I can’t imagine there is a single person in Canada—apart from the complainant’s mother—who didn’t feel a great wash of relief when transwoman Jessica “Jonathan” Yaniv lost the case brought to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal against the waxologists who refused to wax Yaniv’s balls.
Even the most fervent trans activist knows in his or her heart that, given Yaniv’s public truculence, combined with a weird and disturbing history of expressed fantasies around menstruation and adolescent girls, this individual does not project an image that is helpful to the transgender brand.
The sordid chronicle was covered by this publication in-depth, but it was hardly mentioned by our national broadcaster, the CBC, even though the preposterousness of all its elements had made it an international phenomenon. The only explanation is ideology, and the CBC is certainly not alone in its journalistic fail.
On Oct 23, Kara Dansky—a self-described left-winger and lifetime Democrat—representing the feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front, spoke to Fox News host Tucker Carlson about her organization’s objection to transwomen in sport. She cited transwoman Rachel McKinnon’s triumph in the Manchester, UK cycling championships, where McKinnon set a new world record for women, as a distressing example of the unlevel playing field trans entitlement has brought to sport.
Of course, McKinnon did not really set a new record for women, as she is a biological male, with all the attendant advantages that confers in athletics. I was very interested in what Dansky had to say. But I would not have known about her if I did not watch Fox News. Like other radical feminists such as Meghan Murphy, who has suffered and continues to suffer greatly for her common-sense views, Dansky and her organization don’t get the time of day from the mainstream media, apart from being criticized for transphobia.
Dansky thanked Carlson several times for having her on his show, stating that her organization’s views are routinely rebuffed by outlets such as NPR and the Washington Post. “No one will hear us … no one will publish us,” she said. Carlson expressed his complete bewilderment that even feminists of the left are cold-shouldered by media that are normally friendly to all things feminist.
Sometimes there really is a conspiracy. The left-leaning media has decided that in the battle for rankings on the intersectionality ladder, trans oppression trumps women oppression. Even when the CBC does report on trans stories, like the Toronto Public Library’s refusal to bow to pressure to cancel Meghan Murphy’s appearance Oct 29, the reportage is extremely skewed, as CBC host Carol Off’s interview with TPL librarian Vickery Bowles demonstrates in spades.
Don’t look for rationality or coherence in left-wing shunning of feminists who actually defend the natural rights of women over the alleged rights of men who want to be women. Any movement that is comfortable in defining a woman as a person with a vagina or a penis according to their subjective feeling—and fully on board for all the social and cultural and legal rights that follow from that definition, however harmful they are to women—is not receptive to rational debate on the subject. As the great satirist Jonathan Swift said, you cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into in the first place.
The betrayal of women by the LGBT community, as well as by politicians, legislators, social service institutions, mental-health professionals, educational establishment, athletic associations and media is surely one of the great mysteries of our time, and will doubtless be remembered by historians as a shaming indictment of gender ideology run amok. Meanwhile, victims of the craziness are mown down with Leninesque satisfaction in the name of “equality” and “rights.”
Which is why the HRT decision against Yaniv is a beacon of hope in a dark place. HRTs are generally regarded as bastions of political correctness. If even a left-leaning HRT can so decisively rule against Yaniv, and can so plainly see the frivolousness of the complaint, and can come down so squarely on the side of a truth that is screamingly obvious to anyone with common sense—that no woman should ever be forced to handle male genitals against her will—then a useful precedent has been set.
Naturally, not all trans claims will be so black and white as the Yaniv case, and one could question why it should have been accepted for a hearing at all on those grounds, but we in the business of promoting reason must take what crumbs we can find. The important takeaway here is that the HRT recognized that trans entitlements have “reasonable limits,” according to the Charter, and that those limits are set by biology, not feelings. That is a victory for reason.
Jessica Yaniv, a transwoman who rose to infamy after she took a number of immigrant, racialized at-home salon workers to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) for declining to provide services to her male genitalia, applied for her appeal to be heard by a new Tribunal member. She claimed bias against Devyn Cousineau, according to the 5-page document released today by the BCHRT. The appeal was declined.
Cousineau, who has a background in anti-poverty and human rights law and holds a law degree from the University of Victoria, stated she did not feel Yaniv’s claims that she had been biased in her decision were accurate. According to the document, Yaniv requested the appeal decision be made by a different member on the basis that Cousineau had been pressured and “harassed by members of the public via Twitter” to rule in favour of the salon workers.
“It is my ethical and legal obligation as a member of this Tribunal to decide cases based on the evidence before me and not based on public sentiment,” Couseineau wrote in response to the assertion.
