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

All - are any of us in London and interested in a protest outside the Canadian embassy?

Yes, I'd be up for that.

are any of us in London and interested in a protest outside the Canadian embassy?

@gasp0de I work in an office so was thinking Saturday But can you/someone tell me if the cases are ongoing after the 3rd hearing on Wednesday?

assuming the information is correct it's certainly not justice as we know it or expect it to be delivered.

This is something that should be looked at very carefully, because it is the kind of set up often proposed in situations where the plaintiff is seen as being particularly vulnerable, or no one imagines they might use the set-up maliciously, or there is seen to be a problem with getting the cases heard or successfully proven.

The idea was that these would be people from underprivileged or oppressed groups who likely had no money. So it was set up on purpose not to have the same kind of protections in place as the justice system.

A lot of people here seem to think something more like this would be appropriate for trying sexual assault and rape cases - it's the same kind of thinking that ended up with these tribunals being set up this way, so not so strange and unimaginable after all.

I would. Is there any women's group - or any group at all - in Canada following this and protesting it?

Is it worth a mention on twitter (I don’t have an account) Or will that attract the wrong attention?

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.
This!!! 1000x!!!

That was by LassOfFyvie btw!

@Michelleoftheresistance I don’t think so? Seems to be only the court tweeter?

the particular point in case #2 is that it is (apparently) not to do with sex organs but arm waxing. I still think no-one should be compelled to accept a client they don't want to (as long as not discriminatory) but if it really is about arm/leg waxing (can't find the relevant tweets!) it's not so overtly sexual.

I think the religion angle is reflective of the lawyer. It's all going normally until you reach the end.

"Jay Cameron is the litigation manager at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a non-profit law firm dedicated to the education and defence of Canadians constitutional rights, particularly freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Jay graduated from law school in 2007 and articled at a national law firm in Calgary, Alberta. After being called to the bar in 2008, Jay worked as a Crown prosecutor, where he ran trials and bail hearings. In 2012 he returned to Alberta and civil litigation and has since appeared at every level of court in Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, the Court of Appeal in Ontario, and the Supreme Court of Canada. He believes in the importance of constitutionalism and the rule of law to national success. He believes that everyone is created equal by God and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

www.jccf.ca/the-staff-of-the-justice-centre/
^
^
And like I said upthread, the JCCF is basically a right wing organisation. Given the religiosity of the first two women (and their families) it's not hard to see why this lawyer would appeal to them (not that they had much choice, I'm betting). Arguing this on a religious basis would be something comforting for the families too, followed by the ethnic element.

any of us in London and interested in a protest outside the Canadian embassy?

No such place.

There is a High Commission.

(The Queen cannot send an ambassador to herself.)

Male or female, nobody should be forced to service somebody who is manifestly creepy, especially in their own home.

If the gasman came and I felt he was creepy, I wouldn’t let him in, even if he had a legitimate reason for being here.

I still think no-one should be compelled to accept a client they don't want to (as long as not discriminatory) but if it really is about arm/leg waxing (can't find the relevant tweets!) it's not so overtly sexual

Oh absolutely agree. That is the case here.

AlwaysComingHome totally agree.

Maybe these women should all self-ID as men. White men. During the tribunal. Say they've understood now what trans is and they've actually discovered their true selves, nobody has fully understood them before. Or they could even join the ranks of agender. That the reason they refused was not transphobia, but that they were having difficulties with their own gender identities and were triggered by JY.

It may be that they can't say they didn't want to do the work because he was creepy, because they actually told him it was because of his penis, before they suspected that he had some ulterior motive.

Honestly they ar3 just ordinary women trying to earn a living

Then up pops a shark. They didn’t have a chance

They walked into,the sharks mouth not even knowing what the fuck was going on

Yes, there was absolutely no way they could have seen this coming. And neither will anybody else if this case isn't publicised.

@MockerstheFeManist k but there seems to be a diplomatic mission (which would be the same difference no?)

I have no idea but I'm wondering whether after this case is over, whether the identities of the women will become known, so we can support them?

I have no idea but I'm wondering whether after this case is over, whether the identities of the women will become known, so we can support them?

Their full names are on the JCCF website (www.jccf.ca/justice-centre-representing-three-more-bc-aestheticians-facing-human-rights-complaints-over-refusal-to-perform-waxing-service/) so I assume that there is no publication ban on their names and they don't mind them being known.

While the first 2 are mentioned as being religious, there is no mention in the article about the 3rd woman being religious just being uncomfortable and untrained to wax male genitals so hopefully this can be settled from a non religious angle too

Applying JY's own argument that women have penises too there would need to be a protected characteristic of "penis bearers". There isn't.

At least not officially.

So totally disgusted by this.

High Commission, whatever: I'm up for making a protest.

"In a May 30, 2019 ruling in JY v. Various Waxing Salons, the BC Human Rights Tribunal expressed its concern about the “rights” of transgender women to access “gender affirming” care such as waxing, which the Tribunal says is “critical,” even if this is “a very intimate service that is sometimes performed by women who are themselves vulnerable.” The Tribunal states that JY has a “genuine grievance” about “pervasive discrimination against transgender women,” and this “is the reason that the Tribunal exists.”"

Since when is WAXING of critical importance? That's absolutely ridiculous. It's of critical importance to absolutely nobody.