The truth about Jessica Yaniv is beginning to emerge
Truth is a tricky thing. For some people, it’s a scary thing.
Publication bans, rules which prevent those of us in the media from discussing or reporting upon truths, can offer some solace to those who would rather the truth not be disseminated.
The truth has proven itself to be a very scary thing for Jessica Yaniv, whose birth and legal pre-transition name is Johnathan Yaniv. There can be no other explanation for someone who has taken such effort to scrub any discussion of herself away, weaponizing both the law and private social media platforms against anyone who has attempted to shine a light on the problematic nature of her behaviour.
In June of 2018, Yaniv was granted a publication ban which prevented the media from publishing both her name, or legally exploring details of her history. Details which would have proved pertinent in any discussion of a controversial figure, but especially one whose actions would ultimately impact Canadian law as a whole.
Fortunately, as of July 17th, 2019, and thanks to the work of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms the publication ban is now lifted, as is the muzzle on the truth about Jessica Yaniv.
In 2018, Yaniv filed 16 human rights complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, charging various waxing and esthetic salon workers with transphobic discrimination for declining to provide waxing and other beautification services to her male genitals.
Each of these salons or salon workers had specifically indicated they only provided intimate area services to female clients, or had challenged Yaniv on her gender due to her then-male name being used on social media, and male presenting photograph. It is worth noting that Yaniv used male pronouns and her male name on her LinkedIn and various social media as late as November of 2018.
Of the 16 defendants, many are women of colour with religious and/or cultural backgrounds which would have regulated or otherwise made it strictly uncomfortable to have close interaction with male genitals.
However, and as discussed by JCCF lawyer John Carpay for The Post Millennial in late 2018, it is both professionally and personally legitimate for any female esthetician to limit their services to female genitalia.
Yaniv’s complaints were effectively asserting that it should be made a legal precedent that female estheticians not be allowed to refuse male-bodied clients. Not on religious grounds. Not on cultural grounds. Not because of their comfort level. Not even because they did not have the professional skills or equipment required to successfully perform the very specific “manzillian” procedure. They simply should not be allowed to refuse contact with a penis, period.
As discussed by Carpay in his op-ed, Yaniv stood to make over $35,000 from these complaints if successful. Some of the women opted to settle in mediation, likely terrified of the stress and exaggerated effort a Human Rights Tribunal case required.
But on July 5th, 2019, the hearings commenced with four women legally represented by the JCCF. Citizen journalist (and feminist concerned for the impact this case would have on women’s rights in Canada) @goinglikeelsie took great effort to detail what the media could not at the time in a series of threads on Twitter.
As tepid details emerged from inside the walls of the courthouse, one thing became clear: Yaniv had a problematic history that could not be ignored in the discussion of her litigation against the women.
As the first woman defending herself against Yaniv’s arbitrary accusations of transphobia and discrimination was Sikh, the issue of Yaniv’s bigoted attitude towards people of colour could not be ignored, and was discussed in the hearing, according to @goinglikeelsie’s threads detailing what was said in the hearing.
Some of those comments can be evidenced in the below screenshots from conversations made public in 2018;
As late as July 17th, 2019, Yaniv was calling for immigration raids on “120th street in Surrey,” an area known to have a lot of residents who are brown and black people with immigrant backgrounds.
This echoes previous calls Yaniv has made to have the very women she is taking to court deported for “transphobia.”
More of Yaniv’s problematic history was revealed in the hearings, as her infamous comments about young girls and tampons was brought to light. I
n one conversation with an esthetic salon on Facebook, Yaniv presented her genitalia as female, and stated that she was on her period. Under the impression Yaniv was female, the esthetician apparently requested that Yaniv wear a tampon to better facilitate the genital waxing services. While we do not have the screenshots of the conversation between the esthetician and Yaniv, Yaniv did discuss deceiving an esthetician, and conversing about tampons and periods, with another individual.
Yaniv allegedly claimed she did not know how to use tampons, a detail which echoes a number of previous conversations that have surfaced with respect to Yaniv’s disturbing information-seeking on menstrual products.
Especially when it also includes references to young girls.
At least some of these screenshots may have been read in the Tribunal.
While it is unlikely this further information will be revealed at the Tribunal, it can now be noted that Yaniv’s disturbing history extends beyond bizarre attitudes around menstrual products and apparent racism.
