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

[Whackitupto200]

JY’s parent sounds like an absolute loon. It would explain a lot.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1147905523347365888.html

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

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.

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."

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.

*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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Terfsandwich exactly!!

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.

What is a sjw?

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.

Social Justice Warrior

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

Thank you Michelle

There was a post made elsewhere about one of these Canadian tribunals going back to the 90s. In Vancouver, the same place as the rape refuge case. The shit storm we have currently has been brewing a long time.

Apparently the lesbian org targeted ended up closing.

www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/np99101j.htm

VANCOUVER - A lesbian group has been ordered to pay $3,000 after a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing found it committed sexual discrimination by asking a transgendered person to stay away from its drop-in centre.

The Vancouver Lesbian Connection is to pay $3,000 to Susan Mamela, a preoperative transgendered person -- meaning she hasn't had surgery to change her sex to female. She began attending the University of British Columbia's Gender Clinic in 1995 and has received hormonal therapy.

The tribunal order was entered this week in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, giving it the effect of a court order.

Ms. Mamela described herself to the human rights tribunal as a radical lesbian feminist who rejects male society's attempt to define her and "make a woman out of me."

"My client's view," Ms. Mamela's lawyer, Clea Parfitt, explained on Thursday, "is that she's not a woman and never can be a woman because it's a social-political construct based on a lot of stereotypes and restrictions. She prefers the term female."

Ms. Mamela first approached the Vancouver Lesbian Connection in February, 1996, to become a member. She was told she couldn't join because she had been born male.

The Connection's membership in February, 1996, was only open to "lesbian/queer women" and its mission was to "end lesbian oppression" and "promote community awareness of women's and lesbian issues."

But after the Connection's annual general meeting in May, 1996, the group changed its membership policy to include transgendered and bisexual women.

The complainant was a member of the Connection from October, 1996, until March, 1997, when she was asked to leave after a heated argument over what constitutes womanhood.

Ms. Mamela was accused by Connection members of being "aggressive and mannish" and the group felt it was inappropriate that she answer phones to the women's crisis line because she sounded like a man.

Ms. Mamela was asked to leave on March 21, 1997, and was refused access to the centre. Ms. Mamela's lawyer said the Connection is no longer operating but still must pay the damage award.

In the tribunal's decision, dated Sept. 8, tribunal member Nitya Iyer upheld Ms. Mamela's complaint and ordered the Vancouver Lesbian Connection to pay $3,000 in compensation for injury to Ms. Mamela's "dignity, feelings and self-respect."

The full transcript

www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999bchrt51/1999bchrt51.html

Why isnt this 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

I think it's unfortunate religion was brought in to it. Being charitable, possibly her side are talking it up to strengthen the case but there is case law in the UK , and I'm sure in other jurisdictions, that where there is a clash of protected characteristics religion will not trump others.

The principle should be that any business has the right to refuse service if they are uncomfortable with the client/ don't want the work as long as the reason is not simply because of a protected characteristic.

If by JY's logic women can have a penis and men can have a penis there is no discrimination in saying I don't want to touch a penis.

It is wrong to discriminate on grounds of sex or gender status. Well she wasn't- she would not provide services on a male penis, a female penis or a non - binary penis. Applying JY's own argument that women have penises too there would need to be a protected characteristic of "penis bearers". There isn't.

Im struggling to understand how forcing someone to handle sex organs against their will isn’t a clear case of sexual assault.

Does the Canadian government truly want itself to be known as a sexual predator?

I had wondered about the stress being laid on religion in cases 1 and 2. Can Canada have fallen so far down the rabbithole that biological sex carries no weight at all? Surely in the UK a self-employed beautician working from either her home or her clients' homes would be able to invoke the Equality Act to provide a sex-segregated service for her own safety? I hope so, anyway.

I'm not fond of the religious angle. Whilst I understand it's important to the defendant it misses the point that no woman (or man) should be compelled by law to touch any kind of genitalia against their will.