They may or may not be friends online... What we know for sure is that Oger told Jon to use the human rights tribunal to get money from the beauticians, and Oger has argued that beauticians are obligated to get training on how to wax penises and scrotums because of bill c 16. The deal is that he believes Jon's tribunal charges have merit. He believes that the government should be in the business of forcing women to touch lady penises because not doing so is discriminatory. Basically, they are both fucking creeps.
Oger has his own tribunal drama & I would welcome anyone who wants to read all about what a fucking joke the HRT system is to check out the update to the OP for the morgane oger thread. Jon very well may win every single case, given the way they handled Oger's complaint (misgendering).
Crucial similarities and differences exist between
Oger v. Whatcott and
JY vs. Poyer et al.
Looking at the tribunal's calendar, most complainants are named, including Oger, who is also living publicly as a transwoman, and Whatcott, a fundamental Christian. Their views and the issue of debate (flyers Whatcott handed out) are public and fairly clear-cut. Whatcott and his "God hates fags" view is as much tailor-made for progressives/transactivists as Yaniv is for conservatives/terves, but Yaniv enjoys a publication ban whereas Whatcott does not.
First, Yaniv has 13 pending complaints that, according to Commissioner Devyn Cousineau, were to be templated on the results of an October hearing after which Cousineau would decide the fate of what she calls the "interim" publication ban. The Economist on 10/25 said the basis for the ban was enacted b/c Yaniv was not publicly out as a transwoman and that Yaniv dropped the Poyer/Paradis case rather than have JCCF insert the screenshots as proof Yaniv was in fact identifying as one publicly, and JCCF also corroborated this on its Web site. Cousineau in her BCHRT document of 12/11 then asserted that the interim ban was granted because Yaniv feared being identified IN THIS CASE would hurt his business, which is different from Yaniv being publicly identified as a transwoman.
Second, Oger's assisting Yaniv with Twitter bans is not something Whatcott nor other complainants enjoy. Oger has an outstanding case before BCHRT himself and due to his public position, more public sway. And again, misrepresenting this case as a mirror image of
Oger v. Whatcott is itself false.
Yaniv has gotten public attention because he filed 16 complaints against beauticians specializing in vulval waxes, and there is no evidence that they would decline vulval waxes on transmen or post-op transwomen. A non-native English language speaker saying she only does "ladies" is clearly referring to vulvas; this is a semantic nuance, not a hate crime. Licensing boards overseeing this service have not mandated vulval wax specialists certify in a scrotal technique and/or offer both.
Yaniv then got public attention because the screenshots were discovered. Oger himself has said they were "concerning" and to most people they're more than that. Again, what Yaniv is identifying as isn't the issue, the issue is an EIGHT-YEAR pattern of hitting up underage girls and vulnerable women and musing about inserting tampons into 10-year-olds.
Yaniv made himself a person of interest (or in the states, an injected public figure) by targeting over a dozen people, mostly women of color (some which he's also against for racist reasons) and by having an at least eight-year public history of asking sexually inappropriate questions and bullying girls as young as 12. That's the issue, not his gender identity. And Oger, Cousineau and others pretending it is damages their cause to privilege a perv.
ETA: For reference and clarity, here again is Oger's thread from 11/20:
http://archive.li/jrlRg
ETA2: Another blogger has weighed in:
https://conservativenuke.com/2018/1...of-progress-in-canada-jonathan-jessica-yaniv/
