Canadian Politics Today

1. Yaniv gets to be the focus because Yaniv is the one with cases before the BC HRC.

2. It's certainly true that most HRC cases don't get a lot of attention. That's because most HRC cases don't cover much new ground.
 
3. But some HRC cases do get some ink.  One concerned a complaint against a religious group publishing homophobic materials. Complaints against Ezra Levant alleging hate speech against Muslims. BC trans activist and NDP big-wig Morgane Oger recently won an HRC ruling against a guy who distributed a bunch of transphobic material in the riding where Oger was running in the provincial election. These cases get some amount of attention because they're contesting important ground: the boundary between what is hate speech and what is permissible free expression or religious expression.

4. This Yaniv case is newsworthy for the same reason. Regardless of what you think of Yaniv, there is a case before the BC HRC and a ruling is going to be issued whether Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan think Yaniv is a "real" trans rights activist or not.

5. The Yaniv case is newsworthy because it appears to be among the first tests of what "the right to gender expression" is going to actually mean under C-16. 

6. It's also newsworthy because this HRC process has already put at least one of these aestheticians out of business, and several more have given money to Yaniv as a settlement.   

7. Your position seems to be that we shouldn't talk about Yaniv or their HRC complaint because if we do, straight white men will get angry and beat up trans people.  I think that's problematic.

 -k

1. Wrong.  We don't cover HRC cases, normally.  They usually get scant mention.

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

Just months before the amendments explicitly including gender identity and gender expression
protection into the Ontario Human Rights Code, a case which could have been recognized as
trans discrimination came before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The passage of Toby's
Act amending the Ontario Human Rights Code to include gender identity and gender expression
as a grounds for protection occurred on June 19th, 2012. The case X.Y. v Ontario (Minister of
Government and Consumer Services) was decided on April 11, 2012.145 XY was a
transgendered person applying for an order that the Minister's requirement, that she certify that
she had "transsexual surgery" in order to obtain a birth certificate which accorded with her
gender identity, infringed her right to equal treatment without discrimination on the basis of sex
and or disability contrary to the Human Rights Code. The requirement of surgery in order to
change the birth certificate resulted in distinct and disadvantageous treatment of XY on the basis
of her trans status. It was found discriminatory because it "exacerbates the situation of
transgendered persons as a historically disadvantaged group, and thus perpetuates their
disadvantage".146 The requirement of surgery was "substantively discriminatory because it
perpetuates stereotypes about transgendered persons and their need to have surgery ...

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

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.

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

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. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/barbershop-won-t-cut-women-s-hair-evie-ruddy-plans-human-rights-complaint-1.2751215

That may be the case I was thinking of, not sure: "She added that when she pressed the point and asked how the shop would respond to a transgender person seeking a haircut, she was given an emphatic answer.

 He launched into this rant saying if they start accepting trans clients and lesbians then what if a lesbian with long hair wants their hair cut? Where do you draw the line?," Ruddy told CBC News."

Or it could have been this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/bridal-shop-refuses-to-let-transgender-shopper-try-on-gowns-1.1306121

Again - FOX didn't pick these up, and I don't remember them being covered much.

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

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 ?