Home » Law » Courtroom Play by Play of Jonathan Yaniv’s #WaxMyBalls Tribunal Courtroom Play by Play of Jonathan Yaniv’s #WaxMyBalls Tribunal By GallusMag . In Law . On July 7, 2019 12 Comments Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv Going through notes to tweet re case 1: JY vs BH. Case is JY vs Sikh woman who declined to provide genital waving services to JY. Of note, defendant works out of her own home in which there are small children present. Want to provide some background 1st.— goinglikeelsie (@goinglikeelsie) July 7, 2019 Tweet Related Posts On the heels of the Jonathan Yaniv saga: Another Cra... JONATHAN YANIV PUBLICATION BAN IS LIFTED!!! News Blackouts on Transgender cases prevent public s... Written by GallusMag View all posts by: GallusMag Comments Rosemary says: July 7, 2019 “defendant is not being asked to wax a gender identity” Damn straight. Reply lilith1022 says: July 7, 2019 My favorite was when one of the aestheticians was asked by JY why she would give a trans woman a haircut but not a genital waxing. She replied, “He doesn’t have a penis on his head!” Reply GallusMag says: July 7, 2019 lmao! The parts with his mother causing a disturbance was insane! First person to mock up a video recreation wins the internet! Reply GallusMag says: July 7, 2019 OP has protected tweets. The following is a transcript from Kiwi Farms. Part 1 Going through notes to tweet re case 1: JY vs BH. Case is JY vs Sikh woman who declined to provide genital waving services to JY. Of note, defendant works out of her own home in which there are small children present. Want to provide some background 1st. This is first of three cases where defendants are represented by the @JCCFCanadaJY has filed other cases (total number may be 16) and it appears some have already been settled via mediation with others to still be heard. The BC Human Rights code prohibits discrimination in certain areas of daily life – there are five main areas such as employment, housing, provision of services…etc In these cases, the area implicated is the provision of services. In each area, people are protected on the basis of certain characteristics such as age, race, religion, sex, gender expression, gender identity..etc In the JY cases, gender identity is implicated and is defined as: “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.” bchrt.bc.ca/index.htm The BC Human Rights Code is provincial legislation and the tribunal is a provincial org with members (what we would call the “judges”) appointed by the province of British Columbia. bchrt.bc.ca/index.htm Oops, obviously genital waxing not waving in 1st tweet, back to background Rights are not absolute and may conflict. Tribunal is to balance these rights when making decisions. Decisions of tribunal can be appealed and may go up through court system in BC and even to Supreme Court of Canada. Appeals may implicate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter offers protections not available in BC code. Examples are freedom of conscience, thought, opinion and expression. Each of these particular JY cases has been scheduled for a one day hearing. There is a publication ban on any information that may identify JY (more about that later). There can be no transmission of information in or out of the hearing room while hearing is in progress Hearing is open to the public. Witnesses are not allowed in hearing until after they have given their testimony. Usual format of hearing: 1) Statement of member (tribunal head) 2) Opening statements 3) Testimony and cross examination (under oath) 4) Closing statements Opening and Closing statements are the place to make arguments. For example, an argument could be putting forward reasons why one right trumps another. Testimony is supposed to be about facts, not argument. Tribunal member has decided (in consultation with JY and @JCCFCanada lawyer) that closing statements for all three cases will be consolidated and heard after hearing for third case. She also has decided that expert wittness testimony heard in 1st case can be relied upon in all. Present for hearing in this case: Tribunal member, JY, JY’s parent, @JCCFCanadalawyer (representing defendant), defendant and her husband. Two women and I are seated in public gallery. Expert witness for defence also present but not in hearing room at this time. Going to take a minute to point out that not a single member of the media was present to cover a case that has huge implications for balancing rights and perhaps making law in BC. IMO this shameful. At start of hearing, JY’s parent is seated with JY and asked to move to the gallery. Defendant’s husband leaves hearing as he will be a witness. Member starts formal hearing. Says case implicates section 8 of BCHR – discrimination in provision of service. Member says she must decide 5 things: 1) Nature of JY’s gender identity 2) Scope of service 3) If JY’s gender identity was element of denial 4) If gender identity was a factor, is denial allowed 5) Any remedy if required Explains order of hearing and that JY will go first. JY asks to add parent as witness – rationale given: JY has been hospitalized for more than a week. Member denies request. Member had said that opening statements should be around 5 minutes, JY says statement is approx 30 mins. JY encouraged to limit statement. JY Opening Statement: – discusses how important being a woman is to them – says they embody femininity – as a child was “girly” and always “prancing” around – was diagnosed with gender dysphoria as child though was not called GD back then – has support & love of family -has been suicidal and has overdosed – discusses standing up for self and how