Update on Canadian Ball-Waxing Case: Now JY Might Be Named!

[Vegilante]

www.nelsonstar.com/news/human-rights-complaint-lodged-by-transgender-woman-against-surrey-spa-revisited/

I initially had trouble figuring out exactly what this article is saying, but I think I got the gist & it's good news:

Last August, as we all know, a Canadian claiming to be a "transgender woman" identified publicly as only JY filed a human rights complaint against Mint Tanning Lounge, Shelah Poyer and Jeremy Paradis for discrimination because of their refusal to wax "her" scrotum on the grounds that they are trained, equipped & willing to wax female genitals only. But once MTL et al went ahead & hired their own lawyers, JY immediately dropped the complaint against them - while leaving intact the 14 similar complaints JY also made against 14 other waxers, all of them women, who refused to wax JY's lady balls as well.

MTL responded by asking for the case to be re-instated so they can defend themselves against JY & "her" accusations face to face - & now Human Rights Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau has granted that request. So apparently there will be a (public?) hearing of some sort in the JY vs. MTL et al case.

At the same time, Cousineau has decided that allowing JY to retain "her" protected, privileged status as The Person Who Must Not Be Named might not be fair to the defendants in the MTL case or the 14 other women JY has filed human rights complaints against. So the Human Rights Tribunal is now considering allowing JY's name to be made public:

...Cousineau found “simply no evidence” that JY’s complaint (against MTL et al) was frivolous, vexatious, egregious or false. She reasoned, though, that the respondents to JY’s other complaints have an interest in following the progress and outcome of the other similar complaints.

“This cannot happen if (JY’s) name is not associated with the complaints. Depending on my ultimate findings in respect of this complaint, there may — or may not — be a public interest in publishing (JY’s) name.”

Cousineau also noted JY “does not provide any evidence to explain the apparent inconsistencies between the basis on which she sought a publication ban and her public profile on the internet.”

And most of the world knows what JY's public profile on the internet reveals about "her"...

Really interesting, thanks for that. Will be keen to see how this develops.

What a waste of everyone’s time and money to keep pretending that the whole world and her wife don’t already know exactly who JY is, and all about JY’s niche interests and habits. It isn’t exactly a well kept secret is it.

...Cousineau found “simply no evidence” that JY’s complaint (against MTL et al) was frivolous, vexatious, egregious or false.

Really?

Seems to me JY's complaints are the textbook definition of frivolous, vexatious, egregious & false.

Seems to me JY's complaints are the textbook definition of frivolous, vexatious, egregious & false.

Agreed. I wonder if the official who said that is just thick, or the whole Human Rights Tribunal is feeling defensive about not immediately rejecting all JY's complaints as frivolous in the first place.

Maybe all waxers will be compelled to do training in waxing lady balls before they can offer services at all?

The commission certainly are being petulant about the notion that anyone might find their handling of the case inappropriate, aren't they? There's a "how dare you question us" tone to it.

I don't often post, but... this

FFS this utter gob-shite knows what he's doing - posting a seemingly innocuous question but with a dildo placed strategically in the shot.

Where is that screen shot from?

*they, not he.

Not respecting pronouns - just don't want to be deleted

< rolls eyes>

I'm speechless at that photo. WTAF?!

As I understand it, MTL wanted to reopen the case in order to settle costs. The judge agreed and then did not award costs. I don't think there'll be a hearing on this specific case.

However, judgments made on this case will affect all of the other cases. JY needs to be publicly nameable as soon as possible so all those other women can end this shit.

I couldn't see any new info in the article though, this is all stuff that came out over Christmas.

Here's the actual decision from the Tribunal member, dated 11 December 2018.

www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2018/dec/282_JY_v_Mint_Tanning_Lounge_and_others_2018_BCHRT_282.pdf

The decision treats as entirely credible JY's claims that he's a vulnerable woman from a marginalized class who has been discriminated against, citing as evidence that JY "uses a female name and attends a women‐only gym." (Yikes!)