More disturbing behaviour has been recorded and reported. Screenshots of conversations discussing the private parts of young girls, and the pestering of young girls on the internet, have all surfaced.
On Ask.FM, a semi-anonymous ask and answer site, Yaniv allegedly provided her phone number to girls under the age of 16.
The number was cross-referenced with the Better Business Bureau as belonging to Yaniv.
While it cannot be fully confirmed, a number of the comments left under the girls on Ask.FM resemble the interests of Yaniv from previous revelations.
Most recently, Yaniv showed up without invitation to a beauty pageant featuring young girls and photographs of them were taken. This disturbed the organizer, Charlotte Millington, to the point of threatening Yaniv with police involvement.
Morgane Oger, a transwoman and the NDP MP-nominee hopeful for Vancouver Centre, took this opportunity to call Yaniv out for “her” egregious history of inappropriate behaviour around young girls, behaviour Oger documented in a blog post released in April of 2019.
In that blogpost, Oger claims that she had been in contact with individuals who had been directly targeted and impacted by the inappropriate behaviour of Yaniv when they were young girls. This story was previously detailed by The Post Millennial. Note that in many of the esthetician’s cases, they worked out of their home and had small children present.
In no small part due to these details, Yaniv’s potentially vexatious litigation against the estheticians in British Columbia represents a break-point on the issues of self-identification and women’s rights.
If a decision were to be made in favour of Yaniv, it would be a wholesale rejection of the ability of women to gauge and limit their contact with those they feel uncomfortable around.
Female-run businesses which desired to limit their services to female clients, even on cultural or religious grounds, would no longer be allowed to do so. The theoretical impact this would have, predominantly that on women of colour, would be pronounced. Further, the case raises questions about the ability of individuals to hide their potentially pertinently problematic past behind claims of “deadnaming.”
The Yaniv vs. Various Waxing Salons schedule of hearings is available here. The public is free to attend.
Numerous advocacy groups are attempting to pressure the CBC to host a debate on climate change.
According to the National Observer, a petition signed by almost 48,000 individuals organized by four advocacy groups: Leadnow.ca, North99, 350 Canada, and Our Time was presented to the CBC on Friday.
In a statement available on National Observer, LeadNow said the CBC has a responsibility as a public broadcaster to “provide a platform about this unprecedented national emergency so voters can clearly see where leaders stand on climate and what they’re prepared to do about it.”
“We look to political leaders to lead on serious issues like climate change, but there’s so much misinformation and confusion,” said Amara Possian, Canada Campaigns Manager with 350.org.
“A federal leaders’ debate focused on climate change and a made-in-Canada Green New Deal will give voters much-needed clarity on which parties have the best strategy to tackle the climate crisis head on.”
While the number of signatures is high, it is by no means surprising as the environment has rapidly become one of the hottest issues in Canada.
According to a study released by the Digital Democracy Project, climate change is on the top of the election agenda for most Canadians.
The groups pointed to wildfires in Western Canada, heatwaves in the east and north, disappearing shorelines, and severe floods. They say all these events are becoming more frequent due to the climate emergency.
CBC spokesperson Chuck Thompson said the company would make sure to cover climate change as part of its debates.
“As I’m sure you are aware, CBC News has covered climate change extensively, and we will continue to do so,” Thompson said in an emailed statement. “As to whether or not there will be a debate specifically about climate change, that question is best asked of the Leaders’ Debates Commission.”
Currently, two debates are expected ahead of the federal election, which must happen on or before October 21st.
The English debate is tentatively scheduled for October 7th, while the French alternative is set for October 10th.
While the dates have not been finalized, the location, Ottawa, has.
The Manitoba RCMP will provide an update today regarding the case of the B.C. fugitives whose bodies were found last week.
The update comes roughly one week after the RCMP found the body’s believed to be of Bryer Schmegelsky and Kam McLeod near Gillam, Manitoba, and after the RCMP announced that they had found an interesting item nearby the bodies.
The two men were previously on the run after allegedly killing three people in northern British Columbia.
McLeod and Schmegelsky were both charged with the second-degree murder in the death of B.C. lecturer Leonard Dyck and had also been named as suspects in the fatal shootings of Lucas Fowler and his girlfriend Chynna Deese.
