Author Topic: Canadaland Podcast  (Read 333 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2019, 09:45:27 pm »
1. Wrong.  We don't cover HRC cases, normally.  They usually get scant mention.

Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan wanted to know why media is focusing on Yaniv as a representative of trans people rather than somebody (like say Morgane Oger) who would be a more positive representation of trans people.  This is the question I answered.

For better or worse, Yaniv is the one out there "pushing the envelope".   Oger's own HRC case, ruled on earlier this year, didn't get a lot of press, because there wasn't anything novel about it.

2. Not proven.  I have reviewed cases and they are all unique.  This one really differentiates itself because it's a sensational hot button case.  I'll find an example of a trans rights case from earlier and we'll see if it's well-known.... Googling...

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/42948/1/Tam_Michael_WH_201311_LLM_thesis.pdf

Kind of a bigger case and I haven't heard of it.

HRC cases really aren't all unique. During the time Yaniv's hearings were ongoing, I looked at the HRC docket for the schedule, and most of the cases appearing before the HRC were refreshingly "normal" in nature.

Your example is of a case that's really irrelevant to pretty much anybody except trans people.  You seem to be operating from the assumption that every case is equally deserving of our attention.   That's certainly not the case.  Yaniv's case has the potential of setting a precedent that affects a lot of people and could be applicable way beyond the issue of Yaniv's ball-sack.



3. I would contend some of these are justifiably more important, like a major publication being accused of hate speech vs. some rando wanting a wax.  BTW there was already a case in Ontario that was remarkably similar, in that a trans man wanted a haircut from a Muslim as I recall.  Almost no coverage, but some because there was a Muslim angle. 

Yes I am cynical about media coverage.

There has been the US stories involving the baker who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the photographer who wouldn't take wedding pictures for a gay wedding-- which were widely covered. And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, taking some pictures or baking a cake or cutting someone's hair is a different kettle of fish from waxing someone's genitals.


The potential fall-out from this case and the precedent that could be set is, to me, much more newsworthy than hate-speech complaints against Western Standard or whatever it was that Ezra Levant was publishing at the time.  We already have a pretty clear body of law regarding hate-speech and nothing is going to change much on that front.    Bill C-16, on the other hand, is very new and its implications haven't been tested in court and this HRC case could be a clue as to how sex-based protections for women are going to be affected by the newly declared right to gender expression.


4. The issue is the volume and kind of coverage it gets in "the" media though. 

So who decides what's an appropriate level of coverage?  I have to mention that while this case has been picked up internationally, it's not getting the sort of wall-to-wall coverage that Brown seems to think it is.  He and Rogan, and perhaps yourself, seem to be of the view that perhaps any amount of coverage is too much.


5. As I said I think there have already been such cases, with less coverage.  This fits the sensational FOX-bait criteria and it gets white males angry so we have it covered like she's the single spokeswoman for trans people. 

It gets me angry too.  This case is a big deal regardless of whether Yaniv is a sympathetic representative for trans people or not.


6. An HRC case is arguably "newsworthy" but this is being milked for the outrage set.

If beauticians are going to be legally compelled to handle Yaniv's lady-wang and nut-sack, I think some outrage is justified.


7. It's not binary (  :-\ ) How much coverage and what kind of coverage does this warrant is my question and why do we have to discuss trans rights around these types of circuses ?

Because this circus is where trans rights are going to be defined.

Bills prohibiting discrimination against trans people have been passed by provincial and federal government with very little debate or clarification, possibly because the politicians were all scared of being branded transphobic if they objected.  So now this is law in Canada, and this case is among the first real tests of what these laws actually mean in practice.  This is where we find out what this stuff actually means in the real world.  And people are understandably concerned and talking about it.   If Yaniv wins his case, people are going to be talking about this a lot more.

Normally you'd drop some platitude at this point-- "this is a starting point for a conversation."   Instead, you seem to feel that people shouldn't be talking about this at all.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2019, 10:22:33 pm »
kimmy, just how are less discriminating click-baiting ConMedia outlets confirming the veracity of your favoured twitter/blog positions and statements?

