Canada: "Christian Activist Fined $55,000 for Calling Transgender Woman a Biological Male." A news report

"In 2017, Whatcott printed 1,500 flyers with a photo of Oger that described the candidate as a “biological male” and said she was promoting “‘homosexuality and transvestism.’”

Whatcott said he cannot afford to pay the tribunal’s fines, arguing it “wouldn’t make sense” for him to do so, anyway. “I think that’s a horrible decision,” he said, adding, “I’m a pretty tough guy, and if they take something from me or throw me in jail, I’ll live through it.” (This last paragraph from faithwire article at )

Am I the only one who fails to see the giant chasm of difference between “calling” someone something and printing/distributing 1,500 flyers in order to influence a political campaign?


You are not alone.


Misleading articles don’t help their credibility.


Since when do free speech rights get segmented into whether you speak or print flyers? Does that make a difference?

Isn’t the crucial matter fining someone $55 000 for expressing their opinion?

Human Rights Tribunal is an oxymoron when it only defends the rights of some at the expense of the rights of others, depending upon which is the right du jour.


And the problem with common sense is that it is not all that common. Voltaire.


The answer to your two questions is "This took place in Canada. Their laws, their secularism.

A Human Rights Tribunal, when it is driven by secular “progressive” values, is not going to march to a common sense drummer.


Yeah, I know. My home and native land.


This might be a legitimate freedom-of-speech issue or it might not.
There is a difference between personally disputing someone’s claim about themselves and using an irrelevant* issue to smear them during a political campaign.

*Irrelevant to the political issue the campaign is about, not irrelevant absolutely.

Yes, totally agree. We just had a special election here, and for a month, we received flyers in the mail from both candidates, saying what a crumb-bum the other candidate was. Must have put out a fortune for all of those flyers. Anyway, the election is over, and nobody got fined for the nasty words said about the opponent, of which there were plenty.

God help our world.


Some of these tribunal decisions are outrageous. They’re often decided by a panel of activists. I hope they appeal to the courts and have a proper judge toss this out.

I am no expert on Canadian law.

IN the US, free speech does not give one the right to slander or to defamation of character.

Looks like in Canada there are also laws against what is colloquially called “hate speech”. If someone decided to defy the law they would be prepared to accept the legal repercussions. As Baretta said “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.

As to everyone in a free society, if one does not like the laws, work to change the law.


Okay, so if we want to make elections great again, then perhaps the progressives ought to stop labelling their opponents as homophobes, racists, Islamophobes, transphobes, etc., etc., to smear them. This smearing of opponents rather than discussing actual issues has become the go-to strategy for the left progressives, but prosecutions only seem to occur when it is one of their own who are being smeared.

The other aspect of this issue is that the progressive left are actually using contentious social justice issues such as “homophobia,” “transphobia,” “Islamophobia,” as their political foil to target their opponents politically. If the opponent doesn’t fall into line on the reigning progressive position, they will be attacked and smeared based on little more than their failure to align.

If you are advocating keeping these “free speech issues” out of politics, then let’s keep them out completely.

As the Smollett case is demonstrating, the progressive leftists can even go so far as slander their opponents by hoaxing a crime and they will still walk away unscathed, but a mere reference to someone’s actual gender will result in a heavy fine.

Another case in point is the upcoming Alberta election where the Alberta New Democratic Party is carrying on a campaign of smearing their UCP opponents using 20 and 30 year old “dirt,” but doing very little to actually present a platform besides “we’ll spend more” at the same time as insisting they will be fiscally responsible and balance the budget by 2023.

As long as justice is so unevenly applied we can expect reactions, even some that are ill-considered or desperate. Let’s apply principles consistently, then, shall we?


How does calling someone who is biologically male, “biologically male,” amount to slandering or defaming them?

Is it a horrid thing now to be biologically male when you happen to be biologically male?

Bizarre, really.


I would encourage people to read the Vancouver Sun’s report that was linked in the OP’s link. It gives a little more detail on the decision, specifically:

So a few thoughts:

  1. This seems to be within the realm of Canadian law, but I’m speaking on this from an American perspective and how SCOTUS works. I’m not sure how the Canadian Supreme Court compares.
  2. I think it is a bit extreme to compare this to a “whites only” sign. Whatcott’s flyers hold almost no power over Oger, at most possibly influencing the vote enough against Oger, but that doesn’t seem to be proven here. The “whites only” signs actually did have power over where certain people could go.
  3. In general, I’m not a fan of going after a candidate over these matters. In recent years Bernie Sanders questioned one candidate over their Evangelical beliefs, and there have been two instances of this happening to Catholics. Whatcott may not have the same level of power in Canada that Sanders and Feinstein have in the U.S., but the core of his opposition isn’t really that much different than their core.

Respect for a person would dictate that we do not discuss, let alone publish documents, about their genitals in order to stop them from being elected to serve in public office, to keep them from a job, etc. Remember, the Catechism is very clear that we must avoid unjust discrimination.


Whatcott went to the trouble and expense of printing 1,500 flyers. He must have known he was breaking the law. If you think a law is a bad law and you want to change it, fine. But if you knowingly commit an illegal act, you have to be ready to face the consequences.


2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community.

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

The two citations render the issue a matter of prudence. Do the electorate have a right to the truth about a candidate who holds for public office, a position of authority? Yes.

Yeah, no. They have made their genitals a public issue to begin with by attempting to ride the current wave of identity or intersectional politics into power.

The first woman this…
The first homosexual that…
The first transexual this…
Diversity that…
Inclusion this…

Perhaps no one would even have mentioned it if they had not made it a principal part of their public “platform” to begin with?

Remember when politics had nothing whatsoever to do with gender or group affiliation?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit