Article Benjamin Boyce - : Legal Impact of the Yaniv Case with Defense Lawyer John Carpay -

[heathercho]

Exploring the legal origins and ramifications of Yaniv's human rights complaint against small business owners who refused him pubic service, with a lawyer who is working in the case (on the defense).

 

[pr3nt177]

I like how the lawyer never referred to Yaniv as "she".

"Kill the Christian = suck it up, too bad, free expression. Kill the homosexual = promoting hatred against gay people. Canadian Law has a bias towards certain groups. Victims groups – there is a hierarchy."

"...Conflict between LGBTQ and religious freedom / Yaniv's conflict between GI versus the safety and security of women to practice a profession in their own home without being legally required to have somebody with male genitalia in their house is bringing the Human Rights Legislation into disrepute for sure." (wtte).

You reap what you sow. Good interview with interesting compromises suggested.

 

[WGkitty]

interesting comprises suggested.

I mentioned it in the Oger thread but I hate the suggestion that large corporate salons should still have to wax male testicles. There is no fundamental difference, you're still going to be forcing a woman (although if in a corporate salon one making $18 an hour) to handle a dick. It's not like corporations are robots, it's still run by real people. Women shouldnt be forced to handle a cock just because they are okay doing women's waxing!

 

[pr3nt177]

I mentioned it in the Oger thread but I hate the suggestion that large corporate salons should still have to wax male testicles. There is no fundamental difference, you're still going to be forcing a woman (although if in a corporate salon one making $18 an hour) to handle a dick. It's not like corporations are robots, it's still run by real people. Women shouldnt be forced to handle a cock just because they are okay doing women's waxing!

Couldn't agree more. It pains me that people, ie ones who will feel forced into doing something they don't want to do, are having to pander to those screaming out.

I find it totally repugnant, one reason why I'm eager to see how this all pans out.

 

[tramfest]

I mentioned it in the Oger thread but I hate the suggestion that large corporate salons should still have to wax male testicles. There is no fundamental difference, you're still going to be forcing a woman (although if in a corporate salon one making $18 an hour) to handle a dick. It's not like corporations are robots, it's still run by real people. Women shouldnt be forced to handle a cock just because they are okay doing women's waxing!

It would still be better than this. A salon in Canada presumably has the luxury of hiring a big lumberjack to wax male clients.

 

[pr3nt177]

It would still be better than this. A salon in Canada presumably has the luxury of hiring a big lumberjack to wax male clients.

I see it that at least a salon would have staff, ie if one member of staff needs help then help is there.

You'd think if there was a shortage of these services, for whatever reason, there'd be someone committed enough to set up a business and train/employ those who would carry them out. Not related but the likes of Erin Pizzey immediately comes to mind.

 

[Titan Lithos]

I mentioned it in the Oger thread but I hate the suggestion that large corporate salons should still have to wax male testicles. There is no fundamental difference, you're still going to be forcing a woman (although if in a corporate salon one making $18 an hour) to handle a dick. It's not like corporations are robots, it's still run by real people. Women shouldnt be forced to handle a cock just because they are okay doing women's waxing!

I don't know how places like Merle Normal operate, but most corporate hair cutting places tend to only operate the premises. It gets tricky. While the corporation will give a check, cutters also are "renting" a station which to operate. In other words, the single chair is their workplace, not the rest of the store. It's almost like a waiter or waitress in that they survive on small paychecks and tips. The company can choose who gets to "rent" a station. They can decide to give it to someone based on their qualifications. They can choose to give it to someone who is licensed only in waxing female genitalia. And the company wouldn't schedule anyone wanting ballwaxing to that waxer.

Edited to add: So it can be a kind of loophole. They can hire said lumberjack that is the only one qualified, still advertise that they offer the service, then tell the potential client that they only have that one lumberjack that does the job. "Would you like to schedule here? No? Well, sorry, you must find another location, then."

I don't think Oger would win the case that all future aestheticians would be required to learn all skills before getting a job.

 

[heathercho]

I don't know how places like Merle Normal operate, but most corporate hair cutting places tend to only operate the premises. It gets tricky. While the corporation will give a check, cutters also are "renting" a station which to operate. In other words, the single chair is their workplace, not the rest of the store. It's almost like a waiter or waitress in that they survive on small paychecks and tips. The company can choose who gets to "rent" a station. They can decide to give it to someone based on their qualifications. They can choose to give it to someone who is licensed only in waxing female genitalia. And the company wouldn't schedule anyone wanting ballwaxing to that waxer.

Edited to add: So it can be a kind of loophole. They can hire said lumberjack that is the only one qualified, still advertise that they offer the service, then tell the potential client that they only have that one lumberjack that does the job. "Would you like to schedule here? No? Well, sorry, you must find another location, then."

I don't think Oger would win the case that all future aestheticians would be required to learn all skills before getting a job.

