Megathread British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) - All initial BCHRT related material goes here, including updates on current hearings.

[dirt lamb]

The entire point of pubic hair on a female is to catch any dust or particles so they don't actually get into the mucous membrane areas. The membranes themselves, which the minora are a part of, do not grow hair that would defeat the purpose. Also lol that we're discussing this at all. It's like Yaniv has thrown out so many absolutely ridiculous lies that kiwis can't even remember how vaginas work either. We've heard too much bullshit, it's rotting our brains.

I have an autistic question....so the inside of the nose isn't considered a mucus membrane? Because I hate tweezing that shit but there sure is a lot of mucus. If i had to tweeze my lil lips I don't know if I'd have the stomach for it.

 

[SourDiesel]

I have an autistic question....so the inside of the nose isn't considered a mucus membrane? Because I hate tweezing that shit but there sure is a lot of mucus. If i had to tweeze my lil lips I don't know if I'd have the stomach for it.

Haha ok yes that's a bit autistic but no the part at the entrance to your nose where the hair grows is not mucous membrane. Disclaimer: IANAD

Back on topic: that human rights tribunal sure is a fake court being abused by a litigious tranny pedophile, isn't it?

 

[dirt lamb]

Haha ok yes that's a bit autistic but no the part at the entrance to your nose where the hair grows is not mucous membrane. Disclaimer: IANAD

Back on topic: that human rights tribunal sure is a fake court being abused by a litigious tranny pedophile, isn't it?

I'm starting to wonder if any of this were to go to the supreme court, would it really benefit the women being sued? It seems like Canada's justice system is kind of flipped on its head with this shit....but I don't know much about it beyond this case. I would really hate to see it go that far only to be ruled in Johnny's favor because trans rights > womens/immigrant/individual rights

 

[SourDiesel]

I'm starting to wonder if any of this were to go to the supreme court, would it really benefit the women being sued? It seems like Canada's justice system is kind of flipped on its head with this shit....but I don't know much about it beyond this case. I would really hate to see it go that far only to be ruled in Johnny's favor because trans rights > womens/immigrant/individual rights

Honestly, I feel like Devyn is going to rule against Yaniv but it's going to be for a reason along the lines of him being a racist litigious asshole who entrapped these women and therefore they are not to blame. Which will leave aside the question of whether it is transphobic for women to not wax balls. Won't even answer that question. Only if Jonny appeals will it even go near a real court and he won't because that would cost real money and he would have to get a real lawyer.

 

[pr3nt177]

Honestly, I feel like Devyn is going to rule against Yaniv but it's going to be for a reason along the lines of him being a racist litigious asshole who entrapped these women and therefore they are not to blame. Which will leave aside the question of whether it is transphobic for women to not wax balls. Won't even answer that question. Only if Jonny appeals will it even go near a real court and he won't because that would cost real money and he would have to get a real lawyer.

So if it's ruled against the door will still be open for the next fruit loop to argue similarly. A never ending circle.

Nah he won't go to a real court as he's too much of a wimp and like you say it will cost him money unless, of course, he manages to con a pro bono out of some sucker and then he'll strut in his big boy pants.

 

[Fapcop]

Honestly, I feel like Devyn is going to rule against Yaniv but it's going to be for a reason along the lines of him being a racist litigious asshole who entrapped these women and therefore they are not to blame. Which will leave aside the question of whether it is transphobic for women to not wax balls. Won't even answer that question. Only if Jonny appeals will it even go near a real court and he won't because that would cost real money and he would have to get a real lawyer.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

The only qualms Devyn has, are with Janiv’s person and not his goals.

 

[Well Intentioned]

I don't think that Yaniv meets the requirements of discrimination.

I've been reading up on other HRT cases and came across this:

2019 HRTO 1093 (CanLII) | Escano Hilario v. 1912905 Ontario Limited | CanLII

The onus is on the applicant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The test for prima facie discrimination as set out by the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• • The applicant has a protected characteristic under the Code;
• • The applicant suffered disadvantage or adverse impact; and
• • The protected characteristic was a factor in the disadvantage or adverse impact.

Yaniv meets #1. (Sigh.)
#2 would technically fit because of his being denied a service.
#3 is where the crux of the matter is. Some of the questions that have been posed to the beauticians ("Would you wax a fully transitioned person?" "What is a transexual person to you?") seem to be trying to establish whether or not the "protected characteristic" is in play here and, given the responses from the women, it is not the case.

The case I linked above also points out that the prima facie test isn't a requirement (emphasis mine):

After a fully contested case, the task of the tribunal is to decide the ultimate issue whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant. After the case is over, whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, an interim question, no longer matters. The question to be decided is whether the applicant has satisfied the legal burden of proof of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the discrimination has occurred.

Given how much of Yaniv's nonsense has been grandstanding, providing questionable evidence and outright falsehoods I'd argue he's done a poor job of establishing discrimination, no matter how you slice it.

A lot of the cases are abandoned by the applicant, but are dismissed. If you're interested in reading some interesting cases, here are a few:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt147/2019bchrt147.html (The lifting of the publication ban in Yaniv's case, not sure if it's been posted here or not.)

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2019/2019hrto1083/2019hrto1083.html (Korean guy in a wheelchair claims discrimination, gets his case tossed because he keeps claiming "muh anxiety" and no shows hearings.)

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2019/2019hrto1080/2019hrto1080.html (Another dismissal with a pretty top notch smackdown: "I find that the Application must be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. Even if I accept all of the facts alleged by the applicant as true, the applicant has not been able to point to any evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to him that support his assertions, beyond his own suspicions or beliefs. ")

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2019/2019hrto1076/2019hrto1076.html (Autistic guy flies into a rage when he hears someone chewing gum, wants to use the handicap version of public transit due to his "disability." )

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

So here's the story about the 10 year old...

 

[Chicken Picnic]

So here's the story about the 10 year old...

View attachment 863568

So... did he contact the 10 year old? For a wax?

 

[crushedpuss]

These goddamn ten-year-olds are ruining his life. First they're consuming his brain about needing tampon instructions, and now they're involved in conspiracies to deny him gender-affirming care! Will our princess ever find justice?!

In all seriousness, I really hope he didn't traumatize this poor kid in some way when he talked to them. Assuming this isn't completely fictional.

 

[AbraCadaver]

Waiiit right ok so, someone wanted to turn down jon for a wax, so they made a little kid pretend to be them and turn him down, because he couldn’t sue a kid for turning him down...but the kid is still pretending to be the adult and answering the adult’s messages, and in order to use the “you can’t sue a child” defence. they’d have to admit the kid was just pretending to be them and is not actually the real waxer and in fact the waxer put the kid up to it, so the waxer is actually the one turning him down anyway...

Yeah johnny is about to get caught contacting ten yr old girls and he wants to pretend it was a prank by the waxers to cover his enormous pedophilic arse. Either that or he has lost a grip on sanity and the little girls that dance in his brain all day are appearing to him as hallucinations now.

 

[Itchyscratchypoochy]

With as much as his story has changed, I wouldn't doubt if that phone call was faked. Also note the sheer amount of "friends" he mentions in court testimony on news outlets? "I have a friend that is FtM..." "My friend James says..." "I had a friend call them..."

I don’t think he has any real friends, only internet contacts. There’s no word on the street about who knew him in high school, etc.

 

[Lithos]

Love this post.

He's becoming the best comedy routine in BC. He's going to be drawing more and more crowds.

 

[SourDiesel]

Love this post.
View attachment 863620
He's becoming the best comedy routine in BC. He's going to be drawing more and more crowds.

And laughter from me too. Holy fucking shit this guy. HOLY SHIT THOUGH

Honestly, I find most cows funny, I mean who doesn't? But it's not every day I literally laugh out loud while I'm reading something. It has to be VERY funny. Holy Christ, I can't even read Yaniv threads in public anymore. Apparently the entire tribunal gallery agrees.

 

[Lithos]

And laughter from me too. Holy fucking shit this guy. HOLY SHIT THOUGH

Honestly, I find most cows funny, I mean who doesn't? But it's not every day I literally laugh out loud while I'm reading something. It has to be VERY funny. Holy Christ, I can't even read Yaniv threads in public anymore. Apparently the entire tribunal gallery agrees.

