by Bill Whatcott » Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:30 am
Jonathan Yaniv being a creep and taking a selfie of himself (and several unsuspecting real females) in a women’s bathroom
Jonathan being creepy while talking to a young girl on Facebook, demonstrating that he is a porn addicted biological male who should not be allowed into women’s bathrooms and changerooms
The $35,000 pseudo human rights complaint against me by serial litigant Jonathan Yaniv has been “deferred.” In actual fact I think it is safe to say Mr. Yaniv’s complaint against me is effectively being dismissed by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT). Here is the letter delivered to my Gmail inbox and cc’d to Mr. Yaniv.
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
1270 – 605 Robson Street British Columbia Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844
January 30, 2020
Re: Jessica Yaniv v. Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 19374)
I am the Tribunal Member assigned to adjudicate the above-noted complaint.
In October 2019, the Tribunal ordered Ms. Yaniv to pay $6,000 in costs to various respondents because she had engaged in improper conduct by: filing complaints for an improper purpose, misleading the Tribunal in respect of a publication ban, being untruthful with respect to a central aspect of a complaint, engaging in extortionate behavior, and making scurrilous attacks on counsel for the respondents: Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons (No. 2), 2019 BCHRT 222.
Ms. Yaniv has notified the Tribunal that the costs award has not been paid to the respondents to date.
The Tribunal has therefore, on its own motion, deferred this complaint pursuant to Rule 16 (1)(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure until the costs award is paid or until six months has elapsed, whichever comes first. In other words, Ms. Yaniv is prohibited from pursuing her complaint during this period.
If, after six months (i.e. by July 29, 2020), the costs award has not been paid, the Tribunal will determine next steps, including whether a further deferral or dismissal of the complaint is warranted.
cc: Jessica Yaniv
The BCHRT realizes it is highly unlikely Mr. Yaniv is coming up with $6,000 to pay off the costs awarded against him, so they are banking on having what they think is a legitimate excuse to dismiss his complaint against me in six months time and then forever wash their hands of him.
Having Mr. Yaniv’s case against me dismissed is a small relief I suppose. Mr. Yaniv’s nuisance suit was not going to develop any new case law and it was more probable that hell was going to freeze over than Mr. Yaniv was going to collect $35,000. However, Mr. Yaniv was an unwanted distraction and in the grand scheme of things, I prefer to focus on the far more important cases on my plate, so it is nice that Mr. Yaniv is out of my life.
Mr. Ronan Oger, tweeting (in the capacity of Vice President of the BC NDP) his initial support of Jonathan Yaniv’s vexatious human rights complaint demanding that 16 female estheticians be forced to wax his male genitalia
Mr. Ronan Oger’s BCHRT complaint which resulted in a $55,000 judgment against me for correctly gendering him during the last provincial election is a far more important case than Mr. Yaniv’s nuisance suit. Ronan’s case is extremely important for all Canadians, and is one that should concern everyone who cares about freedom of speech during our elections. Ronan’s case for me is not so much about the $55,000 judgment. I have lost as much sleep over Ronan trying to collect $55,000 from me, as I have lost over Mr. Yaniv trying to collect his $35,000, or the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission trying to collect their $17,500 judgment, or Regina Planned Parenthood trying to collect on their $50,000 lawsuit, or Doug Elliot trying to collect from his $104 million lawsuit. The fact of the matter is I have not lost one minute’s sleep over any of these litigants. Beyond preparing legal defenses or putting out more flyers exposing them, not one of these litigants have actually affected my day to day life in a meaningful way. I am currently unemployed, I own nothing in my name, and if I lose my hate crime trial I am looking at 18 months in an Ontario jail in about 3 months time; so the reality is Mr. Oger is as likely to collect his $55,000 from me as Doug Elliot was likely to collect his $104 million, or the estheticians are likely to collect their $6,000 from Mr. Yaniv. Ronan can have at suing me, but I would suggest he should not hold his breath when it comes to collecting.
“The ransom of a man’s life is his wealth, but a poor man hears no threat.” Proverbs 13:8
But Mr. Oger’s BCHRT case against me is really important as it pertains to the development of Canadian case law, and it should matter to Canadians who care about election freedom, gender ideology, parental rights, Oger’s fitness to hold a political office when he inevitably runs in the future, etc… If you are a Canadian who cares and who owns property, has a steady job, and if you aren’t crazy and don’t want to lose everything that a serial litigant such as Mr. Oger can potentially go after than Oger vs. Whatcott is a serious infringement on your freedom of speech already.
Canada has already become a strange new country where we can’t critically discuss a transgender activist candidate’s so-called gender identity during an election. Most Canadians aren’t even aware of this change, never mind comprehending the magnitude of this change yet.
While I am happy that Mr. Yaniv is out of my life and as far as I can tell he is no longer able to torment people with frivolous police complaints and so-called human rights lawsuits anymore, the reasoning used by the BCHRT to de facto dismiss Mr. Yaniv’s vexatious complaint is quite concerning to me. In fact there are a number of troubling things in this BCHRT letter written by Mr. Singh and addressed to myself and Mr. Yaniv that I would like to comment on.
