I listen to a lot of scary stories on Youtube, and a recurring thing about garden variety pedophiles seems to being completely un-selfaware about how they telegraph themselves to others, contrasted with more traditional predators, who necessarily have to be cleverer. Contact with a child, whether in the vicinity or online, becomes some kind of monomania and they don't snap out of it unless they're at immediate risk of being caught, almost like a euphoria or trance - they quickly stop acting and start being more careless as they get closer to their goal. Since Yaniv gets off on just bringing these topics up at underage girls, I guess this is the closest he can come to foreplay, and the thrill of it overrides any intelligent precautions he should be making given his day-job as professional victim.
Then again, he's also insane and a cretin. He's been catfished twice (?) and he is fully aware that people are documenting his every move. I guess his narcissism and the lack of any real consequences to his behaviour allows him to handwave it away, and his sociopathy make it easier for him to believe himself to be the only truely injured party - which in his head, translates to vindication in a court of law.
Yaniv has gotten away with so much nasty bullshit, but because his crimes have been mostly petty or administrative, because it's Canada and he's " "trans" ", he doesn't face any repercussions. Any other white person screamed and threatened a person of colour like that, they would be called a Karen and bullied mercilessly across the internet, but the art of Trans-Fu means he probably feels invincible so long as he maintains the veneer of 'activist'.
At the risk of going "full on autistic" here: JY is, in a nutshell, a textbook example of "hard cases make bad law"!
The thing is, that: no, it probably genuinely isn't a great idea to criminalise "just being a general purpose arse". Nor should it be illegal or even questonable for citizens in a democracy to test the law by bringing matters of opinion into the legal system. This is all within the remit of "what the system has been designed to accommodate and cope with, generally speaking".
But then, there are people like Jon, specifically speaking, who use and abuse said system to terrorise and bully the rest of the world, and Asian women in particular. It's all well and good to say "ah, but the system can cope". It actually can and does so pretty well (point in case: Jon hardly ever wins, unless opposing counsel could have won buy is asleep at their desk *coughExpediacough*). But it still sucks to be Kamal or one of the waxers.
Doesn't it all boil down to "how much JY can we accept in exchange for 'the same rights for less insane people - in case they ever need it'", though?
Yes, I realise this is a pretty abstract take on things. Personally, I'd like to see JY behind bars as much as the next person.
For a supposed law student you think he would know that you can't sue someone for defamation if what they said is true. In order for someone to prove a defamation you have to prove that what they said makes people think less of you. We all know that no one could possibly think less of Yaniv than we already do.
In terms of a serious response - obligatory IANAL, also: not Canadian and hence not even remotely familiar with how formally relevant this would be, but:
IIRC, the "wax my balls" BCHRT decision established "race as motive", I believe. Surely this should suffice?
"Paedophile" is, probably, a bit harder to firmly establish. There are, of course, some ~1 gazillion screenshots to the effect of. If I were JY's lawyer - I am not HIS or, repeat, ANY lawyer, at all - I'd probably argue: "first prove that this was, indeed, my client and then, if you manage to, prove how this makes him a paedophile as opposed to 'just another internet troll/general purpose arse', which, however distateful it might be, is not illegal".
