Fascinating tweets about JY’s waxing case. Read here. (cont. thread 2)

Ops 'scuse dodgy bolding - not intentional. Tis the app, cos it looks on the web site this looks completely normal

Just trawling Twater while ads are on and spotted this. So if anything bad happens to trans people anywhere it's the fault of other people talking about it? Hmm.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdrianHarrop/status/1153786003103993856

Adrian Harrop @AdrianHarrop
If any of the trans-antagonistic / homophobic crowd were wondering why LGBTQ+ folks get just a little tetchy when you start listing information about them on KiwiFarms, or making “dossiers” about them on Facebook...

He posted in response to

NBC News @NBCNews
Russian LGBTQ activist Yelena Grigoryeva was fatally stabbed in St. Petersburg on Sunday night after her name was listed on a website that encourages people to “hunt” LGBTQ activists, inspired by the torture-themed film "Saw."


Now I've no idea why Yelena was murdered, or what the motivation was.

The full story https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/russian-lgbtq-activist-killed-after-being-listed-saw-inspired-site-n1032841?cid=smnpddnntwwma is unclear and I'd not want to speculate.

I condemn her death on the basis of any murder is terrible. I don't doubt that life for LGBT in Russia is tough.

But I cannot find a listing on the farms for this name, and the other person AH implicates is

https://mobile.twitter.com/railwaywoman

Again no idea what 'dossiers' he's talking about although other people in AHs original twitter thread confirm that their 'dossiers' are being held.

AH when questioned replied

It would be @railwaywoman you’d need to speak with.
As she is the custodian & curator of the website to which I refer - the Facebook page containing the "dossiers" on numerous trans women - I’m sure she’ll gladly share with you any information that she is holding on file 😉👍

I don't know who this is, seems a fairly normal GC account. So not sure why AH is busy smearing.

To me just looks like AH is reaching - maybe because the news everywhere at the moment is JY. But it's pretty despicable that he's dog whistling against 'Helena #FBGC @railwaywoman Feminist historian.' and the farms (although I've no doubt they can take care of themselves).

Does anyone know what Helena is supposed to have done? Or what this is about?

With the earlier ruling, though, it looks as though the court has the authority to make a vexatious claimant pay costs to the respondent under some circumstances.

Wouldn't that just be perfect

Especially as I have read tweets by JY complaining that crowd funders have been set up for the women JYs abusing because JYs the actual victim dontcho know.

If JY lost and had to pay, JY would be apoplectic and cheers to that!

That document is dated 30 May, so JY still has a few more days to pay. I don't know if the other respondents will be eligible to apply for costs if JY loses the other cases.

Good point OldCrone re the dates, be interesting to see if it is paid.

My reading of the $150 awarded to Laser Cut Beauty Salon, is that the BCHRT imposed it because they were pissed off with JY.

From reading the BCHRT website and how the tribunals work, no costs are awarded to the respondents in a 'lose' situation because there is not really a win / lose scenario. It's more the compliant is upheld or denied.

If the complaint is denied (JY 'loses') there is no $ loss to JY, as JY has not paid anything to take to tribunal and therefore there is no $ to award.
If the complaint is upheld (JY 'wins') then JY will be awarded $$$ based on whatever law was broken ie discrimination, and the respondents (the waxers) will be liable.

The $500k that JY is also pursuing because of alleged wrong doing by the lawyer will also have to be shared and paid by the women

It's really difficult to understand all this with the JY complaints because the HRT was set up more to protect the underdog for eg a wronged employee with no funds to take on a company that for eg wrongly dismissed them.
If said employee 'lost' the case and their complaint was not upheld, we could not really expect the employee to pay the company costs.

Again, if I'm being an arse, elucidate please

Thanks for the link OldCrone

Those costs (never paid I believe) were only awarded because JY filed, withdrew, and re-filed the complaint several times, so in answer to would costs be owing to the defendants, costs weren't due to loosing a case, as the case was never bought.

See page 24, part [84] and [87] copied below:

[84] I have found that JY’s pattern of filing a large number of complaints and then withdrawing those where the respondent mounts a defence is improper. In all of the circumstances, I find that a nominal costs award is appropriate to convey this Tribunal’s disapproval of JY’s conduct. I take into account that the issue that JY is pursuing is an important one, that her motivations are complex, that I have made no findings of fact, and that she is self‐ represented. I order her to pay Laser Cut the sum of $150.

[87] JY’s application for costs against Laser Cut is dismissed.

So. Much. Appropriation. JY all over - no original thought.

They seem to me to be very hungry for (any) attention, to like or seek humiliation, and I'm not really sure they fully engage in human interactions.

I thought there might be a lull between now and the 26th when the next case is due, but they are almost ramping up with click bate tweets, interviews, etc. I wish we had a psychologist who could break this down.

If JY lost would costs be owing to the defendants, does anyone know?

No, JY would owe nothing, not even the cost of the lawyer a respondent (the waxers) would have to engage.

Luckily for some of the respondents in the JY cases, the lawyer is acting pro bono hence some crowd funding has been set up to help mitigate (potential or other) losses by the respondents.

The fact that BCHRT are free to bring cases to, don't seem to have an issue with multiple litigations from one complainant - JY - (who incidentally is still filing new claims while these cases are being heard), and only award costs against the respondent if they loose, means it's effectively free for JY.

This is my understanding from all the reading I've done so if anyone has more info or amendments , all good

BoF - Quite why the tribunal doesn't insist on verifiable proof on this issue, I am baffled. It's absolutely central to the case.

From Elsie's thread yesterday the lawyer for the women did push this question but the Member stopped the exam line of questioning.

So, my guess is the Member is either not happy with this line of questioning as it’s intrusive (or something) or she already knows which way she’s going so the confirmation is unnecessary.

And yep, at this point I think JY is just throwing words around as said above in another interview JY started explicitly that they have a uterus and can get pregnant but as to how 'it's complicated'