Get “insulted,” pick up a check for $22,500 UPDATE
When we last checked in on Guy Earle, the comedian who was hauled before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for an incident at a Vancouver open mike night, he was living in Nova Scotia with his wife and new baby. And he was determined to salvage something out of the whole ordeal– “to show the Supreme Court that there exists a conflict between the HRT code and the Canadian Charter of Freedom.”
We mistakenly believed the matter to be settled.
This morning, however, our readers sent along some links to various articles that told of Earle being ordered to fork over the equivalent of $15,745 US to the aggrieved party.
From the Vancouver Sun’s Business section:
Stand-up comedian Guy Earl was ordered to pay the money to Lorna Pardy, 32, while the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal also ordered the Vancouver restaurant owner, Salam Ishmail, to pay her $7,500.
The cash, said tribunal member Murray Geiger-Adams, was for “lost wages and for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect.”
Finding sensible comment on the incident is an exceedingly difficult task. One opinion, from an alleged comedian and “political activist” named Charles Demers, seems, at the outset, to be on the mark:
“This ruling is going to have an impact on professional comics who are now going to have a harder time starting up in new venues,” Demers said.
“They’re going to have a harder time getting restaurants and bars to start up comedy nights because now [the restaurants and bars are] going to be worried that they’re on the hook.”
Gee, do ya think? But then Demers veers into gross stupidity when he adds that, while this might raise free speech issues as they relate to comedy and while the cash settlement might curtail any adventurous open mike nights, he is, he says
“as much invested in the fight against homophobia as in the fight for comedy,” and wouldn’t want to align himself with someone making hateful, homophobic comments.
Similar claptrap is offered by “Vancouver-based comedian and promoter” Donovan Mahoney who says “Mean spirited stuff, I’ve seen people do it and I kind of cringe, because in my mind, comedy is very smart. A good comic is smart.”
The quotes from “comedic performer” Ruven Klausner tower over the others for their clarity and their blessed lack of P.C. back-pedaling and qualification. Earle didn’t violate anyone’s human rights, says Klausner.
“He might have violated her sense of entertainment, but we all have to endure that sometimes when we go to comedy shows,” Klausner said with a laugh.
Then the commentary lurches back into profound ignorance.
Gregg Scott, who did standup for several years, said it seemed Earle’s biggest mistake was that he wasn’t funny.
Congratulations, Vancouver (and Canadian) comedians. You now have a set of rules when you mount the stage. And here’s the best part: You have no idea what they might be.
Have fun.
When you defend free speech you gotta go big or go home. If you cede any sort of victory (no matter how tiny) to the weasels who seek to curtail your speech, you have lost. If you walk away from a fight like this one saying, as Gregg Scott does, “there still are a number of approaches to take before slandering — [such as] being funny,” then you have handed the folks on the other side of the issue a huge victory. Because there is no way to objectively determine “what is funny.”
Therefore… anyone who mounts the stage is subject to this mushy criteria. And is therefore subject to prosecution/persecution.
It is absolutely essential to fight and scrape for every inch of territory surrounding that stage (and the speech that emanates from it) and declare it free from any actions by the state. Not only is it free speech, it’s speech in the name of art.
These nitwits (the ones who seek to differentiate themselves from Guy Earle… we’re looking at you, Gregg Scott and Charles Demers) mistakenly believe that by throwing Guy Earle under the bus, they’ve created some sort of firewall that will save them should they offend the wrong person.
Aside from the obvious chilling effect among entrepreneurs– what venue owner in his right mind would now risk $7,500 to put on an open mike?– there is the very real free speech issue.
And the performers, proprietors and others who do anything– ANYTHING– less than offer an unqualified defense of Earle’s (and anyone else who delivers speech in a comedy show format) is actually doing the bidding of these bureacrats.
What will you do when that Muslim/Christian/Canadian bit of yours– the one that perfectly fits the neat criteria of Messrs. Donovan and Scott above– is adjudged to be “vulgar” and also is deemed by one patron or another to have “attacked (insert plaintiff’s name here)’s identity and dignity as a Muslim/Christian/Canadian and a man?”
You will probably wished that you had fought more vigorously for Mr. Earle’s rights because his rights are yours as well.
_ _ _ _ _
FB pal Brian Scolaro posted the video below in his status update and urged folks to “SHOW SUPPORT FOR THIS COMEDIAN HOWEVER YOU CAN.”
The interviewer, Ezra Levant, was harassed by an entirely different “Human Rights Commission” for publishing the famous Muhammed cartoons in his publication, the Western Standard.
53 Responses
Reply to: Get “insulted,” pick up a check for $22,500 UPDATE
First they came for the prop acts,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a prop act.
Then they came for the ventriloquists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a ventriloquist.
Then they came for the guitar acts,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a guitar act.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Reader Riden is parodying German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor Pastor Friedrich Niemoller’s famous quote. (We alluded to it in the title of our initial posting on the Guy Earle affair back in June of 2008–“And then they came for the comedians…”).
