[BREITBART] A Canadian official ruled against Jessica Yaniv, the transgender Canadian plaintiff who had accused three women of unfair "discrimination" when they declined to give his testicles a "Brazilian wax" treatment.
But the official minimized the damage to Canada’s pro-transgender laws by suggesting that women may need to provide the sexually intimate service to male bodies if they have been trained for the task.
"Human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax. ... There are differences between waxing the genitals of a person with a vulva and a person with a penis and scrotum," said the deciding official in the quasi-judicial British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
The 61-page decision implies that women will have to provide the intimate service to men if the Canadian licensing boards require cosmeticians to learn how to do the service.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why is this thing not throwing its hat in the ring for Democratic presidential nominee? Ticks all the right boxes. Canuck / non-American too. RUN JESSIE RUN!
#2
Peter Theil and other libertarian/conservative billionaires should create an alternate video channel. Get the South Park guys to post their stuff there to help encourage the migration.
Do the millions Dick's stockholders lost count as a campaign contribution?
[Politico] Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods and a longtime Republican donor, is testing the waters for a possible third-party presidential bid that could scramble the dynamics of the 2020 general election.
#3
The idea of a serious third party challenger in the US is deader that ever. The sort of people who wanted to vote for Ross Perot or John Anderson actually believed the system could be reformed. Present circumstances put paid to that swell fairytale notion.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/24/2019 7:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What happened to Howard Schultz?
Was he off'ed?
#5
Trump's was a third party run that took over the GOP instead of running against them.
I suspect Trump's base is made up of ex-Perot voters and tea-party voters, and Evangelicals that were jerked around and taken for granted by the Old Boys Club/Neo-con coalition that controlled the party after Reagan.
#8
Most all third party bids stay outside and have no chance.
So we mostly agree...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/24/2019 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Yes, technically he's not a third party candidate. He worked within the rules to create a a new coalition within the GOP. The new coalition was comprised of folks that had been screwed or ignored by the previous coalitions so they aren't likely to turn on him.
[NationalReview] Days after squaring off online against “elitist” critics of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s relocation of agency jobs, Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) will introduce legislation on Wednesday that would move the majority of the federal bureaucracy out of Washington D.C. to economically depressed areas, according to a summary of the bill provided to National Review.
The “Helping Infrastructure Restore the Economy (HIRE) Act,” which is cosponsored by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.), would move 90 percent of the positions within ten executive agencies to economically distressed regions that have a stake in the work of those respective agencies.
Not that a matching bill will be passed in the Democrat-controlled House, but it’s definitely useful as a talking point.
#2
Franklin opined that the seat of government should be somewhere nobody wanted to stay in any longer than possible. He also thought all government service should be gratis, so everyone would self limit by the need to "return to their private and profitable pursuits."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/24/2019 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Possible should have been necessary. Self limit should have been self term limit.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/24/2019 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
[FREEBEACON] A Massachusetts Democrat is pushing a bill that would make it a crime to maliciously call someone a "bitch" within the commonwealth. "Poopyhead" is still okay.
Foul-mouthed individuals who are found guilty under a bill introduced by Democratic representative Daniel J. Hunt would face a $150 maximum fine for the first offense, while repeat offenders would face up to six months' imprisonment, a $200 fine, or both. If enacted, "bitch" would be the only word in the English language to receive such special consideration in Massachusetts. So "Dog Squat" is still good to go. "Cow," "sow," "jenny," "pussy," "hen," "vixen," "nanny," "pullet," and "doe" are still in committee. "Ewe" has problems, but they're working on them.
Hunt introduced "An Act regarding the use of offensive words" in May. The proposed law would specify that the use of the word "bitch" satisfied the "offensive and disorderly acts or language" requirement in existing disorderly conduct law. Doesn't matter whether you holler it, squeal it, or whisper, it's still disorderly. If you think it, it depends on your expression.
"A person who uses the word ’bitch' directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person," the bill says. "A violation of this subsection may be reported by the person to whom the offensive language was directed at or by any witness to such incident." What if the person's a guy? Zat still count? How about if she identifies as a guy? Hunt told the Boston Herald that he filed the bill after being asked to do so by a constituent. Falls under the heading of "never tell a constituent he's stoopid." It ain't a legislator's place to explain that something's abhorrent to the nation at large.
"Any time a constituent approaches me with something that is of concern to them, I follow through with it," he said. "In this instance, someone asked me to file a bill that they deemed was important and I thought it was a good exercise to let that bill go through the process." Instead of telling the bitch to shut up?
While critics charge that the bill likely violates the First Amendment, Hunt told the Herald that even if it does, his bill could "illuminate the exhaustive legislative process for people that might not normally be engaged." So it's just a demonstration instead of an assault on our increasingly beleaguered liberties? Oh, well. That's different.
The Massachusetts Republican Party mocked their counterparts for the bill. "Beacon Hill Democrats like [Dan Hunt] are fearlessly taking on the biggest problems facing the commonwealth," the state GOP said on Twitter, asking followers to attend the Judiciary Committee hearing if they "believe free speech matters." Good for you, Taxachussets Publicans. Slap the silly bitches.
