Morgane Oger / Ronan Oger - defunded a rape crisis shelter, JY frenemy, sues ppl for misgendering, stalks meghan murphy, EX vp of new dem party that lost 3+ elections

[Me_el_wante_V2.0]

The point I was making was that Oger claims yaniv faced discrimination - maybe on the arms/legs yeah but not the scrotum waxing - a point Oger doesn't seem to like pointing out, despite Devyn clearly pointing out in the report that there was no discrimination whatsoever with yaniv being refused wanting his "vulva" waxing.

Court Ruling........

"Most significantly, there is no material difference in waxing the arms or legs of a cisgender woman and a transgender woman. Ms. Barnetson confirmed this in her expert testimony, and no Respondent argued otherwise. I agree generally with Ms. Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification.

However, the Represented Respondents have persuaded me to dismiss these complaints on the basis that they have been filed for improper motives or in bad faith. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the complaints against Mrs. Hehar and Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon, and Ms. Moin under s. 27(1)(e) of the Code."

ETA: "Sukhdip Hehar (arms/legs waxing) : ... began her business by only serving friends and family. She did not have her own salon space, and so she provided mobile services – meaning she traveled to the home of her clients."

Devyn stated: "It is clear from the conversation that Ms. Yaniv’s gender identity was a factor in her decision to refuse service. In that regard, I am not persuaded by Mrs. Hehar’s argument that Ms. Yaniv’s location outside her geographic area of service was the only reason behind the denial."

So on the face of it yaniv could have won these leg/waxing claims if he hadn't behaved as he did. The fact that the women would not, presumably, have had much of a say in the matter speaks volumes to the insanity of this trans crap. If fat boy hadn't been shown to be racially motivated, intimidating and being the money pig that he is then the arm/leg waxes may have been forced upon those women.

Personally, if I'm not comfortable/have fears for my safety no law or name-calling would force me. It seems trans rights trample over everything and people are just expected to accept it all. yaniv and his ilk are doing their best to enforce that shit throughout.

For the life of me I cannot understand how we are still having this argument about not waxing someone being discrimination (not us I mean, but rather the crazy people). When it comes to denying services on the basis of prohibited grounds, it would be one thing if, for e.g., someone refused to serve that white devil fat ass paedo bitch food on the basis of being transgender, but waxing is far more intimate because you have to touch the person in question, even if it's just their arms or legs. I can't understand for even a second how people could think that a person's autonomy and freedom to not touch a person they don't want to touch should ever be overriden by* a person's wish to be waxed. There must be balance between competing rights. I mean, I know why Morgane can't respect that, because he hates biological women, but touching someone is *always* your own personal choice to make, no matter the reason why, no matter whether I or anyone else disagree with or don't like the reason why (although I will accept that this may not always be the case in a medical context).

 

[wabbits]

Is it an acceptable defense to say, "I said no, not because she is trans, but because I have seen the newspaper stories about how she makes trouble for people and has illegal weapons. I am scared of her"?

 

[Spastic Colon]

For the life of me I cannot understand how we are still having this argument about not waxing someone being discrimination (not us I mean, but rather the crazy people). When it comes to denying services on the basis of prohibited grounds, it would be one thing if, for e.g., someone refused to serve that white devil fat ass paedo bitch food on the basis of being transgender, but waxing is far more intimate because you have to touch the person in question, even if it's just their arms or legs. I can't understand for even a second how people could think that a person's autonomy and freedom to not touch a person they don't want to touch should ever override a person's wish to be waxed. There must be balance between competing rights. I mean, I know why Morgane can't respect that, because he hates biological women, but touching someone is *always* your own personal choice to make, no matter the reason why (although I will accept that this may not always be the case in a medical context).

My thought is that if there are other people who can provide the service, it should be okay to refuse to service someone if you have legitimate concerns for your safety or a religious reason for doing so. If no one else can provide it, then perhaps an argument can be made that you have to take everyone because refusing would deny them access completely. The only exception for me would be emergency medical care. Delaying treatment even a few moments to get another doctor might be the difference between life and death so I can see being forced to treat everyone no matter what. But even within a private practice, I wouldn't require doctors to see all patients.

And why would you even want to force someone to do it? Do you really think you are going to get the best service or care if someone is forced into it? I also don't want to give my money to someone who is against providing service to me. A boycott is the way to handle things like this -- not a tribunal. If they lose enough money, a business will probably change its policy. I want to know why some enterprising troon hasn't started their own waxing service specifically for trans bodies. They could be exploiting a gap in the market instead of forcing other people to cater to their whims.

 

[Me_el_wante_V2.0]

Is it an acceptable defense to say, "I said no, not because she is trans, but because I have seen the newspaper stories about how she makes trouble for people and has illegal weapons. I am scared of her"?

I would think so, as long as you can offer proof to that effect. It would be a violation of rights to limit the defences that can be offered against a complaint.*


* disclaimer: I'm not Canadian but flicked through the tribunals website and it says nothing to that effect re:limitation. In any case, there would still be 2 competing rights at issue if your defence is supposed to be related to that.

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

Sorry for being late but what is the current status of this goon's relationship with his children? Have they disowned him for obvious reasons and for financially destroying their mother or are they sipping the woke juice?

 

[Marvin]

The point I was making was that Oger claims yaniv faced discrimination - maybe on the arms/legs yeah but not the scrotum waxing - a point Oger doesn't seem to like pointing out, despite Devyn clearly pointing out in the report that there was no discrimination whatsoever with yaniv being refused wanting his "vulva" waxing.

Court Ruling........

"Most significantly, there is no material difference in waxing the arms or legs of a cisgender woman and a transgender woman. Ms. Barnetson confirmed this in her expert testimony, and no Respondent argued otherwise. I agree generally with Ms. Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification.

However, the Represented Respondents have persuaded me to dismiss these complaints on the basis that they have been filed for improper motives or in bad faith. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the complaints against Mrs. Hehar and Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon, and Ms. Moin under s. 27(1)(e) of the Code."

Actually I'm not so sure. I don't think it's all that clear.

All Devyn does is explicitly affirm that they can't discriminate when waxing legs/arms. Not the opposite, that they can discriminate when doing a "vulva" wax. Then they dismissed the complaints on bad faith.

It looks to me like they just dodged the vulva/scrotum question, which is worrying to me. Seems like Yaniv lost this case mostly because he can't quit being a loud racist in public. (Well, and if Devyn wanted another woke-acceptable reason to dismiss it, she could then go and see how he pestered like 20+ estheticians and like 5 accepted his request.)

If another Yaniv comes along, one with a mind more focused on the scam and not attention whoring on twitter, I think they might have a real case.

 

[AnOminous]

Despite a waxing expert's testimony, the waxers not being qualified to wax yaniv's junk together with a comprehensive report by Devyn, Oger still thinks yaniv faced discrimination.

Is Oger naturally thick?

View attachment 1057949

Twitter

Morgane Oger MSM BASc on Twitter: "@Rep0rted_ It's important to look …

archived 19 Dec 2019 04:33:55 UTC

archive.md

One, (or was it two?) case of arm/leg waxing might have meant yaniv could have lined his pockets but the tribunal did not feel yaniv faced discrimination with the "Brazillians" so what piffle is Oger spewing?

He wasn't discriminated against because he is a troon, but because he has a penis, which has nothing to do with his gender, at least if you believe the shit troons say.

 

[OttoWest]

Waxing is not an essential service (at least not yet— fingers crossed). This isn’t like being denied medical care, even non-urgent care, or access to services provided by the state or feds ala ADA.

There were numerous other vendors offering the services Yaniv sought; I did a list long ago in the main JY thread and there were at least 10 salons in his area that did scrot waxing. There is no lack of provider in the Vancouver area.

Sorry for being late but what is the current status of this goon's relationship with his children? Have they disowned him for obvious reasons and for financially destroying their mother or are they sipping the woke juice?

His kids are still relatively young (under 14). Fortunately mom has custody and *bonus points* they are not saddled with their father’s awful surname.

 

[John southern]

If another Yaniv comes along, one with a mind more focused on the scam and not attention whoring on twitter, I think they might have a real case.

More have come along,

There's a tranny who tried to take corrections Canada to the HRT to get laser waxing done
and another I can't remember the details. Neither were in BC.

There was also a guy who isn't a tranny in Edmonton trying to force parents to let him babysit their kids.
He ditched that effort and vanished after the media started paying attention to that.

 

[DongJohnson]

I would think so, as long as you can offer proof to that effect. It would be a violation of rights to limit the defences that can be offered against a complaint.*


* disclaimer: I'm not Canadian but flicked through the tribunals website and it says nothing to that effect re:limitation. In any case, there would still be 2 competing rights at issue if your defence is supposed to be related to that.

Important to note that truth is not a defense in Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. Most HRT cases are just Soviet Style show trials. The ones that actually deal with real issues are also redundant because those real issues are already covered in labour laws.

 

[AnOminous]

Important to note that truth is not a defense in Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. Most HRT cases are just Soviet Style show trials. The ones that actually deal with real issues are also redundant because those real issues are already covered in labour laws.

It's a fake court that serves no purpose that isn't already adequately served by real courts, and needs to go away.

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

Despite a waxing expert's testimony, the waxers not being qualified to wax yaniv's junk together with a comprehensive report by Devyn, Oger still thinks yaniv faced discrimination.

Is Oger naturally thick?

View attachment 1057949

Twitter

Morgane Oger MSM BASc on Twitter: "@Rep0rted_ It's important to look …

archived 19 Dec 2019 04:33:55 UTC

archive.md

One, (or was it two?) case of arm/leg waxing might have meant yaniv could have lined his pockets but the tribunal did not feel yaniv faced discrimination with the "Brazillians" so what piffle is Oger spewing?

Man-Thing flips sides more often than a pancake.

 

[Me_el_wante_V2.0]

Important to note that truth is not a defense in Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. Most HRT cases are just Soviet Style show trials. The ones that actually deal with real issues are also redundant because those real issues are already covered in labour laws.

If you're talking about Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott 2013 SCC 11, it seems to me that what was ruled was that the truth of a statement is not necessarily a complete defence to hate speech I.e. the context in terms of what was said matters. Not gonna comment further than that as I haven't read enough about it but it doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself with the truth and be successful.

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

Waxing is not an essential service (at least not yet— fingers crossed). This isn’t like being denied medical care, even non-urgent care, or access to services provided by the state or feds ala ADA.

There were numerous other vendors offering the services Yaniv sought; I did a list long ago in the main JY thread and there were at least 10 salons in his area that did scrot waxing. There is no lack of provider in the Vancouver area.



His kids are still relatively young (under 14). Fortunately mom has custody and *bonus points* they are not saddled with their father’s awful surname.

I hope they moved and thank God for the name change, cause otherwise they might be bullied into oblivion.

But then again, Canadian kids might be more inclined to sip the woke juice with their parents than the kids to the south.

 

[SevenEightNine]

I hope they moved and thank God for the name change, cause otherwise they might be bullied into oblivion.

But then again, Canadian kids might be more inclined to sip the woke juice with their parents than the kids to the south.

According to recent studies, no. The woke left are all about educational reform, at panic speed, in Canada because the kids aren't having it.

 

[DongJohnson]

If you're talking about Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott 2013 SCC 11, it seems to me that what was ruled was that the truth of a statement is not necessarily a complete defence to hate speech I.e. the context in terms of what was said matters. Not gonna comment further than that as I haven't read enough about it but it doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself with the truth and be successful.

Talking about the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal at the federal level.

It can also award damages for "hurt feelings".

 

[Me_el_wante_V2.0]

Talking about the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal at the federal level.

It can also award damages for "hurt feelings".

Not anymore, or at least necessarily, as the Canadian Supreme Court struck out that part of section 14 of the Saskatchewan human rights code, so now instead of this -

""publication or display of any representation that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground".

It now prohibits this -
"publication or display of any representation that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground".

Without trying to unravel this whole provincial/federal thing, I don't see another human rights code with loose provisions surviving constitutional scrutiny. Either way, to me it defies logic that a person could never rely on truth in HRT proceedings, because that is already violating the right to fair and equal treatment, which is part of what the HRTs were created to protect. I think there is far more nuance than people give this stuff credit for.

Eta - the HRTs have been around since 1977. As a sincere question,have they always been this controversial?

 

[John southern]

Eta - the HRTs have been around since 1977. As a sincere question,have they always been this controversial?

Nope. HRT's were in their current form didn't exist.
They used to be something that actually dealt with real discrimination like being refused for jobs or housing based on race or sex.

Political correctness which started to take hold in 89' and then steamrolled in the early 90's is when they started to do what is happening now.

Radical leftists race hustlers like Devyn Cousineau began getting jobs there and it just got worse as they took over.
No different then what you see in schools, media, libraries and Universities. They became infested from top to bottom.

 

[AnOminous]

Either way, to me it defies logic that a person could never rely on truth in HRT proceedings, because that is already violating the right to fair and equal treatment, which is part of what the HRTs were created to protect. I think there is far more nuance than people give this stuff credit for.

I suppose it depends on the cause of action and what it consists of. Truth is always a defense in defamation, but suppose it's harassment, and you're accused of constantly just yelling "you suck dicks" at a gay guy. That might be true but you're still harassing him.

 

[DongJohnson]

Not anymore, or at least necessarily, as the Canadian Supreme Court struck out that part of section 14 of the Saskatchewan human rights code, so now instead of this -

""publication or display of any representation that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground".

It now prohibits this -
"publication or display of any representation that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground".

Without trying to unravel this whole provincial/federal thing, I don't see another human rights code with loose provisions surviving constitutional scrutiny. Either way, to me it defies logic that a person could never rely on truth in HRT proceedings, because that is already violating the right to fair and equal treatment, which is part of what the HRTs were created to protect. I think there is far more nuance than people give this stuff credit for.

Eta - the HRTs have been around since 1977. As a sincere question,have they always been this controversial?

I think they only become controversial to the general public when a hot topic issue is being "litigated" through them. The rest of the time, the average Bob and Doug McKenzie don't really think about it.