According to one CTV reporter, in their update, the B.C. RCMP may put forward some of the results found in the autopsy, such as time of death.
This article will be updated following the RCMP announcement.
The past few days saw a flurry of mass shootings in the United States. However, what was interesting to see was that while two shooters were far-right, the Dayton shooter displayed far-left sympathies. This perfectly shuts the case on the gun debate being that of a left-right argument. In fact, the gun debate is an argument between authoritarianism and liberty.
The argument for gun rights is not a new one. In 1776, America passed its 2nd amendment.
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”The 2nd Amendment of the United States’ Constitution
With the American Revolutionary War, this amendment was sacred to the left and right of America’s past political environment.
On the left, surprisingly to many, one of the fiercest advocates for gun rights was Karl Marx himself.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”Karl Marx
This was well clear in the past itself and, as the horrors of these mass shootings have encapsulated America and its mainstream media, its clarity has resurfaced today.
Donald Trump, a right-wing Republican, is proposing stricter gun control. Many Democrats on the left such as Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang are also vouching for a similar proposal.
No longer can The Young Turks claim Republicans love guns; no longer can Steven Crowder claim the left wants to take away your guns.
So if right-wingers and left-wingers are somehow reaching a consensus that “guns aren’t good,” then where does the divide of the debate lie? The answer is authoritarianism versus liberty.
If we go back to the words of the 2nd amendment and Karl Marx, their reasoning for gun rights is to protect the people/the workers against the tyranny of the state/bourgeoisie. Today, with increased overlapping of corporate bourgeoisie interests in the state, it is fair to say we can take them on as one.
In that case, the case for guns rights is a case for the liberty of man. And in my view, this liberty should be protected.
There are two main criticisms of gun rights. One, that “tyranny can never happen here.” This has been thrown in the bin ever since Donald Trump got elected in 2016, as numerous persons across the spectrum refer to him as a “tyrant.” And two, that you “can’t fight the army/state with small arms.” This, again, has been disproven throughout history may it be the American war of independence or the Russian revolution, the Vietnam war or the Afghanistan war.
The point of gun rights is armed self-defence. Self-defence from those that threaten our well-being and existence. The police is not an organization for your protection, but rather for the protection of the state, as is evident with their indiscriminate killing of minorities in America and complacency towards Antifa and Proud Boys marches.
Of course, not everyone should own a gun. Domestic abusers, those with extremist sympathies, and those that don’t want a gun, shouldn’t get one.
It is with such sensibility that any sane person would agree for stronger background checks and regulation for gun ownership. May it be Ben Shapiro or Cenk Uygur, it’s something every end of the spectrum believes in.
The reason, though, that people turn to violence is because of alienation. Sometimes the alienation (as in the historical cases for America with Britain and the Russian people with their Tsar) can be justified, as it is against the state and is felt by a majority of people. Other times, such as the case with these fringe mass shooters, the alienation can not be justified.
These mass shooters are a minority. Their extremist beliefs are a perilous periphery of what leftist and rightist beliefs stand for. As my colleagues, Barrett Wilson and Libby Emmons, write,
“This kind of violence doesn’t stem from either an exclusively left or right perspective, but from an undercurrent of tribalism in our society that can cause young people to feel worthless and hopeless. When people feel isolated, they reach out desperately for somewhere to belong.”Barrett Wilson and Libby Emmons
Adding a flex-tape of a gun ban won’t solve the alienation crisis, a crisis that is reaching a boiling point in the US. The main reasons for the crisis need to be addressed. Alienated peoples need to be given integration as economic inequality in America widens.
White supremacists and Antifa sympathizers need to be spoken to. They need to be explained why their views are wrong, not simply that their views are wrong. Guns are their last resort outlet for letting out their frustration.
Mass shootings in America have never been as high as they are today, and the reason is more to do with everything other than guns.
For the boomers, I’m sorry but video games are not the reason for these shootings.
As Republicans including Trump and Cranshaw accept more gun regulation, and as Democrats reach a consensus on this issue, the power of the corporate-state hybrid grows evermore.
The issue of alienation is being used to curtail freedoms in a horrid case of authoritarianism. The lack of bipartisan willpower to address the root cause of the issue takes away not only our liberties but will alienate us further with perhaps more disastrous consequences.
The gun debate no longer has a left versus right divide. It is now a divide between authoritarianism and liberty.