Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification

[Tragi-Chan]

WHY AREN'T THEY MENTIONING THAT HE'S A DERANGED TAMPON PEDOPHILE

IT'S RELEVANT AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

FFS CANADA

yes I'm mad on the Internet but wtf. I know they can't print his name but they should be able to talk about the stuff he's done, it came up in the tribunal proceedings. Don't local newspapers have some kind of mandate to serve their community?

The argument would be that he’s not convicted of any crimes related to pedophilia, so in the eyes of the law, he isn’t one. With a vexatious litigant like John, they probably don’t want to risk anything.

 

[gobbogobb]

Legal stuff that gives null a headache aside:

I'm not a mod and have literally no power here but I'm reminded of an old meme post.

NYPA

We are not your personal army of autists who just can't wait to scorched earth every badperson ever.

We also aren't the "autistic illuminati" so many think we are.

We know how to comment in public forums. We don't need a field marshal telling us who to contact or anything like that. We don't tend to post "we did it kf!" style posts unless it's a joke.

Seriously everyone who wants tampongate or whatever, you're probably in the wrong place.


Again totally not a person with any power here.

I know this dude makes you mad. He's a sick fuck. Its ok to not like the guy just calm down, archive everything, and joke about whatever you can.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Legal stuff that gives null a headache aside:

I'm not a mod and have literally no power here but I'm reminded of an old meme post.

NYPA

We are not your personal army of autists who just can't wait to scorched earth every badperson ever.

We also aren't the "autistic illuminati" so many think we are.

We know how to comment in public forums. We don't need a field marshal telling us who to contact or anything like that. We don't tend to post "we did it kf!" style posts unless it's a joke.

Seriously everyone who wants tampongate or whatever, you're probably in the wrong place.


Again totally not a person with any power here.

I know this dude makes you mad. He's a sick fuck. Its ok to not like the guy just calm down, archive everything, and joke about whatever you can.

Normally I would agree, but there's something particularly infuriating about Yaniv. Not just the fact that he's a perv, but that he seems to have an unusual amount of power to shut down any and all discussion of him and how awful he is. That majorly triggers the First Amendment advocate in me.

Usually I'd say sit back and watch the show. Usually I'd say leave the cow alone so they can produce milk. But just this once, I wish there was something we could do.

I'm not sure there is, and I'm not going to do anything, but a man can dream of exposing troonshielded pedos, yeah?

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Normally I would agree, but there's something particularly infuriating about Yaniv. Not just the fact that he's a perv, but that he seems to have an unusual amount of power to shut down any and all discussion of him and how awful he is. That majorly triggers the First Amendment advocate in me.

Usually I'd say sit back and watch the show. Usually I'd say leave the cow alone so they can produce tard cum. But just this once, I wish there was something we could do.

I'm not sure there is, and I'm not going to do anything, but a man can dream of exposing troonshielded pedos, yeah?

I mean, there's nothing stopping people from doing whatever. They shouldn't come here and talk about it, that's all.

 

[2nd_time_user]

We know how to comment in public forums. We don't need a field marshal telling us who to contact or anything like that.

"Contact us" links and FB links to newspapers are both there to talk to journalists in this case, and numerous people have posted contacts to public figures in this thread before. So I asked for clarification.

You're right, the guy makes me personally very angry. But as someone with no power here, I have no power to field marshal anything nor any say in what any other individual does with the information.

I mean, there's nothing stopping people from doing whatever. They shouldn't come here and talk about it, that's all.

When Yaniv interacts with them via copyright strikes, Twitter jail, etc., that isn't just about them, any more than Null's strike is just about Null. It's about a pervasive pattern of big tech censorship to which their silencing is a valid receipt IMO.

 

[Buster O'Keefe]

Forum guidelines are up there in green, please read them.

 

[sperginity]

Normally I would agree, but there's something particularly infuriating about Yaniv. Not just the fact that he's a perv, but that he seems to have an unusual amount of power to shut down any and all discussion of him and how awful he is. That majorly triggers the First Amendment advocate in me.

Usually I'd say sit back and watch the show. Usually I'd say leave the cow alone so they can produce tard cum. But just this once, I wish there was something we could do.

I'm not sure there is, and I'm not going to do anything, but a man can dream of exposing troonshielded pedos, yeah?