that benefits LGBT community – hates attention but has no regrets – has helped other suicidal people – want to create change, be authentic self – there should be “no free pass” for religion mentions lawyer’s Opening Statement: -defendant does not hate JY -def works exclusively from own home with small children present -case implicates protected characteristics of sex vs. gender indentity -sex is bio and separate from GI in BCHR code -GI is psychological, sex is biological -waxing female & male genitals is different -defendant has no experience waxing male genitals – is not comfortable waxing male genitals – goes against defendant’s religious beliefs – defendant is not being asked to wax a gender identity -gender identity does not change physical genitals -JY presented as male w male name and appearance -JY had “secret” identity & presented as male so def cannot be faulted for seeing JY as male – JY has made bad statements about immigrants – called them “dirty” “unclean” “liars” – JY has “overt hostility” to immigrants -finding of discrimination would be equivalent to requiring def to provide intimate service and handle male genitals – Defence will have expert witness with 30 yrs exp. discuss female vs male waxing End of opening statements. Then there was a brief interruption in hearing because JY’s parent tried to pass JY a note and was told this is not allowed. Going to pause here and then will continue with testimony Popping back to add: This hearing (#1) place on Thursday, July 4th. There was another hearing (#2 on Friday, July 5th – JY vs another defendant) that I also attended and will tweet about. There will be yet another on July 17th – JY vs a third woman providing waxing services. The publication ban covers ONLY JY’s identity or information that could disclose JY’s identity – everything I am tweeting is allowed and I am being very careful to follow the rules set by the Tribunal. Okay, back to start tweeting JY’s testimony but just a quick request. Obviously I don’t control this info once it is out but please don’t disclose JY’s identity in replies or retweets – if we follow the rules, the thread can stay up and everyone can be informed. Thanks! As mentioned, testimony is supposed to be about facts. IMO JY really struggled with this and made statements that were not relevant to the situation and tried to make arguments. The tribunal member was very patient and asked JY questions to draw out the facts. JY also interrupted others throughout the hearing and was repeatedly cautioned by the Tribunal member. To be fair, others also interrupted but JY was the main source of interruptions. Testimony is the part when the two side can present exhibits. The public does not get copies of the exhibits so I will describe them to the best of my ability based on the testimony and what I could actually see. Okay moving on after all of those disclaimers….JY is sworn in JY starts by reading a statement – it is a msg JY says they received supposedly from Nazis telling JY that they are now such a leader in the LGBT community that the nazis have switched their target to JY. Lawyer objects due to rules of evidence – statement disallowed. JY submits copy of Facebook convos – 3 pages. (Important to know that defendant sold their waxing services via FB marketplace). Name on JY’s FB account is a stereotypically female name – there is no picture. Guys, sorry the statement above wasn’t the nazi msg, that msg came later – statement wasn’t read due to lawyers objection On FB, JY asked about service for a transgender friend and Defendant replies no. JY goes on tangent in hearing -says replace man & trans with w Sikhs and Muslims -talks about their friends (NB, gender queer, etc and what trans is – compares situation to no service for blacks Member jumps in to ask JY how they decided to ask defendant for waxing services. JY answers -ad on FB marketplace -doesn’t recall anything excluding trans women -ad had groupon Member sets FB convos as 3 exhibits & now can see that convos had different profile pics and names On exhibit 1, JY is using stereotypical male name, on exhibit 2, stereotypical female name. Member asks – why stereotypical female name, why two accounts? JY says they have lots of accounts. Member asks – why on exhibit 2 does JY ask if “I” can receive service while on period? JY answers – testing defendant’s professionalism – if professional then should provide service while client is on period. This is FB convo in which JY says they can use a tampon and defendant can work around it. Note this account has female picture that is not JY JY says they used this pic on advice of friends. Account had no pic previous to FB convo – this account is now closed. Moving to Exhibit 3, this FB convo also has bio female pic that is not JY. JY sets appt in convo and then tells defendant that they are trans. Seems defendant told JY that they were going back home (overseas) for six months & must delay appt. JY does not believe this and cites Groupon ad (exhibit 4) as proof (why groupon if going away) By the way, JY has already called Groupon to complain and is expecting action. Question from Member – why male parts answer on exhibit 1? JY answers – they have never been gender fluid – their main account is “male name” – have always been female even when using “male” name or dressed “male” -says all their clients know they are female Pause here to say that my understanding of the publication ban is that it’s partly to protect JY’s business but they clearly testified that all their clients know they are female. Moving on: – JY does not want to give up their verified Twitter account in order to change name – JY says they are