What are you referring to, specifically?

National Post has, as far as I know, been very cautions about mentioning any of the sexual predator/luring allegations that have come forward in the Post-Millennial's coverage of Yaniv.

I think that the NP coverage gave readers enough information to question whether Yaniv is really a "good-faith" activist.

As for the more lurid details that have been put forth at the Post-Millennial, I think it bears mention that since the publication ban on JY's identity was lifted and Post-Millennial reported some of the allegations that have been made about him, more victims have come forward with credible accounts of his predatory tactics and formal complaints have been made to the police and to Cybertip, Canada's online child exploitation investigator.  Isn't that a good thing?

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2019, 06:32:45 am »
For better or worse, Yaniv is the one out there "pushing the envelope".   Oger's own HRC case, ruled on earlier this year, didn't get a lot of press, because there wasn't anything novel about it.

Right - but it takes two to tango.  The media has to be willing to pick up on these types of characters.

Quote
Your example is of a case that's really irrelevant to pretty much anybody except trans people.  You seem to be operating from the assumption that every case is equally deserving of our attention.   That's certainly not the case.  Yaniv's case has the potential of setting a precedent that affects a lot of people and could be applicable way beyond the issue of Yaniv's ball-sack.

What about the hair stylist cases I cited ?

Quote
There has been the US stories involving the baker who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the photographer who wouldn't take wedding pictures for a gay wedding-- which were widely covered. And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, taking some pictures or baking a cake or cutting someone's hair is a different kettle of fish from waxing someone's genitals.

Well, especially because the 'yuck' factor gets readers.

Quote
The potential fall-out from this case and the precedent that could be set is, to me, much more newsworthy than hate-speech complaints against Western Standard or whatever it was that Ezra Levant was publishing at the time. 

What ?  No.  Hate speech in the press is more important than a waxing firm having to handle waxing around a ****.

Quote
We already have a pretty clear body of law regarding hate-speech and nothing is going to change much on that front.

I disagree.  The online hate mongers are always trying to find ways to test and skirt the law.

Quote
   Bill C-16, on the other hand, is very new and its implications haven't been tested in court and this HRC case could be a clue as to how sex-based protections for women are going to be affected by the newly declared right to gender expression.

Each of these cases are going to be different: the change room case, the waxing case.  No one case is going to decide how women are protected as you put it.

Quote
So who decides what's an appropriate level of coverage? 

We already know who decides and that won't change.

Quote
I have to mention that while this case has been picked up internationally, it's not getting the sort of wall-to-wall coverage that Brown seems to think it is.  He and Rogan, and perhaps yourself, seem to be of the view that perhaps any amount of coverage is too much.

The quality and type of coverage are important here - I think I said that.

Quote
It gets me angry too.  This case is a big deal regardless of whether Yaniv is a sympathetic representative for trans people or not.


If beauticians are going to be legally compelled to handle Yaniv's lady-wang and nut-sack, I think some outrage is justified.

It's the business that has to accommodate, not the person. 

Quote
If Yaniv wins his case, people are going to be talking about this a lot more.

Why are you misgendering them now ?

Quote
  Instead, you seem to feel that people shouldn't be talking about this at all.

From my very last post:
"The issue is the volume and kind of coverage it gets in "the" media though. "
" An HRC case is arguably "newsworthy" but this is being milked for the outrage set."
") How much coverage and what kind of coverage does this warrant is my question"

So I seem to be at the point where I am repeating myself.  As such - please read my last post again.  If you don't think Rex Murphy and FOX baying about this to their white-male-outrage consumers then I can't convince you.  I don't doubt that your concerns are genuine but - I'll say for the last time - your cause is being piggy-backed on a circus that is designed to hurt people. 

If you're ok with that, then that's what it is.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2019, 10:23:36 am »
Right - but it takes two to tango.  The media has to be willing to pick up on these types of characters.

What about the hair stylist cases I cited ?

Perhaps the hairstylist case didn't get much play because media were cautious about a case portraying Muslims as homophobes.