This is like wishing that someone could have warned barbara streisand not to make such a big deal about the picture of her house being published. It is so much better when cows have no one to blame but themselves.

Three main (non-sexual) characteristics of jonathan:
1. He is stupid
2. He takes things wayyyy too far
3. He spends a lot of time and effort taking things way too far

For instance, he could have tried suing one salon to see if it would work before filing FIFTEEN other lawsuits. But no, he wanted to look as frivolous as possible I guess? He could have made his pedophilia way less obvious on twitter as well, but opted not to. He could have made a fake facebook to talk about pervy tampon stuff, etc etc. People who are this hard working at their stupid, stupid ideas always run into consequences. The universe is going to sort this one out. He is pissing off enormous swaths of people for a totally childish crusade, and people who do that eventually fuck with the exact wrong person and end up in deep shit. It is delicious when it happens and I fully expect that to be the outcome here.

 

[gobbogobb]

When Yaniv interacts with them via copyright strikes, Twitter jail, etc., that isn't just about them, any more than Null's strike is just about Null. It's about a pervasive pattern of big tech censorship to which their silencing is a valid receipt IMO.

So what you're saying is it's about ethics in Twitter banning?

Now do you see why we take a dim view to anything that even smells of brigading?

 

[GethN7]

I can't say I'm for this brigading bullshit, besides, it's not going to work.

So long as the cucks who have shielded this deviant legally continue to do so, only the following will muzzle this douche:

1. Said legal bullshit is overturned.

2. It's discovered he's guilty of horrific sex crimes even his legal ass coverage can't excuse him from, leading to #1. Ideally, this destroys the very foundation of what let this sick fuck get off in the process, sad as the trigger will be.

3. He pisses off the wrong woman or man trying to defend a female from him and winds up brutalized/dead because his perversion inspired them to such rage they don;t give a fuck about his legal ass coverage, it won't do shit to save his physical ass from the beating/mortal wounds he rightfully will have earned if it gets to that point.


Unless I missed something, these are the only things that will put a stop to this sick fuck or at the very least deny him the shield to continue. Anything else is pointless moralfaggotry.

 

[2nd_time_user]

So what you're saying is it's about ethics in Twitter banning?

Now do you see why we take a dim view to anything that even smells of brigading?

Not about ethics, it's about people getting Twitter banned/jailed even when the name isn't mentioned. Happened to Null, to Meghan Murphy, and to numerous other data points that together suggest a pattern.

And as I said, I never said, "Let's go brigade." "Contact us" info is just that--info. Same as FB, where people can contact them.

I can't say I'm for this brigading bullshit, besides, it's not going to work.

So long as the cucks who have shielded this deviant legally continue to do so, only the following will muzzle this douche:

1. Said legal bullshit is overturned.

2. It's discovered he's guilty of horrific sex crimes even his legal ass coverage can't excuse him from, leading to #1. Ideally, this destroys the very foundation of what let this sick fuck get off in the process, sad as the trigger will be.

3. He pisses off the wrong woman or man trying to defending a female from him and winds up brutalized/dead because his perversion inspired them to such rage they don;t give a fuck about his legal ass coverage, it won't do shit to save his physical ass from the beating/mortal wounds he rightfully will have earned if it gets to that point.


Unless I missed something, these are the only things that will put a stop to this sick fuck or at the very least deny him the shield to continue. Anything else is pointless moralfaggotry.

Some more things that could turn the tide:

4) Meghan Murphy. Her event is on 1/10. In a Reddit AMA, she said JY was guilty of "defamation and would be held to account." Murphy has lawyers out of JCCF. See (5)

5) Shelah Poyer. This beautician's case was supposed to be the template for deciding the other ones, according to BCHRT commissioner Devyn Cousineau, who reopened the complaint 12/11. JCCF is representing her. If she's ruled against at the tribunal, high probability JCCF takes it to court, where there won't be a publication ban.

6) Media interest, which may increase as (4) and (5) unfold with new developments. This is likely to come from conservatives rather than the "mainstream," but they aren't inconsequential.

ETA: Looks like the latest Yogile album on JY was taken down, but the archive is still up: http://archive.vn/Zp0f7

 

[Marvin]

The argument would be that he’s not convicted of any crimes related to pedophilia, so in the eyes of the law, he isn’t one. With a vexatious litigant like John, they probably don’t want to risk anything.

