity that Reality is still a going concern. Maybe not.

Either way, it’s clear that Canada, at least at this level, is willing to use violent means to force people to deny Reality. This is not violence on the level of thumbscrews, but it is violence nonetheless, because Cousineau’s punishment has the full force of the entire Canadian government behind her. Whereas Whatcott is one man, or one man plus one lawyer.

There is no disincentive for Cousineau not to threaten or use violent means. What would be such a disincentive is clear enough. But we’re not quite there yet.

26 Thoughts

  1. Truth is no defense to accusations of slander in the British court system.

    In former days, a case for appeal could be made on the bias of the judge. Unfortunately, the law of the land now clearly states that whatever a man calls himself is the truth of the matter, and must be respected by all others.

    Heinlein’s “crazy days” are well and truly upon us.

    It all starts with the denial of reality. “Disparate impact”. “Equal opportunity”. “Gay marriage”. Etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

  2. Legal proceedings are about process, not truth. Justice happens by accident, and then only when the accident is carefully contrived to align process with judging based on the truth. I suspect that distribution of the flyer is the crux of the process matter and found to be defamatory under Canadian law. That it contained statements deemed to be true by some, all, or none doesn’t matter at the end. The huffing and puffing about discrimination is just piling on and done to make it look humane and righteous.

  3. “Stereotypes…are largely true”??!!

    What? You mouth-breathing hater!

    It’s well-known that only haters would believe such nonsense!

    Just randomly, for example, let’s look at such a stereotype based on breeding and genetics:

    Pit bulls are dangerous animals. The breed has killer instincts and will act on those instincts. Their genetic disposition is such that they will even slaughter their “beloved” owners.

    This is a dangerous stereotype based on hatred, ignorance, and sheer willful stupidity.

    Pit bulls are actually teddy bears. They are loving, gentle, kind and won’t hurt a flea.

    Hater! Stop the stereotyping!

    Wait, let’s consider Reality.

    Some snippets of Reality:

    “Pit bulls killed their owner…”
    https://www(dot)washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/12/19/people-couldnt-believe-two-dogs-killed-their-owner-so-the-sheriff-described-the-horror/

    “Two pet pit bulls…killed their owner…”
    https://www(dot)cbsnews.com/news/pit-bulls-kill-owner-in-home/

    “Two pit bulls…kill their owner…”
    https://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=zEoolkhAlIU

    “Two pit bulls…kill owner…”
    https://houston.cbslocal(dot)com/video/4052416-2-pit-bulls-attack-kill-owner-at-irving-animal-hospital/

    “Pet owner dead…pit bulls…”
    https://houston.cbslocal(dot)com/video/4052416-2-pit-bulls-attack-kill-owner-at-irving-animal-hospital/

    “Pit bulls mauled owner to death…”
    https://www.chron(dot)com/national/article/pit-bulls-kill-maul-owner-euthanize-put-down-dog-12442441.php

    Wait…Reality….

    Could this stereotype be “Real” and “True”?

    Cognitive dissonance!

    Reality intrudes.

  4. It occurred to me that the confusion people in the “uncertain which of the 122 genders they are” group, are really just variations of everyone else. The uncertainty of life occurs in all directions. The growing number of “confused” folks are there precisely because they have been given leave to start running in any direction and can claim offense if anyone attempts to point at the “truth”.

    The Jordan Peterson C-13 debacle was most interesting because the people on the other side seemed completely oblivious to their own role in their discomfort.

    I have been listening to An Ear for Men. Women are likely to be highly offended by his content. When the are offended, it is most likely because they missed his core admonition to men. Just about every talk he gives points to it being men’s fault (which would seem to align with Feminist thought). He keeps telling me to grow the F up and stop treating females like children. That last part is where females can get quite defensive. It is also where everyone in between get offended. Those who have grown up don’t get offended by this. They look in the mirror, swear at their own stupidity and move forward.

    I have also been listening to Jordan Peterson. That last sentence is not incongruous with anything I have heard Jordan Peterson say. He stood up to fight this specific situation. In the process, he discovered there were a bunch of people ready to start down the path of growing up. (somehow An Ear For Men remains angry with JP because JP called MGTOW a bunch of pansies. )

    MGTOW is a reaction to the basis of this judgement. I first heard of it maybe three months ago. There is an irony to MGTOW. People who decide to go down that path for real just sort of fade into the woodwork. They stop playing the game.