And the point he makes is real and worth making. And the scenario is playing out in Canada. But most comics seem oblivious to the dangers. Currently (as in June of 2008), Canadian comics are hanging Earle out to dry and are seemingly unaware of the dangers of doing so.
I was not a witness to the event so my comment is limited to this article. I agree that speech on a comedy stage must be protected. It seems that anyone going to a club has provided tacit acknowledgement that comedy includes commentary on social issues, identity, behavior, and more that is not meant to represent the views of the venue, first of all. More importantly, the views of the comic are ostensibly what the audience came to hear, much as with a lecture. Any presentation includes opinions and the freedom to express them, no matter what they may be, is different than when those opinions are expressed off stage in a non-presentational setting or from a position of authority or power.
I only wish George Carlin were here to comment. He is not alone perhaps in rolling in his grave, and not from laughter.
Perhaps comics can now sue hecklers for the same type of “hate speech?
As a Comic who works the whole country of my beloved Canada, I am saddened by this news, and feared this day would come as I witnessed among the comedy community, the apathy to Earle’s plight, as it unravelled in 2007, especially in Vancouver. Those mercury-addled, sushi-suckers, all sported their pious hard-ons for the “outlander” Guy Earle, while he took blow after blow in every “Fag-Hag” news rag, that dystopian clusterfuck has to offer.
Standing sheltered behind the “movement dujour” in the overzealous wasteland of righteous indignation, (we call B.C.) these placard hoisting, prairie dogs, who claim to carry the torch/burden of free speech, would cower and bend at the first sign of resistance, and instead, bare their fangs at anyone (myself included) who tried to rally them to Earle’s cause. Opting for the strategy of stonehurling, from the warm safety of their underground tunnel systems. “Fuck him”, “he wasn’t funny”, “he’s an asshole”, they’d whimper from the shadows. Ok, well now we’re all fucked! You fucking guttersnipes!
So B.C., if thats what you want, a “Caspar Milquetoast” led comedy scene, that never defends itself, or creates anything of artistic merit, you pussies can have it. I am boycotting any future dates booked in British Columbia, and I encourage all self-respecting comics/performers to do the same, until a resolution in Earle’s/our favour can be met. How can we risk saying another fucking word in that fascist postcard, while working in our medium of choice, within the public forum?
Having lived in Vancouver as a comedian for 15 years, I have many comic friends who must be flummoxed by this outcome. “But Jay, How will I earn my $8,000 a year in this flourishing comedy scene, if I boycott these TWO clubs?”
Well, weary traveller, I offer you these few words of artistic salvation…….”Move to Toronto”, NOW! You can middle in Hamilton. A fate slightly less worse than staying in that hived Zeitgeist of self-loathing, spirit crushers.
jay brown – boomclack@hotmail.com
Mr. Brown has nailed it. The lack of support is disgraceful and the resulting shambles of a comedy scene is shameful.
And the Michael Richards comparison is fallacious. Richards melted down, he offended a couple people in the audience at the Factory. In the ensuing media circus, he was pilloried by various columnists and some of his colleagues. He was not, however, brought before a quasi-judicial branch of the government. He was not censored. He was not banned from performing in Los Angeles.
As for our coverage of the Michael Richards incident, we called Gloria Allred a “media whore/extortionist” for desperately trying to make something out of nothing. We said, among other things:
We don’t know if Richards handed over any money to anyone. But, even if he did, he did it on his own. If he “settled,” it was his choice (and he could have very easily refused to do so). In the case of Vancouver, we have a so-called “human rights commission” taking money from two citizens and giving it to another citizen. Frightening. (And doubly frightening that so many of Earle’s colleagues equivocate.)
In our research, we can’t find any indication that Richards went along with Allred’s insipid scheme to extort money out of Richards by finding a “retired judge” to decide whether or not her clients were “injured” and therefore entitled to Richards property. (We suspect that she couldn’t find anyone to go along with the gag, as it is a fevered P.C. fantasy and would not achieve anything faintly resembling “justice.”
Here’s a link to the 100 page decision adn if it hasn’t been read by you I would recommend:
http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2011/pdf/april/101_Pardy_v_Earle_and_others_No_4_2011_BCHRT_101.pdf
Although this decision is ridiculous, and a sad state on many levels it is not as straight forward as one would hope. Namely, the physical element of this idiocy and the comedian leaving the stage to “confront” the heckler (read: angry Lesbian)
Also, as wonderful as free speech is, Canada doesn’t endorse such an idea. Our charter of rights and freedoms (similar to your constitution) does hold those liable for “hate speech”, hence why this is even an issue.
After reading the entire 100 pages of the decision it would seem that neither the commentary from the stage nor the physical altercation or words after the show would stand on their own. It seems it was decided (however moronically) that the escalation of of events and having one seemingly lead into the other blurred the line of performance and hate.
There is much to be derided in this decision and many are talking about it. Guy has never been considered a comedian (never mind a good one). Pretty sure Lorna has always been considered a lesbian (now according to the ruling that’s a vulnerability) I don’t much care for Guy or his attempt to entertain but this is ridiculous. I wonder how much this had to do with what he said onstage vs. his actions off. Combine an asshole with a “vulnerable” person and there’s bound to be a big oops…
I feel sorry for the restaurant owner who had the show in his establishment! He had nothing to do with this! This is a real cluster fuck…
Keep in mind that this decision was announced yesterday, and you have quoted a few souls some of which don’t even perform anymore. There are strong feelings out there and we’re finding our way through this.
Before going to hard on us Canadians I might remind you of Michael Richards. I was in LA when he melted down at the Laugh Factory, and when the Improv took down his picture from the back wall. I don’t remember seeing the protests protecting his right to free speech then. (not sure how it was reported on here)
Let the berating begin… (be kind, you know we’re sensitive up here)
Charles Demers is smarter and funnier than both of you put together on your best day. That said, shitty stupid ruling and this isn’t something that’s going to pass uncontested. The ruling was announced two days ago, come back in a year and let’s see what’s happened.
Not to speak for Greg Scott, I think he was trying to say that, had the comedian’s set been hilariously funny, then none of this would have happened. The laughs in the room may have contexualized the material as being culturally more acceptable (I make no judgement on the material in this case). It’s when things go horribly wrong that the parameters of freedom of speech become more evident and get called into question. Greg Scott was making a joke that, all of us who have bombed on stage at some point, were thinking.
hey i think it is time we all calm down a little before you label everyone ..this goes out to both sides
the fact the judgement has just been handed out is also a consideration on why things are slow to this cause
I do agree we all have to do something to help this fight as i have many reasons to worry of this legal precedant.
Just because shecky has not heard of anything going on does not mean nothing is going on in Canada.
There had been fundraisers for the cause and comics coming out supporting guy earle in the media.
I think most people like myself was waiting to see what happened with the ruling as guy in articles and interviews had said that they thought they had a strong case.
Now the legal bullshit has been said now we all stand up to fight it is how i look at it.
From what i have read on this case both parties acted poorly and for that fact alone this should have been thrown out before it went to what he said on stage.
The bottom line is we dont have freedom of speech in canada like you do in america and even though i dont like that it is the law.
@ Darren Frost:
Ah! A bureaucratic nightmare (the BCHRC) is taking money away from one citizen and giving it to another because one citizen got her feelings hurt.
And we are counseled to “calm down a little.”
We’re told that “waiting to see what happened” is advisable.
Guy Earle’s life has been disrupted for three years now. Three years! We’ve been talking about it for nearly the entire time. And all along, we’ve gotten shit from people in Canada and in Vancouver (and even from people here in the USA). We’re told to wait and see what the outcome is, wait for the BCHRC’s final decision.
Of course, we warned folks that they were 13-0. We told everyone that the defendant bears the cost of the trial and that the plaintiff bears none. We even told our readers that one of the creators of the HRC’s declared that they had strayed dangerously from their original mandate (“…we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech. Censoring debates was hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions,” said human rights lawyer Alan Borovoy.)
So, to accord these bastards any respect whatsoever is being way too courteous.
You say, “The bottom line is we dont have freedom of speech in canada like you do in america and even though i dont like that it is the law.” But you ignore the fact that Guy Earle is desperately trying to demonstrate that what the BCHRC (and other similar bodies) does/do is in violation of the Charter of Canada.
The bottom line is that you do have freedom of speech in Canada. But it’s under assault.
From Wikipedia:
The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada’s freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
You have freedom of speech, albeit in a cramped form. But the HRC’s, with nothing better to do (and grossly misinterpreting their original mandate), have gone out of control It is quite clear that this could potentially destroy freedom of speech and expression.
But we are advised to wait and see.
When we first read about Ezra Levant, we said privately that it was only a matter of time before a comedian would be persecuted. Sadly, we were right.
It doesn’t matter if the decision is overturned. The damage is done. And we don’t have much hope that Earle will have any luck with the Supreme Court. (But, again, that will hardly matter since the damage is done. They could bang the gavel and obliterate the HRC tomorrow, but restaurant and club owners could not be blamed for being gunshy. And Canadian comedians will no doubt police their speech for years to come, never quite sure if what they say can be used to harass them and/or drain their savings for months or years in some sort of effort to make up for a fellow citizen’s “injury to dignity, feelings and self respect.”)
The time to “stand up to fight” is long past.
This ruling doesn’t affect us in the least. We don’t live in Canada. But we are not the enemy. We’re not the ones chilling the speech and expression of Canadian comics. So it is rather odd that we’re the object of any anger and not the BCHRC. All we’ve tried to do is warn folks of the danger of the BCHRC. But folks seem more upset that we have the temerity to criticize Canada. Get your priorities straight.
Why is every comic in Canada acting like Guy was powerless here? The man screamed homophobic slurs at a table of gay people and I, for one, am glad he is answering for it. There was no broader context, no satirical point being expressed. Sorry, folks, just because you call yourself a comedian does not give you the right to hate speech. If he had shrieked racist slurs at a table of Chinese people NOBODY would be defending him. Guess what? Your opportunity to defend the real Lenny Bruce passed you about 50 years ago. The diffrence between Lenny and Guy is LENNY HAD A POINT! What are you defending? Freedom of speech? Or just freedom of hate speech?
Dylan Rhymer takes top prize for Dumbest Comment So Far!
Congratulations!
Attention all comedians: Make certain that all your material has a “broader context!” And make sure that you express a “satirical point.” It is in this way that you will protect yourself from suppression by the state.
Of course, we can’t be sure if our broader context or our satirical point will hold up in (kangaroo) court, but we’re certain that the court will smile upon us if/when the time comes that we have to defend ourselves. After all, we’re smarter and better than Guy Earle. We’re different.
Would we defend a comedian who “shrieked racist slurs at a table of Chinese people?” You had better fucking believe we would. That’s how this freedom of speech thing works, you moron.
You defend the worst of the speech to protect ALL of it.
Before you call somebody else a moron this is actually how the “freedom of speech thing” works in this country:
The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada’s freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
This section is double-edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.
@ Ben Mills:
Uh… we ran those chunks of the Charter in our previous reply to Dylan Rhymer.
As far as we’re concerned, here’s how this “freedom of speech thing” works in Canada: It doesn’t.
Do we have any evidence?
Do any comics in B.C. think they have any real freedom of expression? If they do, they’re delusional. Do any club owners think that putting on an open mike is a good idea? Probably not.
“Double-edged,” indeed.
Speaking on behalf of every club owner in BC is an extreme generalization. How exactly have you gained this perspective into what every club owner is thinking?
Im not Roy Cohn, I get that freedom of speech means that you have to also stand up for the very people you disagree with. I am just considering the opposite opinion to your one-sided article
. And when a person, any person comedian or otherwise, hurles abuse targeted at peoples sexuality or ethnicity in a public place with no warning (Zesty was a restaurant, not a theatre, not a club, no cover, no warning sign on the door, and they werent there for the show) then jumps offstage and destroys their belongings, I don;t automatically run to their -it was all just part of the show- defense. I guess by considering both sides of the story then that makes me an idiot. By the way, where do Ipick up my prize?
Dear Not Mr. Cohn:
You say that you “get that freedom of speech means that you have to also stand up for the very people you disagree with.” Then follow that up with, “I am just considering the opposite opinion to your one-sided article.”
Well, there’s a good reason why our article was “one-sided.”
Because otherwise, we might contradict ourselves. It’s not a crime to have an article that advocates for absolute freedom of speech. The opposite to that opinion is that the other side has a point. We have startling news for you: They don’t.
See how easy that is?
We can see that you don’t automatically run to the defense of a fellow comedian. And that is why you (and other Vancouver comedians) find themselves in the wretched mess they’re in.
Had you (and other folks) thought with a little more clarity and been a lot more forceful when defending free speech and expression, this mess might not have dragged on for nearly three years like it has.
Considering both sides of the story, at least in this case (and at least in our opinion) does make you an idiot.
Well that’s twice now that you have resorted to cheap insults because I happen to disagree with you. This further discredits your forum and your blog. What is this? Grade 6? I assume you will probably resort to a third insult (what’s next? poopy bum?) but I won’t waste my time reading it. You’ve shown your true colours as a childish bully.
And by the way us stoopid Canadians are so very thankful that an American finally stepped in to show us dumb-asses how we aren’t defending out freedom of speech. (Americans who elected Bush Jr twice and allowed the Patriot Act to come in.) So thanks for that. God knows how freedom would ever survive if it weren’t for the intervention of the stars and bars. That’s worked so well in the past.
If, by considering both sides of the argument, you consider me an idiot then so be it. I guess I am an idiot. But at least I’m not a self-righteous, condescending hypocrite.
@ Dylan Rhymer:
Then congratulations are in order.
Whether Guy Earl was funny or not or hacky or not or homophobic or not is moot. I didn’t see or hear the incident but the only issue that really matters is did he incite violence or not. If he didn’t, anything goes. There’s nothing worse than someone who goes to a comedy show, heckles the stage, and can’t take their lumps. I’m against homophobia too, but that is moot here. This decision will have zero effect on curbing homophobia. But it will have a negative effect on free speech. Homophobic speech should be combatted with non homophobic speech, not ridiculous law suits by suckee idiot hecklers.
@ Tim Rykert:
Precisely.
