, 261 tweets, 58 min read Read on Twitter
Starting my notes on the latest Jessica Yaniv vs. waxing ladies hearing at the BCHRT. The publication ban on identifying Yaniv was lifted at the end of this hearing so have used their legal name. Will identify everyone but the waxing ladies but then use initials.
The hearing took place on Wednesday, July 17, 2019. It was the last of three consolidated cases in which the respondents were represented by @JurisCameron of the @JCCFCanada. The respondent MD declined to provide genital waxing services for JY.
Present was Devyn Cousineau, Member for the BCHT, Jessica Yaniv (JY), Miriam Yaniv (MY) who is JY's mother, the @JCCFCanada team including Jay Cameron (JC) @JurisCameron, and the respondent MD.
Present in the gallery: 3 youngish legal types, @dougquan for @nationalpost, @cosminDZS for @TPostMillennial, Kari Simpson from @CultureGuard and at least ten wonderful women and men including @preta_6 and her adorable baby, @LisaOnTheCoast, and @inferavirino
I've not included any other handles to respect everyone's privacy but pls tag your fantastic selves in replies if comfortable. I truly believe that the over following gallery was at least a small factor in lifting the publication ban. And that MD was glad to have the support!
@LisaOnTheCoast let me know that she had spoken to security about MY's behaviour at the last hearing. MY told me to shut up, said I would end up in the ER, that she knew who I was working for and that I would answer for it and tried to take our pictures while in the hearing room.
We expected it to be addressed by the Member but I did not have high expectations. A gentleman behind the reception desk had advised me to tell MY that she did not have my consent to take my picture so with a full gallery present, I screwed up my courage and approached MY.
Not a great decision. As MY is deaf, I had to repeat myself several times, louder each time and ended up doing physical motions. I do not know ASL and don't know if MY does either. I definitely angered MY.
She came over & told me that "they know", the police know who I am working for. She said "make a scene, go ahead", the police are downstairs. She used quite a loud voice and I think it was mostly anger but as she said later in her testimony, she speaks loudly due to her deafness
As mentioned, the police were not downstairs and indeed the whole day went by without the interruption of an emergency response. Going to take this time to mention that JY and MY almost always spoke privately to each other in a non English language.
Which is absolutely fine but extremely ironic given their past testimony about immigrants and their lack of English skills with more to come.

Member introduced herself and said there were issues to discuss before beginning the hearing including the publication ban.
She reminded everyone that no communication between parties or with outside parties was allowed while the hearing was in session. No texts, emails, tweets...etc.

Next the Member said that she had received 2 complaints about MY's behaviour.
The Member said that she expected MY to respect other people and not disrupt the Tribunal. She said that MY's behaviour had taken place during a break, which was only partly true. She told MY, no more yelling and that if anyone felt threatened they should contact the VPD.
This did not sit well with @LisaOnTheCoast who reminded the Member of her duty to uphold the Tribunal's code of conduct and said that MY engaged in threats, intimidation and had tried to take our pictures.
When reminded of MY's ER threat during the hearing, the Member said she believed MY was talking to and about JY. If you recall, MY was angry at me, yelled at me to shut up and was looking directly at me when she said that I would end up in the ER, not her.
@LisaOnTheCoast and I told the Member that we disagreed but she repeated that we could contact the police if we felt threatened. She then told us all that taking pictures was not allowed on Tribunal's premises and that anyone disrupting the hearing would be asked to leave.
MY then asked if reporting (sending tweets) only one hour after the hearing was allowed. The Member told her that this is JY's case not yours. The Member then moved on to the @JCCFCanada application to lift the publication ban outlining 5 points to address.
Forgot to mention that JY had brought up Lindsay Shepard at least once by then - saying that she should be banned from the hearing but it was okay because she wasn't there and having a little brag about getting her banned on Twitter. Guess you are old news @preta_6, sorry!
Now the Member moved on to @JurisCameron's application to lift the pub ban and said that she would resolve it today. She said there were 5 points to address:
- JY's gender id is not private
- JY is tweeting about the cases
- such a high volume of complaints is a matter of public interest
- JY's racial and religious views are public undermining any argument about needing protection
- JY's serial abuse of process
JY responded:
- has received 100s of tweets because of the @JCCFCanada
- said MY has sent some of the implicated tweets
- the tweets are self defence
- religion shouldn't be used to discriminate
- reads some of the tweets explaining them as advocating for the LGBT community
JY's phone rings. JY says it is a spam call and tells JC not to call anymore. Member tells JY to turn off the phone.
JY reads a tweet about refusing service to someone from India and says it was from MY.
Reads aloud another tweet about Indian women, "I will expose this hatred"
Reads another tweet about employees at an A&W not speaking English, the official language & replying "how about no" when it is suggested that JY be more patient with minorities. Says MY tweeted re immigration check stops on the road, "that's what happens when you open the gates"
JY has tweeted about being denied service for a facial. Member questions JY who says yes, I was upset. Why can't I tweet about it. Member pushes back, says JY has public profile, she struggles to understand how lifting pub ban will change dynamic.
JY says @JCCFCanada outed identity. Name and address are on a website (Kiwi Farms). Says Meghan Murphy started all of this. It is all connected to @preta_6's event.

The event JY references is the excellent #GIDYVR series. The third event will take place in September, come!
Breaking for the night - back soon.
Okay, back at it. In case it wasn't clear, JY was trying blaming MM and @preta_6 for alleged targeted harassment from others. Also I should have said go to the #GIDYVR event in September, not "come".
Don't want to give the impression that I am in any way involved in all the time and hard work required, let alone the stress and safety concerns, to put on these events.

So you should go! Really!
JY says that @JCCFCanada is to blame, calls it their "little mistake". JY is referring to an earlier pub leak and will be making a huge application for costs. JY had said 500K costs from the @JCCFCanada clients at a previous hearing that had nothing to do with these clients.
In this JY is relying on a earlier ruling:

Wells v. University of British Columbia, 2010 BCHRT 100. It is not a defence that a party has relied on their lawyer’s advice and direction. A party is responsible for the improper conduct of their lawyer who is acting on their behalf
JY hopes to collect 500k or more in costs from the @JCCFCanada clients for alleged misconduct by the JCCF and/or @JurisCameron. (IANAL but cannot see how this could succeed as the pub ban leak was from a earlier (now over) hearing involving the @JCCFCanada and a different client)
JY says there is a video showing a violation and that nothing (JY's identity) was out there until the @JCCFCanada first became involved. (We didn't see the video and I assume that if it exists, JY will submit it with the written closing arguments agreed upon by all parties).
@JurisCameron (JC) says that

-JY's identity and gender identity are public
- JY saying it was a secret is inaccurate
- JY has claimed to have identified as female since the age of 6
- JY was known to identify as female in public on Twitter, FB, ask.fm...etc, long before these respondents got a lawyer
- JY's public identity predates any JCCF involvement
- JY has repeated blamed the JCCF for fake online profiles but this is not the case
- this would not be in the best interests of his clients
- there is a broad public interest in these cases
- JC doesn't know anyone in the gallery
- only met me during the first consolidated case (true)

- catagorically denies exposing JY's indentity
- JY has claimed Lindsay Shepard works (LS) for JCCF, this is not true
- LS does not speak for JC's clients
- JY had a public back & forth with LS re external genitalia and internal reproductive functions
- not via JCCF's account
- JY publicly justifies this course of action (all the claims) against immigrants
- current respondent is an immigrant from Brazil

(JY would later claim Brazilian heritage)

- JY could see that MD is an immigrant and this is a common thread in these claims
- JY has publicly advocated for immigration check stops - respondents are racialized (visible minorities) women
- JY has put them through the wringer
- MD is JC's fifth client to close their business as a result of JY's complaints
- these respondents have not been permitted to hide behind initials like JY
- this is high stakes, JY is asking for very high costs
- JY has been allowed to target women of immigrant background with impunity

Member says she will decide by end of day.
JY still wants to talk about LS and #GIDYVR, says was not addressed.

Member says that LS is not here, any costs against JCCF to be addressed in closing arguments and that #GIDYVR is not relevant to these cases.
Member now moves to the request to add JY's mother, Miriam Yaniv (MY) as a witness. Does JC object to the late addition of this witness for JY?

JC notes that JY had said MY was in the hospital as an explanation for the late request and that this is not true.
JC says MY has been at the Tribunal and was able to travel there. JC will agree that MY can testify as long as he can cross examine MY.
(MY had testified, with a lot of leeway at a hearing the day before - if you recall it was a complaint against JT, an apparently Asian woman. JY had asked if MY could also testify at this MD hearing but MY said that she did not want to be crossed by JC)
MY will be allowed to testify.

Member gives some background on this 6 page complaint filed on May 2, 2018 under JY's legal name at time - "Jonathan Yaniv" against MD.

(Dear Twitter, I am quoting the Member, not dead naming)

JY requested a Brazilian.
MD has filed a response saying she is not trained to or comfortable waxing male genitals.

Member must decide 5 things:

- nature of JY's gender identity
- scope of service
- if JY's GID a factor in denial of service
- if yes, does MD have a bonafide defence
- remedy if any
Evidence like the expert testimony of Angie Barnetson (AB) from the last 2 of these 3 consolidated cases will be used.

Member now responds to an earlier request by JY to consolidate another three complaints/hearings. The cases were to be heard over three separate days.
These will be the last of JY's complaints to be heard. There was no response from the women that JY filed these complaints against and they are not expected to appear. Recall that JY had said it was very inconvenient to travel to the Tribunal - JY could not take the Skytrain.
I may have misspoke saying consolidated as I think that has a specific legal meaning - basically Member reschedules all 3 cases for 1 day, July 26. JY says I appreciate that.

Taking a minute to try to sort out the disposition of all of JY's 16 complaints.
According to ruling below, JY originally filed 14 complaints, 13 of which were re waxing services and nearly identical.

bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/dec…
The Tribunal wrote to JY after receiving another 3 nearly identical complaints.
"Before it accepts this complaint, or further similar complaints, for filing, I would like you to explain how it furthers the purposes of the Human Rights Code [Code] to continue to advance further complaints that allege essentially the same facts."
JY agreed to not file any further complaints until these had all been resolved.

So now we have 13 to 16 complaints. An unknown number were settled in mediation, which usually involves compensation for the complainant.
The Member said:

"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..."
3 complaints were withdrawn by JY, apparently after the respondents retained counsel.
The Member said:

"I am now of the view, based on these new facts, that JY’s pattern of filing such a high volume of complaints and then withdrawing in the face of opposition undermines the integrity of the Tribunal."
@JCCFCanada's @JurisCameron is representing the respondents in these three consolidated cases, JY vs. JT was heard unopposed last week with three more complaints to be heard unopposed next July 26th.
Not sure if my accounting helped or just made things more confusing - will try to get it straight and let you know. Going to break here. We are almost ready to start the actual hearing. But first, JY talks about my tweets, @preta_6 & tries to get @JurisCameron removed as counsel!
Back at it and going to add a link to a few tweets re the Member's statements about JY' s pattern of seeking mediation and withdrawing from cases that might help if I confused anyone.

Member says that she will discuss the schedule for closing arguments after this hearing. Applications for costs will be part of the closing arguments.

Before the hearing begins, JY wants to discuss some more preliminary matters, says that my tweets connected JY to @preta_6
JY says that Amy identified JY (she did not and like so many things JY said this wasn't specifically addressed by the Member). JY then says that @JurisCameron should be removed from this and all his other cases due to misconduct. JY says that JC has no legal qualifications!
Says that JC has made multiple errors in 4 out of his 5 cases and give as an example that JC misnamed the respondent in this case (on a filing?).

Member tells JY that it is extremely serious to say that JC has no legal qualifications. (She was very emphatic).
Member says that it would deprive these respondents of their lawyer, bar is set extremely high for this, says already covered the inadvertent pub ban leak from a previous (not one of these 3) case.

JY says I'll drop it but still wants MD's response denied because of wrong name
Member denies and JY says, "What gives?", "Big mistake in my view". Member say not in her and that she can't get between a client and lawyer - very very serious.

Now as the hearing is finally ready to begin, MY who will be a witness leaves the room.
Witness are not supposed to know about any testimony given or anything official that happens in the hearing before they give their history. Later when she gave her testimony, it was clear by some of the things she said that MY was aware of prior testimony.
Oops, spell check! Testimony, not history. Member invites JY to give opening statement, says should be 5 mins or under. JY says 8 - 10 mins needed and starts. JY cites cases to be used in closing arguments.

Member stops JY to say, just give a list.
JY says will especially rely on:

Mamela v Vancouver Lesbian Connection 1999 (discrim against transsexuals is sex discrim - this predates the use of word transgender and the inclusion of GID in the BCHR Code - too bad VLC didn't appeal like VRR.)
UBC v Berg (defining public v private services, BCHR code only has jurisdiction over public services - JY wants to say that these waxing services are public services).

And lastly Wells v UBC (clients can be held responsible and order to pay costs for their lawyers misconduct).
JY reads a long excerpt from this case, really goes in on @JCCFCanada alleged misconduct, wants 500k in costs. (To be clear, JY wants these three waxing ladies to pay half a million dollars in costs for alleged misconduct by the JCCF as well as other damages).
Based on a question JY asked at another hearing, I predict that JY's requested costs for alleged misconduct may eventually exceed 500k

JY says that respondent MD cannot define Sex and Gender ID on her own accord.

Re potential pub ban lift "visibility that puts someone at risk of violence".

JY then says I do not have a taser at the hearing, contrary to what has been said online. (Pausing here to say yikes!)
JC reminds, should be 5 min opening statement, this is clearly (legal) argument.

JY says 1 more minute and is allowed to continue.

JY goes on
- cites a case about ignorance of law & when can be used as a defence
- being a female is important to JY
- JY is a loveable goofy LGBT advocate
- was a "little diva", dancing around the house in girl clothes
- girl in heart and inside house, outside house no one knew
- diagnosed at 6 (by a specialist this time) though didn't recognize GID then
- turning point for JY who embraced GID
Member says that JY has now been talking for 13 minutes.

JY finishes, saying others may have perceived me as male due to my fear (of people knowing).

Back later tonight with JC's opening - says JY used a fake profile with a pic of a pregnant woman - ironic as MD is pregnant
JC's Opening Statement:
- MD had just started her home based business
- MD had 3 kids at home, a four year old and two small school aged kids
- doesn't hate JY
-calling Respondent's neo Nazis is just the latest in a long line of JY's contentious and offensive statements
JY interjects - not calling the respondents neo Nazis, just saying the denial of services is neo Nazism. (Recall that JY said and MY agreed that BC is becoming a neo Nazi state.)
Want also to recall that in the first @JCCFCanada case, JY said neo Nazis had shifted their attention from Morgane Oger to JY because JY is now too powerful a role model for girls & women...and something about tanks

JC continues
- sex is biological, separate from GID in BCHRC
- GID goes to indentity, not sex, must be something to indentity with
- physiology is an important component of this case
- JY has male genitals, JY has testified to it
- improper of state to compel MD to have JY in her home and provide genital waxing services on male genitals
- MG is not comfortable waxing male genitals, has never done it
- husband also not comfortable, concerned for MD's safety
- recounts expert testimony re erections
- says JY was commonly using a male name, had a male profile pic and male genitals at the time the wax service was requested.
- JY used a fake profile with a pic of a pregnant woman to start service request, once contact was made then had text convo, sent real pic & said trans
- after subterfuge, not comfortable having JY in home, husband not comfortable
- because of complaint, MD closed her business
- lost revenue for herself and her family
- waxing ladies should not be compelled to provide intimate services against their will, or religion, should not be compelled to touch male genitals or wax male genitals, not comfortable, not trained to, have never done.

Hearing has a morning break.
I asked @LisaOnTheCoast if she would mind coming to the bathroom with me - of course it ended up being packed anyway 😂 but I appreciated that she said yes.
Two concerns - maybe something would happen to me, (not that likely?), maybe someone who is litigious would claim something happened to them (more likely?). Anyway was an uneventful break for a change.

When hearing resumes, JY says that JC's statement re fake profile is untrue.
Member says save for your evidence/testimony.

JY asks can I submit emailed picture from friend, saying it is the pregnant person JC was talking about (JY seems to be saying that it's not a fake profile because it is a real person who JY had asked to contact MD)
Member says when we get to evidence will consider

Brief exchange while MD clarifies her last name on FB Marketplace is a nickname and that she had already provide her real name to Tribunal, spells last name.

Next will be JY's testimony.
Breaking for the night, going to try and blitz through the rest of notes tomorrow. Thanks for reading.
Ready to start JY's testimony. For those who have asked, the BCHR Tribunal is a quasi-judicial entity that interprets existing law to make rulings. Different from a court that can also make law. Rulings of the Tribunal can be appealed up the BC court system & then to the SCC
SCC = Supreme Court of Canada. The Member is the equivalent of a judge in a court proceeding.

JY sworn in.

JY starts with Ext # 24 (1st exhibit in this case but 3 case were consolidated so we are at # 24 now) stops to tell the Member, not feeling well, may need a little break
Member says to let her know.

Ext#24 is 1 page and is screenshot of MD' s FB Marketplace profile. JY comments that MD has used an acronym for Instructor and after digging in found that the last name used is a type of Brazilian sport.
Recall that MD told the Member that she used a nickname on this profile - this is the nickname, her real name is MD.

Next JY has Ext#25 which is a desktop and mobile view of the first time JY reached out to GD in May of 2018. It is 2 pages.
JY clicked the I'm interested button on MD's ad which was a promotion for genital waxing. JY says that MD's ad was then marked sold and closed (meaning sold out or no longer available).
JY:
- my memory is shot because of all the concussions I've had but believe after that I asked MD several times and she said closed (no longer for sale)
- presumes that MD thought JY is male based on male pic and/or name
- as Member has said my Gender ID is my own
- MD rejected JY for service w/o clarification (didn't say why)
- says then asked friend ("Mia S", the supposed pregnant woman) to contact MG
- gave MD ad link to Mia S to try to book for me as "Jessica"
- MD was given Jessica's (JY's) number by Mia and MD reached out by txt
- JY clarifies that hasn't seen convo between Mia and MD but Mia booked an appt. and assumes Mia gave number since MD texted JY

Text exchange between JY & MD is Ext#26.

- says received txt from MD with address for a 4PM appt, saying text me when you are almost here
- was downtown when received text (at a court hearing)
- replied to MD, see you at 4, I am a trans woman
- MD says okay, JY assumes that being trans is okay
- very excited to get service, texts "born a man, now a woman", able to wax?
- MD texts stop msging me, if you are going to come, come, don't have a problem with it
- MD texts that JY doesn't look like a trans person (MD means the pic of the pregnant person, JY's supposed friend Mia)
- MD texts "don't play around"
- JY had been at Sephora (after court?) & was "looking pretty bomb" so took a selfie and sent to MD
- MD texts back that JY is not who she thought booking was for, being trans not a problem but won't provide waxing
- JY txts why
- MD txts husband won't allow
- JY txts I'm a girl
JY then talks about the address given by MD:
- reads out address, says it was fake
- complains that was half way there (this was at 11AMish and appt was for 4PM) and then went home
- tried to use this address for serving MD with Tribunal documents, was invalid
- why fake address, wasting JY's time
- address is large condo complex (no unit #)
- also waste of Tribunal's time
- the Tribunal had to use a process server
- angry about MD wasting the Tribunal's time
- 3 or 4 complaints to fake addresses
- has been a "roller coaster" for JY
- JY contacted place where MD works (her main job)
- told them that MD had refused service to trans woman, not okay, does MD work there (used this address to serve MD for complaint)

JY and MD have an angry txt exchange, then a phone call. Very heated.
MD told JY that the police are aware and not to contact her again.

Finish of JY's testimony:
- MD assumed JY's gender identity
- identity should not be assumed for services like waxing, is JY's own to say
- says can't assume the Member's or JC's id
- not the 90's, need to ask
Next @JurisCameron (JC) cross examines JY

Member reminds - wait for the question, wait for the answer

?When did you first contact MD?
JY - don't remember
?Looked at MD's profile pic?
JY - yes
? Could see that MD is Brazillian?

JY says I am also Brazilian

? Answer the question?
JY - no, everyone looks different
? Saw it saws Brazil on her profile?
JY - doesn't matter

JC then asks about the sequence of events with supposed friend Mia getting appt for JY
? why no profile pic on FB when first contact (like other cases).
JY - must have a profile to...(cut off note here, sorry!)
? Who gave your phone number to MD
JY - was friend (Mia S), I was rejected so asked Mia to reach out
? Was that actually you?
JY - no, Mia S is real
? Used the name Jessica to give # to MD?
JY - don't remember
? Possible?
JY - yes
? Possible that name Jessica was used to give # to GD?
JY - MD got my # from my friend Mia

JC reads 1st text string, MD's address, 4:30 appt. Text is from 11:27AM
? Why did JY says they were half way there at 11:27 AM for a 4:30 appt?
JY - have to take transit, takes a long way to get there.

Recall what JY has said about transit at another hearing 👇
Also Translink (our transit authority) search for North Van to Delta (much longer trip, and you have to take the Seabus - an actual boat - across the Burrard Inlet) gives around 2 & 1/2 hours for travel, so there's that.
JC reminds JY about taking an oath to tell the truth

JY - are you saying I am lying?
? You boarded transit at 11AM for a 4:30 appt?
JY - was at Pacific Centre, having a bite to eat then going to head over
? You live on Langley border, how long to get to MD, by bus or car?
JY - 20 minutes
? You left your home at 11 for a 4:30 appt.?
JY - not at home, would have to take Skytrain, lots of buses, doesn't like/want to be late, it's not fair to the service provider
JY then ask JC if he knows where JY lives. Suggests JC's or the @JCCFCanada's involvement in predator stickers put up in JY's area. JY mentioned these stickers in a previous hearing 👇

JC rejects this suggestion and Member cautions JY.

?What is your basis for saying that MD gave you a false address?
JY - asks the Member about the service docs that bounced back (wants backup)

Member doesn't know.

? You didn't go to address?
JY - no
? On what basis are you accusing MD re false address?
JY - used address to file complaint and it bounced back

JC puts it to JY that address is MD's residence, that JY is accusing MD of deception, was not a fake address

JY - a condo has a (unit) number
? It's the condo complex address, why assume fake?
JY - illegitimate, incomplete address, why not give unit #
? Maybe MD would have given unit # when you were in area?
JY - service is public

(Recall the BCHR Code only covers public services)
? It's a private residence
JY - no public, gives example of friends waxing party, was private event, closed to public so could deny service...

Member tells JY - no (legal) arguments

? Possible MD would give you the unit # when you were in area?
JY - yes
? You were born a male and have male parts?
JY - yes
? Aware of the requirements for waxing female genitals (testimony of the expert)?
JY - yes, says is female, has had brazillians, JC should know that
? You have male parts but are requesting service for a brazillians?
JY - yes
? As expert said, brazillians for females?

JY talks about being defamed online as reason for asking for 500K, maybe more, mentions the @TPostMillennial

JY says I wanted a brazillian, not a brozillain, not a dudezillion...(may have said manzillian too)
? Wax your male parts?
JY - I'm intersex
? What does JY mean by that - what parts?
JY - don't have to answer that, (finally) says both male and female parts
? Never said anything about female parts to respondents, only talked about male parts
JY - no, where did I say that
? Never said anything about female parts to MD, told her male parts?
JY - female parts (might be saying has female parts not told MD about female parts)
? you are saying you have a vulva?
JY - not going to say
? Not going to let you weasel out, do you have a vulva, ext female genitals?
JY - not going to answer, wouldn't ask you
? Not about me, what parts you have, if you have a vulva is germane, you were requesting a brazillian, would have to take your clothing off, underwear off?
JC continues

? Not like buying a hotdog, respondents would have to work on your genitals for a long time, can't refuse?

Member says to JY, what were you asking MD to wax?
JY - wanted a brazillian

Member says what parts, scrotum, vulva?
JY - the second, vulva
JC continues:
? Your evidence is that you have a clitoris, labia, a vagina?
JY - won't say
? Don't play games, do you know what a vulva is?
JY - external skin around a vagina
? No, it is the external female genitals
JY - not saying if has fully formed (vulva)
? Does JY have any medical information, an independent exam?

Member stops exam line of questioning

JY - genitals are deformed, embarrassed to tell publically, asks JC, how do we know that you have a fully formed penis & scrotum

JC say he would be upfront
Member tells JY, no more using people in the room as examples.

With that, time to break for me. JY's testimony will continue but be broken up so MD can testify and get to work.

JY comments, "always interested in fairness" but wants it noted that has had to miss work too!
JC continues his cross examination of JY:

? False contention of female genitals?
JY - are you calling me a liar
? Female genitals, true or false?
JY - not false but refuses to elaborate, why is JC so interested in my genitals

Member tells JY not to ask JC questions
JY - I'm intersex, have two sets, one thing works, other doesn't, won't say which

JC says he will come back to this.
JC now refers way back to Ext#1, JY's FB Marketplace convo with BH, respondent from @JCCFCanada case # 1 of these 3 consolidated cases👇

? Described self as awesome trans girl, no SRS (surgery), having males parts, didn't say have female parts?

JY - if would have said intersex, no one would know what it meant, would have denied service anyway
JY continues: Morgane Oger has claimed to be intersex & is not. If MO was denied service, would be significant complaint, MO is powerful. Religion vs the LGBT is dangerous, could be denied pizza service if permitted, respondents shouldn't be given leeway to refuse (to wax JY).
Member points out time constraints, that JY is now making (legal) arguments (should be giving testimony - facts)

? Goes to credibility, said trans, no surgery, scheduled for SRS?
JY - yes
? Which surgery (procedure)?
JY - irrelevant, doesn't even know what Dr. will do (yet)
? Goes to credibility, string of fabrications (from JY)?
JY - surgery not scheduled, just planned, trans is complicated, drugs, hormones, surgery

JC now refers to Ext#9, again from 1st @JCCFCanada case👇

JC says it is JY participating in a makeup forum (for teenage girls) talking about periods, tampons, being in a female change room

JY - wasn't me, won't answer questions about it
I have written (should JY) "look for the string", "have a dick" and asking if women will have their "tits and pussy out" as quotes from this exhibit.
? Has your name (I think Jonathan not Jessica) and (male) profile pic, true or false?
JY - never sent, lots of fake profiles, fake profiles created by Lindsey Shepard, she's @JCCFCanada employee, has another little brag about getting her banned from Twitter
? MD should be compelled by state to let you come to her private residence, compelled by state to wax your male genitals?
JY - yes, it's a public service
? JY has said was burnt when getting arm wax in past?
JY - was on my private FB, how did JC get
JY - wasn't burn, was allergic reaction, waxing place was dirty, blood and feces on the walls, has reported them to Fraser Health Authority
? Relevant to you that MD has no exp waxing male genitals?
JY - no, says JC made false submissions, discusses waxing supplies needed
Member asks JC re relevance of JY's arm wax burn experience

JC says example relevant, JY is litigious, if MD burnt JY through inexperience then JY would have filed complaint

JY - you say I file complaints all day

Member says yes, relevant, JY has filed complaints
JY - would talk to MD, ( not filed complaint)
? Possible you would have filed complaint?
JY - talks about hitting JC's car, would talk it out with JC
? Compel MD to provide service with no exp, would then file complaint?

Member says JY has answered, proposes lunch break
Discussion as MD needs to leave soon to go to work.

Break into JY's testimony, allow MD to testify now so she can leave for work?

JY comments that "always interested in fairness" but notes has had to miss work for hearings.
Member points out that she has let JY leave early (again, first @JCCFCanada case) and that this doesn't compromise the hearing.

MD is sworn in, JC questions MD first, then JY will cross.
? Opportunity to tell the Tribunal what happened, asks MD background?
MD:
- started home wax business in March 2018
- Mom with 3 kids
- husband works & not at home during day
- had brazillian wax ad on FB Marketplace
- was promo, low price, promo finished, so marked sold (out)
? Home alone with 3 kids, address provided was building address, not fake?
MD - yes
? Would give client's unit # when in area?
MD - yes
Then JC asks about how MD came to txt JY?

MC says that pregnant woman (Jessica) reached out, wasn't JY's pic, MD texted # provided, was JY's
GD adds that she was busy with her 4 yr old during text convo.

? Why no unit# given?
MD
- safety, always meets new clients outside of her building to vet
- found txts with JY weird, booked for 4 but JY texted over & over, msg after msg
- saw JY wasn't the original pregnant woman
- JY had seen her kids & family on her personal profile
- felt unsafe, husband felt same way
- was JY trans, didn't know how pregnant woman could be trans woman
- issues with JY's deception
? Experienced and comfortable waxing male genitals?
MD - no
MD
- JY called MD's work, talked to her boss
- JY told boss scared for MD to provide services (to young people) at work
- sent msgs to boss
- JY reported MD's FB profile (w nickname) as fake, was suspended, MD had to set up new profile

JY interrupts to say not me who reported
MD
- got Tribunal notice of complaint at work, very upset
- got a msg from "Jessica" saying at your house, what's the unit #, I forgot
- JY said on FB that MD has problem with LGBT
- has blocked JY on SM, everything
- went to the police, worried about her kids on way to school
- called JY in front of police, stop contact with MD
- JY said MD doesn't know law in Canada, JY will take further action
- then MD taken to Tribunal
- shut down her business, talks about fear now having a stranger in home, being contacted at work, all of JY's msgs
? Trained to wax male genitals
MD - no

Member asks question about MD's husband not being comfortable

MD
- no (strange) men in home when alone
- safety issue
- "everyone has the right to decide who to have in home"
Member asks MD, no problem with trans women (if it was the msgs/texts)

MD
- yes, weird msgs
- thought trans woman meant JY has had surgery
- felt sorry JY was denied service but JY kept texting even after she explained home alone with 4year old
- 7 and 12 year old home too
- waxing room at home has door and lock
- normally has just waxed friends & family
- first time on FB Marketplace, had never had stranger in home
- when "Jessica" said at her house, (and asked for unit #) it was a lie

Member asks MD what her understanding of a trans woman is?
MD - understanding of trans woman is person who has had surgery, has become female, MD would be waxing female genitals
Note: IMO this whole process also raises the question: do male genitals literally become female after SRS or are they simply modified male genitals? Should a woman be compelled by the state to touch or interact with male genitals that have been modified?

On with MD's testimony.
? Only waxed female family and friends?
MD - all female
? Intended to wax females or males, female or male genitals?
MD - female
? Brazillians for females only?
MD - yes

JC's questions for MD completed, JY will cross examine her now
Breaking now - back later today

A highlight - JY will show MD a picture of "Taylor" asking if MD would wax this person (meant to be a gotcha as I suspect Taylor is trans but appears female in pic)

Oops, MD identifies it as an alleged false profile pic of "Jessica" used by JY.
JY begins to cross exam MD by thanking her for coming. Mentions the large number of people in the gallery.

JY? Why exclude trans females? That's what I am, what is the issue waxing all females?
Member suggests that JY's question is to ask why MD won't wax a female with a penis and scrotum.

JY doesn't ask that, saying MD's ad was for all females, but wasn't for trans females

MD talks about feeling unsafe alone in her home with her small child, JY kept sending msgs.
MD - JY would still give a complaint, bring her here

JY - I didn't have your phone number
MG - you gave me your number
JY - that was Mia S. who msged you my number

Member asks about this convo between Mia S and MD. JY says I have a copy of a convo between me and Mia S.
Member says JY can't ask MD questions about a convo that JY had with Mia. But send copy to Member and JC.

MD says her first convo was with "Jessica" who had a history of being trans. (Assume GD didn't have the messages because her FB was suspended - she thinks because of JY)
JY? No issues with trans women?
MD - no issue

Member points out their different understanding of what a trans woman is.

JY? No issue waxing a trans identified woman?

JC tries to help, asks MD - comfortable waxing male genitals, no surgery?
MD - no
JY says I'm trans
MD - surgery yes, not surgery, no
JY? Would MD wax a F to M trans person?

JC says already answered, it is about bio reality.

Member says JY must be clear in questions about type of genitals
JY? Ask potential clients about their genitals?
MD - your name was Jessica
JY? I have a friend named Taylor, is trans, would wax based on name?
MD - not to do with a name, is Taylor trans from my point of veiw (surgery) or yours (no surgery)
JY? - mine
MD - no
JY wants to show MD a pic, does so
MD - says a pic of JY, profile pic as male, wearing glasses and a tie
JY wants to show MD a pic of Taylor. Taylor, JY's trans friend, shows MD on phone
MD - that was Jessica (pic used to contact MD)

Laughter from the gallery
JC - interesting
Member says JY must show pic to her and JC

MD - it's been a year so not 100% but thinks so
JY shows MD a pic of Mia
Taking a moment here because this might be getting confusing.

JY is claiming that friend Mia S, the pregnant lady was msging MD on JY's behalf and that Taylor the trans woman is also a friend. MD's evidence suggests they are all the same person - JY using fake profiles/pic
JY shows pic of Mia
MD - no was a blond
JY - was pregnant
MD - so am I

More discussion about Mia and Taylor and Jessica. JY says Mia contacted MD to arrange wax for JY. MD says that the pic that JY shows of Mia was not the service requester, was Taylor pic with name Jessica
JC reiterates that MD identified Taylor pic as service requester and who,provided JY's number to MD

More discussion about Mia pic vs Taylor pic, which was used to request service for JY.
JC - point is MD saw pic of Taylor (as service requester using name Jessica), shows to Member, show to MD (pic is attractive with long curly hair)

MD - yes

JY says I can "look like that in a heartbeat"
MD describes the sequence of event, JY said interested on FB, MD closed the promo, Mia asks, you ask (meaning JY as Taylor/Jessica) said yes.

JY? I said interested (male profile) and you closed ad?
MD - yes promo was over
JY? Mia reached out?

Some confusion still re Mia
At this time, Miriam Yaniv who had been waiting in the hallway (outside the hearing until time to give her testimony) enters the hearing room, puts an open iPad on table in front of Member and leaves.

Member says can't have iPad, passes it to JY, reminded to close it, does so.
MD - doesn't remember Mia, says JY has said she denied service before she even texted JY, how is that possible
JY - interested, ad marked sold
MD - promo wax over, no convo
JY argues with MD about whether they had a FB convo or if JY clicked the interested button, then ad sold.
MD - then you reached out as someone else, got my address, think that's fair?

More argument about whether they had a convo (clicked sold) JY tries to ask MD question about a convo/plan JY had with Mia.

Member, can't ask GD about JY convos with Mia that GD has no knowledge of.
JY? Clicking sold shuts down FB convo?
GD - you saw my profile, my kids, saw everything
JY? You said I kept texting you, busy with kids, why two msgs so overwhelming.
GD - reads off 4 msgs, said stop msg, busy, trans no problem but on profile, not trans, pregnant
When GD saw JY's real pic (selfie - looking pretty bomb) thought it was a joke, asked her husband, agreed not safe.

JY? Why a problem?
GD - talked to her husband because was pics were not the same person, JY went to her work, tried to get her fired, reported her FB as fake
JY says we are not getting anywhere, closes cross of MD.

JC follow ups
? Show Ext#26 - SS of texts, MD's number at top, texting JY?
MD - got JY's # from Jessica on FB
? the pic of blond lady (Taylor)?
MD - yes
? another JY pic, male, glasses and tie?
JY says this pic is irrelevant, doesn't want to be allowed in, doesn't want it on the file.

Member will allow questions based on pic.
? Show pics same as txt pic?
MD - no, searched for Jonathan Yaniv on Twitter, found a pic (male) and took with her when she went to the police
? This pic I showed (JY as male), similar to the one you saw on Twitter?
GD - yes
? Language you are most comfortable speaking?
GD - Brazilian Portuguese

GD's testimony is done. Hearing goes for lunch break.
Miriam brings JY some McDonald's
Man from gallery, leaving the room, says enjoy your burger.

Breaking for the night.

After the hearing's lunch break, JY's testimony resumes. JY has problems with low blood sugar but will be able to go on.
Back from the hearing lunch break. JY mentions problems with blood sugar but can go on. Miriam Yaniv not in room as will be called to testify

Before JY is sworn in again there is discussion of new evidence that JY wants to have entered. It is described by JY as a FB convo w GD
JY says this is the FB convo had with MD on original interested/ad closed service request. Member has a couple of options, disallow or allow but also recall MD to allow reply.

I hesitate to use MD's initials when recounting some of this convo as it has not been proven it was her
Note: Sorry, may have said GD for MD in the last few tweets! MD is the respondent in this case, there is no GD, where I have said GD, it is meant to be MD. Lots of initials to keep track of!
Back to supposed FB convo new evidence:

JY - I'm a girl
Supposedly MD - LOL
JY - what's so funny?

@JurisCameron says no context, doesn't appear to be MD, wasn't disclosed, MD not here to reply, Member should not allow or rely on without MD being able to respond
JY wants Member to admit. JC leaves hearing to call MD, could not reach her.

JC - no date on convo
JY
- says shows I did continue convo with MD
- supposedly JY said would pay full price
- supposedly MD said, hi, don't do on men LOL
- supposedly JY replied I'm a girl
JC says it is clearly from a phone not FB. Member suggests that JC look at Ext #25, page 2 👇

JC asks JY, are you on the internet right now?
JY - yes searching

Member tells JY not allowed

JC says continuity problem with new convo, page 1 time stamp 5:45 PM page 2 time stamp 11:59 PM

JY says it is because 1 page taken from desktop, other from mobile at different times
JC - not the same profile pic of my client, irreconcilable continuity issues
JY - profile pic changes when ad removed

Member decides that this new evidence of a supposed FB convo between JY and MD will not be allowed in.
JY now wants to admit a text exchange (2 pgs) that JY says was had with Mia S.(JY's pregnant friend).
JY says it wasn't disclosed until now, "my mistake"

JC - text exchange is not about my client, is about different respondent, reads part about (JY) having to go to the ER.
JY
- yes, was txt exchange about another refusal of service (but not about a respondent as JY did not file complaint about this)
- says was refused by a 10 year old, this was a refusal of service by a 10 year old
- says wasn't going to complain about a 10 year old
JC reviews:

- JY purports it to be a txt exchange with Mia S.
- JY has not called Mia S. as witness
- talking about different refusal of service (not MD)
- colluding to create HR complaint against another individual (not MD)
JC says he will bring an application for JY's other SM/ online convos to be brought into evidence.

Member says if does not purport to involve MD, why not allow?

JC - does purport to involve her, same as the last FB convo JY tried to get in, no opportunity for MD to say if her
JY says fair but MD hadn't told anyone she would have to leave early today

JC - may be a created (falsified) chat created using SS from a present day Mia, is not reliable, must have occurred at same time period as convos with MD

JY wants to get Mia on the phone
Member says no
JY - just to show how MD got my #

Member will not admit this convo between JY & Mia.

- MD hasn't/didn't get a chance to review or get legal advice regarding it, give testimony about or cross examine JY about it
Member finishes marking the two pics (Mia and
Taylor/Jessica) as exhibits.

JY ask why pics can be admitted as evidence but not txt convo with Mia.

Member reminds JY - pics were your evidence, you showed the pics to MD and she testified about them, no objections then, pics in
Mia S pic is of a pregnant woman with another person (identified as her partner).

Taylor (identified by MD as "Jessica) is a blond woman

JY goes back to MD leaving early. Why didn't she advise the Tribunal in advance, she should have known her schedule in advance
Member notes case not compromised, moving on.

Noting again: JY had to leave the first @JCCFCanada hearing early. As far as I can tell, JY only told Tribunal at start of that hearing. JY's request was accommodated by Member, JC & Respondent

JC asks for copy of Mia & Taylor pics
JY wants to make an application to ban someone from the hearing (JY supposed to be responding to JC's questions)

This is about me, @preta_6 and Lindsay Shepard. JY says I broke the pub ban by tagging Amy who broke it by identified JY (untrue). Dropped both of those, still on LS
JY says LS on @JCCFCanada staff, goes to costs. JY says "I just don't like people lying about things"

JC continues
? You looked at MD's webpage?
JY - FB profile
? Same thing, you've made comments about immigrants, could see MD was Brazilian?
JY - 90% of Canadians are immigrants, can't use to harass, abuse or refuse service, to abuse us
? Online comments about immigrants?
JY - made after (complaint against) MD
? Filing costs against LS?
JY - leaving for closing arguments
JC talks about JY's purported convo with Mia about MD, (not the inadmissible one about the 10 year old) JY has asserted facts about it without showing it.

Member says for closing argument. JC continues:

? Reviewed the material I submitted to lift pub ban?
JY - yes
? Gave your mother, Miriam Yaniv (MY) permission to use your Twitter?
JY - yes
? Have a number of profiles on FB?
JY - only 1
? Allow others to use, used to have more, said in other cases
JY - shut down, only JY uses the FB & Instagram accounts, not MY
JY says that the stuff Lindsay Shepard has done is disgusting

Member - I just said for costs, not now

With that JY's cross exam by JC is over. Next MY will testify. MY was allowed at last minute as witness to give testimony about the impact of the service denials on JY.
I am breaking for now but noting that by this point @preta_6 had left the hearing room to sooth her lovely baby and Miram Yaniv has offered to hold that baby - in the hallway, alone - so Amy could come back into hearing.

Amy declined MY's offer.
Miriam Yaniv, JY's mother is sworn in to give testimony about the impact of service denials on JY. JY says have added some questions.

Recall that the Member had let MY testify at a previous hearing with no respondent present and given JY & MY a lot of "leeway".
She had warned them that she would be stricter in this hearing and that JC could and would objects to things.

MY explains her disability so it can be accommodated.
JY thanks her for coming
JY? Born as boy or girl?
MY - both
JY? Intersex?
MY - yes
Note: that was the first time MY was asked by JY about being intersex.

JY? Gender identity, expression?
MY - female
JY? First period?
MY - 13 or 14
JY? Wanted to be a princess?
MY - yes
JY - boy or girl clothes
MY - depends on occasion, girl at home, boy when out
JY? Boy or girl toys?
MY - no guns, only Barbies
JY? As female at home, gender identity was secret to the public, own decision to come out?
MY - should she answer for 6 yr old JY or 32 yr old JY?
JY? My gender id was a secret
MY - yes
JY? Intimidated (to show it)
MY - yes
JY? Major cramping before age 13?
MY - yes

Member says - said period wasn't relevant (when said JY didn't have to talk about internal sex organs) gender identity was (nature of JY's ) - JY can't have it both ways
JC says JY is leading witness
JY & MY interrupt each other arguing against JC

Member says she will consider how much weight to give leading testimony

JY? Why is a gender id a threat to other women?
MY - It should not be
JY? Reflects a "deeply held bias", starts to ask a hypothetical about how far can you go to discriminate...

Stopped by Member

JY? Impact of denials on me?
MY wants to speak freely, no more questions
- extreme impact
- destroying JY's life
- gender id destroyed JY, my life, my sister's life
- MY is going to give up her life in Canada after 35 years
- was happy in Canada, "come home parent", giving up
- "I mean it"

JY? Impact on me?
MY - won't go there, everyone can see, "I'm done"
JY? Importance of " gender affirming care" to me?
MY - very important

JC objects, says JY is asking MY questions to bootstrap JY's testimony. Says JY must asked questions about facts, not JY' internal feelings

Member says will allow but weigh testimony
MY - not willing to share medical info,
Talks directly to JC - not willing to show physical and medical info with you, "Mr. Jay Cameron"

Note: as in other threads, couldn't possibly record all the hypotheticals, interruptions, outbursts, not following directions from JY & MY
Also things get heated on both sides at times but it is overwhelmingly on the JY side.

JY? Haircuts, waxing as gender affirming, validating my gender identity and sex as a woman?

MY - if not for JY, not for anyone, all are entitled, JY shouldn't be denied due to GID
JY? I'm with you a lot, describe discrimination you've seen (against me)?
MY - says discrimination in Tim Hortons', couldn't believe when JY told her about it in the car

JC - how relevant

Back & forth, JY, MY, and JC
MY wants people to know that Tim Horton's is against trans women, would not give JY food (only a drink)

Member says not relevant

JY? - In person waxing discrimination or harassment from certain cultures
MY - yes, customer service, online
MY - was an ER nurse for 20 years, had to take everyone, elderly, young, couldn't deny care to pregnant 14 year old though against my beliefs.
JY? Required to follow Canadian culture, align with CA values (talks about getting screwed over for a $40 cab ride), not use religion or culture to willfully discriminate

MY
- had to learn the law, culture, language to become Canadian
- came here to become Canadian
- has own beliefs, doesn't impose them
- practicing Jewish
- is immigrant, so was JY's father, Portuguese, speaks Portuguese

Member says off base, cuts her off
JY? With me when discriminated against online
MY - my reaction, my emotions, see now, same emotion now, wants to cry
MY says directly to JC - "you don't live my shoes"

JC wants it recorded that MY is castigating him. Member notes

JY starts reading, "Neo Nazism consists of.."
Member stops JY

JY - just giving background
Member says no
JY says online it comes up that I'm a rascist..
JY? Am I am rascist?
MY - no

JC objects, lots of talk, obvious that JY shared info from earlier in hearing with MY.

MY is told that she is not supposed to be hearing anything (while outside in hallway), "you are a witness"
JC has objection, JY had opportunity to discuss while giving evidence, MY's testimony must be about impact of refusal on JY, JY is calling MD a nazi

MY to JC - "you can object all you want"

MY then objects for her tax dollars to be used for hearing to be in session
JY? People say I target certain cultures, target immigrants, known fact that immigrants perform certain services?

MY - no doesn't target immigrants, yes certain immigrants

At this point Member calls out JC for laughing
(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)
JY? On my Twitter, had a seizure, lying in bed, due to harassment, refusal of service?
MY - yes
JY wants on record that MY was using JY's Twitter
MY - by JY's side, reveiwing, seeing tweets
JY wants on record that MY uses JY's twiiter
MY - by your side, reviewing, seeing tweets

JY shows MY a tweet )from JC's evidence submitted to lift the pub ban) it is tweet from JY to Lindsay Shepard & others about refusing service to people from India

JY? Write this?
MY - yes
JY starts to ask if MY wrote another tweet.

JC objects

- MY is supposed to testify re impact,
- JY is now improperly bootstrapping testimony in that JC has not been allowed to ask about during JY testimony.
- Having witness say she wrote the tweet
- JY has been discussing case online
- on JY's official Twitter account
- JY made comments about immigrants

JC says he will bring an application to re- cross JY

Member says no dispute that tweets came from JY's Twitter under JY's name.
Member says no more questions for MY about the tweets. MY wants to talk, stopped by Member. MY's direct testimony is over.

Breaking for the night.
Next JC will cross examine MY.

Just before then he will try to bring in some of the enormous online evidence of JY's alleged period fetish.
JC is going to begin his cross of MY, who says he speaks in a soft voice and asks if he can speak up.

JC begins by telling the Member that he wants to put on record 100's of tweets, web shots, FB posts (lots of SM) that he purports come from JY.
JC says JY wrote and talked about pads, tampons, tampon strings, using them, seeing them, periods, ejaculating on pads...

JC says he wasn't allowed to,ask JY about having a period but JY opened the door by asking MY about it. Says must defend his client to the extent of the law.
JC says he should be able to ask re

- JY being on a period (FB)
- working around the string (FB)
- where JY puts a tampon

Arose from above msgs that JY sent the first @JCCFCanada respondent - Member said then that JY only had to answer re ext. genitals not internal sex organs
JC says they will apply to reopen cross of JY (JC has been speaking the Member as is proper)

MY says directly to JC "not going to happen"

JC says goes to JY's credibility on tampons, will file rebuttals, is germane to GD's defence
Member agrees that JY opened door by asking MY about JY's supposed period but says nothing in her decision will hinge on it (will not consider that MY said JY has a period when deciding nature of JY's gender id) so no new cross on tampon/period/ejaculating on pads...etc evidence.
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
? 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)
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)
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
? 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?
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
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
? 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) did
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
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
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"
?Role in starting complaints?
MY - no role

JY objects to JC asking this.

MY - not aware of complaints/discrimination, just saw a distressed daughter, can read JY "like the palm of my hand" but couldn't pinpoint problem, until JY came to her, "why and why and why" (re denials)
?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)
? 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
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
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
- 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
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)
Here's a link to the Member written ruling lifting the ban👇

bchrt.gov.bc.ca/shareddocs/dec…
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!
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<
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...
@threadreaderapp unroll please
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to goinglikeelsie
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!