wearing makeup on “male” name FB account Member asks – if JY lives in XXX, why try for waxing service in another municipality? JY answers – will drive anywhere, has to go to Victoria – gets “whatever I want” – says defendant violated privacy law Member explains it is not relevant to this action and she cannot enforce privacy law (I think this stems from an email that defendant sent that include people from other actions – keep in mind these are folks that weren’t represented at the time and obviously inexperienced. Member questions JY re impact of denial of service JY answers – says that saying GI is pyschological is not true – female is female if legal so JY is entitled to female services Now is when JY reads email from Nazis (for some reason I have a note about tanks?!) Nazi email says – JY has become too powerful and too much of a role model to LGBT and women/girls. So Nazis will switch their focus to JY and deal with Morgane Oger later. Member says that hate on the Internet has to be related to defendant and JY can’t have it both ways Member says that then lawyer will bring up JY’s other internet activities. JY says – refusal of “gender affirmative care” affects health – discusses defendant’s & her supposed lie about going away – says is always thinking of others – discrimination also affects trans men JY says they have 20 minutes of remarks about bio sex. Member says email to case manager and calls 15 min break. This is when JY’s parent says that JY has had medical emergency the day before and parent will not allow JY to have the “Big One” JY and parent argue during break JY tries to kick parent out. Member tells someone on phone that it is not “a police incident” JY tells parent to leave. Parent leaves after saying JY must stop and that “it’s $500 or life! Sorry if JY testimony tweets have been confusing but the testimony really was! Tribunal on 15 minute break and then defendant’s testimony will follow. Going to have a break myself here and will try to get rest of hearing tweeted later today. Another oops, next is @JCCFCanada lawyer cross examining JY. Then defendant and her witnesses after lunch (yes, this was all before lunch!) Will be much easier to understand, I think. Okay, break is over. Now is time for @JCCFCanada lawyer to cross examine JY. Lawyer reaffirms that JY is under oath and begins. He questions JY re their Driver’s License. JY doesn’t want to say but eventually says they have female on DL. It was issued since JY filed complaints. Name has both stereotypical male and stereotypical female first names. Lawyer asks about JY’s legal name – also changed within last X months so same deal as licence, changed after filing complaints Lawyer asks about exhibit #1 – one of the FB convos. He asks JY – did you review waxing businesses FB page? – did you see that it was an East Indian lady JY answers yes Next is exhibit #2, another FB convo with defendant The account that JY is using for this has a pic of a bio woman, not JY. Lawyer points out FB policy only to have one account, JY acknowledges and says they also have a dev account. This convo happened after convo in ext #1. JY says that in this convo they were asking for friend In this convo, JY says that they are on their period. JY doesn’t want to say friend’s name and eventually says it was for both friend and self. JY confirms they have male parts, and no period (at that time?) and concedes that they appear to be asking for self Member says JY needs to answer if they were on their period – no, it was not true when JY said they were on thier period in this convo. Lawyer asks why JY lied to defendant. JY says they did it to test defendant’s professionalism. In FB convo, JY said they would use a tampon. JY says a professional would work around tampon string. JY will not answer if they get periods but says they can use tampons. Lawyer puts it to JY that they have said in public that they do not have a vagina only male parts but now seems to be insinuating that they have both. Lawyer says must address JY’s genitals in a case like this. Member says they will think about how best to balance JY’s right to privacy re their genitals vs needing clarity in a case involving genitals and let both parties know. Reply GallusMag says: July 7, 2019 . At this time, JY’s parent bursts into hearing, yells at Member that they will take her to court and that she is “playing with fire”. Member takes 5 minute break to deal with parent. Member comes back – parent will be banned if causing further disruptions. Lawyer asks more questions about how JY represented their genitals in FB convos. In ext #1, “still have male parts” no surgery. JY will not say if they are intersex. Note* at this hearing, people are calling having both female and male genitals at the same time intersex Hey may have to move to another thread as may have reached tweet limit – last tweet was lost – this is test Okay, seems good, onward. Lawyer asks JY about how they represented their genitals in ext 1 FB convo. ? “Still have male parts” Answer: yes, no surgery. Will not say if intersex. Note for this thread, everyone is calling have both male & female genitals intersex Lawyer questions JY about ext #2 which is second FB convo. JY asked if they could bring a friend, speaks of self in third person, says friend is both trans and a woman. There is a knock on the hearing room door. It is a couple of paramedics called by JY’s parent Parent says JY has a XXX that is taking over their mentality. Paramedics do verbal check with JY and leave. Parent leaves room – can hear Parent yelling in reception. Back to hearing. Lawyer asks JY when was first waxing. JY says 04/ 2018, also says refusal is