You paraphrase U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis who said, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
I am a Canadian and American comic (dual citizen) now living in Vancouver, member and co-founder of the comedic group Schtuptown along with Ruven Klausner, and I am disgusted by this ridiculous “judgement.” I think it represents a step backwards for performance art in Canada, a step backwards for our justice system, and worse yet, a step backwards for those fighting real human rights isues, such as genuine incidents of gay-bashing.
Firstly, notwithstanding the fact that it’s well documented that Lorna Pardy heckled Earle Guy repeatedly before he said anything, here’s the main issue: at no point did his comments constitute incitement and therefore, this is not a human right issue; I also do not believe for one second that she ever felt threatened to be harmed, as she claimed in her money-grab lawsuit. Let me get this straight: throwing her drink in his face was a pre-emptive strike?! Ridiculous, and almost laughable if not for the fact that this was accepted by the judge. It’s clear from many of the statements of the people who were actually there, that this was clearly just a bar scrap that was simply horribly overblown.
Secondly, many people are making stupid and irrelevant comments such as: “but he wasn’t funny”…”he’s not a good comic,” etc. I cannot believe this must be stated, but clearly it must: since when did a universal law exist as to what constitutes funny? Obviously, it’s relative — how ridiculous that people would even argue this. I don’t care if there are zero laughs at a given show. Now that said, who cares? As I stated, it’s a moot point, as this is an irrelevant argument to make, as Guy not being funny does not equal a human rights issue, as Ruven commented.
Thirdly, and worse yet, why penalize the establishment, too? How can they possibly predict what a comic will say in a heckling battle? The effect of this is very serious: businesses and venues are now going to have worry about hosting comedy nights, or other performance art events lest someone “feel threatened” because they’re “offended”. On this subject, comedian Steve Hughes, said it best here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JxA9Rvs8I&NR=1 and comedian Moshe Kasher, here: http://youtu.be/MH8xwyVMNIQ
Finally, this is a huge setback for Canadian arts and comedy. Clearly, great and popular comedians like Lisa Lampanelli, Ricky Gervais, etc. will now not be able to come do a show in Canada – or is there a double standard given by audience members to “pros” vs. “amateurs”? To sum it all up: yes, there are incidents where performers are guilty of hate speech and incitement – where an artist urges people to harm or kill a certain group, as Jamaican musical performers Elephant man did in “We Nuh Like Gay” or Buju Banton in his “Boom Bye Bye”; both performers urged people to burn and kill gay people, and these cases were rightfully fought here in Canada (and elsewhere) as veritable human rights issues. The incident between Guy Earle and Lorna Pardy is not one such case.
Thank you, thank you and thank you.
No, thank YOU, for publishing this piece and joining in the fight against censorship in the arts. This is utterly ridiculous and as a Canadian, Vancouverite, female comic, gay-rights advocate, and human being, *I* am offended by this judgement against Guy Earle, and offended that this case wasn’t thrown out of court!
As long as Ricky Gervais doesn’t break anyone’s sunglasses he’ll probably be okay.
For the record: I didn’t say I supported the HRT decision. I said I was worried about the effects on free speech, and on the working lives of comedians. I also explained to the interviewer that with gay family members, I felt just as invested in fighting homophobia as I do in fighting for comedy; that’s because my citizenship is not one-dimensional. Being a stand-up comic doesn’t cancel out my worrying about my sibling getting gay-bashed. That doesn’t mean I think Guy Earle should be bankrupted for what he said; but certainly, given that, I can express a distaste for what he said. We all strike balances like that in our lives. So the answers I gave the interviewer reflected that balance — if that qualifies as “gross stupidity,” then that’s really depressing. Finally: Ezra Levant, the self-appointed “free speech” hero interviewing Earle, called for the assassination of Julian Assange in the wake of the Wikileaks revelations. Surely the right of journalists to publish inconvenient stories is just as important a manifestation of free speech as is the right to browbeat lesbians?
I agree with Charlie that I’ve found the whole situation upsetting from both perspectives. No out come would have felt like a victory. If that means I suffer from gross stupidity so be it.
For the record I am against this article’s use of such terms as “gross stupidity” to criticize anyone’s comments on this issue. I do however agree with the argument that qualifying one’s opposition to the HRT’s decision by saying “but I am also against homophobia” is the wrong thing to do. Many of us have gay family members and friends and are deeply invested in the fight against homophobia, (Which comes from religion BTW) but we need to be MORE invested in the fight for free speech than we are in the fight against homophobia because free speech is the only legitimate weapon we have in the fight against homophobic speech. The fight for free speech must take precedent and for this reason I don’t think that the discussion of the HRT decision in the Guy Earl case is the forum to air out one’s opposition to homophobia. There are plenty of other forums for that. This one is about free speech and nothing more.
PS don’t bother looking for the “unfriend” button to try and shut me out of this conversation. There isn’t one.
