And some folks still say that we’re just whiney… or worse.

We’ve just been hipped to the latest column on the Guy Earle controversy. And we’re appalled and horrified.

Morley Walker, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press, opens his column, entitled “Yes, it’s called a punchline, but does that mean it should hurt?” with the following:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, and Jane Austen likely would agree, that most of what gets spewed from the mouths of modern comedians is not funny.

It’s a universally acknowledged truth, is it?

The column goes on… and on… and on.

And it’s a stunning mess, a horrid peek into a mind incapable of coherent thought.

And it misses the big picture entirely.

And, perhaps most distressing, it features quotes from a comedian who entirely misses the big picture as well.

And throughout this sorry column, Walker never passes up a chance to label Earle as unfunny or dumb. That’s right, he takes a shot at Earle’s intelligence. Earle is referred to as a “talentless amateur.” A shot is even taken at the club itself, which it’s said, “was hardly an A-list room.”

And, as we say, all of it misses the point.

For the past three years, Earle has not been assailed by an entertainment magazine or a comedian or an op-ed page writer or a private citizen. He’s been hounded by an agent of his own GOVERNMENT.

When hauling a comedian in front of a government commission to decide if he should be deprived of his liberty and/or property, apparently we must take into consideration several things: Is he funny? Is the club a real comedy club? Were the comedians on the bill pros or amateurs?

These people just don’t fucking get it: It doesn’t matter if he’s a “talentless amateur” or “unfunny” or if he’s no Einstein or if the venue is a “b-room.” None of that matters! He’s a comedian who is performing comedy. In this context, there is very wide latitude as to what is said and how it should and must be perceived. Essentially, anything goes.

If the government (or those on the sidelines) are to insinuate themselves into the process, into the transaction between performer and patron, then every show, every provocative performance, every harsh monologue or diatribe can thereafter be subjected to scrutiny and every performer can be the victim of an arbitrary persecution such as that which has been going on in Vancouver for nearly three years.

Various excuses are offered as to why the Tribunal is justified in going after Earle for his “intemperate remarks.”

The worst and most worrisome is this:

Members of minority groups can and do feel harassed, if not threatened, in some environments. Comedy clubs are frequented by enthusiastically imbibing young men.

Translation: Comedy clubs are seething pits of white male aggression. Best not get any ideas about going up onstage and saying anything to rile the drunk white boys.

This is a disastrous portrayal of comedy clubs. And it is a seriously flawed analysis of society and of the responsibilities we have as adults when interacting in public. And it imperils speech of all kinds, not just that which takes place within the context of a comedy show.

The truly frightening part is that neither Walker nor many of his Canadian readers see nothing wrong with this analysis.

Walker continues, referring to the aforementioned inebriated white boys that populate his worst PC nightmare:

Some of them, hearing “there’s the dyke table” from an irritated comedian who proceeds to unleash a torrent of abuse, could take it as permission to act out their own aggressions.

It has nothing to do with humour and everything to do with intimidation.

So the comedian, in the context of a comedy show, must be ever mindful that his words may be misconstrued as a greenlight to commit violence on patrons who may or may not be a member of a protected minority. And the implication is that, were something to happen, it would be the comedian who is at fault.

Perhaps most disappointing are the quotes from Al Rae, CBC Winnipeg Comedy Festival artistic director, who says “the whole situation is an insult to professional comedians everywhere.”

It most certainly is, but Rae seems to think that it’s an insult to professional comedians in a radically different way. Rae seems to think that, in the case of Guy Earle and his 2007 confrontation in Vancouver, considering the amateur or professional status of Earle is helpful in determining his guilt or innocence.

We argue that making such a distinction is not just worthless, but alarming and possibly even dangerous– to Rae and to all comedians in Canada.

Certainly Rae has cause to make such distinctions when it comes to booking a festival. He must separate the “talentless amateurs” from the “professional comedians” when it comes to who is presented in his shows.

But if we are to look out for freedom of speech– and if we are to regard the free speech of comedians as a whole– we should not make such a distinction, for doing so opens up the door to prosecute/persecute any comedian, regardless of his professional status.

Of course, folks like Rae (and, sadly, other comedians) believe that they’re doing just the opposite– cut Earle loose, throw him under the bus and you created a PC firewall that stops the prosecution long before it gets to such professionals as Rae.

It is interesting to note that the only people making the distinction between amateur and professional (between funny and unfunny) are people like Al Rae, Nic Roy and other comedians. And, perhaps most tellingly, the only people who are not making this distinction are… Lorna Pardy and the BCHRT. (And ultimately Morley Walker, a columnist for the oldest and most read daily paper in Western Canada, who says “…Most of what gets spewed from the mouths of modern comedians is not funny.” Of course, we don’t make the distinction, but for wildly different reasons.)

Let’s face it– Pardy and the Tribunal don’t care if he’s an amateur or not. The decision rendered will most likely be in favor of the plaintiff. Fines will be levied and sanctions decreed. Because it’s not Guy Earle who is on trial here– it’s standup comedy.

Failure to understand that leads to comics testifying against other comics, festival directors publicly and flatly calling performers “unfunny,” and worse.

“Comedians learn early, Rae says, not to attack people for the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation.”

Oh?

Tell that to Joan Rivers. Again, from Walker’s column:

Here in Winnipeg two weeks ago, the over-Botoxed comedienne Joan Rivers ruffled a few feathers at the Fort Garry Hotel when she cracked wise about Chinese people and gays.

But, Walker says, “no one thought to charge her with a crime against humanity.”

Not yet.

But give it some time. Before long, the forces who entertained the ridiculous notion of following through on Pardy’s complaint could easily blur the distinction between professional and amateur. As evidence of this, we remind you that Rivers’ name came up in a column about the incident… so already Joan Rivers, professional or not, is associated with jokes about ethnicity and sexual preference. How long before Rivers encounters resistance to her next bookings in British Columbia, citing the aforementioned performance? All it takes, apparently, is for one of the owners of the “ruffled feathers” to fill out a few forms, find a willing attorney and before you know it, Joan Rivers is persona non grata in B.C.

H/T to Aaron Ward!