hate Lawyer says defendant does not hate JY. Then parent bursts in again – tells JY that this is it, parent is leaving. Parent leaves again. Back to hearing. JY says yes, defendant doesn’t hate but that is hateful to use religion as reason to discriminate. Lawyer asks JY if defendant’s religion/race means discrimination to you. JY says no, just transphobic beliefs but now thinks yes because it is being used as defence. Going to pause again here, still have more cross then comes defendant’s testimony so will pick it up in AM. Back to @JCCFCanada lawyer cross examining JY. Lawyer ask to have screen shot entered as Ext #5. SS is from last summer and shows JY talking about immigrants. Lawyer says SS shows JY attitude to immigrants. JY says it was about Trump’s wall. JY is against immigrants’ using their status to discriminate, estimates that they were refused by immigrants 150 times in last year. Ext 6 is now entered – another SS of convo supposedly showing JY laughing about asking immigrants in bathrooms, JY objects. Lawyer says JY’s rationale was targeting immigrants. Lawyer asks if JY’s complaint was brought with “clean hands” was complaint made in good faith, if not it should be dismissed. JY says immigrants often provide services like Vietnamese for nails, East Indian people for waxing. JY says not targeting immigrants but lawyer says JY knew defendant was immigrant. Member calls for lunch break and during break will decide if defence can ask re targeting immigrants and most importantly, what questions JY has to answer about their body. During lunch break, I saw two VPD officers walking JY parent out lobby door. They were very nice to parent, suggesting parent find a place to eat lunch outside. Parent came back one last time to arrange JY going to XXX after hearing – JY says that they have had two XXXs. Tribunal starts again after lunch. Member says that ? about genitals are relevant in view of services requested and that she will allow ? about immigrants. Talk of it taking 10 to 15 mins, JY says they can go on for hours (though JY claims to have had 2 XXXs). Member has allowed ? about JY’s external genitals, ? about internal sex organs not allowed. Lawyer moves on to ask about Ext 6 again, why funny to ask immigrants for tampons. JY doesn’t give substantive answer. Lawyer moves on to Ext 7, another SS of FB convo. This FB convo has JY commenting on immigrants “not the cleanest people”, that JY goes to female gym to avoid immigrants – judgemental, liars and dirty. Lawyer says why ask immigrants for service. JY says no choice – stuck with immigrants, has to “suck it up buttercup” Lawyer suggests to JY that they made comments/complaints to make trouble for immigrants. JY says that elders in Sikh culture can’t beleive in discrimination about gender identity. Lawyer submit ext #8, photos of JY (profile photos). JY objects – not relevant Lawyer argues relevant because of ? about male genitals, the way JY represents as stereotype, is normal way JY presents, not atypical for JY to present as male, defendant had to decide about waxing re photos so may have seen JY as male. Note: I do not think these were the photos on profile of the three FB convos – one photo looks like stereotypical male and the other looks male wearing what most people would think of as ladies’ XXX and (I think) makeup. Member says photos are not relevant. Lawyer goes back to ext#2 (was FB convo with defendant with comments of JY being on period). Lawyer asks re comment about putting a tampon in – does JY use tampons? Lawyer brings up ext#8 where JY said that they don’t know how to use tampons. Member says that JY has said tampon – yes and tampon – no. Goes to credibility. Lawyer gives new exhibit, it is #9. Says it’s a SS of convo where JY asked about girls having their pussies out in change room and seeing tampon strings. Lawyer says convo contradicts JY’s testimony ( in my notes I have written admits penis) JY says not from their account, not them. Member says she will admit ext and decide what weight to give it. JY says there are many fake accounts. Now lawyer moves on, wants to admit ext#10. This is another SS of convo that discusses assisting 10 or 12 year old child with tampon. Lawyer says goes to credibility – doesn’t know how to use tampon. Lawyer ask re JY’s first Brazilian – Spring 2018. Cross over now JY gets to respond. JY makes statement questioning defendant on their views on gender fluid, non binary, etc. Is cut off by Member. JY testimony now over. Defence calls first witness AB, who will be expert witness re waxing. AB is sworn in. AB gives her background – 29 yrs experience. AB started out providing services from home – discusses risks involved. Now teaches at XXX(well known beauty school). AB discusses male wax clients. Must handle their genitals – shaft of penis,scrotum. Many men get erection – some embarrassed but substantial % ask for sex service When refused, some may be embarrassed but some get angry. AB has been called bitch, slut, c@nt. AB works (or has worked – sorry my pen ran out during this part so hard to read notes) at male only wax salon – says angry men very intimidating to staff at salon. As teacher at XXX, cannot/does not teach male waxing – some students under 18, some have religious objections to handling male genitals. There is no accredited program for male waxing – wax used for genitals different than arm/leg wax, male genitals different – skin is very thin Could cause injury if not done properly. Also notes that there is no longer requirement for accreditation in BC and never has been for waxing male genitals. Now JY questions AB but I do not have notes due to pen running out. Next, lawyer questions defendant. Will call her BH. Note – missed notes for her husband. There was some testimony about harassment – JY’s friends not leaving BH alone. How negatively affected BH. BH is a Sikh woman. Lawyer asks BH ?s, answers include: – works exclusively from home in small room -small children present in home – BH’s FB market place ad says that service is at her home – JY contacted for full body and Brazilian wax – BH saw JY’s display pic and thought JY was man – only waxes women so said no – JY said they are a woman, then said trans, no surgery – BH has never waxed a penis/scrotum -BH was certified in 2007 (no cert is available for male waxing) – not comfortable with male genitals -alone in house with kids – member of Sikh religion and is very religious – no hate for JY – has been asked to provide service to men, always said no, won’t even do facials -BH certified in 2007 (there is no cert for male wax) – not comfortable with male genitals, even uncomfortable talking about them – alone at home with kids -member of Sikh religion, very religious – no hate for JY – has been asked by males before, always said no, not even facial -doesn’t care re transgender, only type of genitals Now Member asks BH ?s And her answers are – in Sikh religion, women stay with one man for life – intimate only with that one man – intimate touching only with husband Now it is JY’s turn to ask BH questions. JY asks why religion should trump thier rights. JY asks if BH would provide service to post op trans woman? BH doesn’t seem to understand what post op TW means, says would wax vagina, not male genitals. JY asks why would BH do haircuts for post op trans women. BH says that they don’t have a penis on their head. (outburst of laughter in gallery) JY asks BH why older Sikhs disagree with what BH has said re waxing males. Member stops JY and says they can’t ask BH to explain the beliefs of other people. JY asks BH why they chose this profession – to support family JY asks why not comfortable waxing all women – just not comfortable with male genitals JY says BH rejected them based on pic – BH says she thought pic was male so asked JY re parts BH says that JY said woman with male parts so BH rejected. Now JY asks hypotheticals re waxing non binary, waxing Caitlin Jenner, why BH’s rights trump JY’s – stopped by Member. JY asks why BH said she was going home (out of country) for six months BH says she wanted to get JY off her back and that JY’s friends wouldn’t stop texting her. Now Member asks BH about going away. BH says she was trying to end conversation. In BH’s husband testimony, he discussed them being on a holiday and feeling harassed by JY and JY’s friends So said going away so JY would leave them alone. Next JY tries to raise privacy law, says BH violated PIPPA in email (to Tribuanal?) that wrongly included other defendants. Member again shuts this down. JY asks BH why she is scared about periods. BH says hygiene issue re bleeding, also increased sensitivity when women on period. And that concludes JY’s cross of BH. There is no time for closing arguments so Member says will consolidate all three cases. Expert testimony will be used in next two case, JY’s testimony will be used (IMO this is Member trying to ensure all the non relevant stuff JY brought up is left out). Member suggests closing statements for all three done at same time – all defendants can attend. All agree – hearing is over! Will start new thread for second hearing that took place the next day on Friday, July 5th. This is another Sikh lady. She goes to client’s home. JY had requested arm/leg waxing. May try to do today but may be tomorrow. Hope this was informative. But please keep in mind that these are only my notes and recollections. This is obviously not a transcript. And please do not identify or tweet anything that may identify JY. Thanks for reading. Reply GallusMag says: July 7, 2019 Part 2 This is second of three cases that have been grouped together and in which defendant is represented by @JCCFCanada lawyer. There is background on first thread about the BC Human Rights Code and the Tribunal. JY has made 14-16 complaints about being denied waxing services. From info heard in last hearing, it appears that some have been settled in mediation. FYI, here is a link to the May 30, 2019 decision by the Tribunal re JY vs. Mint Tanning. It provides further background on the history of JY’s previous complaints. canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/do… In that decision, the Member wrote: “…much of JY’s conduct throughout the process has not been conducive to having the issue resolved on its merits. On each occasion when a respondent has retained a lawyer and opposed her applications, she has withdrawn that complaint.” “This has now happened three times. As a result, the Tribunal and the public are no closer to resolving the systemic issue which JY says she is here to address. At a certain point, this opens a valid question about her motives in filing so many complaints.” “…I cannot find at this stage that JY is motivated by racism. I am troubled that some of JY’s comments, made within this process and online, suggest that she holds stereotypical and negative views about immigrants to Canada.” “I accept that, on their face, many of the businesses which JY complains against appear to be run by people who speak English as a second language and/or are racialized women.” “I am also troubled by this pattern, which – if deliberate – could suggest that JY’s complaints themselves risk undermining the Code’s purposes…” Member also writes: “Similarly, despite some doubts, I cannot find at this stage that JY’s motives are purely financial” “I reach this conclusion notwithstanding my concern that JY does appear primarily motivated to meet the respondents in mediation. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with this.” “Mediation is a vital part of this Tribunal’s process and is the means by which most human rights complaints are resolved. However, at the same time, it is voluntary.” “…In her submissions, JY appears to infer that respondents who refuse to engage in settlement discussions with her are not behaving appropriately.” “For example, she says “I have settled many cases and I have encouraged the other Respondents to respectfully come to a settlement meeting. The fact they are ignoring the Tribunal and myself is irrelevant …”.” “Contrary to this suggestion, respondents are under no obligation to negotiate with JY to resolve her complaints.” On to the hearing. Please note that there is a publication ban on identifying JY or publishing information that may identify JY so please do not do so in tweets or replies to this thread. As mentioned this is the second of three hearings that have been grouped. Hearing took place on July 5th. It is JY vs a Sikh lady who declined to provide arm and leg waxing to JY. Defendant travels to her client’s homes and provides her service within the municipality in which she resides. JY resides in neighbouring municipality. Case is being heard by same Tribunal Member. Present are JY, @JCCFCanadalawyer, defendant, defendant’s father and husband, and a translator for defendant and defendant’s family. Another woman and I are in public gallery, JY’s parent is not present at this time. Again I note that no member of Canadian media is present to report on a case that IMO has profound implications for the protected characteristics of sex, race, religion and gender identity. Characteristics protected by the BCHR Code are listed here: bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-d… Hearing format: -Opening statement by Tribunal Member -Opening Statements by JY, then lawyer for defendant -Testimony by both side – JY goes first, each side allowed to cross examine the other Normally, there would then be closing arguments by each side. Tribunal Member has decided (with agreement of all parties) to consolidate and hear closing arguments after conclusion of the third case of this series. Has also decided that previous testimony of expert witness for defence and JY’s testimony will be considered for all three. Member states that five issues must be decided: -nature of JY’s gender identity -scope of services denied -was GI element of denial -if yes, was denial allowed -remedy if any At this point, JY interjects to say that they want costs. Member says JY can argue that in closing and will be decided at end of all three cases. JY’s opening statement begins. JY asks about status of defendant’s business (is it a legal entity, an LLC..etc). Lawyer objects – says JY is asking for info to use re collecting costs JY hopes to get – says defendant not required to do collections work for JY. Member stops this line of questioning. JY asks for legal name of defendant’s business – is cut off by Member. JY says they want to increase costs requested to $15700.00. Apparently this is double what JY has previously requested. JY says defendant’s husband is also respondent though not listed on complaint. Member says okay over objection of lawyer. At this point I want to backtrack to explain that since defendant’s husband and father are witnesses, they are not allowed in the hearing until after they give testimony. Not sure how that squares with husband also being respondent but not present for much of hearing. Need to correct that that this was all prior to JY’s opening statement which begins now. Also $ amount seems high but is what I have in notes so hope correct. JY’s opening statement: – describes being a woman -has all qualities of a woman – as child was “little diva”, “girly”, and “prancing” around house – thinks diagnosed with gender identity disorder though not recognized back then – has lost many friends – okay to be different – helping so many people – doesn’t like attention but saving lives makes it worth it – after XXXX was published (Note: in prior case) helped many people who reached out – thinks acceptance is a generational thing – doesn’t agree with moral or religious exception – motivated by hostility to LGBT – permits discrimination w/o safe guards – shows no regard for individual or laws themselves – discrimination has caused JY mental distress – caused delays and has had to find other providers – religious exception blunts LGBT cause – sends msg that LGBT rights not important – no such thing as bio female or male – JY is part of protected class End of JY’s opening testimony, lawyer for defendant goes next. mentions lawyer is @JurisCameron. His opening statement: – defendant works in XXX, not XXX where JY lives – she travels to clients’ homes – this should be end of case, even though JY continued to badger her, she cannot be compelled to work in another jurisdiction – as per expert witness there is elevated risk in house calls – defendant (will call SG) has elevated risk, she is on medication for epilepsy and is developmentally challenged – has religious, family/cultural concerns as well as jurisdictional issue – Tribunal Member should interpret law through cultural lens – JY has made racist remarks like “dirty”, “liars” – SG is Punjabi At this point JY interrupts but Member stops them and lawyer continues: – there was no ill will from SG but JY castigated her – JY used stereotypical male name and profile photo when requesting waxing service – not true that biological sex does not exist – it is a reality and gender identity could not exist without bio sex – state cannot compel SG to go to a stranger’s house – this case implicates sections 2A, 7 and 25 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Fredoms Note: Section 2A guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, see here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2… Section 7 “protects an individual’s autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada.” Copied from here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7… Section 25 deals with important Aboriginal rights in Canada so I think I noted that incorrectly. If speculating I would guess that it is Section 28 which deals with interpreting the rights of male and female persons. See here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2… If I am able to confirm that it was Section 28, I will let you know. This ends the opening statements. Testimony starts next. Having a break and will continue sharing my notes later. Popping back in to correct my tweets regarding the implicated sections of the Charter. Section 25 should have been section 27, not section 28. Section 27 helps “determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts.” “It is believed that section 27 “officially recognized” a Canadian value, namely multiculturalism” “27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2… Back to start with JY’s testimony. I want to note again that testimony is supposed to be about the facts, not arguments (in the legal sense) and not hypotheticals. JY is representing themself and struggles with this. I haven’t (and couldn’t possibly) note all of the times that JY was stopped by the Member for making an argument, going off on a tangent or trying to get witnesses to answer ?s about hypothetical situations. The Member was very patient dealing with JY. The Member tried to get at the facts by helping JY properly formulate questions and asking questions themselves – that’s part of their role. During this hearing (& the last), the Member had to remind JY to ask a ?, wait for the ?, wait for answers and generally stop interrupting. And JY also tried to ask many ?s while they were being cross questioned, and not clarification questions. Member had to direct the defendant’s side occasionally but it was overwhelming JY who needed these directions on both days. Okay, on to testimony. JY starts by asking to enter ext #11 (exhibits for all three cases are being consolidated) It is described as screen shot of mobile phone convo with defendant. Next is ext #12 which is a SS of defendant’s FB Marketplace ad for waxing. Waxing service offered is for arms and legs JY – lives XXX meters from border of municipality that defendant SG has said she will travel within to provide service) – says that SG has said that there was a flyer attached to ad but no flyer – describes ad JY asks to enter ext#13. It is a SS that show SG’s full FB profile It show that SG used to provide care services for the province and is owner of salon. Second name on salon is AG. AG is SG’s husband. Ext#14 is fuller view of SG’s FB profile. Next, ext#15, desktop view of convo. My notes of this convo: JY – asks for services SG – ladies only JY – I am a lady SG – where are you at, only work in XXX JY – on border SG – LOL you don’t look like a girl JY – I am a girl What is your availability SG – M to F, 10 to 6 JY – I am trans, is problem? SG doesn’t know what trans is so JY explains SG – can’t do it JY I am a girl so why not? Convo continues on ext #16 SG – don’t feel comfortable Then a bit of back and forth in convo JY – this is discrimination. Quotes BCHR Code to SG SG – sorry, not trying to be rude, still a man into a lady JY – can’t reject service. You worked for XXX health so should know better SG then blocks JY. Ext #17 is mobile version of ext #16. Next JY asks to enter ext #18. Ext #18 is copy of email from SG (before she had a lawyer, I think) to JY and the Tribunal. It is from fall 2018 and has a flyer attachment about haircuts. The email (or flyer?) says SG only does ladies or beards. JY says email is untruthful because – it says JY spoke to SG – it says JY had the flyer (JY denies) – it says JY threatened SG. JY says they did not but did state they would file a human rights complaint Flyer is entered as ext #19. JY reads part of ext#12 (SG’s FB Marketplace ad) out loud. JY says flyer shows 24 hrs while FB ad said 10 – 6, therefore flyer is a lie. Flyer says waxing – ladies only but ladies only was not in FB ad. Next is ext #20, an email from SG to Tribunal that JY calls improper because it includes two defendants that settled in mediation. Email also included defendants in withdrawn complaints and various lawyers (must not be SG’s). JY says also improper. In email, SG says – she is under stress and also that she suffers from epilepsy JY says this must be lie as SG would not be able to drive…Member stops JY. JY then states that they did not have two XXX (yesterday at hearing?) they had two seizures. They also have epilepsy so that is why they know SG wouldn’t be allowed to drive. Member stops JY again, says this is evidence time, not time for arguments. Email also says: – SG has a four year old child with autism – SG is depressed, can’t work, only made 500$ that year – said JY looked like a man to her – did not disrespect JY JY goes through email saying what they think is right or wrong. Pause here to say that email was from early this summer and I can’t help feeling bad publicizing these personal details about SG, hence my use of initials for all, not just JY. Member then asks if JY can show a bigger photo of profile they used in FB convo. Photo is