Here's the complaint
www.cultureguard.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Filed-BCHRT-Bathroom-Complaint-Jan-24-2019.pdf
They identify themselves as a protected group:
"Married and/or widowed biologically heterosexual Christian females, that gender identify and express as women, and have given life to both biologically provable male and female human beings/children, who also share membership in an organization called Culture Guard, and who are members of numerous groups identified in and protected by the BC Human Rights Code and are active in their democratic responsibilities and in doing so attended a BC Human Rights Tribunal hearing conducted at the BC Human Rights Tribunal Vancouver offices and were forced, due to the BC Human Rights Tribunal bathroom signage and policy, to forfeit the shield of protection of their BC Human Rights Code protected rights as Christians, and as biological females— presenting and identifying as females— had to endure personal indignity and the humiliatingly discriminatory abuse of the Attorney General ("AG"), BCHRT Tribunal chair, and Jane or John Doe by being forced to share a "women's" bathroom with biological males. **
*This group's complaint, prior to the adoptive lunacy of Trans sex activism language by the Respondents and the legally unnecessary amendments of the BC Human Rights code to include "Gender Identity" and "Gender Expression" would have simply read: Married and/or widowed Christian women, who are moms and/or grandmothers to both boys and girls, that belong to an organization called Culture Guard and attended a hearing at the BCHRT in Vancouver and were forced to share a "women's" bathroom with men due to the signage and policy of the Respondents that violate the rights of the group.
*Due to the attendance of the Complainant group at the Whatcott hearing it is obvious that certain members of the BCHRT struggle with comprehending concepts of male and female and the appropriate pronouns one is to use when addressing Biologically Opposed Presenting Individuals (BOPIs). As a result of the bizarre embracement of the newly undefined or seemingly redefined words like "men" and "women" the Complainant Group must use absurdly descriptive language to ensure the reader comprehends what kind of "women" is complaining.
"
The purpose of this is essentially trying to identify into as many protected categories as possible, in order to be eligible for a human rights complaint.
Hence it is a complaint on the grounds of:
- gender identity or expression
Only biological females can identify for legal purposes and HRC protection as women. Transgendered males are male and should identify as a Trans Male. Gender "Expression" does not Details: overide another protected groups rights. "Expression" cannot require the forfeitur of rights of others
- sexual orientation (heterosexual)
"Heterosexual females deserve protection too. The Respondents have no mandate to alter the reality of what it is to be male or female. The Respondents are playing a dangerous game of pretend Details: without legal authority to do so."
"Modesty, protection of women, privacy, public decency are matters of significance and integral to Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and the majority of those who adhere to their religious beliefs. The Details: Respondents failed to respect and protect our religious rights"
"Biological reality is what makes you male or female. Stupidity, ignorance and pretending the associated dangers of BOPIs, especially males, having unfettered access to female washrooms is Details: irresponsible. The Respondents are endangering women."
"The adverse impact [on the group or class you represent] reinforces the narrative that certain biological males/men, ones that wear wigs or lipstick, have an assumed privileged right to deny the protected rights of an entire class - women/females - and are aided in this by the very individuals who are statute bound to protect the rights of women/females. This has resulted in a troubling reality that demands redress.
"
"Humiliation, fear, invasion of privacy, the promotion of the harmful narrative that it is ok to demean women... The fact that this transpired at the BCHRT, the entity that is relied upon to protect the rights of people and groups, aggravates the harm and amplifies the hurt and humiliation.
This form of discrimination could have been completely avoided by simply creating the addition of a "Trans" bathroom if demand is at such a high level that it warrants tax-payer expenditure. Men and Women have a protected right not to be discriminated against. Those who identify contrary to their biological reality do not have the right to impose or thrust their protected right in front of the protected groups.
The conduct of the Respondents was intentional.
"
" the Respondents failed to provide the group with certain lawful accommodations that are well established legal precedents involving public decency, safety, and security as a female/woman. The Respondents are duty bound to protect the group’s rights, but instead deliberately infringed upon them."
"The Respondents knew, or ought to have known, that by including the words “Trans People Welcome” on the sign identifying the washroom as being for “Women”, that biological males who seek to appropriate a female identity would predictably abuse this “welcome” and deliberately violate on the rights of women/females.
And of course this did happen. The stalls in the “women’s” bathroom located on the 12th floor of the facility governed by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in Vancouver are not that private. The doors are not well-fitted, and the gaps allow for measurable invasions of privacy. The bathroom is also quite small and confining.
"
"On the first day of the Whatcott hearing, an assistant to a member of the Complainant group was occupying one of the stalls in the women’s washroom and noted the stall next to her being occupied. Shortly thereafter, she heard a loud male voice that began talking to other people attending the hearing who had piled into the women’s washroom.
She recognized the man’s voice to be Morgane Oger. This was disturbing and distressing to her. Her security of person was violated, she remained in the stall until she was certain that the biological man, Oger, had gone for fear of being bullied."
"Morgane Oger is well-known to the Complainant group members. Oger has harassed and threatened the organization to which the group members belongs. Oger has engaged in highly abusive conduct, and incited hateful attacks against the group member’s organization via social media, the legacy media, and at protests.
It is well-known that the factors associated with Biologically Opposed Presenting Individuals (BOPIs), in this case biological males dressing up as, impersonating, pretending to be or desiring to be women involve numerous root causes that vary from individual to individual. These root causes can include, but are not limited to: delusion and other mental health issues like gender dysphoria; an addiction to hyper-sexualized and/or sexually kinky experiences; a vulnerability to the social contagion affects.... and more.
Regardless of the inciting cause, these individuals remain biological males. The Respondents do not have the luxury of being ignorant in these matters. The Respondents have, by their actions, endangered women and children, and have reduced their value in society to a substandard level of being willfully disregarded, degraded and dismissed."
"On December 12, 2018 group member Kari Simpson sent an email to the BCHRT case manager in the Oger v Whatcott matter for forwarding to the presiding Tribunal members, a panel that included Respondent Juricevic. The correspondence asked for an immediate remedy to the bathroom situation. The Respondents failed to act. A copy of the email is attached.
Complainant group members encountered males accessing the women’s washroom repeatedly over the course of the hearing.
Morgane Oger, a biological male, has publicly stated that he has fathered two children, and has informed a member of the group that he is in a relationship with a woman.
The Respondents are well aware of the fact that Oger is a biological male, regardless of his many false assertions, his willingness to engage in make-believe, and/or his continuing attempts to bully/force people into complying with, and participating in, his delusion.
Mr. Oger has viciously harassed the group’s members and engaged in highly abusive conduct towards them and the organization that the group belongs to."
"By actively inviting males into the women’s washroom—especially having knowledge of males like Oger, who is a Complainant in other matters before the BCHRT, and another BCHRT Complainant Jonathon Yaniv who believes he has a right to force women to wax his genitals—the Respondents are fully aware of the danger they have placed women in.
The Respondents have abused their statutory power to facilitate a political agenda that purposely, not only discriminates against women, but endangers them.
The Respondents have demanded that the group members either embrace delusion or self-discriminate by being forced to participate with, witness and/or acquiesce to biological males in their private spaces.
The Respondents by inviting men into a women ’s washroom have deliberately abused their power, discriminated against and have endangered a protected group.
The BCHRT bathroom is not a safe place for the Complainant group members.
The Respondents have promoted a false belief that biological males are not only entitled to violate and trample on the rights of women, but have actually stated that they will be “welcome” to do so."