What annoyed me about this interview - and about Canada in general - is the lack of desire to want to dictate cultural mores and norms. Without acceptable social rules, society falls apart. It is falling apart in Canada.
You're having the lunatics run the asylum.

For example ; Religion is a set of cultural mores and norms. It's not a belief in nothing. It's a belief in society. In something bigger than the idea of self.

Regardless of the differences between Islam and Christianity, the difference between Islamic countries and the West, overall, both have the same notion - rules that guide society build a strong society.
Putting this notion of society beneath the rights of the individual is fucking dangerous.

I have no doubt that this tribunal will end with some kinda win for Yaniv, solely because Canada is that cucked.
Canada has made it clear that it is a progressive country, that the progressive stack is your rule of law.

Even having a HRT is some 1984 shit. I seriously hope it gets taken over and turns into a caliphate just so a rule of law can find it's place once again.

 

[SourDiesel]

What annoyed me about this interview - and about Canada in general - is the lack of desire to want to dictate cultural mores and norms. Without acceptable social rules, society falls apart. It is falling apart in Canada.
You're having the lunatics run the asylum.

For example ; Religion is a set of cultural mores and norms. It's not a belief in nothing. It's a belief in society. In something bigger than the idea of self.

Regardless of the differences between Islam and Christianity, the difference between Islamic countries and the West, overall, both have the same notion - rules that guide society build a strong society.
Putting this notion of society beneath the rights of the individual is fucking dangerous.

I have no doubt that this tribunal will end with some kinda win for Yaniv, solely because Canada is that cucked.
Canada has made it clear that it is a progressive country, that the progressive stack is your rule of law.

Even having a HRT is some 1984 shit. I seriously hope it gets taken over and turns into a caliphate just so a rule of law can find it's place once again.

I disagree because I don't believe the government should be telling us what social norms ought to be. While many religions have social mores as a concept, when you get to the actual rules, they differ. I liked the way he described the government as being like referees when operating correctly. I think that's ideal. We make laws imo not because it's socially improper to murder someone but because in order for society to be fair and free for everyone involved, the referees can't allow people to just hurt each other to get thier own way. You can't take from others or harm others. Beyond that, I don't think it's the government's place to tell me what I ought to believe is moral or righteous. A government that rules according to any specific religious text is a theocracy and I don't want to live in a theocracy. I enjoy the freedom to believe whatever I want. I think the government should support that rather than try to dictate. Especially when, as Carpay points out, a government that dictates morality inevitability gets used as a weapon by various groups vying for power. Dictating morality is exactly what got is into this wax my balls mess in the first place imo.

 

[TheBlackVolga]

That was an excellent interview. The lawyer was calm and reasoned and put forth very good arguments.

 

[heathercho]

I disagree because I don't believe the government should be telling us what social norms ought to be. While many religions have social mores as a concept, when you get to the actual rules, they differ. I liked the way he described the government as being like referees when operating correctly. I think that's ideal. We make laws imo not because it's socially improper to murder someone but because in order for society to be fair and free for everyone involved, the referees can't allow people to just hurt each other to get thier own way. You can't take from others or harm others. Beyond that, I don't think it's the government's place to tell me what I ought to believe is moral or righteous. A government that rules according to any specific religious text is a theocracy and I don't want to live in a theocracy. I enjoy the freedom to believe whatever I want. I think the government should support that rather than try to dictate. Especially when, as Carpay points out, a government that dictates morality inevitability gets used as a weapon by various groups vying for power. Dictating morality is exactly what got is into this wax my balls mess in the first place imo.

Morality is implied though, as part of most countries penal codes.
Don't steal, don't rape, don't be a pedo, don't murder etc. They're social mores and norms we agree upon. They create society.
It's no coincidence that they also happen to be the values of most religions. They form the basis of societies for the sheer fact that it's what works.

What the progressives in Canada want are the opposite. It's newspeak morality.

 

[Fapcop]

The slippery slope in this case gets more and more bizarre if you agree with the BCHRT’s argument to its logical conclusion.

If waxing your genitals is “gender confirming” care and a right, then what about regular women? Wouldn’t it also be a right for them?

Discrimination isn’t the only reason women might not be able to get a waxing. The price can be a problem for the financially disadvantaged, does that mean that the government should subsidize them?

 

[SourDiesel]

Morality is implied though, as part of most countries penal codes.
Don't steal, don't rape, don't be a pedo, don't murder etc. They're social mores and norms we agree upon. They create society.
It's no coincidence that they also happen to be the values of most religions. They form the basis of societies for the sheer fact that it's what works.

What the progressives in Canada want are the opposite. It's newspeak morality.