It would be libel to call him a convicted child molester. But you don't need to have a conviction to be a pedophile.

At least in the US. I would imagine in UK the "not charged!" argument might work.

 

[Arachnomatricide]

This is like wishing that someone could have warned barbara streisand not to make such a big deal about the picture of her house being published. It is so much better when cows have no one to blame but themselves.

Three main (non-sexual) characteristics of jonathan:
1. He is stupid
2. He takes things wayyyy too far
3. He spends a lot of time and effort taking things way too far

For instance, he could have tried suing one salon to see if it would work before filing FIFTEEN other lawsuits. But no, he wanted to look as frivolous as possible I guess? He could have made his pedophilia way less obvious on twitter as well, but opted not to. He could have made a fake facebook to talk about pervy tampon stuff, etc etc. People who are this hard working at their stupid, stupid ideas always run into consequences. The universe is going to sort this one out. He is pissing off enormous swaths of people for a totally childish crusade, and people who do that eventually fuck with the exact wrong person and end up in deep shit. It is delicious when it happens and I fully expect that to be the outcome here.

I agree for the most part, but my worry is JY may sexually abuse someone before the hammer comes down. It's frustrating that we may end up with one of those situations like with school shooters where people look at the social media and the general behavior of the person after the fact and see the outcome was inevitable. People will wonder why nobody spoke up, and the answer is they tried.

 

[Cato]

It would be libel to call him a convicted child molester. But you don't need to have a conviction to be a pedophile.

At least in the US. I would imagine in UK the "not charged!" argument might work.

Well, whether or not someone has been charged with anything has no bearing on whether they are a "pedophile" or not, so a criminal conviction wouldn't be required to establish a defence (although of course it would help). And one wouldn't even need to explicitly call him a pedophile; they could just point to his exact statements and questions in the various creepy message he's sent or posted. Even beyond that, in Canada, a justification (truth) defence can succeed if the defendant can show that "the whole of the defamatory matter is substantially true," (Meier v Klotz, 1928 ) even if not every detail of the defamatory statement is literally true, so that gives a lot of leeway to make statements about Yaniv.

So, legally, I'm quite confident someone could defeat a defamation claim from him, even in Canada. Practically though it's just a pain to be on the receiving end of a defamation suit here because the elements are extremely easy to establish and all the work is done by the defendant in establishing a defence. And Yaniv doesn't seem like he's sitting on huge piles of cash to pay costs if he loses anyways.

 

[Bunny at Law]

Legal stuff that gives null a headache aside:

I'm not a mod and have literally no power here but I'm reminded of an old meme post.

NYPA

We are not your personal army of autists who just can't wait to scorched earth every badperson ever.

We also aren't the "autistic illuminati" so many think we are.

We know how to comment in public forums. We don't need a field marshal telling us who to contact or anything like that. We don't tend to post "we did it kf!" style posts unless it's a joke.

Seriously everyone who wants tampongate or whatever, you're probably in the wrong place.


Again totally not a person with any power here.

I know this dude makes you mad. He's a sick fuck. Its ok to not like the guy just calm down, archive everything, and joke about whatever you can.

Tampongate is a great name though, you gotta admit.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Well, whether or not someone has been charged with anything has no bearing on whether they are a "pedophile" or not, so a criminal conviction wouldn't be required to establish a defence (although of course it would help). And one wouldn't even need to explicitly call him a pedophile; they could just point to his exact statements and questions in the various creepy message he's sent or posted. Even beyond that, in Canada, a justification (truth) defence can succeed if the defendant can show that "the whole of the defamatory matter is substantially true," (Meier v Klotz, 1928 ) even if not every detail of the defamatory statement is literally true, so that gives a lot of leeway to make statements about Yaniv.

So, legally, I'm quite confident someone could defeat a defamation claim from him, even in Canada. Practically though it's just a pain to be on the receiving end of a defamation suit here because the elements are extremely easy to establish and all the work is done by the defendant in establishing a defence. And Yaniv doesn't seem like he's sitting on huge piles of cash to pay costs if he loses anyways.

