, 143 tweets, 25 min read Read on Twitter
Now tweeting notes from the 5th JY vs, Waxing ladies hearing I attended. Held yesterday, July 26/2019, at the BCHR Tribunal. This hearing consolidated three cases in which the respondents had not responded to the complaints filed by JY against them and did not attend the hearing
This is the last hearing of the 16 complaints filed by Jessica (formerly Jonathan) Yaniv for denial of waxing services, mainly genital waxing of JY's male genitals.

Note to Twitter: former name is relevant to hearing testimony
The majority of these complaints were filed against racialized women working from their homes who advertised their services on FB Marketplace.

Arrived to find that hearing has been moved to a larger more secure room.
New room is at the end of a long corridor with a locked door opening to another area before the actual hearing room door. Notice on first door says that people will be admitted 1 at a time and be required to show ID, also says no recording is allowed.
30 to 40 people already in line including supporters of the waxing ladies, a sizeable minority of People's Party of Canada supporters, some media including CTV, Jenn Smith and others, some of whom seemed to be there as a lark and were cracking jokes.
Went to the front of the line and stood with two nice ladies (thanks again!) who had been there since 8AM & said that others were there even earlier. Just after 10, Tribunal staff assisted by two security guards began to admit people, 1 by 1 into small area behind the locked door
Next was a desk set up with a numbered sign in sheet. Had to show ID , sign in and also sign a form promising to follow Tribunal rules, specifically against recording without permission. Then was given a printed business card with a number matching my # on the sign in sheet.
Card had details like date, name of case. If you left the Tribunal room, you were meant to show your card to return (not sure if you had to reshow ID too as I never left but assume so).

It's been put out by JY that security guards were there to protect JY from protesters.
IMO, security was all about the illicit recordings taken at the last hearing and for the protection of all.

Once through security, everyone entered the hearing room where JY was already seated with Miriam Yaniv (MY), JY's mother.
Took 30ish mins to fill the room and during that time, both guards were outside of the hearing room, not inside, protecting JY in any visible way except by their general presence at the check in. Also it seemed that any protesters were outside the actual (high rise) building
New room had 25 to 30 gallery seats, many people including press did not get in. Briefly considered exiting and finding an excluded press member to ask if they wanted my seat but didn't know if it would even be allowed and decided against it.
Present at start of hearing: Member Devlyn Cousineau, JY and MY. Member introduces herself.

JY then wants to clarify something "for the media" Member tells JY that clarification requests (& everything else presented in hearing) are for her not the media.
JY's clarification is to say that Press for Truth (PFT) and News Now Canada Independent Media (NNCIM) (both are men in attendance in hearing room) are "not media", are obnoxious and are not accredited press.

Member goes through brief outline of the 3 complaints to be heard.
All were filed under the name Jonathan Yaniv (JY's legal name at time) between March & June 2018. (JY has previously commented on how hard it is to change your name vs. changing your gender identity).

All for denial re some form of waxing including leg and brazillian waxing.
Complaints are against a Merle Norman (MD) franchise and two individual women, Pam Dulay (PD) and Hina Moin (HM).
Member must decide 5 things:

- nature of JY's gender identity
-scope of service (customarily provided by waxing ladies)
- was JY's gender id a factor in denial of service
-if gender id was a factor, is there a bonafide defence to discrimination claim
- what remedy if any
Preliminary matters:

JY requests Miram Yaniv be allowed to act as JY's representative (act as a lawyer would), will not be called by JY as witness - granted by Member.

JY asks for a waiver on Rule 21 to allow testimony from a new (found at last minute - not AB) expert witness
JY says "only for the facts", says has the right to counter @JCCFCanada expert witness, AB.
As you may recall, AB testified about the many differences between waxing male and female genitals, having to manipulate a penis and scrotum, and that many men become aroused and some request sexual services. 👇

JY says allowing new expert witness won't prejudice respondents' rights to counter incorrect facts as the new expert witness will be presenting only correct facts.

Member says no but JY wants to talk about it some more.
Just realized I used the waxing ladies' real names previously. So sorry ladies!
Member asks if JY wants her to allow just to back door testimony against @JCCFCanada expert witness.

Obviously JY has already made requests about this to the Member who says that she has already ruled on this twice in advance of today & has not changed her mind - no new expert.
JY wants to talk about something else.

Member tells JY that as Miriam Yaniv is now JY's representative, she should be speaking, not JY.

JY immediately cancels MY as representative.

Member says to MY that she is now a member of the public - MY not best pleased.
Next, JY wants to ban Press for Truth (man in gallery) from the hearing (maybe the premises too?). Talks about being assaulted by PFT, says PFT assaulted MY too, says had to call police on PFT.

JY says yes, had possession of "pepper spray", says it is now with security.
Note: security guys are seated together next to the hearing room door and occasionally stand up to survey the room.

Member asks PFT if true re hidden camera, PFT says no camera, will not record during hearing. Member denies JY's ban request, PFT allowed to observe.
JY then asks that both the PFT and NNCIM people be required to move and sit next to security guards. Both men react, verbally protest, Member says doesn't require their input.

Member denies JY's request, no one has to move.

JY has 1 more application (request).
JY requests a publication ban of former first name, Jonathan. JY does not want the name Jonathan in the media. No one should be reporting on JY's former name Jonathan.

Member says not in her power to ban media from using JY's former name Jonathan.
JY asks didn't Member do that for Morgane Oger in Oger v. Whatcott?
Member - no

Ready for testimony.

JY wants to start with respondent, Merle Norman, starts talking, then asked by Member to wait until sworn in.

Member swears in JY.
JY says that evidence against Merle Norman (MN) is JY audio recording of phone call that JY made to MN.

JY has made a transcript for Member, is going to read transcript not play audio, changes mind, will play audio

Member says JY to supply copy of recording and transcript
JY mentions also complaining to Ivanhoe Cambridge (lrg global property mgt & development company) and mall management.

Note: not BCHRT complaints

Claims that mall management told JY that mall tenants have a religious right, have reserved right to "refuse service to trans"
More on Ivanhoe Cambridge later.

JY plays audio, has muted part giving out own phone number:

MN - Good Morning..usual greeting...
JY - Do brazillian waxing? Would like a brazillian wax
MN - For today?
Back and forth about scheduling, finally decided

MN - for who
JY - Jonathan
MN - how is that spelled
JY - spells former name Jonathan
MN- phone #
JY - muted
JY - want to make sure that it's okay that I am transgender, do you do for trans?
MN - very sorry but cannot, girl who does brazillians cannot
JY - can't do for a trans woman
MN - no, so sorry
JY - "I guess I'll see you in court"

Note: obviously not a complete transcription by me & should mentioned that person answering MN phone appeared to have an accent.
Audio playback over.

JY says that on a later unrecorded call to MN, MN said that the woman who does their waxing could not provide a brazillian wax to JY because of their religious beliefs. Says call was quite heated, argued with MN.
Audio over.

JY says also filed complaint with Ivanhoe Cambridge (not a BCHR complaint) Claims they told JY that denial of brazillian wax is "unacceptable" and that JY's complaint is going to "affect their (Merle Norman's) lease".
Member asks why JY has recorded the first contact/service request call to MN?

JY says "I get (asked) that quite a bit"
Claims because of so much past discrimination, says wants to have a record now
Member asks about how big MN is

JY says this is a MN franchise. Claims to have talked to MN's corporate entity and been told discrimination like this is not allowed. Says have had brazillians at other MN franchises, just wanted to "have someone different do the wax".
JY starts to talk about another MN in Greater Vancouver, that would do MY's eyebrows, but not JY's - stopped by Member, not part of this case.

JY says that's it then, claims to have shown that MN would do brazillian wax on a male but not on a trans woman.
Member - you think MN understood you to be male at first, before you said trans, what makes you think that MN would have thought that you were male at first?

JY - they would have thought I was male because of my former (male sounding) name Jonathan and my (male sounding) voice
Note: please recall the many many many times that JY has previously claimed that there is no such thing as a male name or voice, that Jonathan is not a male name, that JY does not have a male voice or that indeed anyone can tell someone's sex by their name or voice.
Next will be JY's testimony about the other 2 respondents. As well, JY will attempt to explain past testimony re being denied service by a 10 year old & revise (on the fly) the $ amount requested from MN to 25K. Also that stuff about lesbians.

Back later today. Have a good one!
Back to continue BCHT Hearing JY v. Waxing ladies.

Need to back up a bit to tell about procedural matter at start of hearing. When the Member said no recording, she also said that this was waived for accredited journalists and asked if there were any in attendance.
Both men from Press for Freedom and News Now Canada Independent Media identify themselves as press and go to front of room to talk to the Member.

NNCIM shows Member the badge he has on a lanyard. She asks where it came from and he explains that he (himself) printed it.
Neither man is recognized as an accredited member of the media and will not be allowed to record the hearing. Seems that no accredited press is present to record the hearing. (This was when I considered leaving to find someone accredited and giving them my seat)
Continuing notes for the 5th BCHT Hearing attended, JY v. Waxing ladies. No respondents are present, JY has already given testimony about being refused a brazillian by a Merle Norman franchise.

JY will testify about HM next. HM has a typically Asian sounding name
HM had an ad on FB Marketplace offering threading, bleaching and waxing (arms and legs).

JY contacted her and HM replied, "Only for ladies"

JY responded, "I know how to read, I'm a woman"
Note: JY was using former name Jonathan at this time and JY's profile pic was the one with short dark hair, some makeup and the pink sparkly hat.

Recall that JY has testified that this pic was taken on a trip to Vegas.
@JurisCameron had questioned JY about this pic and the circumstances under which it was taken during another (SG's) hearing a few weeks ago👇

HM then continues the FB convo with JY, says she works from home, gives her address, asks when JY will come.

JY asks if HM does brazillians
HM says no only arms and legs
JY then tells HM, I'm transgender
HM says sorry but cannot do, not allowed by my husband
JY stops to say I was "pissed" at this point and takes a minute to explain about having another FB convo going at the same time as this one (with PD, next respondent in this hearing) to get service and being denied.

Wants to use to explain (justify) angry responses to HM.
JY - I will take you to the BCHRT
HM - says is out of wax right now
JY - (you are) "full of crap, don't lie to me"
HM - out of wax & husband won't allow
JY - (you are a) "discriminatory liar"

HM then blocked JY.
Member admits this FB convo as an exhibit. It is 4pgs and dated Aug 22/ 2018 - JY says I think I filed the BCHR complaint that same day.

Member and JY discuss why no profile info for JY shows up on the convo. JY says am not sure but thinks it is because JY was blocked by HM.
Member asks what HM would have seen as JY's profile at time

JY - former name Jonathan and pic (has been described as typically male) with short dark hair, some makeup and pink sparkly hat. JY also has copy of HM's ad.
JY then takes a minute to explain the special method JY used to contact next respondent, PD (sorry would describe but don't completely understand FB or FB Marketplace)

JY - (as a result of what I did) PD could not block me on FB, PD could not end her FB convo with me.
JY says had to do it that way because of blocking by other respondents.

Member asks JY, why ask about a brazillian when HM's ad doesn't mention brazillians?

JY says most waxers do "everything"
JY says wants to clear something up and continues by saying:

- a brazillian is not a genital waxing service
- a brazillian has nothing to do with genitals
- it is (merely) a wax from the belly button to the butt
- a brazillian has nothing to do with male or female genitals
Member asks JY, how can you say that?
JY - I wish my expert witness was allowed as she could explain

Member asks JY, why file multiple complaints and all at the same time?
JY says it's my usual practise to approach many providers at one time, see what's best, says number of complaints filed just illustrates the systemic discrimination that JY faces.
JY says that disallowed expert witness would testify that
waxing "on a vagina" is much harder because vaginas "have more folds" (than a penis & scrotum)

Laughter from the gallery. JY comments on the inappropriate giggles. Member cautions gallery, says to JY dealt with
JY says disallowed expert would say that waxers need more training to wax a vagina, they already know how to wax a penis & scrotum.

Then JY begins to talk about females becoming "wet" while getting brazillians. Says is true for lesbians and others. It "just happens to them"
Note: IMO JY is trying to counter @JCCFCanada's expert AB's testimony re men getting erections and requesting sexual services by saying women get aroused too, that they get "wet'
Also IMO, JY added the lesbian part to imply that because of their sexual orientation, waxing a lesbian is the equivalent of waxing a male - implying that lesbians are more likely to become aroused when touched by female waxer
JY continues:
- no difference between male and female arm, leg and pubic hair
- all waxers use all the same tools, not like a gynaecologist who need special tools
- says disallowed expert would testify that she doesn't even refer to anatomy, doesn't even ask about parts
Note: JY's expert could be a woman who was one of two waxers from the US quoted in a news story about JY. Both waxers provided services to trans women and one did mention being sensitive when talking about anatomy and genitals - cannot find it so welcome any links in replies
But keep in mind that we only have JY's word that an expert was even willing to testify and if true may not have been one of these women.

Only a relevant link to possibly show what she said & it's context as opposed to JY's characterization of what was said (no pile ons pls!)
Member tells JY, clear you are using your testimony to back door the testimony of disallowed expert witness, will not allow

JY - yes, testimony would have come from disallowed expert witness, wants to testify about it to inform the media, counter expert AB's (public) testimony
Member says your testimony is for me, not the media

JY mentions (I was) "on Fox, two days ago", laughs.

JY's testimony about HM is over, next will testify about PD.

First JY wants to address reports about being denied waxing by a 10 year old.
JY says 10 yr old was pretending to be esthetician (at someone's request) to give denial so JY would not be able file complaint - wouldn't be able to file complaint against 10 yr old. Says gets lots of excuses, stuff like this going on, same thing with these complaints
Member asks, how relevant to these cases?

JY - unrelated but shows the systemic discrimination that JY faces, people using their "extreme culture" that is "biased against trans". Then begins to describe being attacked on the Skytrain (for UK - read the Tube)

Member stops JY
Member says is not relevant to these cases and allowing would be unfair to respondents.

Next will be JY's testimony about PD.
JY will also talk about "trans friendly Vancouver", disclose a newly filed complaint, read a harassing email received during hearing, discuss how sex is only a social construct, and enumerate the costs, plus interest that the Member should require respondents to pay JY. Back soon
Back to tweet notes of JY's testimony against PD, the third of three respondents in this JY v. Waxing ladies BCHRT hearing. JY has now testified about MN & HM

JY begins by reading out the FB Marketplace conversation with PD, says May 21, 2018 3:53 PM, (corrects date later)
PD's ad says that she is a home based certified hair & make up artist also providing waxing services for arms/ legs and brazillians

JY - available?
PD - yes, what service (are you interested in)
JY - "perfect", says brazillian wax, asks price
PD - gives price - only 20$ (poor PD must really need the money)
JY - good price

JY stops reading to tell Member, "which it was" (a good price). JY says to Member, I just had one (a brazillian) 2 weeks ago that cost much more
JY confirms with PD that the price is 20$ for a brazillian and asks if she's licensed, she says yes.

JY - do you do the butt too?
JY explains to Member that they don't always do the butt.
PD - yes, butt is included in brazillian
JY - I have transitioned to female, am trans, hope that is okay
PD - no reply

Recall that PD is the respondent that JY spoke about contacting in such a way that PD would not be able to block JY.
Next day at 7:51 AM

JY - Answer me
PD - no response

At 11:52 AM

JY says I reached out again
PD - no response

At 2:25 PM

JY - Why are you ignoring me?

PD finally responds saying that her grandmother has died and she won't be able to book any appointments.
JY then clarifies with Member that this convo is from March 2018, not May.

JY says first contact with PD was March 19, 2018.

JY filed complaint the next day on March 20, 2018.
Member asks about PD's ad

JY - describes as graphic with pink background, had PD's name, phone number and address in Richmond.
Note: PD has a racialized last name.

FYI, Richmond is commonly known to have a high proportion of Asian Canadians including immigrants. Much like the Indo - Canadian community in Surrey, home to several of JY's other respondents. Most are Chinese, Filipino and Punjabi ladies
More discussion of PD's ad.

Member asks JY - "From your perspective" when you reach out to these service providers, are you setting them up.

JY - no, just wanted service.
JY then talks about MY requesting a facial but as soon as she say it is for JY who is trans, no service.

JY says that MY has had to have "beefy" conversations with some people about it

JY tells Member, I have submitted a new BCHR complaint for denial of service re a facial.
Testimony about PD is over.

Member discusses next step in hearing - closing arguments - with JY.

Closing can be oral submission given now or JY can submit written at a scheduled date.
Member says closing should address the five things at issue:

- the nature of JY's gender identity
- scope of services customarily offered
- was JY's GI element of denial of service
- if yes, was denial allowed (bonafide defence)
- remedy if any
1 by 1
- the nature of JY's gender identity

In testimony, JY claims to be trans woman, female, a girl, intersex, has both male and female genitals but one "set" is deformed, can use tampons, gets a period, has a male former name of Jonathan and a male voice...
... but also names or voices can't be male so JY's former name Jonathan can't be male name, embodies all aspects of being a woman, was a little diva prancing around the house, preferred girl clothes and girls toys, used to get severe abdominal cramping...
..knew was girl since age six, wanted to be a princess, has been targeted because of gender identity, has officially changed gender id and name for former name Jonathan to Jessica and "gender affirming care" is essential to JY's well being

(I am sure I've missed some)
Adding: was a boy, now a girl, was born both a girl and boy, transitioned to female, was always female, gender id is own to define, cannot be defined by others, gender id has nothing to do with genitals or sex, no one can tell is a trans woman, is just like any other woman....
Next
- scope of services customarily offered

Was JY asking for a service offered by provider - if ad for arm wax and requested brazillian. Or if unisex offering, would that include trans women & men according to BCHR Code.
Most importantly (IMO) will be if/how the Member addresses services offered for women re including trans women, do they, don't they, does it depend on legal status of gender id, does it depend on having male or female genitals, does it depend on having surgery or taking hormones
- was JY's gender identity a factor in denial of service

Did respondents understand what a gender identity is, what being a trans woman is? Were they okay to provide service until finding out JY is trans? Did they think JY was male and said ok until finding out JY is trans?
Were they okay until they found out JY has male genitals? Does denying JY for having male genitals implicate JY's gender id as being factor of denial?
- if JY's gender id was factor, was denial allowed - do the respondents have a bonafide defence.

Section 8 of the BCHR Code prohibits discrimination in accommodation, service and facility and says:

8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification
Recall that the Code covers only public services so a defence could be that offering genital waxes in your private residence or going to another's private residence is a private service so not within the scope of the code.
The BCHC Code says:

(2) A person does not contravene this section by discriminating

(a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or
IANAL but this section could provide a defence: if gender discrimination is sex discrim (previous ruling before GID was added to code), ok to refuse service to JY as female sex because of decency - requiring a female to wax a female with male genitals (I know!) is indecent?
Member may provide clarity around the intersection of the protected characteristics in these cases - sex, religion, marital status, ancestry, race, colour, place of origin, gender identity and gender expression.
Respondents have to show they acted in good faith and couldn't accommodate JY without experiencing undue hardship.

@JurisCameron brought up many defences based on protected characteristics in his cases before the Tribunal that we can discuss later.
- remedy if any

From the Tribunal website:

"If the complainant wins their case, the Tribunal will order a remedy for the discrimination. The purpose of the remedy is to put the complainant in the position they would have been in if the discrimination did not happen."
"It is meant to compensate the complainant, not punish the respondent."

Possible remedies follow:
Cease and refrain order

This orders the person who discriminated to stop the discrimination and not to commit the same or similar discrimination again. The Tribunal must make this order if it finds the complaint justified.
Declaratory order

This says that the conduct complained of or similar conduct is discrimination.
Steps or programs to address the discrimination

If the discrimination is part of a pattern or practice, the Tribunal can order the respondent to take action or adopt a program to fix the discrimination.
Compensation for expenses

A complainant can provide receipts or other evidence to prove expenses because of the discrimination. This could be expenses to attend the hearing, or expenses to prove the complaint, like the cost of a medical report.
Compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect

A complainant gives evidence about how the discrimination affected their dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The Tribunal considers the circumstances of the case such as:

The nature of the discrimination
The vulnerability of the complainant
The effect of the discrimination on the complainant
More info about compensation re dignity, feelings and respect, guidelines, average comp..etc 👇

bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-d…
Back to the hearing.

Member calls a morning break and JY will give closing arguments when hearing resumes.
Going to break too but will tell you about a couple of things first.

On break, I checked with the security guard as I was sure I misheard when JY talked about having "pepper spray". Nope, JY has some kind of spray that was now in possession of guard during the hearing.
Next, Jenn Smith was having a conversation with JY.

Overheard Jenn asking JY if respondents may have assumed (JY had undergone) SRS.

Miriam Yaniv interrupted to say "Don't answer, my advice". MY told both JY and Jenn to "shut up!"

JY told Jenn, I will find a screenshot
Miriam Yaniv tells Jenn that no one is allowed to interview JY (note from me: not Irish radio hosts, not Infowars, not Fox News, not the CBC - FINALLY..anyway you get it).

Miriam says the consequence of JY talking to Jenn is "me ending up in Emergency!"

Back with closing
Hearing is back from break.

JY wants to read an email saying it was received during the break. Decides, no, won't read, tries to show to Member then does read part of it out loud.

Email calls JY a loser, garbage, a low life pedophile and makes an antisemitic remark.
Member discusses oral closing arguments with JY. JY estimates needing an hour to present closing.

Member says too long, closing should be legal argument and discuss remedy, refer to facts but should not take an hour.

JY's says argument is 23 pgs when printed but will cut down
JY begins by defining transphobia

- fear, mistrust and hatred of trans people
- can prevent trans people from living full lives
- can take many forms including not using preferred pronouns
- can be subtle or overt
- is taught by religion, culture, strict parents
JY talks about feeling hopelessness and having overdosed.

JY moves on to the definition of trans
- broad term
- what it means to be a woman or man, a girl or a boy
- not simple
- gender identity is a right
- access to "gender affirming care" is a right
- trans women are women
- trans women are not male
- biological sex (as a concept) is harmful to trans women
- biological sex is used to justify harm to trans females
- people think sex is biological and gender is subjective, not true
- sex and gender are both social constructs
- gender identity wasn't recognized in the past
- gender is more complicated than just a person's sex
- basing gender on a person's sex is oppressive and this oppression continues even in places that are "trans accepting like Vancouver"
- biological sex has (wrongly) stuck around
- biological sex needs to undergo same changes as gender has gone through

JY then talks about "the five ways" to determine a person's biological sex

-chromosomes: most people have no idea which they or other people have, most don't get them tested, can't tell without testing
- hormones: are not visible, no one can tell which ones people have without testing, can't tell just by looking at someone
- secondary sex characteristics: before puberty girls and boys are not that different, describes development after puberty, says wide variety in development, uses breasts as an example, some women have big breasts, some have small breasts
JY continues describing why secondary sex characteristics don't determine sex:

- they are just an overlay
- people don't just fit in one box, either penis or vagina
-they can be changed with hormones and surgery

JY says I take estrogen

- someone can take puberty blockers
Note: JY's listing and discussion of the five ways (chromosomes, hormones, secondary sexual characteristics, gonads, and external genitalia) to determine sex jumps around a bit.

JY says having your sex assigned at birth doesn't mean having that sex for life.
JY
- genitals can be changed, trans women can get "neo vaginas, trans me can get phalloplasty
- if a female gets cancer and has her ovaries removed is she no longer female

JY says 4 out of the 5 ways can change or be changed, only chromosomes stay the same.
JY - a trans woman who took puberty blockers, then has hormone therapy and has undergone surgery would match 3 out of the 5 ways to tell if someone is female.

Member jumps in to ask JY, "what to make of this" how does JY's definition of sex apply to these cases
JY says it shows that sex and sex characteristics can be changed.

Member reminds JY of the 5 issues to be resolved/decided and they go through them 1 by 1

Gender Identity
- JY says is legally female, a transgender woman
Scope of services

- JY says the respondents offered leg, arm and brazillian waxing and describes this as "gender affirming care"
- says has met all criteria to prove prima facie (accepted as correct unless proven otherwise) discrimination as defined by Section 8 of the BCHR Code
Gender ID as factor in denial

- JY says no problem in providing service until I said I was a trans woman
Bonafide defence if Gender ID is factor

- JY says no, you could put Sikh or Muslim in there (instead of gender id) same thing, still wrong, could be X protected characteristic or Y protected characteristic, could be Jews, Hindu (instead of gender id) it's still discrimination
Next will be the "Remedy" if any:

First, JY wants 10K from Merle Norman

Member asks basis for that amount
JY
- claims MN was okay with bio female or bio male, just not trans

Recall, JY claimed using JY' male former name Jonathan and having a male voice meant MN thought JY was male. Also recall the many times JY said JY's former name Jonathan wasn't male & neither was voice
And many times denied that a name could even be male or female

JY says basis for requesting 10K is also because of the conversation had with MN, the day after the denial. JY's says rights as trans woman were not valued, only religion, it was disrespectful
Member says so requesting compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect?

JY - yes

Member asks if JY has any case law to support that specific amount

JY starts looking through stuff for case law..to be submitted if found.
JY also wants interest on the 10K, asks Member if she knows the interest rate that JY could get - she doesn't

JY also wants a " statement" (seems to mean the Declaratory Order) that the discrimination of MN against JY is a violation of BCHR Code
Also asks Member if she can say if MN violated the Canadian Human Rights Code or not - no, she can't

Wants Member to say that refusing service based on protected characteristic of gender id is discrimination on its face. (think JY really means no defence to it)
Next JY wants $7500 from PD, says knows Member won't give costs, thinks should get because PD isn't there, also acknowledges she didn't have to show up.

Wants a statement re violation of code and an order, if she is still in business, that she change her policies & procedures
Member asks why $ difference with MN

JY - MN is corporate so could set bar higher (on $, not on MN's behaviour?), also says MN is out of business, says could ask for more anyway, could ask for 25k...

JY then says "you know what, I'm going to change" to 25K for Merle Norman
Note: I seem to have missed an important point!

JY had disclosed reaching a (financial) settlement with Ivanhoe Cambridge (lrg global company) at the same time in the hearing as talking about this👇

Next JY requests $7500 from HM.

Says she made multiple excuses, says I know she can't repond but she does not have "clean hands, or any hands at all" in this matter.
JY says HM used her husband and being out of wax as excuses. Requests statement stating HM discriminated against JY and that HM be ordered to change her policies and procedures.

JY's closing is over. Discussion with Member about getting copy of MN audio and transcript
Member says she will rule after all submissions to these and the @JCCFCanada hearing. Says will be in November.

JY says - hope you will "give me a Christmas present", then laughs

Member says hearing is closed.
Last words from Miram Yaniv:

CBC reporter has entered room and is talking to JY. JY agrees to interview and wants to bring disallowed expert witness in. MY joins in the conversation complaining about what she and JY have gone through.

MY - I have "become the puppet!"
Still loads of people in hallway, Jenn Smith is being interviewed on camera in elevator lobby.

Outside, it's a beautiful afternoon. No demos in sight.

Happy to head home for lunch - doing your little part to defend women's sex based rights really builds an appetite.

- fin-
@threadreaderapp unroll pls
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!