That’s the subject line of an email we just got from “roy nic” who, we assume, is Nic Roy, the quisling who testified at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal inquisition/persecution of Canadian comedian Guy Earle.

The body of the email was simply:

THANKS FOR THE MOST BOLD LETTERS

We assume that’s a reference to our posting from yesterday in which we stated that we wouldn’t waste our time boldifying his name (which is what SHECKYmagazine.com does for any living comedian).

Nice!

We wonder if it’s an ironic reference to faggots. Hmmm… Perhaps it’s an April Fools kinda thing. Or a tres ironic Happy Anniversary greeting.

Someone named Wil Weldon commented twice yesterday on the BCHRT travesty posting. We chose not to publish the comments, instead opting to bring them topside:

While you (and I) may disagree with it, doesn’t Nic Roy deserve to have his own opinion on the matter? I think it’s presumptuous to say he’s sucking up to the Kangaroo Courts, especially since there’s no benefit in it for him.

Of course, his opinion becomes pretty ironic when you see that he has a compilation set up on the internet entitled “Nic Roy Hates Women” in which he refers to an audience member as a “cum guzzling jizz whore” and threatens to break the mic stand off in her ass, forcing her boyfriend to suck her cock.

It’s frustrating, too, to see people saying Guy Earle deserves it because he’s not funny. They’re right when they say Guy Earle is not funny, but since when does apptitude (sic) have anything to do with guilt?

Nic Roy certainly “deserves to have his own opinion on the matter.” As do we.

But we are merely a couple faggots from Jersey who seem to have an opinion on everything related to standup comedy.

The boys up in Vancouver, however, are federally funded bureaucrats/busybodies who are empowered (by their interpretation of the odious Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act) to harass comedians, publications, bloggers and anyone else that offends the tender sensibilities of certain protected groups.

And, from what we’ve been reading, if, in the opinion of the boys in Vancouver, you are wrong– and the aggrieved party is “right”– you are out a few thousand dollars in fines, court costs and legal fees.

So, you might see the difference here: We have an opinion. Nic Roy has an opinion. Will Weldon has an opinion about our opinion. Nobody gets hurt. However… if you squawk and weep loud enough and fill out a few forms, your opinion gets a look-see from a panel of power-mad freaks who can make your life miserable and deprive you of your liberty and property.

See the difference?

Weldon also comments:

Wait, if you go to the trial blog you see that Nic Roy is just giving details about what he saw that night. He isn’t siding with the accusers, during cross he clearly makes a joke that what Guy did wasn’t a big deal and that the two women were being just as aggressive as he was. Why did you guys post something so misleading?

Misleading? We sent anyone who wanted to see the transcript to the website that’s covering the trial. We assume the transcript is accurate and we assume the quote we published was accurate. It matters not what was said after.

What does matter is that Nic Roy played nice (for whatever reasons– To distance himself from the “unfunny” Earle? For exposure? To demonstrate that he’s a good little Canadian? To buy some good will from the Tribunal and therby escape any possible persecution down the line? Fear?) with the BCHRT and didn’t make things easier for the defendant, who is, we hasten to point out yet again, a fellow comedian.

He could have easily testified as to the facts without providing the interpretation:

It stopped being a comedy show, it got awkward, Guy Earle was just being offensive, he wasn’t being funny.

That’s about as damning as it gets.

What motivated Roy to say such a thing? Is it at all possible that he wouldn’t know that what he said was exactly what the prosecution might like to hear? Again, what is the motivation behind such a statement? Is there personal animosity between Roy and Earle? If so, that should be set aside when a fellow citizen is being so viciously and unnecessarily persecuted by a governmental body such as the BCHRT.

At the very least, Roy might have understood why such testimony might come around some day to bite him (and every other Canadian comedian) in the ass. Hard.

There’s an old saying: The best answer to bad speech is more speech. Was it Dershowitz? We’re not sure. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the worst answer to “bad speech” is not a kangaroo court wielding the power of the government. And we are horrified that the speech of a comedian– in the context of a performance– is being assailed in the first place as a crime. And every American should be too, regardless of whether or not you’re a comedian.

That’s our opinion.