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"...

Oh god the posts about him advising little girls about how to use tampons is absolutely sickening. I hope this case moves forward now.

Apparently JY was joining women's FB groups and asking them pretty disgusting questions on his usual topics.

archive.li/KcxBH

Is this individual, who is so widely known for the ball waxing incidents, also the person boasting about getting Meghan Murphy banned from twitter?

Tis, indeed. Charming individual.

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!)

Can someone help me out here? Are we assuming the person who wrote this has not seen what JY writes about little girls? Would that have been considered prejudicial?

I'm assuming that no one thinks, for a single second, that someone could write that whilst knowing what JY is actually like.

Is it because it hadn't yet become public knowledge?

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).

How do they know they're not transgender? Have they asked them all what their pronouns are? Maybe some of them are women who don't believe in gender only sex so they'd be agender. Double standards galore. Funny how those double standards are always in favour of the bigger, stronger XY individual.

Wow !
JY !
What is it that Sarah Palin said ?
And that photo of the make up remover wipes.... not applied with a trowel but a very novel applicator.

Is there a way to get the Kiwifarms thread to the women JY tried to sue? His will help their case hugely.

JY's name can't be published because he applied for and was granted a gagging order. The judge said the respondents also had the right to apply for a gagging order but didn't do so.

JY's gagging order hasn't been lifted. The judge said it was an interim order and a decision would be made to lift it or not after the hearing, which never took place:

[31] One of the reasons that I granted the publication ban on an interim, rather than a permanent, basis was that JY’s application did not allow me to fully understand her privacy interests in respect of the complaint. The intent of the order was to confer protection on JY up until the hearing, at which point I would receive evidence under oath and be in a position to make findings of fact about JY’s gender identity, both as it is experienced privately and expressed publicly. This would allow me to make an informed decision about whether JY’s privacy interests in this complaint outweighed the public interest in knowing her identity. Of course, the complaint never reached this stage.

[32] The Individual Respondents’ application requires me to make a finding of fact that JY has misled the Tribunal. I cannot make that finding based on the evidence before me. I find it significant that JY has been representing herself throughout this complaint, including in her application for a publication ban as well as on the September 5 conference call. A selfrepresented person is not trained to express themselves in the clear manner that the law requires. I note that JY’s submissions with respect to the publication ban were very brief, in a context where it appears that her gender identity, public profile, and motives in respect of this complaint are complex. It may be possible to reconcile what she has told this Tribunal with the truth. That was an exercise I had purposefully left for the hearing, at which point I could assess JY’s credibility based on testimony given under oath and elicit questions to the answers that the Individual Respondents now raise. In the meantime, 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.

So I don't think the reporting restrictions will be lifted until there has been a hearing - presumably on the next case in the pipeline. Of course JY could well withdraw that complaint too, or all of the complaints (if he has any sense at all).

I don't know how the BC human rights tribunal works and whether it would be possible for the respondents in this case to apply for an order specifically to lift the gagging order after the case has closed.

The tribunal didn't see there was anything wrong in trying to sue 14 women to touch a man's penis? It's staggering.

The tribunal didn't see there was anything wrong in trying to sue 14 women to touch a man's penis? It's staggering and worth adding 14 women WHO MADE IT CLEAR THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TOUCH HIS PENIS

Datun nails it as usual. Bloody handmaids tale like. As if #metoo hadn't happened. Or, you know, the idea that consent matters.

Just to be clear: I never said the interim grant of anonymity given to JY by the BC Human Rights Tribunal while JY's complaints were adjudicated had been revoked or lifted by Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau in her Dec 11 decision. I was careful to say in the thread title that JY Might Be Named. And in the text of the OP I was also careful to say, in bolded typeface, the Human Rights Tribunal is now considering allowing JY's name to be made public.

For the record: Cousineau is referred to as "her" & "she" on the BCHRT website; hence my use of female pronouns for her in this thread. Also, the officials who sit on the HRTribunal are called members, so I never referred to her as a judge & request that others not do so as well.

The BCHRT website has a roster of hearings of complaints scheduled for the next 90 days. All hearings are public. As of today, no hearing for any of JY's 16 complaints against waxers appears on the docket.

www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/process/hearing_schedule.pdf

The website also says: Most human rights complaints made to the Tribunal are resolved by settlement. This means that the parties agree about how to solve the complaint and end the complaint process.Parties may try to settle a complaint on their own. In many cases, parties settle a complaint and advise the Tribunal that the complaint is resolved.

www.bchrt.bc.ca/complaint-process/settle/index.htm

So what will or might happen next in these cases is anyone's guess. If someone does know, please share!

The confusion surrounding what's happening with all the complaints JY has filed with the BCHRT just goes to show how crucially important it is for democracies to have a legal framework that allows for free speech, a robust free press & open flow of information amongst the populace.

A couple of aspects that the Kiwi Farms thread makes clear, which everyone should know about JY and these cases:

1. The Human Rights Tribunal process is wide open to abuse because there is no disincentive built in against vexatious suits or harassment. Anyone can bring a complaint at no cost, while no legal aid is provided to respondents.

2. JY has used this glaring loophole essentially to extort money from some of these women: JY brings complaint, then offers to drop it if woman pays JY $2,500. So JY bullies them sexually, legally and financially.

3. The women can't band together to share strategy and resources because of the gag order on JY's name and subsequent reluctance of Canadian news sources even to report on the case(s). They have no way to find each other.

4. There is some speculation that JY is specifically targeting women of color who work out of their homes. JY displays nasty racial animus in some of public posts ("curry-shoving crapheads" among other gems).

