Jaydee

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    5,207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    146

Jaydee last won the day on July 1

Jaydee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

958 Excellent

About Jaydee

  • Rank
    7

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,565 profile views
  1. There is a solution to this “problem”...simply hire Lorina Bobbit as an assistant! Accusations fly at human rights hearing into transgender woman's Brazilian wax complaint A substantive question remained at the core of the raucous daylong hearing: should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity? Jessica Yaniv, a transgender woman in B.C., describes herself as an LGBTQ activist.Courtesy Jessica Yaniv VANCOUVER — A B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing devolved into repeated outbursts and name-calling this week as it considered a transgender woman’s complaint that a home-based salon discriminated against her by denying her a Brazilian wax. At one point, the complainant compared the business owner to a neo-Nazi. The lawyer for the business owner accused the complainant of engaging in “half-truths and fabrications.” Tribunal adjudicator Devyn Cousineau frequently had to interject to maintain decorum and to keep the hearing from careening off course. But a substantive question remained at the core of the raucous daylong hearing: should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity? Jessica Yaniv, the complainant, told the hearing she was entitled to receive the advertised wax service and that if the tribunal ruled against her it could lead to a “dangerous” precedent. “You cannot choose who your clientele is going to be,” she said. However, business owner Marcia Da Silva said she was not comfortable carrying out a Brazilian wax on a person with male genitalia, nor did she have the training for it. Jay Cameron, Da Silva’s lawyer and litigation manager with the Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, told the hearing that a ruling against his client would be tantamount to ordering “intimate services” against someone’s will. The complaint heard Wednesday is one of more than a dozen filed by Yaniv, who describes herself as a digital marketing expert and LGBTQ activist. All allege she was the subject of discrimination by salons. A few complaints have been settled without hearing or withdrawn. Yaniv also made headlines recently for engaging in a social media spat with free-speech advocate Lindsay Shepherd, in which they both made disparaging remarks about each other. Twitter subsequently banned Shepherd from the platform, but not Yaniv. The tribunal had initially issued a publication ban shielding Yaniv’s identity, but on Wednesday Cousineau decided to lift the ban based on Yaniv’s social media presence and public advocacy. At Wednesday’s hearing, Yaniv, who is representing herself, said she came upon a Facebook ad in spring 2018 offering a promotion for a Brazilian wax, which involves the removal of pubic hair around the groin. Da Silva testified she had just started her home-based business after previously performing waxes on family and friends. Yaniv was the first person to respond to her ad, she said. They agreed over text message to an afternoon appointment. But Yaniv testified that after identifying herself as transgender and sending Da Silva a selfie, Da Silva cancelled the session. Da Silva told the tribunal, “I have no problem with LGBT.” She said she was just not comfortable waxing male genitals. The idea also did not sit well with her husband, she said. Further, she didn’t have any experience doing it. Everyone has the right to decide who comes in to their home, she added, noting that she was also uncomfortable with the persistent messages she was getting from Yaniv. “For my safety, I said, ‘No,’” she testified. Da Silva told the tribunal she defined someone who is transgender as a person who has undergone sex-reassignment surgery. She responded affirmatively when asked if she’d perform the waxing service on someone who had undergone such surgery. Yaniv said the advertisement Da Silva posted was open to the public and didn’t come with any conditions. She said that Da Silva should have accepted that Yaniv identifies as female rather than make assumptions about her based on appearance. “Your gender identity is your own,” Yaniv testified. “We live in a different day and age now.” At one point, Yaniv equated the denial of service to neo-Nazism. Under cross-examination, Cameron put to Yaniv that Brazilian waxes were services performed only around female genitalia and that what Yaniv should have sought was a “brozilian” — waxes that involve male genitalia. That prompted Yaniv to tell the tribunal that she was intersex and that she had female body parts. “It exists,” she said, declining to elaborate. Cameron accused her of an outright “fabrication.” “You’re attempting to mislead the tribunal,” he said. Cameron called Yaniv’s credibility into question and earlier suggested that Yaniv had used a fake Facebook profile of a pregnant woman when she initially sought out the waxing service, a claim Yaniv denied. The tribunal heard that Da Silva shut down her salon business after her encounter with Yaniv. Earlier this month the JCCF also represented two other aestheticians who were the subject of similar complaints from Yaniv. One of them, a Sikh woman, said she declined to provide the waxing service for religious and safety reasons, according to a column posted by John Carpay, the centre’s president, on the website The Post Millennial. Businesses shouldn’t be allowed to use religion and culture to refuse service, Yaniv said. The justice centre obtained an expert who operates a men-only salon, Carpay wrote. That expert testified male clients will often get aroused when receiving waxing services. Also, the ideal wax for male genitals is different because the skin is very thin. Over the past year, the centre has made headlines for launching a legal challenge in Alberta against a law surrounding the formation of school clubs that are designed to support LGBTQ students (gay-straight alliances), specifically the section that prevents parents from being notified if their child joins one. In a speech Carpay also compared the rainbow pride flag to the swastika, comments for which he later apologized. Decisions on the various human rights complaints are not expected for weeks. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/accusations-fly-at-human-rights-hearing-into-transgender-womans-brazilian-wax-complaint
  2. Considering that SFO is in play here, one would think manhole was somewhat fitting. Can’t wait for the protests.
  3. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/assessing-canadas-energy-sector-competitiveness
  4. Ontario family files human rights complaint after six-year-old girl upset by gender theory in school The following story has its source in an application filed before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by Jason and Pamela Buffone, on behalf of their daughter “N,” against the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity in contravention of the Human Rights Code. In January of 2018, in a Grade One class at Devonshire Community Public School, part of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board network, six-year-old N watched a YouTube video as part of her teacher’s lesson plan on gender. N is the kind of child, her mother Pamela told me in a telephone interview, that adores school—or did until the particular morning that prompted this column. The video was entitled, “He, She and They?!?—Gender: Queer Kid Stuff #2.” The video contained statements such as, “some people aren’t boys or girls,” and that there are people who do not “feel like a ‘she’ or a ‘he,’” and therefore might not have a gender. The young teacher, whom I will refer to by her initials, JB, continued to teach gender theory throughout the semester. According to N’s feedback to her mother, JB told the children that “there is no such thing as girls and boys,” and “girls are not real and boys are not real.” By mid-March, N’s parents could see the lessons were having an impact on their daughter, as she began spontaneously and repeatedly asking them why her identity as a girl was “not real.” She asked if she could “go to a doctor” about the fact that she was a girl. She said she was “not sure if she wanted to be a mommy.” (Ms Buffone explained to N that grown-up women had a choice, but was concerned that the subject was coming up in Grade One gender lessons.) The Buffones were naturally alarmed by their daughter’s persisting signs of confusion, as she had never previously shown a single sign of discontent regarding her biological reality. Ms Buffone therefore met with JB in March to discuss the impact of the gender discussions on her daughter. JB, they could see, was very committed to the teaching of gender fluidity as a reflection of “a change within society.” She told Ms Buffone that gender fluidity was the School Board policy, that some children are struggling with the idea that gender is binary and confirmed that the topic of sex change had come up for discussion. She did not appear unduly concerned about N’s personal distress, and did nothing to affirm N’s female identity. The Buffones then contacted the school principal, Julie Derbyshire. In a telephone call, Ms Buffone says, Ms Derbyshire explained that JB had initiated the lessons to accommodate a child in the class who had expressed interest in self-expression as the opposite sex. (There was in fact a child exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria in Grade One of that school, who was being teased on that account. But, according to Ms Buffone, as she later learned, the parents of the child did not want the issue to be addressed by lessons on gender; they merely wanted the other children to be taught to act respectfully and not to bully their child.) Ms Derbyshire did not offer to consult with the school’s “gender specialist” about affirmation of non-questioning students like N. Determined to elicit a response that addressed the issue substantively, the Buffones pressed on, eventually meeting with the Superintendent of the School Board and the Curriculum Superintendent. According to the complaint, “The School Board did not agree to communicate with parents when sensitive discussions took place, nor did they agree to issue any directive or take corrective action in order to ensure that children of female gender identity were positively affirmed.” At this point, feeling stonewalled at every step of the hierarchical ladder from bottom to top, the Buffones made the decision to enrol N at another school where, Ms Buffone tells me, she is doing well and where, she has told her family, she is happy she will not have a teacher who says that “girls are not real.” Last October, N reportedly told her mother, “This table is real, and this fan is real, and even if the fan was made out of cardboard, it’s still real.” Stories related to gender identity in childhood usually have for their protagonist a child who is distressed over the disparity between her or his biological reality and their perceived gender. The scenario often presents educators as enlightened, affirming allies of the child, while the parents, behind the times, so to speak, resist affirmation and cause the child further anxiety. In these cases the injustice to the child seems pretty clear cut to many rights-attuned Canadians. The child’s right to express his or her gender identity trumps the parents’ right to oppose it. Here we have the opposite case. N’s gender identity is—or was—seamless comfort in her biological skin. She had never questioned that comfort. Suddenly she was told to believe that at any moment, what she believes to be real—that she is a girl—may not be true. How very frightening that thought must be to a child who is not old enough to grasp the abstract concept of gender fluidity. Her parents are the allies here, and her educational environment is where she fails to find affirmation. Why could she not be accommodated as well as the questioning child? Why did this situation have to end up at a human rights tribunal? It wasn’t, after all, an either-or choice, and a little compromise on the part of JB and her superiors would easily have defused the situation, and alleviated the Buffones’ concern. Why couldn’t JB have explained that discomfort with one’s gender identity does occur, but rarely (fact); that it is often a passing phase (fact); that non-conforming dress and play preferences in childhood are normal and only infrequently indicative of deep or lasting dissatisfaction with one’s biological sex (fact); that most children stop having these doubts when they are teenagers (fact); most important, that almost all children are perfectly happy being exactly what they are (fact) and those children should not worry that they are not “real” boys or girls. Where was the difficulty in saying these things? N would have been reassured, and the one child in the class who was experiencing gender confusion would not have been adversely affected. The Buffones’ HRTO application concludes that JB “subjected N to ongoing discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity, by a series of lessons that denied the existence of the female gender and biological sex and undermined the value of identifying as a female.”; ii) “The Principal and School Board perpetuated and reinforced the discrimination that N experienced in her Grade One classroom, as neither Ms. Derbyshire nor any school board official took any corrective action to remedy it.” Their requested remedy is that the Tribunal order the Board i) to ensure that classroom instruction “not devalue, deny, or undermine in any way the female gender identity”; ii) to mandate teachers to “inform parents when lessons on gender identity will take place or have taken place, including the teaching objectives and the materials that will be or have been used for such lessons”; and iii) to pay the Buffones $5,000.00 in general damages “to compensate for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the discrimination.” The School Board’s lawyer responded to the application with a request that the application be dismissed “on the basis that the Application has no reasonable prospect for success,” denying the allegations and promising to provide a “fulsome Response should the Tribunal not dismiss this matter by way of Summary Hearing.” Citing another complaint against the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the response pointed to the Tribunal’s finding that the Tribunal did “not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness,” and that the facts, even if true, “do not engage any prohibit (sic) ground of discrimination as set out in the [Human Rights] Code.” Also noted was the fact that teachers’ right to teach gender identity is endorsed by the Minister of Education, and that “[t]he age-appropriateness of a classroom discussion does not engage a Code-protected prohibited ground.” In short, even if N was adversely affected by the teacher’s lessons, she has no grounds for redress according to the Human Rights Code. How will this play out? The School Board is taking a “letter of the law” approach. They are basically stipulating that the Buffones’ account of N’s experience is factual, but irrelevant. In other words, they don’t deny the lessons had an adverse effect on the child’s psychological well-being. They are simply saying that whether or not she has been adversely affected is not, legally speaking, grounds for a human rights complaint. But the Ontario Human Rights Commission defines “discrimination” pretty broadly. In our interview Ms Buffone told me: “The Ontario Human rights Code states that a poisoned environment is a form of discrimination. We’re going to provide evidence that the manner in which [JB] was teaching the concept of gender identity resulted in a poisoned environment. The principal further exacerbated the situation in that the only option provided to us was to remove our daughter from the classroom for these lessons, which is exclusionary treatment.” Will this be as persuasive an argument for the HRTO as it seems to me? “This is an important case,” says Ms Buffone. “Our government seems to have given teachers carte blanche in terms of how they teach this concept [of gender identity]. If this is an example of how it can be taught, I think it’s in the public interest for the HRTO to weigh in on it. Teachers are providing a public service and have a duty of care to all of their students, just as the HRTO has a responsibility to all of Ontarians. I think this case is a good example of why we need to set ideology aside when dealing with human rights.” If the Buffones win their case, it will set a precedent that may have far-reaching consequences for the teaching of gender issues in Ontario’s elementary schools. The HRTO will be very conscious of the potential fallout from their decision. For that reason, the cynic in me fears the dice are loaded against the Buffones. I very much hope to be proven wrong. https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ontario-family-files-human-rights-complaint-after-six-year-old-girl-upset-by-gender-theory-in-school/
  5. Thanks Liberals ! Great financial management! Any bets Ford will have to take the blame for this Liberal MESS ? Ontario government writes off $445M loan to Chrysler 'The Government of Ontario has written off this unrecoverable debt' The Ontario government has written off a $445-million loan to automotive manufacturer Chrysler, saying it has "no legal recourse" to collect it. The $445-million figure was part of a loan issued by the governments of Canada and Ontario in 2009 to bail out the then-struggling corporation, which had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. in the wake of the world economic crisis. The company was eventually bought out by Italian automotive manufacturer Fiat, leading to the creation of the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) holding company in 2014. FCA says it has repaid all its original loans. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-government-writes-off-445-million-loan-to-chrysler-1.5214423
  6. Keep in mind these same Ontarians voted Liberal for well over a decade and like any baby, if you take their soother away they cry ....so yep...let’s totally ignore the fact that he inherited a freaking DISASTER from the Liberals and keep digging the hole deeper .....#delusional. We actually did Ontario a disfavour by voting in Sanity. We should have let the Province go officially bankrupt and let the chips fall where they belong....at Wynnes feet.
  7. Margaret Trudeau Definition of real class. NOT. Almost as much of a sicko as Sophie.
  8. Only in Canada.... “ After stabbing three Canadian soldiers with a kitchen knife, this man will go to college unaccompanied “ Ayanle Hassan Ali walked into a Canadian military centre and began to strike a uniformed officer with a kitchen knife. As the officer tried to get up, his arm was cut again. Until Ali was finally subdued, two other soldiers were slashed at the scene. Ever since this in 2016 attack, Ali has been confined to the Hamilton hospital where he is being treated for mental illness. He had not been found criminally responsible for the attack, which he claimed was ordered by the divine. Now, in a decision this Monday by an Appeal Court, Ali will be permitted to attend the college across the hospital from where he is being held, provided he does not contact military personnel. The Appeal Court made their decision following successive decisions by the Ontario Review Board to give Ali greater freedom around Hamilton hospital. At first, Ali was allowed to travel hospital grounds with staff, and then with a confirmed companion. Finally, he was allowed to travel unsupervised. “The limited extension of indirectly supervised access only to the local college shows that the board was extending only a very limited privilege, both geographically and in terms of time away, that reflected its concern for public safety but balanced with the need to facilitate Mr. Ali’s reintegration into society,” said the court. However, the Crown protested what they viewed as the placement of Ali’s needs over society’s general safety. According to Global News, the prosecution argued unsupervised access across the hospital was not the same as integration into a scholastic environment. The conditions of Ali’s attendance of Mohawk College will be discussed at another review board meeting Wednesday. https://www.thepostmillennial.com/after-stabbing-three-canadian-military-officers-with-a-kitchen-knife-this-will-go-to-college-unaccompanied/
  9. Nice France. 2016 https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10154445658561336?s=639947670&v=e&sfns=mo