How often does a tweet chain make you hope that someone does a reenactment? Like, with full dramatic actors, and not comedians. Actors that are famous for deadpanning everything. I want that for Elsie's stuff.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

So... did he contact the 10 year old? For a wax?

I think what he is trying to claim--and take this with a grain of salt because I am dealing with Elsie's shorthand and JY's tardspeak all at once here--is that the ten year old was part of a conspiracy to exclude his balls from waxing. Not that the ten year old was actually offering waxing services. It's really hard to tell if he's being paranoid or if someone's kid actually did answer the phone or if he thought a young sounding woman was a ten year old because he can't stop thinking about tweens and tampons or...just the fact that he brought this up in public says volumes about him, really, though.

 

[Fapcop]

So... did he contact the 10 year old? For a wax?

Idk, it sounds pretty bizarre. Especially the part where Yaniv didn’t use the six magic words that people usually use to get out of similar situations: “May I Speak With Your Parents”

 

[illhavetwo]

So Yaniv wanted to bring in an expert that would testify genitals don't matter in brazillian waxing, waxing balls is easier than waxing vulvas and unlike vulvas does not require special training. I'm dying to know the name of the expert, shame they were not allowed to testify.

 

[Viridian]

So Yaniv wanted to bring in an expert that would testify genitals don't matter in brazillian waxing, waxing balls is easier than waxing vulvas and unlike vulvas does not require special training. I'm dying to know the name of the expert, shame they were not allowed to testify.

Let's be real here, the "expert" was probably going to turn out to be his mother, and if she'd been allowed we'd have been regaled with a tale of crazy Mama Yaniv waxing Jonathan's hairy balls and how it was super easy so all those aestheticians are just dirty lying immigrant whores or some other nonsense Jonathan coached her to say.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

Recent text notes from goinglikeelsie for searchability purposes:

Spoiler: Text of tweets

Back to continue BCHT Hearing JY v. Waxing ladies.
Need to back up a bit to tell about procedural matter at start of hearing. When the Member said no recording, she also said that this was waived for accredited journalists and asked if there were any in attendance.
Both men from Press for Freedom and News Now Canada Independent Media identify themselves as press and go to front of room to talk to the Member.
NNCIM shows Member the badge he has on a lanyard. She asks where it came from and he explains that he (himself) printed it.
Neither man is recognized as an accredited member of the media and will not be allowed to record the hearing. Seems that no accredited press is present to record the hearing. (This was when I considered leaving to find someone accredited and giving them my seat)
Continuing notes for the 5th BCHT Hearing attended, JY v. Waxing ladies. No respondents are present, JY has already given testimony about being refused a brazillian by a Merle Norman franchise.
JY will testify about HM next. HM has a typically Asian sounding name
HM had an ad on FB Marketplace offering threading, bleaching and waxing (arms and legs).
JY contacted her and HM replied, "Only for ladies"
JY responded, "I know how to read, I'm a woman"
Note: JY was using former name Jonathan at this time and JY's profile pic was the one with short dark hair, some makeup and the pink sparkly hat.
Recall that JY has testified that this pic was taken on a trip to Vegas.
@JurisCameron had questioned JY about this pic and the circumstances under which it was taken during another (SG's) hearing a few weeks ago
? When was pic (profile, stereotypically male with sparkly hat) taken?
JY - gives date
? Was from same trip when you took pictures of a stripper on the table?
JY - no, same from XXX, how did lawyer get stripper pic?…
HM then continues the FB convo with JY, says she works from home, gives her address, asks when JY will come.
JY asks if HM does brazillians
HM says no only arms and legs
JY then tells HM, I'm transgender
HM says sorry but cannot do, not allowed by my husbando
JY stops to say I was "pissed" at this point and takes a minute to explain about having another FB convo going at the same time as this one (with PD, next respondent in this hearing) to get service and being denied.
Wants to use to explain (justify) angry responses to HM.
JY - I will take you to the BCHRT
HM - says is out of wax right now
JY - (you are) "full of crap, don't lie to me"
HM - out of wax & husband won't allow
JY - (you are a) "discriminatory liar"
HM then blocked JY.
Member admits this FB convo as an exhibit. It is 4pgs and dated Aug 22/ 2018 - JY says I think I filed the BCHR complaint that same day.
Member and JY discuss why no profile info for JY shows up on the convo. JY says am not sure but thinks it is because JY was blocked by HM.
Member asks what HM would have seen as JY's profile at time
JY - former name Jonathan and pic (has been described as typically male) with short dark hair, some makeup and pink sparkly hat. JY also has copy of HM's ad.
JY then takes a minute to explain the special method JY used to contact next respondent, PD (sorry would describe but don't completely understand FB or FB Marketplace)
JY - (as a result of what I did) PD could not block me on FB, PD could not end her FB convo with me.
JY says had to do it that way because of blocking by other respondents.
Member asks JY, why ask about a brazillian when HM's ad doesn't mention brazillians?
JY says most waxers do "everything"
JY says wants to clear something up and continues by saying:
- a brazillian is not a genital waxing service
- a brazillian has nothing to do with genitals
- it is (merely) a wax from the belly button to the butt
- a brazillian has nothing to do with male or female genitals
Member asks JY, how can you say that?
JY - I wish my expert witness was allowed as she could explain
Member asks JY, why file multiple complaints and all at the same time?
JY says it's my usual practise to approach many providers at one time, see what's best, says number of complaints filed just illustrates the systemic discrimination that JY faces.
JY says that disallowed expert witness would testify that
waxing "on a vagina" is much harder because vaginas "have more folds" (than a penis & scrotum)
Laughter from the gallery. JY comments on the inappropriate giggles. Member cautions gallery, says to JY dealt with
JY says disallowed expert would say that waxers need more training to wax a vagina, they already know how to wax a penis & scrotum.
Then JY begins to talk about females becoming "wet" while getting brazillians. Says is true for lesbians and others. It "just happens to them"
Note: IMO JY is trying to counter @JCCFCanada's expert AB's testimony re men getting erections and requesting sexual services by saying women get aroused too, that
Also IMO, JY added the lesbian part to imply that because of their sexual orientation, waxing a lesbian is the equivalent of waxing a male - implying that lesbians are more likely to become aroused when touched by female waxer
JY continues:
- no difference between male and female arm, leg and pubic hair
- all waxers use all the same tools, not like a gynaecologist who need special tools
- says disallowed expert would testify that she doesn't even refer to anatomy, doesn't even ask about parts
Note: JY's expert could be a woman who was one of two waxers from the US quoted in a news story about JY. Both waxers provided services to trans women and one did mention being sensitive when talking about anatomy and genitals - cannot find it so welcome any links in replies
But keep in mind that we only have JY's word that an expert was even willing to testify and if true may not have been one of these women.
Only a relevant link to possibly show what she said & it's context as opposed to JY's characterization of what was said (no pile ons pls!)
Member tells JY, clear you are using your testimony to back door the testimony of disallowed expert witness, will not allow
JY - yes, testimony would have come from disallowed expert witness, wants to testify about it to inform the media, counter expert AB's (public) testimony
Member says your testimony is for me, not the media
JY mentions (I was) "on Fox, two days ago", laughs.
JY's testimony about HM is over, next will testify about PD.
First JY wants to address reports about being denied waxing by a 10 year old
JY says 10 yr old was pretending to be esthetician (at someone's request) to give denial so JY would not be able file complaint - wouldn't be able to file complaint against 10 yr old. Says gets lots of excuses, stuff like this going on, same thing with these complaints
Member asks, how relevant to these cases?
JY - unrelated but shows the systemic discrimination that JY faces, people using their "extreme culture" that is "biased against trans". Then begins to describe being attacked on the Skytrain (for UK - read the Tube)
Member stops JY
Member says is not relevant to these cases and allowing would be unfair to respondents.
Next will be JY's testimony about PD.
JY will also talk about "trans friendly Vancouver", disclose a newly filed complaint, read a harassing email received during hearing, discuss how sex is only a social construct, and enumerate the costs, plus interest that the Member should require respondents to pay JY. Back soon

This part sticks out (no pun intended)
Jonathan says:
- a brazillian is not a genital waxing service
- a brazillian has nothing to do with genitals
- it is (merely) a wax from the belly button to the butt
- a brazillian has nothing to do with male or female genitals

I have no idea what is going on in this retard's mind except that he has been allowed to get to the point where he thinks he can just say stupid shit and everyone has to accept it.