All of those things fall into the category of "unfair actions" in the game of life though. Not being able to harm others to "win" is one of the core rules of any game. It's not the laws, it's reasoning behind them. Imo it's not okay to say "my god says don't murder so let's make murder illegal" but it's entirely fine to say, "allowing people to murder each other creates an unfair society where people are not free". Both arguments conclude with "lets make murder illegal" but it's a huge difference between the reasoning. Maybe in addition to forbidding murder, your god also forbids eating chicken on any day that starts with "S" or something equally ridiculous and next they're trying to arrest you for eating a McChicken on Saturday. It's the difference between a democracy and a theocracy.

 

[Random_Numbers140097]

I mentioned it in the Oger thread but I hate the suggestion that large corporate salons should still have to wax male testicles. There is no fundamental difference, you're still going to be forcing a woman (although if in a corporate salon one making $18 an hour) to handle a dick. It's not like corporations are robots, it's still run by real people. Women shouldnt be forced to handle a cock just because they are okay doing women's waxing!

For sure. It really isn't terribly uncommon for estheticians/hair cutters to deal with one sex only. For example, some barber shops only deal with men. I went to one near my house to see if they could trim my hair, and they said they only do men. That's fine - I just went elsewhere.

One of the ladies who testified at JY's trial noted that some men get erections when being handled down there and may then demand other (sex-related) services. A woman should not have to deal with that. Plus, JY is a known pervert. No one should be forced to deal with his genitals.

I don't think these estheticians should even have to invoke religion as an excuse not to wax some dude's genitals. Being uncomfortable with it should be a good enough excuse. I'm not religious, but there's no way in hell I'd touch his nasty genitals.

 

[OttoWest]

There are at least a dozen salons in Jonathan’s area that provide manzilian waxing, so clearly there’s a market for it as well as, I would assume, people certified to perform this specific service.

That’s where at least one facet of Ogre’s argument falls short— there’s no lack of available male genital waxers in greater Vancouver. The market is demonstrably capable of answering the demand without a government mandate on training or availability.

 

[Cryin RN]

The slippery slope in this case gets more and more bizarre if you agree with the BCHRT’s argument to its logical conclusion.

If waxing your genitals is “gender confirming” care and a right, then what about regular women? Wouldn’t it also be a right for them?

Right? Cis women with all-natural itty-bitties actually have a case right now for free boob jobs. Check it out:

Funding requests are reviewed by MSP on a case-by-case basis and publicly funded in certain circumstances.
The criteria for breast construction (breast augmentation) are:

• You have been on hormones for at least 18 months; and
• You have had little to no breast growth (smaller than a AA cup); and/or
• Significant asymmetric growth (1 and ½ cup size difference) as determined by plastic surgeon

Every flat cis girl meets those criteria. Most of them have a LOT longer than 18 months on hormones. I'm sure that their requests would be refused, but challenging that refusal would be really, really fun. There's no reason taxpayers should EVER pay for boob jobs for trannies and the sooner that bullshit gets struck the better.

 

[Fapcop]

There are at least a dozen salons in Jonathan’s area that provide manzilian waxing, so clearly there’s a market for it as well as, I would assume, people certified to perform this specific service.

That’s where at least one facet of Ogre’s argument falls short— there’s no lack of available male genital waxers in greater Vancouver. The market is demonstrably capable of answering the demand without a government mandate on training or availability.

Ah, but he’s legally a woman. Penis and all.

You can’t expect a woman to get a manzilian, now can you?

 

[OttoWest]

Ah, but he’s legally a woman. Penis and all.

You can’t expect a woman to get a manzilian, now can you?

True, but if they take a page from the Book of Troonery and simply rename the procedure— call it a v-wax or s-wax— then it’s specific to the area being worked on.

Of course then you’re going to get the real freak jobs that call their dick a clitty and... damn, the ride never ends does it?

 

[Munchma Quchi]

Oger asserts that the waxing ladies need to include dick waxing in their training. Problem is that right now, not everyone is trained on everything, period. Chances are, if you need to get your hair styled, your facial done, your nails done, wax and microblade your brows, laser your leg hair, get lash or hair extensions, etc, you are visiting at least 5 different people to do all these tasks. It would be super convenient even for the average cis woman if any one person in the aesthetics industry could offer all the services they might want. But that's not the reality for cis women, so I don't get why trans women can demand a one stop shop for their ballwaxing. If a cis woman has to travel to a different city to find a hairstylist who specialises in their hair texture, or to go see that one threader who they trust to get their eyebrows on point, it shouldnt be a hardship for JY to hop the bus to a different part of Langley.

 

[fat ugly sped]

The right that should be protected under the law is the right to be treated equally by people who offer ball waxing to the public. It shouldn't be forcing brazilian waxing providers to also provide ball waxing to these "females". The aestheticians are simply not offering the service that JY is requesting, it'd be like if a FtM transsexual was suing a men's health clinic for not offering gynecology services.