I don’t remember SHECKY (or anyone) defending Michael Richards when he behaved similarly. Freedom of Speech doesn’t give someone the right to use a stage and a microphone to target and publicly humiliate someone verbally.
@ Tony Daro:
You don’t remember SHECKY (or anyone) defending Michael Richards?
I understand gingko biloba has nootropic properties. One 240-count bottle of 60 mg gingko biloba tablets can be had at Walmart for just $12! (Neither SHECKYmagazine nor Walmart endorses any statement as to the memory-enhancing benefits of the regular ingestion of gingko biloba. Your mileage may vary.)
If you’ve been reading the magazine, you’d know that, on December 14, 2006, we linked to Elayne Boosler’s HuffingtonPost column on the Michael Richards incident. In it, she defended Richards. We called her essay a “reasoned rejoinder” to the nonsense that was being spewed about Richards at the time.
And we also hasten to point out that Tom Green and Jerry Seinfeld defended Richards. We also note that some of our readers defended Richards quite ably. (We have no shortage of intelligent readers.)
Of course, all this is easily discovered by typing “Michael Richards” (with the quotes) into the search bar at the top of our center column. Or hitting “Archives” and inspecting the posts for November of 2006. But we understand if that’s too much trouble.
And, as for your contention that “freedom of speech doesn’t give someone the right to use a stage and a microphone to target and publicly humiliate someone verbally,” we beg to differ. It most certainly does.
Hello, Shecky. Look at your writing. Now look at Charlie Demers’s (http://bit.ly/hq7CBz). Now back at your writing. Now back to Charlie’s. Sadly, you’re writing is not his…
You went looking for “sensible comment” by reading The Vancouver Sun? That in itself probably explains why you would disparage someone like Charlie Demers (a respected comedian and author) whose comedy and writings are wrapped in a level of nuance and wit that you’re clearly incapable of matching. Why ruin a perfectly reasonable point you got going on by shitting all over a funny guy and great writer? Really, Shecky? You read a few sentences of his in a “newspaper” and call him a “nitwit”? That’s be like reading an article about a complex case that went to some human rights court in a country with strange freedom of expression laws and then jumping to the conclusion that…oh yeah. Right.
@ Paul Bae:
We went looking for sensible comment throughout the WWW.
Based on his statement in the Sun (which is a statement and which is his), we said that he “veered into gross stupidity.” And he did. Go read it again. How else to categorize it?
Demers might normally wrap his comedy and writings in a level of nuance and wit, but, when he’s confronted with an issue like free speech, he’s an equivocating nitwit.
Demers gives the same weight to “the fight against homophobia” as he does to fighting for free speech. As one of our astute readers points out, “we need to be MORE invested in the fight for free speech than we are in the fight against homophobia because free speech is the only legitimate weapon we have in the fight against homophobic speech.”
Other equally astute readers (most notably Simon Rakoff) have similarly put the debate into perspective. Demers, sadly, did not. Saying that “my citizenship is not one-dimensional.” or stating that, “Being a stand-up comic doesn’t cancel out my worrying about my sibling getting gay-bashed,” is a little too nuanced for our liking. Like we said, “Go big, or go home.”
Wow, just lost close to 2 hours here debating this with idiots here in Vancouver, on my facebook thread as well as that of other local comedians.
Many fail to see the point here, and so it’s worth repeating: Earle’s comments do not constitute incitement and therefore do not constitute hate speech. I am a gay-rights advocate, and Earle never once urged anyone to harm or kill gay people. Therefore, the case should have been dismissed because he did not violate anyone’s human rights.
People are conflating and confusing “being offended” with “hate speech/incitement.” This is just plain stupid, and frankly, *I* am offended (tho, honestly and sadly, not surprised) by their ignorance on the subject.
Thank you, Goldie – you are my new hero. Succinct, on point and RIGHT!
Brian & Traci remain my old heroes. There’s room here for everyone.
Shecky Magazine said, “Mr. Brown has nailed it. The lack of support is disgraceful and the resulting shambles of a comedy scene is shameful.”
It’s been two days. Darren Frost is right, everyone needs to calm down. Clubs like Yuk Yuks have been at the forefront of freedom of expression fights since they started. We’re not going to let this go uncontested. But give us at least a week before you call us on rolling over on this.
Also if you’ve ever been interviewed by a newspaper you know they have an angle and shape your words to what they want. Before you call other “alleged” comedians stupid about how things work in their own country, give that some thought.
@ Ian Boothby:
It’s been nearly three years now, NOT two days. Go back and check out the gut-churning qualification and back-pedaling. Read the comments and see just how comedians up north have been “letting this go uncontested” since the beginning of the controversy. Marvel at how, instead of defending Earle’s right to free speech and expression, the tendency is to make snide comments about us here at SHECKYmagazine.com and to make insipid equivalancies and absurd comments about the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Like we said, the lack of support is disgraceful.