    I am only now learning that I have been part of the grand charade. My training was very early. I don’t think my mother did anything purposefully. I can only point to all the things she did that got me to wake up now. The judge is a she. Men are also capable of this idiocy. I have been among them doing the same thing. Bowing down to idiocy because at first it seemed like the right thing. When I was 4, my dad walked into the house and said “Where is your mother?” . I responded with “She is where she is supposed to be, in the kitchen”. I remember feeling chagrined at suggesting my mother belonged in the kitchen. At the time, “supposed to be”, was entirely a function of her making me lunch. Part of my brain was already programmed to avoid gender stereotyping. Avoiding those stereotypes is not bad. I do most of the cooking in my family. It becomes a problem, when we blind ourselves to the lack of discipline instilled by skill acquisition on a broader basis. Part of this decision is directly related to not understanding that men call each other names to desensitize them, to make them more able to survive when things go sideways and we have to get stuff done RIGHT NOW and we can’t worry about how we feel about it.

    There are plenty of sane female judges shaking their heads. There are also plenty of male judges nodding in agreement. The difference in the bell curve is big enough to be meaningful. It is not big enough to make anyone not seeing the idiocy wake up…

  5. Well, Brad, I learned a new word today. I admit I had no idea what MGTOW meant. On the way to learning its meaning, I came across this https://i.redd.it/h6gq9zwqnkg01.jpg. Reminds me of the old joke about the Hall Sex stage of marriage.

    My mother spent little time in the kitchen. This was fortunate since she was one terrible cook. Her best dish was boiled water and wasn’t very good at even that.

    Actually, there’s nothing wrong with stereotyping. It’s a survival skill based on probability. This is an odd place to come to be against probability. The real problem with stereotyping arises when first impressions form the only impression.

  6. As mentioned above, truth is not a defense for slander or libel in British-system courts, like (I would guess) those in Canada. Wasn’t that a great deal of what the Zenger case was about?

  7. Long ago I read a book on the psychological origins of political correctness and the author pointed out that when you become PC you have to deny reality and live in fantasy land. He also pointed out that the PC consider themselves victims of persecution and discrimination, likely because reality doesn’t care what they believe but just continues to do what contradicts their beliefs.

  8. There must be some affirmation of telling the truth in a Canadian court. If I have to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and can then be fined for telling the truth or be forced to purger myself and be open to that accusation the court has become intolerable.

  9. It is no coincidence that this occurs in a culture affected by post-modern thought, where the idea of truth is itself rejected. For Christians, Paul’s use of truth (althea) in Ephesians is instructive. Truth is 1) capable of being heard and believed in the gospel which brings salvation (1:13); 2) to be spoken in love which facilitates growth (4:15); 3) in Jesus (4:21; 4) a component of our new self (4:24); 5) to be spoken to our neighbor (4:25); 6) a fruit of the Light (5:9); 7) to be belted to us (6:14).

  10. In Canada (HRC) v Taylor 1990 The Supreme Court said “…hate speech is not simply criminal”
    The Canadian Criminal Code prohibits “…statements that incite…or promote…hatred against an identifiable group” Sec 319
    In Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott 2013 (yes Whatcott is nothing if not litigious) The Supreme Court said “ Any Charter Right is not an absolute right but is subject to reasonable limits…limits designed to prevent clear and identifiable harm” This is hardly ground breaking as no one is a strict constitutionalist even Scalia thought they were crackers! However the court went on to say “The truth may be used for widely disparate ends”

    There in the above you see where the British Columbia tribunal probably felt they were on safe ground. I think the ruling is dangerous, and the “Court” indeed all the HMR Commissions are frequently unqualified, and becoming a law unto themselves. Worrisome!

  11. What’s wrong with just treating people with decency and respect by referring to them in whatever way they want to be referred to?

  12. Swordfish,
    Peterson said he would refer to Theryn Myre as ‘she’. I’m guessing it’s because it felt natural and because he knew it was what Theryn preferred, having previously established a rapport. Also, that he wasn’t going to sue him if he didn’t!
    Hate speech laws turns the deliberate or accidental use of a pronoun into a criminal situation.
    Add to that, the fact that the pronoun is correct for the tissue type. Just not the right nick -name.
    It’s not about decency, really.