#12
"Any time a constituent approaches me with something that is of concern to them, I follow through with it," he said. "In this instance, someone asked me to file a bill that they deemed was important and I thought it was a good exercise to let that bill go through the process."
The politician in question never intended the bill to be passed, he just wanted to shut up an insistent constituent.
#21
Daniel J. Hunt is acting bitchy, even a son of a bitch.
I can hear my poetry fried going on for 30 minutes about the different forms and uses of the word bitch.
"Mr. Jhunt, you are acting like a bitch. Oh, you were asked to, bitch of a spot to be in, but life is a bitch." and so forth, probably something about a bitchin' camero at some point.
[Breibart] On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s "The Situation Room," Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) discussed House Republicans forcing their way into the secured room where the House Intelligence Committee was conducting a deposition for their impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
Castro said, "We were getting ready for the deposition to start and we had had a Democratic caucus meeting just before that of the Intelligence members. We came into the room. Everybody was seated, and just as the witness sat down you had ‐ of course, you had Democratic members already seated, Republicans that were seated. There are about 25 or 30 of the Republican members. It looked to me like it was all the guys. There may have been a few women but I didn’t see them. There are three entrances in that room and they all came kind of storming in. Most of them were not members of the committees, I think, of jurisdiction. They came storming in the room and started disrupting the proceeding. Shortly after that, I didn’t see when the witness left but she left at some point. I think her lawyers escorted her out of the room, but it was a very tense several minutes while everybody was in that room. Quite honestly, it looked like a mob scene. It looked like kind of a mob party coming into that room."
Blitzer asked, "Was it a risk to national security?"
National Security risk? No Wolf, but you certainly have been for several decades.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/24/2019 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Risk? Not really. I was the SSO for several SCIFs. Definitely against the rules and doesn't turn criminal until the person is deliberately recording/picturing of classified information on an unauthorized device.
The fact no classified info was presented before the Republicans entered the area means this is a slight slap on the wrist offense from a security view. Nothing more.
h/t Instapundit
The House Ethics Committee announced Wednesday evening that they will investigate allegations that freshman Rep. Katie Hill, (D-CA) had a sexual relationship with a staffer, according to The Hill.
#1
I shot the sheriff
But I did not shoot the deputy.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/24/2019 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Only answer to this is any district that elects a crook goes without representation until the next regularly scheduled election. All fed funds to said district cut off until the results of that election. If they re-elect a crook like DC regularly did, total fed fund cutoff.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
10/24/2019 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is about a nasty divorce and the district should be ashamed, but not as ashamed as the district that voted for Schiff or Maxine Waters.
[AceOfSpades] Dozens of Republicans, including some members of leadership, barged into the secure hearing room in the Capitol basement where Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, was set to provide private testimony. GOP lawmakers have argued that other lawmakers, not just members of the three committees leading the probe, should be able to attend the closed-door hearings with witnesses.
Several lawmakers said that, in response to the Republican protest, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) had left the room with Cooper, postponing the interview indefinitely.
Rep. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said Schiff said "nothing" when the members sat down before he left with Cooper.
"He doesn't have the guts to come talk to us," Marshall said. "He left, he just got up and left. He doesn't have the guts to tell us why we can't come in the room, why he doesn't want this to be transparent. It's the biggest facade, biggest farce of my life." You want a full civil war? This is how you get a full and hot civil war.
[BREITBART] Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), a freshman Democrat critical to the House Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry” against President Donald Trump given her perch as vice chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee, is denying that she had an affair with two different staff members despite photographic and text message evidence of the affairs published by conservative website Red State.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[BREITBART] A Canadian official ruled against Jessica Yaniv, the transgender Canadian plaintiff who had accused three women of unfair "discrimination" when they declined to give his testicles a "Brazilian wax" treatment.
[NationalReview] Days after squaring off online against “elitist” critics of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s relocation of agency jobs, Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) will introduce legislation on Wednesday that would move the majority of the federal bureaucracy out of Washington D.C. to economically depressed areas, according to a summary of the bill provided to National Review.
[FREEBEACON] A Massachusetts Democrat is pushing a bill that would make it a crime to maliciously call someone a "bitch" within the commonwealth.
[Breibart] On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s "The Situation Room," Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) discussed House Republicans forcing their way into the secured room where the House Intelligence Committee was conducting a deposition for their impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
[AceOfSpades] Dozens of Republicans, including some members of leadership, barged into the secure hearing room in the Capitol basement where Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, was set to provide private testimony. GOP lawmakers have argued that other lawmakers, not just members of the three committees leading the probe, should be able to attend the closed-door hearings with witnesses.
[BREITBART] Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), a freshman Democrat critical to the House Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry” against President Donald Trump given her perch as vice chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee, is denying that she had an affair with two different staff members despite photographic and text message evidence of the affairs published by conservative website Red State.
