(JC was leaning back in chair, hands clasped behind head, incredulous laugh) JC says it was the "amazing impropriety of the question" Member says JC knows JY is self represented (has higher standard for JC as lawyer)
-
-
JC starts with MY, thanks her being here, discussion of MY not being able to hear JC, writing things down, bad handwriting...oral questions and answers start ? Discussed your testimony (& what happened in hearing while MY was in the hall waiting to testify) with JY? MY - no
Show this thread -
? Said JY being called rascist? MY - yes ? Said your tax $ shouldn't have been used for translator for repondent's father (2nd
@JCCFCanada consolidated case)? MY - yes, I am deaf, no translator (may be valid pt. if was needed but was JY's last minute witness, & JY/MY didn't ask)Show this thread -
MY - does respondent's father take a translator when he goes to the bank? ? Why object for $ to help father from India? MY - came to Canada, must learn English, can't rely on culture or religion to not provide services, not force on me, come to Canada to acquire certain (values)
Show this thread -
MY - will not become a minority in this (Canadian) culture, it's about culture and religion ?Be specific? MY - East Indians are forcing beliefs & culture while white people becoming minority
Show this thread -
? Why shouldn't respondents have protection against the State re providing intimate services (against being complex led to wax male genitals) MY - doesn't have that protection, starts talking about Neo Nazis ? Yes, are terrible but why no protection from State re waxing?
Show this thread -
Member asks relevance (MY's testimony was to be about impact on JY) JC - Goes to theory of the case. JY & MY are disproportionately targeting people of ethnic backgrounds, JY & MY's intolerance to immigrants, JY said MY used JY's Twitter Member says JC can go a bit further
Show this thread -
JY interjects to say: - JC lives in XXX - XXX is way different - in Surrey/Delta, certain racial groups provide certain services, can't get away from it - lists examples, Vietnamese for nails, East Indians for waxing
Show this thread -
? Your position that MD is a Neo Nazi? MY - didn't call her that, but thinks MD is wasting MY's tax dollars by forcing her beliefs (on JY by denying service) ? How is MD forcing her beliefs? MY - maybe not MD but SG (Sikh lady from
@JCCFCanada consolidated case 2) didShow this thread -
MY goes on a bit of a rant about Neo Nazis and the Holocaust, says "don't go there" (no anti-Semitic replies please, this is not about Jewish people - only MY's personal views) ?Why is Neo Nazism relevant? MY - you asked if MD should have protection, I have no protection
Show this thread -
Discussion of photo of JY - Ext#29. It is the picture of JY as male, wearing glasses and tie. JY wants photo cropped or removed, contractor is in picture, was from FB Member - is okay for hearing, was already public JY - says in MO v Whatcott that questions re photos allowed
Show this thread -
Member says it's different - you have given evidence about the nature of your gender identity - directly relevant as MD saw picture JY then apologizes for "misgendering" Morgane Oger, says "all respect" to MO, didn't mean to use "dead name"
Show this thread -
?Role in starting complaints? MY - no role JY objects to JC having asked this question MY - not aware of complaints and discrimination, just saw "distressed daughter", can read JY "like back of hand" but not pinpoint until JY came to her, says "why & why & why" (deny service)
Show this thread -
? Lists the ethnic groups JY said provide certain services (JY then chimes in with others)? MY - yes ? They should be compelled to provide services? MY - yes ? Why impose JY's male genitals on other cultures? MY - not going to talk about JY's gender id
Show this thread -
MY - heard they were talking about JY's medicals, exams, genitals Reminder that MY isn't supposed to know about testimony that took place before her turn to testify. JC says it is a case of refusal of service on male genitals
Show this thread -
MY - why take up (waxing) profession if going to falsely advertise, then don't say unisex, don't say male/female, have a 1 on 1 (to decide) JY interjects that MY is absolutely right, females are entitled to female services, genitalia doesn't matter MY's testimony is complete.
Show this thread -
Discussion about closing arguments, should be written or oral. JY cites health issues, may be hospital, in interest of fairness to ask for written. JC agrees to written. (Strategic error on JY's part? JC very experienced, written better for developing and documenting arguments?)
Show this thread -
Member outlines that submission should be for all three consolidated cases and can make costs arguments. - no new facts - no new evidence - can refer to the exhibits - rely on expert testimony given - ne exhibits only as they relate to costs. JY allowed to get legal advice.
Show this thread -
JY wants to talk about a new pub ban, want to ban
@TPostMillennial and Rebel Media from talking about JY. They are defaming JY, using JY to fund raise. Wants a cease & desist on@JCCFCanada until JY's cost application is decided.Show this thread -
Member says if followed pub ban, she has no jurisdiction, might be matter for the courts JY says it's already being brought up to the "governing bodies" Discussion about dates, JY wants a month, goes for EOB Aug 6th, 2019 as date to submit closing.
Show this thread -
JC then agrees to submit by EOB Aug 27, 2019 (was supposed to be on vacation). JY then can submit a short reply by Sept 6th, 2019. Member reminds JY that is a reply only to JC's closing, if already covered in JY's closing (if not responding to new arguments) do not include.
Show this thread -
MY - what if JY is ill? Member says write to both the Tribunal and JC. Member now will give decision re lifting the pub ban on identifying JY. Supporters of the waxing ladies seem to be holding their breath, collective release when Member announces that ban is lifted
Show this thread -
Member - ban was interim measure - only warranted in exceptional circumstances - Tribunal is public - citizens have public interest in work of Tribunal - granted because of complex nature of JY's gender identity, shield from harassment for being trans - circumstances changed
Show this thread -
- mentions some specific tweets about immigrants - says JY tweeted re refusal for facial - JY engages very publically - say JY portray self as advocate for LGBT - can't defend JY's privacy if JY doesn't - would undermine the integrity of Tribunal
Show this thread -
JY immediately asks re an appeal. Member says JY can apply for judicial reveiw within sixty days. (I said when this happened that I doubted an appeal would succeed, now think no chance in hell if even filed since JY appears to have gone on whirlwind media tour)
Show this thread -
Here's a link to the Member written ruling lifting the ban
http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/jul/147_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_2019_BCHRT_147.pdf …Show this thread -
Want to next talk about someone that I confusing called AB, the same initials as the expert witness. Going to rename her TH for TOTAL HERO (!). Met TH as I was leaving this hearing. TH had been turned down by 26 lawyers when seeking help - they all told her to settle!
Show this thread -
TH finally found representation. Can't go into the details why but all of the waxing ladies and all women supporting their sex based rights in BC & Canada owe TH an enormous debt of gratitude! Thank-you TH!

>thread is finished<Show this thread -
One more tweet: Next (and I think last) hearing is tomorrow, July 26th at 10AM. It is consolidation of JY vs. 3 women/salons. No respondents are expected to be there. Will be going and taking notes. Hope to see you there. Till then...
Show this thread -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.