one that many people would think of as stereotypically male. Member asks if anymore questions re FB convo. JY – no, only exhibits Member asks re JY’s HR Code intent in convo JY – never stated they would file complaint, just informed SG so she could correct Quick note before a pause in thread. By this point, I had started to think that JY thought I was with the media as they had mentioned stuff like – so the gallery can hear- several times. Back soon. Finishing up JY’s direct testimony. JY says SG discriminated because she said ” I know you have the right” but still denied service. Member asks, which service. JY says arm/leg waxing and that expert had said that bio male/female area hair is the same. JY then asks to play recording of their rejection by other providers – Member says no. Morning break After break, Member enters ext # 21 which is large format photo from JY’s FB profile in FB convo – again photo looks like what many would think is stereotypical male. JY then asks to speak to SG. Wants to show SG two separate photos of two of JY’s friends. Member says no. JY’s initial testimony is over. @JurisCameron who is SG’s lawyer begins his cross of JY. Lawyer reaffirms JY’s oath. ? Does JY live in XXX? (SG’s business area) JY – no XXX, XXX meters off the border ? Could JY see that SG was immigrant when contacting? JY – yes, but doesn’t judge ? Agree that SG is immigrant? JY – no because anyone can change their religion ? Asking about race, can you see SG’s race? JY – yes, but ? SG racialized, not white? JY – yes ? JY’s feelings about immigrants, said “dirty”, “lying”? JY – yes ? Advise feelings about immigrants? (Sorry not great note, lawyer may have meant advised SG about feelings or Tribunal) JY – no ? Not that they are liars? JY – I said that after contacting SG ? Used XXX as name when contacting SG? JY – yes ? Agree that is stereotypically male name JY – no, uses Members name as example, says lawyer’s name could be female name, starts asking lawyer about names Member stops JY Stopping to note, IMO, Member’s name could be unisex but isn’t spelled the usual way for men. Lawyer’s name is definitely stereotypically male as is the name that he was asking JY about using. Ext # 22 is entered. It is a FB convo about a waxing promotion. This convo has a different profile pic of JY, they are wearing a (I think) sparkly hat with a XXX. ? Why use XXX (stereotypically male) name? JY – has verified account, not willing to change name Then question and answer that involves JY’s business – leaving out due to ban issue JY says that XXX (stereotypical female name) was added to stereotypical male name on XXX date. ? What docs used to get verified FB account? JY – drivers licence ? Male of female on licence? JY – won’t answer, private, FB didn’t ask ? That DL says male? JY – sent redacted version Member asks why this is relevant? Lawyer – shows JY lied to FB – presented as male – bio sex is different than identity – wants objection noted to JY not answering ? about sex Member notes objection. Lawyer – JY said gender ID not publicly known – JY has said publicly female since six – false pretences – JY lies, refuses to answers questions, is violating oath – lawyer will ask for costs – will ask Member to lift pub ban – will ask Member to dismiss case Still lawyer – Tribunal found outer genitals relevant – JY identifying as male at time of service request – still male parts, no surgery, “used to be a guy” – need clarity around JY’s gender id – there are cost threats, increasingly high stakes – JY has made serious complaints so SG allowed to rest evidence Member – how JY identified over time is relevant to truthfulness and publication ban JY – male on DL at time, had to have SRS to change at that time, female on BC, won’t answer re original BC – has been destroyed ? When was pic (profile, stereotypically male with sparkly hat) taken? JY – gives date ? Was from same trip when you took pictures of a stripper on the table? JY – no, same from XXX, how did lawyer get stripper pic? Lawyer – “when you put stuff on XXX, you can get it” Breaking for the night, hopefully back tomorrow to finish notes of cross exam of JY, then on to SG, her father and husband. FYI after lunch, JY’s parent returns, and then leaves, and then returns and leaves again! Reply Marm says: July 7, 2019 Holy Cow ! What a convoluted and ridiculous mess that hearing is. Shame on JY’s mother for her enabling of a predatory and mentally ill son to harass women. Reply ZW says: July 7, 2019 Zero coverage of this in the MSM, only feel-good, pro-T propaganda. This should never have even made it to any kind of hearing, except a sanity one for JY. Remember when insane ppl were institutionalized? When they weren’t coddled, supported and free to cause havoc for the rest of us? The liberal west has lost its way. Reply GallusMag says: July 7, 2019 https://www.thepostmillennial.com/mainstream-media-ignores-the-inconvenient-truth-of-b-c-transgender-male-genitalia-waxing-case/ Reply Julian says: July 7, 2019 Is this ongoing or is it over? Reply GallusMag says: July 7, 2019 Hi Julian! Not sure what you’re asking. Yaniv’s BCHRT cases are proceeding. You can click on the twitter link in the post to read ongoing court reports. I believe closing arguments are being held on July 26, but Yaniv has apparently filed, or attempted to file, more cases in the interim so who knows. Reply GallusMag says: July 7, 2019 Barbara Kay- a class act. https://www.thepostmillennial.com/as-absurd-as-it-is-the-jessica-yaniv-case-has-serious-implications/ Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Name (required) Email (required) Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.