"Panelist Devyn Cousineau writes in the ruling that the discrimination against Oger was severe, intentional and designed to interfere in her participation in political life.
"It drew on the most insidious stereotypes and myths about transgender people and called on the electorate to conclude that Ms. Oger was, by sole virtue of her gender identity, unsuitable for public office," the decision says.
"I have concluded that the effect of the flyer was to expose Ms. Oger to hatred and contempt. This is unquestionably a serious and damaging form of discrimination."
It appears they see human rights and the right to free speech in the same way we do in this country. You have free speech and, in this case, freedom to act, as long as you don't limit the freedom of others. I would say that reading the above from the actual trial that Whatcott did indeed limit someone else's freedom to pursue their life. He actually, reading further, set out on a campaign to ruin someone else's life and, whatever his reasons, that cannot be right.
According to this more tempered report it wasn't "a flyer" it was 1,500 flyers and the courts decided "Whatcott's conduct violated the Human Rights Code because it was discriminatory and likely to expose Oger and other transgender people to hatred or contempt." We too have laws against hate speech which expresses hate on account of a person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion gender identity, or sexual orientation. You only have to think what Jo Cox's murderer shouted to understand that hate speech has the power to lead to much, much worse. There are ways of discussing these difficult changes in how we view life without going to the extent of hating people or treating them with contempt, surely.
Apparently Whatcott said "Jesus Christ will come again, I put my faith in that". I think he might be pushing it. My guess is JC would be on the side of the oppressed not Whatcott and his ilk.