Yaniv has lost.

I had to google this person and depressingly found a very well written article in The Spectator.

There are a lot of questions in this thread about the whys and wherefores. I recommend you read the judgment. It looks long but its very clearly laid out and written in very accessible language. Devyn Cousineau analyses every relevant point in detail.

www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/222_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_No_2_2019_BCHRT_222.pdf?mc_cid=db660e2e1f&mc_eid=[UNIQID]&fbclid=IwAR3QLZcigVV5or8tTnr3OVA3CY3yHcUqR4Ws9kdPNr2ayeNO9AVSHYQh5B8

The other thread is saying that the case was won because there was no expectation of waxing male parts and that religion wasn't a factor in the final judgement. I hope that's true.

Depends what you mean by "male parts." Male scrotums, you can say no to. Male arms and legs, you can't. So if your problem isn't the parts, but the adult human male the parts are attached to, you're out of luck.

Finally some sense amongst the madness

Great news!

Thank you Finch

I'm thinking there must be a great meme to be made with "Bitch Better Have My Money" 😂

The other thread is saying that the case was won because there was no expectation of waxing male parts and that religion wasn't a factor in the final judgement. I hope that's true.

That's basically true, but it is not worded that way. The judgement says there is no expectation of waxing a scrotum. It doesn't refer to 'male' or 'female' at all, just scrotum or vulva and a 'person with a scrotum' or a 'person with a vulva'. The ruling says JY was not discriminated against because the respondents did not wax anyone's scrotum.

Does anyone know what the legal situation is in the UK?

You won't commit sex discrimination if you refuse to wax men (non-trans) if you have objective justification to do so. The EHRC gives running a massage salon out of your home as an example which is likely to be justified (www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equality-law-hairdressers-barbers-and-beauty-salons) and this would likely apply to waxing services too.

A transwoman without a GRC could not complain if you refused to provide a service to them if you are lawfully operating a single sex female only service as above. This is because their legal sex remains male.

A transwoman with a GRC could however complain of discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. The service provider would need to show objective justification. There's no case law on this but I think the courts are likely to be persuaded by arguments about eg not having the necessary training to wax transwomen's scrotums but are less likely to be convinced by an argument about feeling scared/uncomfortable having transwomen in your home.

Looking forward to the inevitable Pink News headline “Transphobic Canadian Judge refuses trans woman’s inalienable right to force women to touch her scrotum”

This is as others have said only a partial win, and I think it only happened because there were enough people making a stink about how outrageous it was. Message is, keep pulling.

I doubt any of the victims will ever see any of the money awarded in compensation but hopefully this will at least stop him harassing them and allow them to get on with their lives.

Yaniv wanted costs awarded of $500,000.

Ah fuck, I said he. Didn't mean to. Talking about balls being waxed just slipped up.

Fuck yeah!!

The judge refused to acknowledge Yaniv's sexual predation on these women, despite ruling on Yaniv's racism as evidenced by tweets Yaniv had made. There was clearly a fetishistic element to Yaniv's requests to them, the discussions Yaniv made them have about Yaniv's genitalia and his subsequent harassment of them. He singled out women from ethnic minorities, but all the judge could see was race. Will the intersectional feminists be on this? Because this is the intersectionality of oppression in action.

Basically Canada is saying a) women don't exist b) the people now formerly known has women have no human rights not to be sexually preyed upon by perverts.

Excellent judgement. I wonder if they're available to train our own judiciary in seeing through bullshit (Paul Gasgoine etc)?

Whilst I am very glad Yaniv lost it was the jury, not the judiciary, who decided the Gascoigne case.

He should never have been allowed to harass these women through the courts. The awarded sum is derisory, and they will never get it out of Yaniv anyway. Noone should have to provide services they do not wish to provide. It's not good enough. The ruling, the compensation, none of it.

For heaven's sake don't put Yaniv in prision, they will go into the damn female estate. Fuckers.

The other thread is saying that the case was won because there was no expectation of waxing male parts and that religion wasn't a factor in the final judgement. I hope that's true.

Good news but as others say, what has the women's religion got to do with it.

The only reason the women 'won' is because their religion prohibits them touching male genitalia. Canada has self ID; so trans women are literally women; whereas actual women now have no legal status.

They have no right to refuse a man access to their home, and they couldn't refuse to wax their leg or arm (even though their religion may also prohibit that.)

Good.

Now what about Yaniv's brandishing of illegal weapons?

This is wonderful news!!!s😃😃😃😃😃

Wow. Good news but as others say, what has the women's religion got to do with it.

Gurl

Agree. I was also wondering what the status is in the UK.

There is some sanity in the world. I hope this becomes a turning point.

I think when it comes to intimate services, such as waxing, you should be able to refuse service to anyone, especially in the home. You are in a vulnerable situation, perhaps on your own. The client may not be clean, or may appear “dodgy”. This could apply to both male or female clients.

Does anyone know what the legal situation is in the UK?