All in all, an obvious marginalized victim of terrible bigoted women, amirite?

All in all, an obvious marginalized victim of terrible bigoted women, amirite?

A member of the most marginalised group on earth, oppressed by us women who are bigoted by biology.

(Or some such nonsense.)

And in the text of the OP I was also careful to say, in bolded typeface, the Human Rights Tribunal is now considering allowing JY's name to be made public.

I don't think they are though.

The respondents applied for the case to be reopened purely to consider an award of costs. They didn't request that the publication ban be lifted so this wasn't considered as part of this decision. It was only discussed here because the respondents had argued they should be awarded costs because JY had 'intentionally misled the Tribunal by claiming that [her] name needed to be anonymized because [she] did not identify in public as female'.

The judge - sorry, the tribunal member - rejected this claim because she had already deferred a decision on the validity of JY's privacy concerns until after the hearing (which never took place) so she could not at this point make a finding that JY had misled the tribunal.

There's nothing in there that says the tribunal are now considering allowing JY's name to be made public. I think they're just waiting for the next case.

I would be extremely happy to be proved wrong.

I think I've worked out the confusion - this is shit reporting.

The article quotes Cousineau as saying:

“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.”

• which gives the impression the tribunal are now considering making JY's name public. But if you look at the decision document (para 10), it's a quote from Cousineau's letter on June 21 when she first approved the publication ban and before JY withdrew the complaint.

SMH. If there were more media coverage of this - & some journalist actually had actually interviewed the tribunal member & asked her to explain what the hell she meant in plain English - maybe it wouldn't be so hard to figure out. Thanks for helping illuminate the muddle.

I'm going to drop this link here and on the longer thread about Miranda's JY post:

tol.ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=538

Video of meeting of Langley Township Council in which JY boasts of getting Meghan Murphy banned from Twitter and further advocates for her to be prosecuted for "hate crimes" because of her feminist speech. Also wants to install sanpro machines in school bathrooms...

Grinitch Another reason the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal process as you note is wide open to abuse is that it's based on a Human Rights Code that forbids discrimination based on 18 (!) different "personal characteristics" (aka "protected characteristics" or "grounds for discrimination") that are very poorly defined, & are also bound to come into conflict with one another in certain cases.

Four of these characteristics are most relevant here, & the way they're defined, three of them protect against discrimination based on being or claiming to be transgender. There is no protection against discrimination based on sex specifically, because sex has been defined to mean transgender as well:

Gender Expression
Gender expression is how a person presents their gender. This can include behaviour and appearance, including dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. This can also include name and pronoun, such as he, she or they. How a person presents their gender may not necessarily reflect their gender identity.

Gender Identity
Gender identity is a person’s sense of themselves as male, female, both, in between or neither. It includes people who identify as transgender. Gender identity may be different or the same as the sex a person is assigned at birth.

Sex
Sex includes being a man, woman, inter-sexed or transgender. It also includes pregnancy, breast-feeding and sexual harassment.

Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation includes being heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual.

I especially love that in Canada pregnancy is now apparently a sex, & as is breastfeeding! Bet JY is already lobbying to get the law expanded so the category "sex" also will include male tampon-inserting, menstrual pad-changing, using vibrators to get "vag" stim when out & about in public, & perving on little girls.

IAMNAL but Jeez Louise most of us could come up with more precise, legally sound definitions in an instant. Starting with clarifying what is meant by "gender" & "transgender", terms that are centered in the HRC's definitions but which are never defined themselves. What a clusterf*ck.

www.bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-duties/characteristics.htm

Sexual orientation includes being heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual.

But they will be singularly unable to define any of those terms.

If sexual harassment is a sex, then a sexual orientation could be a pregnant person being attracted to a sexually harassing person!

What utter guff. No wonder they are tied and gagged.

Many of the other protected personal characteristics in Canada's Human Rights Code are similarly defined in a totally bonkers way:

Physical Disability
Physical disability includes physical conditions that affect or are seen as affecting a person’s abilities.

For example, it is discrimination to fire an employee based on a concern that they are at risk of developing a disability that might affect their abilities.

Physical disability includes conditions that impair a person’s ability to carry out the normal functions of life. It includes addiction, amputation, asthma, acne, diabetes, cancer, epilepsy, high blood pressure, hypertension, obesity and impairments to mobility. It includes people who are Deaf, hard of hearing, or blind. It does not include short-lived conditions such as a cold.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Canadian Human Rights Code was written by Titania McGrath.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Canadian Human Rights Code was written by Titania McGrath.

And I was reading earlier how libel laws are weighted in favour of the plaintiff and truth is not always a defence.

For example, it is discrimination to fire an employee based on a concern that they are at risk of developing a disability that might affect their abilities.

I'd be fascinated to know what issue prompted this wording.

The kiwifarms thread is an eye opener...

There’s also another reason to get the case to tribunal. Once it’s part of public record then I think (I may have misunderstood ) then it becomes much harder for JY to use reporting/takedown methods to keep people from reporting.

The KF thread screenshots make it plain that this person has a specific age range and specific setting/scenario for their paraphilia. This is extremely worrying .

I fear it will take an actual offence for action to be taken.

Really, go read the kiwifarms thread. It’s shocking.

I've read that thread. He's dangerous. He's going to lose control of himself. Canada eh? What a country. Where this can go on and on and the pervert doing it is the victim. Terrifying.

It's a huge thread. I read it when it was first posted, thought I should catch up and now it's about 120 pages! Catching up gradually!