Leftist Canadian judge finds Bill Whatcott GUILTY of “hate speech” – over a 10-year-old flyer.

Sentencing set for Dec. 16. Likely prison time up to 2 years.

Judge’s published “reasoning” is unbelievably hostile. Rejected all the defense’s arguments.

September 18, 2026

Justice Anne Molloy ruled like a typical leftist Canadian judge. She bought into all the LGBT arguments and talking points about "hate." The cards were stacked against Bill.

On Sept. 16, 2026, Toronto Superior Court Judge Anne Malloy announced her verdict that Bill Whatcott is “Guilty” of “Wilful Promotion of Hate.”

This follows the five-day re-trial this past May on the flyer he passed out ten years ago at the 2016 Toronto Pride parade. The flyer was filled with Bible verses, medical information on health risks, political commentary, and images.

The judge laid out her reasons in a shockingly hostile and vitriolic 43-page document filled with LGBTQ jargon.

Sentencing will take place on December 16. Bill is free on bail until then. His likely prison time will be one to two years. According to Bill, his lawyers are considering an appeal.

In most places the incident would have been ignored by the authorities. But Canada has gone off the rails regarding “culture war” issues. The government (“the Crown”) obsessively pursued this absurd “hate speech” conviction.

As we’ve reported, at his trial in 2021 Bill was acquitted (by an honest judge). But the Crown successfully appealed the acquittal (double jeopardy is legal in Canada) and a second trial was held. This time they got their guilty verdict.

The judge’s reasoning: Harsh and vitriolic

It appears that Judge Molloy (along with judges across Canada in similar cases) extracted what she wanted from the evidence and Bill’s testimony, then applied a very liberal interpretation of the statute to create the scenario she wanted.

In her filing, Molloy did not mince words regarding her animosity against the flyer and Bill personally:

In addition Judge Molloy

• Took “expert witness” Professor Nick Mulé’s testimony seriously. This radical homosexual activist professor - a purported expert in “anti-gay rhetoric” - outlined a list of supposed “tropes and dog-whistles” he found in Bill’s flyer. Outrageously, the fact that Mulé also testified during the trial that he considers public sex in parks and washrooms to be a legitimate “form of sexual expression” that “should be protected” did not taint his opinions in any way for the judge.
• Rejected all the defense’s legal arguments. The defense argued that since the flyer was handed out to gay pride parade attendees, it could not cause them to hate gays. But the judge said that Bill handed it out to everyone who would take it, so it might. The defense argued that the point of the flyer was to make gays change their behavior, not for anyone to hate them. The judge also rejected that.
• Ignored the “truth” argument. The courts have ruled that truth is a legitimate defense. The judge ignored the testimony in the 2021 trial showing the medical and theological truths of the flyer. The attitude throughout her document is that any criticism of homosexual behavior is categorically untrue.
• Subjectively interpreted the law: According to Molloy, the Crown did not have to prove the flyer actually caused anyone to feel hatred — only that a reasonable person would view its content as exposing gay people to hatred. Thus, the flyer could meet the legal definition of “promoting hatred” even if not a single person who read it came away hating anyone.
• She subjectively decided that Bill was not a sincere Christian. She said his use of “zombie” costumes to distribute the flyer was a ruse to spread hate, not a genuine attempt to persuade sinners to repent. “These were not respectful Christians come to help guide people away from unhealthy sexual practices or to convince gay men to repent their sins and find God,” she wrote. Instead, they were “on the attack against gay culture, with hatred and mockery.”

Errors by the defense team?

In our opinion, the skill of Bill’s attorney during the 2021 trial, John Rosen (who has retired), was sorely missed. We can see why Rosen was considered by many the best defense attorney in Canada. Three things in particular stand out:

• In 2021 Rosen did not have Bill take the stand. This time his lawyers allowed him to take the stand. For two days he was skillfully grilled by the Crown counsel, who got Bill to say things that were used against him by the judge.
• In 2021 Rosen successfully got Bill’s previous flyers, writings, and court rulings excluded as evidence. This time, they weren’t excluded. Even flyers from 2001 – 15 years before the incident – were used as evidence against him.
• In 2021 Rosen masterfully turned around the opposing testimony of the medical expert witness. But this time Bill's lawyers did little to confront the absurd testimony of Professor Mulé, except to expose some of his opinions on “gay culture” unrelated to this case.

It’s a terrible outcome in a country that’s completely lost its moral compass.

Final thoughts

The very concept of “hate speech” is the problem. Freedom of speech should allow even speech that may be offensive. Unfortunately, although Canada’s Charter of Rights actually does have  language (similar to our First Amendment) protecting speech – it also allows the government to limit it in a “reasonable” way. We’re seeing where that leads.

The idea of someone facing years of prison time because a judge has decided that a flyer he passed out ten years ago constituted “willful promotion of hate” is completely foreign to the American mindset. But it’s happening right over the border. And there are powerful people who want to bring it to the US. This should be a warning to everyone.

Shockingly, this is barely being reported in the Canadian mainstream media and not at all (that we can see) in the conservative media there. That’s very concerning.

We will continue to keep you fully informed on the further developments in this case!