And, contrary to what Darren Frost said, calming down is what folks have been doing since 2008. And now we have this horrendous decision.
Shecky said, “It’s been nearly three years now, NOT two days. Go back and check out the gut-churning qualification and back-pedaling. ”
The ruling came through this week. That’s what’s being reacted to. Give it a week before you come down on the comedy community for rolling over and free speech being dead.
For example, Yuk Yuks is the largest comedy chain in Canada with a record of defending freedom of speech. I don’t see that changing.
You read a newspaper article, jumped to some conclusions about the comedians quoted and have been corrected. This is the problem with a knee jerk reaction.
At Ian Boothby:
It’s been nearly three years now. Are you at all familiar with the Gregorian calendar? It’s the one with twelve months.
It’ll be three years in June that Guy Earle has been dogged by these useless bureaucrats. Three years.
We’ve been commenting on it for three years. In those three years, we’ve heard excuses, we’ve heard Guy Earle trashed and we’ve been called “faggots from Jersey.”
If folks haven’t been moved to speak by now, it’s too late.
We haven’t “jumped to some conclusions.” We’ve been following this story since the beginning. Give it a week?
Ok, since everyone seems to be tossing around terms like “Canadian hate speech laws” and “incitement,” here they are:
Advocating genocide (s.318[1]). Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
* Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by… communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].
* Wilful promotion of hatred (s. 319[2]). Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of [a crime].
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
cont’d: as you can see from the above, Earle Guy did none of the above.
As a Canadian and a comedian, it disturbs me that we essentially lack any true freedom of speech legislation. It’s also interesting to me that the HRT found it worthy to waste tax dollars on a seemingly insignificant issue on a macro level (i.e. comedian insults heckler), when in my past “real” job working days, I worked with clients who had physical disabilities and were not being accommodated by their employer whose cases were not deemed worthy of review by a Human Rights Tribunal. Seems f’ed up to me. Wouldn’t happen in the U.S. for example where they actually have strong legislation in effect (Americans With Disabilities Act) to protect that particular group from discrimination.
Plus, I’m surprised that comics aren’t outraged by yet another example of essentially condoning heckling and bad behavior by audience members at comedy shows. It seems to have been glossed over that the evidence strongly suggests that the audience member in question was heckling and being verbally abusive. Is that okay to any comics out there? It shouldn’t be. Is it relevant? It should be.
I’m not defending what Guy Earle said, or whether he was right or wrong, or a good or bad comic … – Just pointing out that this is another example where it seems that any type of abusive interactive audience behavior is tolerated at comedy shows, but at no other types of live performance – wouldn’t be tolerated at a ballet, play, jazz show, poetry reading …
And yes for you comics who are going to jump all over me with “a ballerina wouldn’t call an audience member a whatever derogatory term”. My response is because the ballerina wouldn’t be subjected to hearing “you suck” from a drunken asshole in the middle of Swan Lake.
I find this type of tolerance for consequence free behavior at comedy shows, for whatever inane reason (i.e.”comedians should expect heckling”, or “what if the comedian sucks”) disgusting. This decision reinforces some bad stereotypes about the art form of comedy – that it is okay to voice your displeasure at any time during the performance, in any way that you see fit, without any fear of repercussion. In fact, if you feel that your human rights have been violated, you might cash in!
Come on Canadian comics – show some spine. Some support for the art form which you have chosen. This is wrong on so many levels, even if Guy Earle handled this poorly – which he did. Sometimes although I love Canadians, I hate Canada.
Can someone get me a U.S. Green Card? I’m willing to enter under a different name.
Thanks.
I have to say, that first one needs to know that Canada IS different than the states. We have hate laws, that supercede free speech.
Also, this was NOT a person doing a bit on lesbians, he was calling HER a fucking dyke. See the difference? The artform is not being attacked, it is this persons’ attack of this woman. Also, he was an idiot, she was an idiot and WHERE WAS MANAGMENT? This was an escalated argument that turned nasty. The HRT was right, not perhaps in the ruling in principle, but in the spirit of our laws. He could have called her MANY other names in their argument, but by going to call her a FUCKING DYKE then, well, then he crossed the hate laws.
A good comic can be ready for these things without slurs. A good management would have tossed the heckler out long before it escalated. Bad Judgement on all, and we in fact have to note that the woman was a grade A ass, a fact that SHOULD have been relevant to the case.
Free speech is not guaranteed in Canada. We keep idiots like Fred Phelps from spreading their hate propaganda. If this means comics have to spend more time ensuring they are more in control of themselves on stage, then that is what they have to do.
We as Canadians are protected from hate speech, and when someone directly calls someone a fucking dyke, then in fact they are at fault.
Right or wrong, it’s the law.
This will not affect people from getting on the stage, just racists and heterosexists.