Meghan Murphy has gone on record saying that JY's speech constituted defamation, namely before the Township of Langley on 12/10:

For example, in the news recently, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist named Meghan Murphy violated the Canadian Criminal Code by inciting hate against the LGBTQ and trans community, stating, "Men are not women and trans women are not women." In doing this... inciting this speech, I personally got her twitter account suspended, which got a lot of (pause) attention,ah, haha, and created global outcry for feminist rights and created global policy changes for social networks such as twitter and wordpress, um, and such.

However, Meghan Murphy, a Vancouver resident, still has not been prosecuted by VPD for her hate crimes. In the meantime, she has booked a hate rally at the VPL geared toward hate and transphobia. Even Mayor Stewart called her even despicable, yet the event still goes on because the City of Vancouver is too scared to cancel her event.

Murphy has stated that this speech constitutes defamation and that JY would be "held to account" for said defamation, which I assume is a civil tort in Canada. Stating that "men are not women and transwomen are not women" is not a criminal violation, if it were, she would not be allowed to hold her event. Murphy has been careful with her language on JY, merely pointing out what's in the screenshots with qualifiers. To me, it sounds like Murphy, not Yaniv, has the better case for defamation. As @Cato is more familiar with Canadian law and how it works, however, I'll defer to whatever opinion he has on this.

 

[Cato]

Meghan Murphy has gone on record saying that JY's speech constituted defamation, namely before the Township of Langley on 12/10:

For example, in the news recently, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist named Meghan Murphy violated the Canadian Criminal Code by inciting hate against the LGBTQ and trans community, stating, "Men are not women and trans women are not women." In doing this... inciting this speech, I personally got her twitter account suspended, which got a lot of (pause) attention,ah, haha, and created global outcry for feminist rights and created global policy changes for social networks such as twitter and wordpress, um, and such.

However, Meghan Murphy, a Vancouver resident, still has not been prosecuted by VPD for her hate crimes. In the meantime, she has booked a hate rally at the VPL geared toward hate and transphobia. Even Mayor Stewart called her even despicable, yet the event still goes on because the City of Vancouver is too scared to cancel her event.

Murphy has stated that this speech constitutes defamation, which I assume is a civil tort in Canada. Stating that "men are not women and transwomen are not women" is not a criminal violation, if it were, she would not be allowed to hold her event. Murphy has been careful with her language on JY, merely pointing out what's in the screenshots with qualifiers. To me, it sounds like Murphy, not Yaniv, has the better case for defamation. As @Cato is more familiar with Canadian law and how it works, however, I'll defer to whatever opinion he has on this.

I'm flattered but for what it's worth, Murphy's contention and what you've written is basically accurate. It doesn't get much more straightforward for a statement to constitute defamation than for someone to claim that someone else "violated the Canadian Criminal Code," when the person in question hasn't even been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. I hope she pursues it.

The only caveat I would add is that "public incitement of hatred" and "wilful promotion of hatred" are Criminal Code offences, and the wording of the relevant sections are disturbingly broad. For context, in R v Buzzanga & Durocher (1979) a satirical pamphlet written by Francophones imitating Anglophone rhetoric against Francophones resulted in criminal charges and their convictions were only set aside because there were mens rea issues (meaning that the fact that the content of the pamphlet met the actus reus of the offence wasn't in dispute). Although simply stating that "men are not women and transwomen are not women" would likely not rise to the level of incitement/promotion of hatred, "gender identity or expression" was recently added to the list of identifiable groups covered under those offenses, and what would cross the line is an open question.

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

Tampongate is a great name though, you gotta admit.

It works even better knowing that Yaniv has both the charisma and the body of Nixon

 

[a tightly clenched butt]

Out of curiosity I joined the "makeup junkies anonymous" group on Facebook to search for old posts by Yaniv. Found this:



Nice dildo, Jonathan.

I also found some references to "discrimination" that he apparently suffered by a company called Younique. Dunno exactly what the issue was, whenever anyone asks him for details, he just tells them to add him and message him.

 

[Arachnomatricide]

Clearly not a deranged exhibitionist who gets off on forcing women to look at dicks against their will in what should otherwise be non-sexual contexts where men aren't really welcome. Clearly. Archive and report.

 

[ContinentalButterchip]

Not to add fire to the burning debate of uncut versus cut.....

But why the absolute fuck does Jon's dildo, of all things, have fucking foreskin on it?