What's more, the decision assumes that JY's status as a transgender woman automatically gives JY a special right to keep "her" name from being published for at least a temporary period as originally granted, but does not extend the same right to the defendants (presumably because they are not transgender). The tribunal member explains:

I take notice of the fact that transgender and gender non‐conforming persons face high levels of stigma and are at an increased risk of violence, harassment, social isolation and discrimination. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is better to err on the side of caution in protecting a transgender person who asserts that the publication of their name in association with a complaint may expose them to harm. Doing so on an interim basis had minimal, if any, impact on the integrity of the Tribunal’s process.

The defendants (actually "respondents") in this case were being represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. But tonight when I searched their website I could not find any info about it. All mention seems to have been wiped clean. Curious.

I am not an expert in this case/story, just a concerned & interested reader. I try to be accurate & comprehensive in my posts, but I've no idea what's really going on with this case. At all. Anyone who has more info, please do tell!

Also: my OP misstates the date JY filed his complaint against MTL. It was filed on March 12, 2018.

MilesAwayGirl you might not post often, but when you do it's a doozy!

Seems to me JY's complaints are the textbook definition of frivolous, vexatious, egregious & false.

Thirding that.

I am glad that MTL has asked to have this case re-opened: sunlight is the best disinfectant. Yaniv wants it all ways: to be identified as trans, to be identified as male, to be identified as female, to be considered a private figure and to be considered a public figure.

Let this this be the beginning of the end of Yaniv's poisonous antics.

Pencils true, the tribunal officer denied the defendants in the MTL case their request for reimbursement of costs. But she granted their second request, which was for the case to be re-opened. The last line of her decision, quoted verbatim in the article I linked to, says clearly:

The application to reopen the complaint is granted. The application for costs is denied.

I admit I dunno how Human Rights Tribunals work in Canada, but the fact that the case has been re-opened suggests there will be some sort of hearing or proceeding to come. If you have info that's this is not true, please share.

As to your point that the article contains nothing new as "this is all stuff that came out over Christmas"^: Sorry, many of us missed those reports; MN took down the long thread on the topic; & the story cited here is the only one I could find about the December decision. Please share links to the news reports you saw/heard over Xmas. Thanks.

Don't you just love it when karma bites someone right on the arse?

Veg, hop onto KiwiFarms and have a read through the ultra long JY thread.

You'll need eye bleach and plenty of cups of tea to get through it, but it is pretty much all there.

They really have lost the plot in Canada. Let's not bring quite this degree of batshit here.

Is this individual, who is so widely known for the ball waxing incidents, also the person boasting about getting Meghan Murphy banned from twitter? Their self publicised stunts will be their downfall. I sincerely hope someone recognises them next time they photograph themselves in the ladies loo, with young girls in the background-JY should be kept away from children for sure.

The screenshot posted by MilesAwayGirl of the wipes asking if anyone used them, I think that was posted (by JY) to a teenage girls chat forum.

sackrifice thanks for the tip. I'd been thru the KiwiFarms thread back when all info about JY started getting scrubbed from the net, but did not think to revisit it when I came across this article thru a Google search. As you note, the KF thread is "ultra long" - way too long & undifferentiated for my aging eyeballs & brain to easily process. Wish they made reading it easier by dividing it into subthreads, for example "JY little girls/tampons" "JY sex toy reviews" & "JY human rights complaints"...

Once I learnt the date of the Dec 11 decision, I went to KF thread posts for the weeks afterwards, & yes you're right it is mentioned there. But those who discuss it apparently got the info by accessing the decision directly from the HRTribunal website, not from press accounts.

So far as I can tell, the article I highlighted here is the first written account of the Dec decision to appear in the press, albeit a small & obscure press outlet. That's why I thought it significant. In the MSM, again as far as I can tell, a policy of total silence about JY still seems to be in place.

Power and Paradis hired a lawyer

This tiny sentence gives me an enormous sense of satisfaction. Itseems to me a pervert has prodded the wrong people with his seemingly vexatious, frivolous, egregarious and false claim. I hope they tale it all the way.

Yes sorry it was somewhere on the KF thread.

The application to reopen the complaint is granted. The application for costs is denied.

The impression I got was that the case was reopened just to consider the matter of costs. I can't see how this case can proceed if the complainant is no longer complaining.

Oh my god. This is the Kiwi link, showing this person's tweets. Unbelievable.