“Not revealing specific locations where sasquatch sightings occur is the decision of the plaintiff, and in no way infringes upon his ability to espouse his beliefs regarding sasquatch existence,”
In a judicial version of “If you see something, say something,” a judge in British Columbia ruled against Bigfoot and one of its biggest fans, Sasquatch seeker Todd Standing, stating that no one in the provincial government is stopping Standing from revealing his proofs of the existence of the famous cryptid and it’s a waste of the court’s valuable time to pursue this approach rather than just showing his evidence to the world in any and every other way available.
“First, there is no political belief at issue here; Mr. Standing’s belief in the sasquatch’s existence is not a political matter.”
Even though it seems like everything is a political matter in the U.S., B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Ball says that’s not the case in Canada, at least when it comes to Bigfoot. That might change if cryptids get the right to vote or contribute to a political campaign, but until then, politicians do not have any obligation to protect Bigfoot.
“Second, such belief is not akin to ‘constructively immutable’ grounds like religion. Where religion can be an element core to a person’s state of being in all aspects of life, the same cannot be said of a belief in the existence of the sasquatch.”
Before you suggest that this ruling does not apply to your First Church of Sasquatch and that Bigfoot is all you think about day and night and what about that religion that worships Britain’s Prince Philip (true!), Justice Ball says you and Standing can believe whatever you want.
“However, the government’s non-acknowledgement of the sasquatch does not in any way prohibit or restrict the plaintiff’s ability to express his thoughts, beliefs, and opinions regarding the sasquatch.”
The judge’s response is well thought out and shows he took the case seriously. He noted that Standing had not established “a threat of violation, if not an actual violation, of rights under the Charter.” In ruling against him, Judge Ball said that the defendant (the state) “is entitled to its costs, payable by the plaintiff forthwith after assessment pursuant to Appendix “B” as a matter of ordinary difficulty.” And, once Standing pays the bill, he should not let the door hit him on the way out and don’t bother coming back.
“As a result, the claim of the plaintiff is hereby struck out and dismissed, without leave to amend, as the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.”
In other words, unless Standing returns with Bigfoot as a witness or Exhibit A, the case is closed. Of course, if Standing would (or could) do that, he wouldn’t need the protection of the court anyway.
What does Standing think of the ruling? His lawyer answered for him:
“I’m not happy with the ruling. I think there are good grounds to appeal it.”
Spoken like someone who knows his client still has some money left.