The first and most obvious problem is the BCHRT adjudicator Mr. Singh (just like the adjudicator Ms. Cousineau in the Oger case, just like Justice Marzari in the BC Court of Appeal who ordered a father to call his gender confused teenaged daughter a boy) stubbornly pushing the false gender narrative that biological sex is subservient to so-called gender identity. This problem is evidenced in the above letter where Mr. Singh refers to Jonathan Yaniv as “Jessica Yaniv” and “Ms. Yaniv.” As long as our courts refuse to acknowledge that we human beings are made in the image of God and that He made us “male and female” (see Genesis 5:1,2), and so long as our courts refuse to affirm the truth that we are not able to switch our sex/gender as we see fit; these crazy aberrations such as Jonathan Yaniv suing 16 estheticians, a deaf woman getting raped in a Toronto women’s shelter by a biological male who identified as a “transwomen,” a father being forced to refer to his daughter as a boy, and our elections being subverted by a gender confused tyrant like Ronan Oger are going to continue to afflict our society.
I don’t take any comfort in Mr. Yaniv’s complaint against me being “deferred.” This deferral (which the BCHRT is calculating will really be a dismissal) is merely a cynical attempt to get rid of Mr. Yaniv, as the BCHRT realizes Mr. Yaniv’s very public sociopathy is an absolute public relations nightmare for them. Free speech and more importantly reality its self is still being denied by our courts and so-called human rights tribunals. As soon as a “respectable transwoman” shows up and files a human rights complaint against a business, church, individual, etc… that has failed to affirm the fake narrative that girls can be boys and vice versa, the crazy show trials and financially life altering judgments will begin again.
The second, serious, though not as profound concern I have with Mr. Singh’s dismissal of this complaint is the pretext he used to do it. I actually looked up Rule 16 (1)(b) of the BCHRT Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Rule 16 – Deferral of Complaint
Requirements for deferral
(1) The tribunal may defer consideration of a complaint until the outcome of another proceeding or a date set by the tribunal, if it determines that:
(a) another proceeding is capable of appropriately dealing with the substance of the
(b) it is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances to do so.
I’m no fan of any of Jonathan Yaniv’s complaints and I have no desire to help him out. However, if I actually broke the law when I preached in front of the BCHRT by referring to Mr. Yaniv with a male pronoun, why is it “fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances” to defer his complaint until he pays the estheticians he wronged $6,000? What does Mr. Yaniv’s conduct in his first hearing and failure to pay $6,000 to those wronged women have to do with whether or not I illegally “misgendered” him? It is concerning to me that an allegedly impartial, quasi-judicial, body can deny someone “justice” on such a specious pretext. Referring to Rule 1(b) and citing Mr. Yaniv’s bad conduct in a previous and unrelated hearing should not be a legitimate excuse to deny Mr. Yaniv legal protection, if in fact I committed an offense against him. In actual fact Paul Singh is making a political decision and is throwing Mr. Yaniv under the bus to get rid of the public relations nightmare that the Tribunal its self created by prosecuting Mr. Yaniv’s repugnant complaints in the first place.
The BCHRT is demonstrating by declining to prosecute Mr. Yaniv’s “misgendering” complaint against me that it is a political, rather than an impartial, judicial body. The rulings of the BCHRT are political rulings that are often at variance with facts and reality. They are not impartial rulings dedicated to finding and upholding what is true. The BCHRT’s treatment of Mr. Yaniv’s victims and Mr. Yaniv himself demonstrates the Tribunal’s complete lack of ethics and grasp of reality. The procedural rulings and judicial rulings of the BCHRT cry injustice and falsehood and should be a wakeup call to Canadians to demand that politicians do whatever it takes to shut this political Tribunal down so it can’t harm anyone else.
As for my so-called hate crime trial? No ruling yet on the Crown Prosecutor’s motion to introduce nearly 20 years of my social media and flyer history into evidence to prove my alleged “deep and complex hatred of homosexuals.” While I am not a lawyer, my God given common sense leaves me wondering why anything I said five years ago, or 19 years ago, or last week, would have anything to do with anything I said 3 years ago in my “Zombie Safe Sex” package at the Toronto unGodly Pride parade. Anyways, the judge seems to be struggling with making a ruling. He told the Crown and my Defense at the end of my last hearing that his ruling would be rendered within a week. Now we are past a month since the hearing and there is still no ruling. Will keep everyone posted when the ruling comes in. Pray that the judge looks at things my way and deems my publicly expressed opinions over the years on homosexuality, homofascism, homosexual activism, disease rates, etc…. irrelevant as to whether or not my flyer disguised as a “Zombie Safe Sex” package in 2016 is illegal.
The trial remains scheduled for June 1, 2020 at the 361 University Ave, Ontario, Superior Court, in Toronto….
In Christ’s Service,
“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.“
Ps: Please pray for Jonathan Yaniv. Mr. Yaniv is one of the most unsympathetic human beings I know of. Mr. Yaniv’s social media behaviour, lies, malicious litigation, menstruation fetishes, attempts at getting the city of Surrey to host underage topless pool parties, and more, are all disgusting. Yet, Mr. Yaniv is a human being made in God’s image. While Mr. Yaniv’s bad choices and cruelty towards vulnerable immigrant women and girls has rendered him a hated person, rejected and despised by people on the political right and left alike, still for Christians we are called to see that the God of miracles can do a miracle and redeem even a man such as him. The day Mr. Yaniv repents and admits he is a sinner in need of redemption is the day the Christian Church should open its doors to him and let him know he is loved and welcome.
“While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.””