Judge orders Christian to betray friends who helped him evangelize gays
ONTARIO, April 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An Ontario judge has ordered a Christian who evangelizes homosexuals to identify his financial backers and anonymous friends who helped him hand out info packets about the physical and spiritual dangers of anal sex at Toronto’s Pride Parade last year.
“There could be serious repercussions for me, including prolonged jail time if I don't comply with the order to disclose the names of my supporters,” said Christian activist Bill Whatcott.
“Generally, Christians should comply with secular courts, but not when complying harms the innocent or when the order is unjust in the eyes of God,” he added.
Homosexual activists last year launched a $104 million class-action lawsuit against Whatcott for defamation after he and a handful of friends infiltrated the Pride Parade dressed as green "gay zombies.” They handed out what looked to be free condoms in packets that said “Zombie Safe Sex” but which contained messages about the physical and spiritual dangers of homosexual practices. The messages encouraged active homosexuals to change their lifestyle and accept the Christian faith.
WARNING: Video from Toronto Pride Parade contains nudity.
Last month, Justice Paul Perell dismissed the lawsuit on a technicality, ruling in Hudspeth v. Whatcott that the homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth could not claim defamation of an entire group, such as the Pride Parade participants or the “LGTBTQ2SI Community,” but only of individuals.
But then in a surprise move in the same ruling, the judge ordered Whatcott to deliver the names of a half a dozen anonymous “zombies” who helped hand out the info packets as well as the “unidentified financial backers” who funded the group’s expenses.
The judge argued that knowing the identities of the individuals who helped Whatcott was “necessary” to the homosexual activists if they were to decide in the future to go ahead with further legal action on grounds that the judge himself suggested.
But Whatcott said he would rather go to jail than betray his friends and supporters to homosexual activists who have publicly promised to “punish them” with a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.
Instead of letting Whatcott face jail time for being in contempt of court in not handing over the names of his friends and supporters, Whatcott’s lawyers are appealing the ruling.
In the appeal, Charles Lugosi and Findlay McCarthy argue that Judge Perell “erred” in ordering Whatcott to reveal the identities of the members of his group after having dismissed the case.
“Once it was determined that the action could not proceed as a class proceeding and that the representative plaintiffs [Smitherman and Hudspeth] had no cause of action, then the action should [have] been dismissed, as the plaintiffs were no longer capable of representing members of the classes,” they argued in the appeal.
Whatcott said that the judge ordering him to betray his friends so that homosexual activists can bring legal action against them shows how far the nation has “turn[ed] its back on God” as it “embraces sexual libertinism as its new idol.”
“Indeed, a judge helping the losing party to refile its claim and ordering the winning party to reveal the identities of friends and helpers to the losers so the helpers of the winning side can be sued is unheard of in property, divorce, criminal, or injury cases,” he said.
“Only in a case involving homosexual activism where the homosexual activists are seeking to silence the voice of Christians could such a deviation from established legal norms be contemplated,” he added.
Whatcott has launched a GoGetFunding page to raise $50,000 to help cover his legal costs. So far, he has raised $10,706 (21 percent) of his goal.
“If you agree with me this lawsuit is unjust and if you would like to help, please do so,” he wrote on his funding page titled Help Bill protect his friends and stay out of jail!
Whatcott’s lawyers are also arguing that the judged erred in denying costs to Whatcott despite having thrown out the case.
“It would be wrong to put a defendant [Whatcott] to the expense of the litigation process if there is no reasonable cause of action against that defendant on the face of the pleading,” they argued.
“Justice Perell, in striking the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable causes of action, should have awarded the defendant to recover the full legal costs of the motion to strike,” they added.