In a recent comment given to The Post Millennial, Yaniv stated that the Tribunal ruling had been a “total misunderstanding” full of “inaccurate information.” In the BCHRT appeal document, nine areas of complaint are listed where Yaniv asserts the Tribunal was “wrong”.
These areas, including that Yaniv targeted certain ethnic groups, declined her services because of her scrotum, and that she manufactured the conditions of her complaints–deliberately attempting to provoke situations where she could claim she was being discriminated against–were listed by the BCHRT as findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
Yaniv allegedly also claimed the appeal was necessary as the decision negated to consider transgender women who required hair removal for “surgery.” Cousineau writes that this “was not an issue raised at any time in [Yaniv’s] complaints.”
One of the most striking points of the document was Yaniv’s claim to be unable to pay the improper conduct costs awarded by the BCHRT to the salon workers. These awards were $2,000 each to three of the four women represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
Citing “anti-trans harassment and attacks” Yaniv sought a reduction of costs. This was also declined by the BCHRT, with Cousineau concluding that if Yaniv wants to challenge the final decision, she must do so in court.
The Manchester Evening News ran a story claiming the comedian Ricky Gervais has suffered “a huge backlash” over a joke. The only problem was that there wasn’t that much backlash. Also, it’s a hilarious joke.
In fact, most of the responses to the tweet were laudatory, laughing emojis and gifs. The “backlash” was based in the journalistic bad habit of journalists finding a few Twitter accounts here and there that post distaste for something and then claiming that those couple of dissatisfied remarks quantifies a thorough backlash. It doesn’t.
A joke like Gervais’ isn’t controversial—it’s actually speaking truth to power. Gervais was vocal throughout the media coverage of Yaniv’s case over the summer. One wonders how a comic like Gervais would have been able to keep even the illusion of a straight face over a story about a woman who demanded that other people wax her balls.
It was with the full backing of legislation that Yaniv was able to harass women small business owners and bring the absurd charges. Yaniv received all of the protections under the law, complete with privacy of her name, until she revealed it herself all over social media, and the media ban on Yaniv’s identity was lifted.
Yaniv, as everyone is thankfully now aware, is emblematic of the abuse of the system that is now possible if you are from a protected class. This is why the definition of protected classes cannot include those who claim to be oppressed based on a conflation of identities that are void of any basis in biological reality.
The fact that Manchester Evening News journalist Helen Carter refers to both Yaniv (the jerk who tried to force immigrant women to touch his hairy dick and balls and then punished them when they refused by running them out of business) and Gervais (the man who simply made fun of the jerk) as equally “divisive” tells you all you need to know about her agenda.
Carter mischaracterizes Yaniv’s complaint, as well, writing that “while the tweet could have been regarded as offensive at face value, it was in relation to Jessica’s fight after trying—and failing to find a beauty salon in Canada willing to wax her male intimate area.” This is not quite the story. Yaniv sought out small business owners instead of taking her hairy balls to any of the Vancouver salons that specialize in male waxing.
Yaniv lost her case to force estheticians to wax her balls, but as Carter notes, has vowed to continue her fight for transgender rights. Perhaps the next step can be prohibiting any jokes about the absurdity of her original undertaking, or the myriad women she’s had banned from social media platforms for speaking honestly about her gender conundrum, or making sure that more leftists are blinded by their own compassion into ignoring the very serious problems this kind of inquest entails.
It would be unkind to tell a comedian that he can’t make a joke about a lady who wants to wax her balls. At some point, we have to admit that shutting off our critical faculties just so that we can force ourselves to believe that which we know is untrue, namely that ladies don’t have scrotums, is not reasonable. Gervais refused to lie to himself, and we should all do so as well.
In The Spectator, the great Twitter troll Jarvis DuPont takes all those who would bemoan Gervais’ joke to task “Despite how many times [Gervais] is educated by people with their pronouns listed in their Twitter, this only appears to make him more impervious to criticism.” He’s being sarcastic, for all those wokesters who couldn’t tell.
What we assume Carter meant to say was that there was “a huge backlash” in her gated community of elite establishment media friends who fritter away their days patting themselves on the back for the empty virtue-signalling and shrill woke-scolding they perform in 800-word think pieces day in and day out. Gervais is not the problem. Even Yaniv is not the problem. The problem is the preponderance of people wagging their fingers and telling us what is and isn’t funny.
We’re thankful for Gervais. Not only is he one of the brave comedians who will actually stand up to political correctness and the excesses of identity politics, but he consistently reminds us of how we will eventually win this wretched culture war. The key is to never stop laughing.
Today, the BC Human Rights Tribunal released their bombshell ruling in favour of all of the defendants Jessica “Jonathan” Yaniv had brought suits against for declining to provide services to her male genitals. In three of the cases, Yaniv was ordered to pay $2,000 in damages each to Sandeep Banipal, Marcia DaSilva, and Sukhdip Hehar for “improper conduct.”
The details of the ruling, released in a 60-page document, includes stunning detail of the Tribunal’s decision, with Yaniv being described as “engaging in extortionate behaviour,” and “being untruthful” with details, as well as “offering evidence calculated to mislead the Tribunal.”
Most shockingly, the Tribunal recognized the reality that the majority of defendants in the case were racialized women, and documented a condemnation of Yaniv as being on a mission to “punish” certain racial groups for not “assimilating into Canadian culture.” According to the ruling documents, Yaniv allegedly attempted to explain away the volume of suits against racialized women as an unavoidable consequence of “these are the only people” who provide these aesthetic services.
The Tribunal didn’t buy it.
Speaking with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom’s Jay Cameron, one of the key lawyers who worked on behalf of the women pro bono, the excitement over the ruling rang through his voice.
“One of the clients I spoke with was crying. It was a very heavy weight off her shoulders—the stress, the loss of income. She was exceedingly relieved.”
Commending the Tribunal for their comprehensive ruling, Cameron discussed the details of the document released by the BCHRT.
“It became evident there was a [racial] pattern with the complaints once there was more information about them.” Cameron says, noting that the pattern wasn’t immediately clear due to the publication ban, which obscured the details from case to case. But once the individual respondents were named, all became clear. Cameron also stated that the comments made by Yaniv at the tribunal proceedings itself revealed a highly charged racial sentiment.
“Yaniv’s perception of why there was a refusal to provide a service—whether because of culture, religion, or failure to conform to Canadian social norms as Yaniv sees them.” Cameron says, “That became something obvious that we had to advance on behalf of the defendants—that there was an improper motivation for the complaints.”
The Tribunal ruling revealed that Yaniv had also used fake Facebook profiles and profile images to solicit services from the women in an attempt to present as either a biological female, or significantly more feminine and far along transition than Yaniv in fact was.
On this, Cameron says “Yaniv realized when using their ordinary physical presentation on Facebook, that the women were saying look, we don’t provide this service to men because we don’t service male genitalia,” continuing, “So to work around that, Yaniv thought to work around that I will present as something stereotypically female and then spring it on them later.”
Cameron adds that the Tribunal found it was improper and calculated to obtain sufficient evidence against a service provider to ground a human rights complaint.
While Cameron said he could not comment on whether or not he foresees Yaniv attempting to ground a complaint against him in the wake of his latest victory, he offered that the Justice Centre was a public constitutional firm that did pro bono work on public interest cases.
“The friction between self-identification and service providers, that’s of public interest. The theatrical aspects of some of the complainant’s behaviour, that’s of public interest. The Justice Centre exists by virtue of the fact that people make donations.”
While the Tribunal cases for the estheticians may have come to a close, Yaniv has already launched two additional suits… One in the BCHRT against anti-LGBT Christian activist Bill Whatcott for allegedly misgendering Yaniv, and one in the BC Civil Courts against a Vancouver-area physiotherapist after the table Yaniv had been lying on allegedly broke.
In both cases, Yaniv is seeking the maximum allowable claim of $35,000.
Jessica “Jonathan” Yaniv, who infamously brought human rights complaints against multiple British Columbia estheticians for declining to perform services on her male genitals has lost her cases.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms today issued a news release declaring victory on behalf of their clients, as an early ruling in favour of the mostly home-based salon workers was announced just one day after the Canadian federal elections.
According to the news release, The decision noted, “human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.” The decision further found that Yaniv “engaged in improper conduct,” “filed complaints for improper purposes,” and concluded Yaniv’s testimony was “disingenuous and self-serving.” Finally, noted the Tribunal, Yaniv was “evasive and argumentative and contradicted herself” while giving evidence.
The JCCF represented five of more than 10 aesthetician workers Yaniv brought complaints against, many of whom were immigrants or from visible minority or highly religious communities. This, along with Yaniv’s history of racially charged remarks, led many to speculate that the complaints were racist or xenophobic in nature.
Most significantly, the Tribunal ordered costs of $2,000 payable each to three of the five women represented by the Justice Centre, including one woman, Mrs. Hehar Gill, who had been forced to close her business due to Yaniv’s vexatious litigation. According to the JCCF’s news release, Mrs. Gill, a practicing Sikh, explained to Yaniv that she was only able to provide services to female clients due to her religion.
The Post Millennial will be following up on this breaking news story with an interview with the Justice Centre’s Jay Cameron later on today.