What do you think of the man who had to pay $50,000 for refering to a trans person as a biological male?

Anonymous
A so-called "human rights tribunal" in Canada has just ruled that a Christian activist must pay $55,000 to a provincial politician because he referred to this politician as a "biological male" in a political pamphlet. The politician in question, Morgane Oger (born Ronan Oger), is a biological male. However, he has since "transitioned," and is living his life as a "transgender woman." According to the decision, Bill Whatcott must compensate Oger for injuring the latter's "dignity, feelings and self-respect."
The terrifying precedent set by this case can be illustrated by one, flabbergasting fact: The judge in the case refused to allow Whatcott's lawyer to offer testimony showing that, in point of fact, Oger is a biological male. According to the judge, "the 'truth' of [Whatcott's] statements in the flyer is not a defense." As such, said the judge, "evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue..."
Read that again. Let it sink in. Truth is not a defense. Evidence doesn't matter. What matters — it would seem — is whether someone's feelings were hurt. And thus, with a stroke of the pen, the rule of law is replaced with the rule of feelings. But as Whatcott has just learned, and I suspect many more are about to learn, feelings can be far more ruthless and unyielding taskmasters than laws.
What do you think of the man who had to pay $50,000 for refering to a trans person as a biological male?
What do you think of the man who had to pay $50,000 for refering to a trans person as a biological male?
14
1
Add Opinion