BC Human Rights Tribunal declines to reconsider decision in favour of estheticians who refused to wax male genitalia -

  • Images may fail sporadically. I have taken measures to keep the site working under high load at the expense of static content. The new server is ETA 7~10 days.

TerribleIdeas™

Master of Cunt-Puppets
kiwifarms.net

1573693332006.png

1573693351315.png

1573693367824.png

1573693397318.png

1573693420424.png


While this could arguably go in a JY thread, or possibly the BCHRT thread, I wasn't sure that it really qualified for either, since it's an opinion piece about a legal opinion being expressed by someone that shouldn't be a lawyer, let alone allowed to express an opinion on LGBT issues - Adrienne Smith.

Who's Adrienne Smith, you ask? She's the "non-binary lawyer" that featured prominently in the BC union advertisement that confirmed that JBP, for all his other faults, was 100% correct about Bill C-16 enabling the weaponization of the various provincial human rights tribunals. For the life of me, I cant find the fucking video, but it's the one that a shit-ton of mediocre YTers cut clips of her line "It's the law!" from, so I imagine we all remember it. If someone has a link to it, feel free to throw it up.

She also wrote this word salad for Pride Month, last year.
1573693630592.png


I couldn't bring myself to watch it, but this video is about how "interesting she is", which is about as interesting as a bag of marbles, in my opinion.

Anyways, this all boils down to an attention-seeking faggot thinking that poor JY is somehow hard done by, and I'm wondering if there's going to be pro-bono work on JY's behalf, in the future, which I think we'd all find hilarious.
 

FinnKitty

kiwifarms.net
VANCOUVER: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that the BC Human Rights Tribunal has declined to reconsider its October 22 ruling in favour of the right of home estheticians to refuse to handle male genitalia against their will. The Complainant, Jessica Yaniv, had sought reconsideration from the Tribunal on the grounds of contended factual errors, unfairness and alleged bias.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represented five estheticians from diverse ethnic backgrounds who operated home-based business in the Vancouver area providing services to women, including “Brazilians”, which is the waxing of the female groin area. The hearings for three of these women took place in July of 2019.
The complainant Jessica Yaniv identifies as a woman but possesses male genitalia. Yaniv approached the Justice Centre’s clients and requested, among other waxing services, Brazilian waxing to remove pubic hair from the groin area. When the estheticians refused to provide the services requested due to a lack of personal comfort, safety concerns, a lack of training, and/or religious objections, Yaniv filed complaints against them alleging discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. In total, Yaniv filed 15 complaints against various estheticians in the Vancouver area seeking as much as $15,000 in damages against the various estheticians.
In its October 22 ruling, the Tribunal noted that “human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.”
The Tribunal also found that the complainant Jessica Yaniv had “engaged in improper conduct” and had filed complaints “for an improper purpose”, awarding costs against Yaniv in the amount of $2000 payable to each of the Justice Centre clients Sandeep Benipal, Marcia daSilva, and Sukhi Hehar Gill.
In today’s Decision denying Yaniv’s application for reconsideration of the October 22 ruling, the Tribunal stated that Yaniv “has not shown why considerations of fairness or justice, viewed objectively, require the Final Decision to be re-opened and reconsidered.”
“Our clients simply want this matter concluded,” stated Jay Cameron, the Justice Centre’s Litigation Manager and counsel for the estheticians. “They are pleased to learn that the Tribunal will not disturb its ruling.”

(page screencapped because I couldn't archive it)

BCHRT ruling: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/nov/244_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_No_3_2019_BCHRT_244.pdf
 

Attachments

Salubrious

Feelin' Healthy
kiwifarms.net
That opinion column was genuinely suggesting that it should have been a different person bringing the case forward and the Tribunal should have then ruled that the waxing services should have been forced to wax a tranny. Jesus Christ.
I have source amnesia, but someone suggested that months ago that after this decision was inevitable that people would reee about Jonathan being a "bad example" and that someone else should have sued the women.

Also, imagine following this case at all, and saying that this was an affront to trans people because Jonathan couldn't afford a lawyer and that a laywer would have advised him not to be a piece of shit human being in public. Yeah, THAT'S what was wrong here. Never mind the women wouldn't have been sued in the first place if Jonathan wasn't a piece of shit.

Also also, imagine here saying that trans rights were violated AND that cis women have no right to not touch another person's penis who identifies as a woman. Cis women have no human rights apparently.
 

Haesindang Park

kiwifarms.net
Apparently, this is more important than Vancouver's massive homeless problems. If only the human rights court in B.C. actually did something about this. But hey at least there's trans rights and transgenders feel safe; or at least that's what the provincial government claims.

I thought the job of lawyers were to interpret laws in favor of the client during court hearings to convince the judge to hand them lighter sentences. This lawyer sounds like a predatory lawyer who is funded by special interests groups and corrupt politicians who just wants the money.
 

Avalonsfury

kiwifarms.net
I have source amnesia, but someone suggested that months ago that after this decision was inevitable that people would reee about Jonathan being a "bad example" and that someone else should have sued the women.

Also, imagine following this case at all, and saying that this was an affront to trans people because Jonathan couldn't afford a lawyer and that a laywer would have advised him not to be a piece of shit human being in public. Yeah, THAT'S what was wrong here. Never mind the women wouldn't have been sued in the first place if Jonathan wasn't a piece of shit.

Also also, imagine here saying that trans rights were violated AND that cis women have no right to not touch another person's penis who identifies as a woman. Cis women have no human rights apparently.
If I recall correctly Morgane Ogre posted something about another similar case being taken to the Tribunal. Another Transwoman _ Post Op being denied a Brazillian wax by a salon that does service men and woman. I just can't remember where I read her comment on it.
 
Tags
None