  13. Of course, you guys missed the entire point of the ruling which has nothing or little to do with a transgender a man.

  14. Peterson said he’d call you whatever you like but won’t be compelled to do so. If you really believe you’re a swordfish I’ll happily call you Mr Swordfish
    , just to be polite and avoid a childish scene. However when a tribunal tells me I have to, and refuses to allow me to point out your complete lack of gills I get nervous.
    Sylvain- As far as I’m concerned the interesting question here is is the courts refusal to allow evidence, despite its veracity, for highly dubious reasons. The lady on the court holding the scales is wearing a blindfold!
    All defamation law which is derived from the British Common Law tradition employs the defence of Justification, sometimes erroneously revered to as Truth.
    I employ the moniker Plantagenet but I am not under the delusion I am HenryII, though my daughter says I sometimes act like it!

  15. @ Joy,

    “Peterson said…”

    I wasn’t talking about Peterson, I was talking about Whatcott, the guy mentioned in the article. I agree that hate speech laws are a bad idea, but I’m happy that this guy got fined.

  16. Plantagenet, you’re just a black prince.
    Hiding behind a bunch of roses!
    People make up names on the internet because it’s too Jam Hot, and the like.
    Just so . much shark infested custard.

  17. Just! In a tight spot Edward was probably a good bloke to have on your side rather than against you! Victim of bad press, currently in some doubt.

  18. Mr. trombone,

    You were talking about a man who exists in a world with other men, with you, with me, with Mr. Briggs, and a whole host of others, any of whom may conceivably have something worth saying or quoting.

    Plantagenet,

    Which Edward? I will take this opportunity for saying I bear no grudge against Edward I for ordering the expulsion of my distant Flemish ancestors in 1305 …

  19. Sorry, I did mean to say “Mr. Plantagenet”, but didn’t– anyway perhaps it should have been the Sieur de Plantagenet?

  20. Ah manners at last!
    I fear Joy will think it beneath me to explain, nevertheless I believe she was making reference to Edward the Black Prince son of Edward III who sometimes got carried away in the thick of the fray. A noble visage which, some say, hid a troubled and violent soul. Others contest this (though not the French), and maintain black was simply the colour of his shield and livery…”Chacun a son gout”. He died before coming to the throne and his son Richard got the keys to the car. Drove into a wall!

  21. Plantagenet. I didn’t mean to cause offence.
    What’s in a name? I had assumed it just another fake internet one.

    “Joy will fear it beneath me to explain…”?Why would I think that? Hope you’re joking.
    Well, if you’re King, Edward, I suppose…it might be beneath you to talk to anyone much.
    I’m Lancastrian, seems you are, too.
    The monochrome prince era had the best costumes.
    ROYGBIV, though, you can’t wind the time back. If only.

    Swordfish,
    Had started to reply and went out. Sorry to bring Peterson up again, realised after posting.
    That fine was over the top. What a lucrative business.
    Are people not just getting upset and settling scores though? That’s how it appears.
    Did the money make everything okay?
    I don’t care.

  22. Joy
    My home, when in the UK is in the North. So not Lancastrian I’m afraid. I wake up in the old County Durham, cross the famous bridge, and go to the pub in North Yorkshire. My moms family are highlanders connected to the Stuart’s. My dads family are a bit more complicated. Nothing to be offended about. Except courts that make absurd statements…and calling some of the Human Rights tribunals here in Canada “courts” is granting them rather more dignity than they sometimes deserve.

  23. I think this is the second time recently that I’ve seen it asserted that truth is no defence against accusation of defamation in English law. That’s not correct. Truth has always been an absolute defence to civil libel, just not for criminal libel (which we don’t have any more).

    This business seems to have nothing to do with defamation, though, but with “anti-discrimination” law. I suppose that’s criminal libel in all but name.

  24. Plantagenet,
    I recall you have spent time in Durham. Lovely place. I’ve spent more time in Yorkshire than the rest of the “North”. All fond memories.
    The law is called an ass for good reason.

  25. After having actually read the linked article, and the court judgement (nice that they posted it), I have to say that my already low opinion of Whatcott is now lower. He even tried using as a defence the claim that his attack on Ms. Oger had increased her share of the vote due to raising public sympathy for her, which must rank as one of the most weasley arguments ever.

    He also claimed to be able to talk to God, so maybe he is the one suffering from a delusion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *