Fascinating tweets about JY’s waxing case. Read here. (Thread title edited by MNHQ)

Actually I'd love to see this escalate up through the system. That is a very good point.

Social Justice Warrior

If the member has any political nous then there is no way they will find in favour of JY. JY is toxic for the TRA cause. And if they do find in favour of them then it is only likely to escalate up through the system, bringing more and more attention which is exactly what they don't want. Oger is already in damage control mode.

What is a sjw?

If the member is a sjw and does not during this case act on actual fairness and rights of others and recognise some of (huge, massive, incredibly damaging to women) issues with the sjw agenda, then I'd think there is a strongly evidenced case that their personal bias is too great for them to do the job they do.

Frankly if they can hear all this without hitting peak then they've got a serious problem.

Terfsandwich exactly!!

If the member is a sjw, I wonder if she's thinking to herself during SG's testimony, "check your cisprivilege..."

Experienced judges who want to find against an arsehole party will give them a lot of rope, allow them to create a horrible court record, and then set out in the decision why they thoroughly deserve to lose

Yes.

And if you read the previous judgement by a previous Tribunal, you'll see that the judgement was sceptical - gave JY some benefit of the doubt, but was clear that he needed to be verrrry careful.

This isn't a proper court; it's a tribunal set up practically to favour the complainant. And the Member (not judge) is someone who was the prosecutor in a similar case against a BC TW; ie a complete SJW.

Basically it's a kangeroo court.

Thanks for the instruction ADropofReality. I think I'll skip it and wait to see the decision of the tribunal before I decide what I think of it.

Exactly takemyhand

Obv Canada is different, and thankfully we don't have kangaroo courts human rights tribunals that anyone who feels slighted and is happy to represent themselves can make use of for minimal personal expense to bully anyone who has incurred their wrath. And unfortunately one of the defendants responded (allegedly, according to the excellent record from Elsie) "You're a man, LOL", which was clearly unhelpful.

But from a UK perspective I can think of lots of one person / small business operatives, our local store has a board full of cards offering a range of services , anything from babysitting (don't give JY ideas, he'll be persuing parents who reject his offer of help next) to counselling to gardening to computer help to the local odd job one man builder man. They all work on an ad hoc basis, lots of personal recommendations and word of mouth. But I'm pretty sure any of them feel entitled to, and do, reject potential clients if they sniff a rat or just don't feel like it. How else can these people be expected to work? Hell I'm pretty sure doctors can and occasionally do or find a reason to reject referrals for various compelling red flag reasons such as a strong suspicion of Munchausen or previous form for litigation.

It all makes no sense to me apart, unfortunately, for that one infelicitous text response misgendering JY which obviously laid open the accusations of discrimination, even so that's just the one we have heard about of the sixteen or however many there are.

^ I don't mean "against"; but look it up.

I'll reserve my view until the decision is handed down. Experienced judges who want to find against an arsehole party will give them a lot of rope

Read the harvest. This isn't a proper court; it's a tribunal set up practically to favour the complainant. And the Member (not judge) is someone who was the prosecutor in a similar case against a BC TW; ie a complete SJW.

Why isnt thus an open and shut case? Religion is a protected characteristic. It's against her religion to touch a penis that isnt her husband's. Done.

There are plenty of people on this site who would sneer at religious people as idiots who believe in a “Spaghetti Sky Monster”, who would suggest religious discrimination against gay people and women was illegitimate and should be stamped out by the state, but who in this context say “Religion is a protected characteristic. Done.”

Religion can be used to justify utterly illegitimate discrimination.

You can’t have it both ways. There are far better objections to men demanding to have their balls waxed by vulnerable women than “Those women are religious. End of.”

*FannyCann^

From that kiwi farms comment, it would appear that it is the woman who is being forced to justify her position, not JY.

In which case, does that mean the best result will be, yes she has, the end. With nothing about JY, at all?

Lass, thanks for the clarification.

"So couldn't she just say he sounded aggressive/creepy/unpleasant?

Here yes, you can. Obviously if all the clients you turn down all share a protected characteristic you might eventually be on thin ice."

I'm wondering if there'as a lone working element to all of this? I appreciate Canada is different but whenever I've lone worked I;ve been told I can deny or refuse any situation that makes me feel uncomfortable for any reason. Balls aside some creepy man who made me feel uncomfortable wanting me to come see him at home would be reason enoough to say no.

The member who allowed this to go on should be ashamed. This should have been shut down with the first racist thing out of JY's mouth.

I'll reserve my view until the decision is handed down. Experienced judges who want to find against an arsehole party will give them a lot of rope, allow them to create a horrible court record, and then set out in the decision why they thoroughly deserve to lose. This is done to make the decision resistant to being overturned on appeal and serves the non-arsehole party well.

So couldn't she just say he sounded aggressive/creepy/unpleasant?

Here yes, you can. Obviously if all the clients you turn down all share a protected characteristic you might eventually be on thin ice.

• that seco d paragraph is about where to send postcards!

I've been looking at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms page and Wiki. There is a page you can donate to the centre. However, it's for the JCCF and not this case. I would be happy to support them in this case, especially as there are likely considerable travel and accommodation costs, but looking at their "pro-life" work (inverted commas because that tends to mean pro-unborn-life-and-screw-the-already-born to me at any rate) I can't donate to the entire centre.

The address on the page is in Calgary where they're based and it appears that the address is to a church building, according to Google maps. Is anybody on Twitter who can contact Jay Cameron (JurisCameron on Twitter - See popchyk's link above) to ask if that's where to send them? I reckon if they're sent there they'll forward them on, but maybe there's a British Colombia address they could be sent to.

In this country, we will no doubt see far-right men self-identifying as women in order to stop Muslim women from attending women-only swimming sessions.

A good way to bully women into withdrawing from public life.

The government of course cannot foresee any of this.

Surprised that Tommy Robinson isn't identifying as female right now. Give it time.

Interesting that the press in the UK constantly refer to TR with his real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. Shouldn't they be respecting his self-defined current identity and not deadnaming him?

Don't really get why some identities are sacrosanct and some are not. Particularly when certain individuals use both male and female identities, whichever is the best for the scam that they are currently working.

Which brings us back to JY.

The third case will be this: "In addition, on July 17, 2019, the Justice Centre will represent Marcia Carnauba, another aesthetician who declined JY’s request to perform waxing services because Carnauba does not have the requisite training, tools or comfort level to perform waxing services on male genitalia."

I’m interested in the protected characteristic refusals in the UK. How are single sex swimming nights, or men’s clubs, legal? Isn’t sex a protected characteristic?

Also spas often refuse pregnant women, don’t they?

sorry - x-posted. Thanks Popchyk

Popchyk that's brilliant - thanks!! I reckon those women need some love bombing!