Wow, for once I think @yyy may actually be on to something! 
@tempogain you think it’s impolite of me to say hairy testicle complaint, right?
If I counted every time Mr. Dickus has emphasized the complainant’s genitals, I would run out of tentacles on which to count! Just trying to provide some context.
You’re looking at it with hindsight. The person receiving the complaint doesn’t have that luxury. The person receiving the complaint has only the complainant’s version of the story, which may be incomplete and may even be mendacious.
As for similar cases involving one party repeatedly, that’s not as unusual as you might think.
So he’s calling them genocidal because of his perception of their compulsion of his use of pronouns. I still think he’s nuts.
Careful, Doc. Are you a Beatles fan? 
Impolite? No, it just seems like it’s putting an oddly humorous slant on the situation.
But whoever those people are, their entire function is to reject complaints not rising to the level of discrimination. Unless their entire function is a complete joke, some complaints are rejected. I think it’s you that’s making the assumption here, that there was some kind of incompleteness, mendacity, etc. The bare facts of the case suggest otherwise. This is not a complex situation. Anyway, enough of this back and forth for me.
That’s fine, but I don’t care. I was only disputing the point that he has an anti trans agenda, as I’ve said several times. I guess you don’t dispute that or aren’t interested in discussing it, so I will leave this there as well.
I’ll agree to disagree with you on this, but I think you underestimate the creativity of militant troublemakers (or the lawyers they hire) and overestimate the capacity of overworked public servants. 
1 Like
Been reading and listening to J.P. I can say honestly that the gender politics controversy is actually barely a footnote in his works. I may be biased because personally I never found gender politics to be that interesting. His interpretation of religion and mythology from a psychological perspective is more.
2 Likes
In October 2019 the BC Human Right’s Tribunal dismissed Yaniv’s case. Yaniv then filed a further complaint against some Sikh women which was again sent to Tribunal on January 7th. The Tribunal then decided to defer any cases brought by Yaniv for 6 months unless she pays her outstanding fines from her previous failed complaints.
She is still getting her complaints sent to Tribunal. OK, in the complaint against the Sikh women maybe the reasoning was because she downgraded her Brazilian to a leg wax, but she is still getting them through.
1 Like
If the Toronto City Council ran a bring out yer dead horse service like I facetiously suggested, some cretin suing because they wouldn’t collect his dead donkey would be one thing, but then the same cretin suing because they wouldn’t collect his dead mule would be something else. (A mule is just as much a horse as it is a donkey.) And that rare creature, a mule-horse hybrid (three quarters horse), would be still another thing.
Just sayin’.
I don’t know what reason the human right’s commission used to justify sending the latest complaint to tribunal, but the overworked public servants are still doing it.
It seems pretty clear to me that they have an agenda. This is a trans access to services issue for them. I don’t believe that Yaniv is sneaking frivolous complaints past them.
EDIT: Here we go:
OHRC Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane: “Transgender people have the right to access services and facilities based on their lived gender identity. Anything less is discriminatory."
I was thinking of this. You didn’t explicitly say you wanted it repealed, but I’m surprised by the notion that you don’t want it repealed.
I don’t think whether I want it appealed or not changes the arguments presented. It wasn’t the point of what people were saying.
Maybe, but they may have simply been unsure about the implications of relevant law. I’ve been arguing that that’s absurd in the case of a demand for people providing vagina services to wax balls, and it is. I wonder what the actual applicable law was? I’ll have to look it up. Anyway, if they were unsure, it seems logical that they wouldn’t be any less unsure now, if it’s now a request about waxing legs.
Or they might just have an agenda.
I’m realizing I’ve been overlooking a few things now. What was the exact rationale behind the Tribunal’s previous decision? I see it required a 61-page report!!! Fucking hell! How about this: “Women don’t have to wax your balls, you fucking schmuck.” That seems like enough. I’ll have to track down that report and try to take a look or find a summary. I see some mention that Yaniv’s history of racist comments somehow played into the decision, which is just stunning when you think about it.
2 Likes
Ontario Human Rights Code?
This was in BC.
1 Like
I can’t imagine how this could take 61 pages to explain.
Good point. Oops!
“In this decision, I analyse Ms. Yaniv’s complaints in two categories: genital waxing cases and cases involving arm and leg waxing. In the genital waxing cases, I find that scrotum waxing was not a service customarily provided by the Respondents. As such, they did not deny Ms. Yaniv a service and did not discriminate against her. I dismiss these complaints under s. 37(1) of the Code. In the leg and arm waxing cases, I find that Ms. Yaniv filed the complaints for improper purposes. I dismiss these complaints under s. 27(1)(e) of the Code.”
In October 2019 the Tribunal dismissed Yaniv’s complaint regarding refusal of a leg wax, but the BC Human Rights Commission in January passed another complaint from Yaniv through to the Tribunal.
EDIT: The 61 page decision is a fascinating read, by the way. I’m having great fun reading it now and I’ve only got to page 9.
Interesting, sounds logical. Do you have a link to the whole thing?
I provided it earlier in my Canadian geography error post.
It’s well worth reading. You’ll love it!
2 Likes