Yeah, no. Nothing alike at all.
I think it's quite a bit alike.
Jordan Petersons initial rise to wider public exposure was due to Bill C16 in Canada (where the Yaniv case is also being heard). The bill could be split into two issues.
1) the issue that the bill, in effect, would compel certain forms of speech.
Which is a drastic departure from law in common law based jurisdictions where generally controls on speech exist to restrict what you can say and where you can say it rather then to compel you to say certain things under threat of legal penalty
And
2) that the form the conpelled speech took was to force recognition of self identified gender identity in language used.
For the overwhelming majority of English speakers the words 'woman', 'she', 'her' etc relate to a human females. With the word 'female' denoting a biological woman in this context. (and vice versa for 'man' etc)
So in summary the issue Petersons raised was that the goverment was seeking to enact legislation that would force citizens to affirm an others subjective view of themselves and treat them as per that subjective view.
Which is the same issue in the Yaniv case where he is attempting to force acceptance of his self ID on other's and force them to treat him as a woman (despite all the objective evidence showing the opposite). If others are compelled to accept Yaniv as being a woman they cannot therefore refuse him service on the basis that they don't provide services to men who self ID as women.
Personally I think the tribunal in this particular case will dodge the monster the law has made for itself by ruling that the beauticians could refuse service on the basis that they don't wax penises and testicles (as they don't have the specific training and materials required) rather then the don't provide services to men in general.
Refusing to wax a meat and two veg would not be covered in the slightest, nor would just not calling someone by their preferred pronoun (his favourite claim).
I suggest you stop parading your ignorance...
Here's the relevant section from the Canadian human rights act...
Discriminatory Practices
Marginal note denial of good, service, facility or accommodation
5 It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public
- (a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
- (b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
And Bill C-16 was about adding gender expression to the liat of prohibited grounds...
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
So the law here absolutely does prevent refusal of service based on the part of the beauticians refusing to accept Yaniv's gender identity unless they could show one of the limited exceptions applied.
As above I suspect the tribunal will dodge this one by stating that beauticians can decline service to people with penises and testicles regardless of whether they are 'men' or 'women' . So the basis of the discrimination isn't based on gender ID itself.
As you’ve brought it up I’m guessing you’re one of his worshipers? I say worshiper because he wanted to start a church devoted to him when he was younger. Seems he’s succeeded.
A rather pathetic attempt to discredit some of his views....
I haven't purchased a single one of his books nor sought him out for 'worship'. I disagree with him on some things but he clearly makes some points tht resonate with many.
Watching some YouTube videos and agreeing with some of his opinions is just that....
If you want some misplaced devotion to a cause you are probably better looking at thoose that follow the excesses of current self declared gender ID with a potentially unlimited range of self declared ID's