"Two to tango"-- your choice of phrasing here again implies that media outlets are doing something wrong here.


Well, especially because the 'yuck' factor gets readers.

Perhaps the significant "yuck factor" is a clue that the general public isn't willing to "unlearn their genital preferences" yet.


What ?  No.  Hate speech in the press is more important than a waxing firm having to handle waxing around a ****.

"Firms" won't be handling the genitals.  Individual human employees will be the ones who handle the genitals.


I disagree.  The online hate mongers are always trying to find ways to test and skirt the law.

Each of these cases are going to be different: the change room case, the waxing case.  No one case is going to decide how women are protected as you put it.

Well, that's debatable. And to reiterate, the hate-speech complaints against significant press entities were well-covered by the media.

It's the business that has to accommodate, not the person. 

As most of the businesses Yaniv targeted were self-employed single-employee individuals, the distinction you're trying to make here is moot.  If Yaniv had simply gone to a larger salon that was equipped to care for male anatomy, none of this would have been necessary.


Why are you misgendering them now ?

I've tried to play along but I have slipped up now and then. I don't respect Yaniv; pretending I respect her pronouns takes a conscious effort.  I hate that I have to seriously entertain the notion that this sex predator is a woman.  It causes me physical pain each time I write "she/her" in regard to Yaniv.


From my very last post:
"The issue is the volume and kind of coverage it gets in "the" media though. "
" An HRC case is arguably "newsworthy" but this is being milked for the outrage set."
") How much coverage and what kind of coverage does this warrant is my question"

So I seem to be at the point where I am repeating myself.  As such - please read my last post again.  If you don't think Rex Murphy and FOX baying about this to their white-male-outrage consumers then I can't convince you.  I don't doubt that your concerns are genuine but - I'll say for the last time - your cause is being piggy-backed on a circus that is designed to hurt people. 

If you're ok with that, then that's what it is.

I'm not going to be bullied down by "guilt by association" tactics, if that's what you're hoping for.

Some time ago we had a conversation where I asked "if the mushy middle don't make their views known, then what do they matter?"  and you assured me that "the mushies matter".  I forget the exact context, but I remember the remark.

Well, maybe the public interest in this Yaniv case is how the mushy middle makes their presence felt.

We have these ivory tower ideals that were passed into law by politicians with little debate, little feedback from the public, and little clarity on how they would impact people in the real world. Now we're at the point where these new laws affect members of the general public, and the general public is going to have something to say.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2019, 02:26:27 pm »
Biological males demanding women should have to handle male genitals as a condition of employment in occupations that aren't health care related is absurd.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2020, 12:00:21 am »
I thought of this topic today while listening to Jesse Brown's testimony to the House Committee probing the "WE" scandal.  This was a really good listen.

https://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/90012427/

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3614
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2020, 01:06:58 am »
I thought of this topic today while listening to Jesse Brown's testimony to the House Committee probing the "WE" scandal.  This was a really good listen.

I stopped listening to CANADALAND a long time ago. The host, what's his name?, just comes off as a stubborn, egotistical prick.
Quote
In fact I'd say it's a steaming pile of dogshit.
This is a theme in Canadaland podcasts.

how good member kimmy?


April 2019 article... showing the guy has had 'WE Charity' in his sights for some time!

Jesse Brown and Canadaland should be removed from the NewsMedia Council

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2020, 01:39:24 am »
April 2019 article... showing the guy has had 'WE Charity' in his sights for some time!

That's why he was invited to testify.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7527
Re: Canadaland Podcast
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2020, 08:13:08 am »
Newspapers are dying.

Canadaland isn't perfect but - my God - it's better than the Sun.  We are going to lose newspapers soon and we need podcasts like this.

This:

The few times he has admitted to mistakes, he has done so with no contrition, buried corrections and left the majority of the offending material in the public domain. His corrections have been late. Podcasts with factual errors are not re-edited. Sometimes, the errors are acknowledged in web text below the podcasts, which might be found by PC users but not by ITunes and other users.

Isn't true.  Canadaland also goes after all sides equally and fairly, so based on that alone they are an asset.