It seems that even the “crazies” running Human Rights Tribunals know when to make a strategic retreat.
This occurred when the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) dismissed the many complaints of a man who now identifies as a woman, based on the alleged denial of services by beauticians of South Asia background, who refused to wax his male genitalia. See background story in REALity October 2019.
The many complaints (13 similar complaints were filed within a four month time span) by Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv were initially accepted by BCHRT as a valid concern, and this made the agency a laughing-stock worldwide, losing all credibility and respect.
Possibly because of this reaction, the BCHRT decided that it would readjust its customary practice of operating in a delusional world of manufactured human rights and instead, for once, made an objective, rational decision. It also ordered Yaniv to pay $6000 in costs for “improper conduct”, including using human rights law as a “weapon for extortion”.
In other words, the tribunal concluded that Yaniv’s complaints were made for improper purposes in bad faith, and that he had provided disingenuous testimony and was self-serving. The precise concern was that Yaniv’s predominant motive in filing the waxing complaints was not to remedy alleged discrimination, but to target small businesses for personal and financial remuneration. It also concluded, based on Yaniv’s Twitter account, that he was motivated to punish immigrant women based on the perception that certain ethnic groups, namely South Asian and Asian communities, are “taking over” and advancing an agenda hostile to the interests of LGBTQ+ people.
It is always possible that the BCHRT experienced an uncustomary surge of common sense in reaching this conclusion. Realistically, however, it is more likely that by rejecting Yaniv’s complaint, the Tribunal was desperately trying to salvage its own reputation.
These Tribunals have, over the years, acquired a well-deserved reputation as kangaroo courts, which blindly support complainants, are biased against defendants, and have become tools of social engineering. This would have been very obvious, even to the general public, if the Tribunal had upheld Yaniv’s complaints.