Respect my privacy while I shred it
The ruling that lifted the publication ban in the Yaniv hearing is available for our reading pleasure. It presents the reasons for lifting the ban.
In the Original Decision, I reviewed Ms. Yaniv’s privacy interests and found that they were complex. I identified factors weighing both for and against a publication ban. Ultimately, I decided to err on the side of protecting Ms. Yaniv’s privacy because, once that is lost, it could not be regained. The primary factor which tipped the balance in favour of this outcome was Ms. Yaniv’s assertion that she faced threats and harassment which would escalate if she was exposed as the complainant in these proceedings: para. 48. I expressly found, however, that if new facts came to light which affected my balancing, I may lift the order.
Mr. Cameron has presented new facts which, in my view, change the balancing of
interests in this case such that a publication ban is no longer warranted. In particular, I have
learned that Ms. Yaniv is using her own Twitter account to tweet about these complaints and
other very similar circumstances.
Boom tish. Not very bright, is he. “No publication allowed! For my safety! But I get to publish!”
By her own admission, a number of Ms. Yaniv’s tweets within the last month are about
her waxing complaints. While she says that her mother wrote some of them, I do not find that
changes the analysis. The tweets were issued from her Twitter account, using her full and real
name, next to a picture of her. It is fair to attribute them to her, for the purpose of assessing
the extent to which she has any interest in maintaining privacy over these complaints.
The extent to which he has any interest in maintaining privacy, actually. I know the Tribunal Member (Devyn Cousineau) isn’t going to call Yaniv he, but it’s worth reminding ourselves, because every time we say “she” we make Yaniv seem more vulnerable than he in fact is. Yaniv is not vulnerable the way women are, and he is hell-bent on making other women vulnerable to him. He is a bad bad dude.
This should be obvious to anyone who can watch these enormous, confident, male-bodied humans parading around picking on girls, competing against girls, and beating up elderly women. But they wear long hair and dresses and pout a lot and people grant them vulnerability that doesn’t belong to them.
I have no doubt at least some of them have some vulnerability, but it is not the same vulnerability that women have. It is a different vulnerability.
FTFY
I’m wondering if the tribunal might be hesitant to come back with a non-woke ruling? They might toss it along for a court to rule on, or find in JY’s favour, which would amount to sending it to the courts, Of course if it rules against Mr. Waxmyballs, he’s likely to appeal.
He’s a litigation squatter running a shakedown extortion racket.
YNNB, have you been following the hearings? A brave journalist has been tweeting very carefully about them, and it’s clear that the mother is a piece of work, and the parent-child relationship is more than a little odd. I find it completely credible that the mother wrote some of the tweets, and I agree with the judge that this possibility doesn’t change the analysis.
(The journalist uses the handle “goinglikeelsie”, if I recall correctly.)
You do.
https://twitter.com/goinglikeelsie
@goinglikeelsie