Note to Twitter: former name is relevant to hearing testimony
Arrived to find that hearing has been moved to a larger more secure room.
It's been put out by JY that security guards were there to protect JY from protesters.
Once through security, everyone entered the hearing room where JY was already seated with Miriam Yaniv (MY), JY's mother.
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.
Member goes through brief outline of the 3 complaints to be heard.
All for denial re some form of waxing including leg and brazillian waxing.
- 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
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
Member says no but JY wants to talk about it some more.
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.
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.
JY says yes, had possession of "pepper spray", says it is now with security.
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.
Member denies JY's request, no one has to move.
JY has 1 more application (request).
Member says not in her power to ban media from using JY's former name Jonathan.
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 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
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"
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?
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?
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.
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.
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".
JY says "I get (asked) that quite a bit"
Claims because of so much past discrimination, says wants to have a record now
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 says that's it then, claims to have shown that MN would do brazillian wax on a male but not on a trans woman.
JY - they would have thought I was male because of my former (male sounding) name Jonathan and my (male sounding) voice
Back later today. Have a good one!
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.
NNCIM shows Member the badge he has on a lanyard. She asks where it came from and he explains that he (himself) printed it.
JY will testify about HM next. HM has a typically Asian sounding name
JY contacted her and HM replied, "Only for ladies"
JY responded, "I know how to read, I'm a woman"
Recall that JY has testified that this pic was taken on a trip to Vegas.
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
Wants to use to explain (justify) angry responses to HM.
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 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.
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 - (as a result of what I did) PD could not block me on FB, PD could not end her FB convo with me.
Member asks JY, why ask about a brazillian when HM's ad doesn't mention brazillians?
JY says most waxers do "everything"
- 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
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?
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
Then JY begins to talk about females becoming "wet" while getting brazillians. Says is true for lesbians and others. It "just happens to them"
- 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
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!)
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
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 - 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
Next will be JY's testimony about PD.
JY begins by reading out the FB Marketplace conversation with PD, says May 21, 2018 3:53 PM, (corrects date later)
JY - available?
PD - yes, what service (are you interested in)
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 - 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
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.
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 says first contact with PD was March 19, 2018.
JY filed complaint the next day on March 20, 2018.
JY - describes as graphic with pink background, had PD's name, phone number and address in Richmond.
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
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 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.
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.
- 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
- 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...
(I am sure I've missed some)
- 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.
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?
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
(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
@JurisCameron brought up many defences based on protected characteristics in his cases before the Tribunal that we can discuss later.
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."
Possible remedies follow:
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.
This says that the conduct complained of or similar conduct is 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.
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.
A complainant gives evidence about how the discrimination affected their dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The nature of the discrimination
The vulnerability of the complainant
The effect of the discrimination on the complainant
Member calls a morning break and JY will give closing arguments when hearing resumes.
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.
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 says the consequence of JY talking to Jenn is "me ending up in Emergency!"
Back with closing
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 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
- 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 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 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 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
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
- 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
JY says having your sex assigned at birth doesn't mean having that sex for life.
- 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.
Member jumps in to ask JY, "what to make of this" how does JY's definition of sex apply to these cases
Member reminds JY of the 5 issues to be resolved/decided and they go through them 1 by 1
- JY says is legally female, a transgender woman
- 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
- JY says no problem in providing service until I said I was a trans woman
- 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
First, JY wants 10K from Merle Norman
Member asks basis for that amount
- 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
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
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 a " statement" (seems to mean the Declaratory Order) that the discrimination of MN against JY is a violation of BCHR Code
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)
Wants a statement re violation of code and an order, if she is still in business, that she change her policies & procedures
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
JY had disclosed reaching a (financial) settlement with Ivanhoe Cambridge (lrg global company) at the same time in the hearing as talking about this👇
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's closing is over. Discussion with Member about getting copy of MN audio and transcript
JY says - hope you will "give me a Christmas present", then laughs
Member says hearing is closed.
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!"
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.