Don’t use this judgement sit as the policy, it in fact is not a limit on free speech, just a limit on idiots. Learn to roast/insult;/deal with hecklers without resorting to slurs that will go against the charter of rights and freedoms.
Thought I’d weigh in by reprinting my blog on the issue below:
The recent decision by the BC Human Rights Commission to award money to an insulted comedy patron seems like a scary precedent. After all, being a comedian does not guarantee a decent income. It doesn’t guarantee any degree of respect from society at large or even the entertainment industry. The one thing that it should guarantee is a license, a license to say whatever one wishes, regardless of social convention. The court jester was free to insult the king and nobles without fear of punishment because of this license. It is amazing to think that medieval society was more enlightened than the current state of Canada.
The counter argument is that the license can be revoked if the comedian fails to elicit laughs. Some people argue that Guy Earle is not really a comedian and was simply harassing a lesbian couple because their public display of affection angered him. The mere fact that he was on stage presented as a comedian should protect him from any legal proceedings. If he’s not funny, he should be fired, pilloried, blacklisted and never booked by anyone again. This effectively revokes his license. I think this rule should apply to any comic who isn’t funny, offensive or not. If nobody’s laughing, get off the stage. If Guy Earle assaulted or attacked the women, that is a matter for the law. It is not a matter of comedy vs. human rights. It is a matter of this asshole vs. that asshole.
However, there is no reason for the Human Right tribunal to involve itself in any case of comedy offending a citizen. Any decent joke is upsetting to someone in some circumstance. The idea of a comedy show is that anything goes. Patrons are free to attend or not. Patrons who do attend are free to leave if they don’t like it. Audiences are not captive and can vote with their dollars.
It should go without saying that a comedy venue is a sacred space. Sacred in the sense that nothing is sacred. Preventing comedians from offending in a comedy venue is equivalent to blacking out portions of the good book in a house of worship because somebody who is not part of the congregation dislikes it. If the Human Rights Commission is saying that this principle of freedom to offend is not understood as implicit, then comedy shows need to take a cue from other litigation-sensitive businesses. In the same way that candy companies are forced to print labels warning that their products may have come in contact with peanuts or other nuts, comedy shows will get in the habit of posting a warning notice. It will likely say that the show may contain material that will be offensive to some sensibilities. The venue and the performers cannot be held responsible for any damage to the feelings, morals, or egos of anyone who enters the premises. By crossing the threshold, you, the patron, agree to give up any right to pursue legal action for compensation for any offense. It seems strange that people in the 21st century need to have this spelled out but, if the courts and tribunals are so ignorant of a convention that reaches back to, at least, ancient Greece, then it is up to the comedy community to make it absolutely clear.
Can’t I be both for free speech AND against Guy Earle?
@ Ben Mills:
You certainly can.
We’re reminded of the quote (often misattributed to Voltaire or any of a number of founding fathers) from Evelyn Beatrice Hall (who wrote under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre), who said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
“Me”, despite being anonymous, makes a couple of valid points, like “where was the management?”
Any club managers, bookers, owners care to comment on whether this ruling changes the way you’ll do business. Zero tolerance for heckling of any kind? Fewer bookings for “edgy, controversial” acts? Or same old, same old?
(Slight warning: this comment is somewhat off-topic but I think will help clarify why most Canadian comics seem so soft-spoken on the issue).
This “calm down and wait until it’s too late” attitude smacks of complacency and dare I say, is très “Canadian.”
I say that AS a Canadian, though I often wonder if the fact that I spent the first 10 years of my life in the U.S. had such an impact as to make me routinely frustrated by Canadians’ apathy when it comes to important issues and politics in general.
I have to say, living most of my life in Canada, my fellow Canadians love to spew ridiculous knee-jerk anti-American b.s., and pat themselves on the back for being so “special” and “Canadian” (which they seem to define simply as “unAmerican”).
Canadians (and a lot of the world) love to narrowmindedly paint the entire U.S. with one broad paint-stroke, and ignorantly indict the entire 300 million Americans for all the ills that occurred in the U.S. or were carried out by its government.
They fail to see – as one of my favourite (yes, that’s the Canadian spelling, there 😉 ) history teachers said about the U.S.: if all you remember is the negatives – such as black slavery, McCarthyism, Vietnam, etc. – then you’re missing half the story.
Because the U.S. is also home to the strong and powerful movements against those very things, such as the Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Movement, Peace Movement, Gay-Rights Movement etc., which had significant ramifications for many places in the world and helped similar movements there.
Everyone criticizes the U.S. and Americans for being “stupid and ignorant”, but honestly, it’s been my experience that most Canadians have no clue about what’s going on in their country, don’t even know who their political representatives are, and are so disconnected from the entire political process, that it’s frightening – and I have not found this to be the case with Americans.
I say this with the added caveat that yes, I am generalizing, this has only been my observation of the two countries and its people, and of course there are exceptions to this on both sides. That said, I think on the whole, this laissez-faire attitude held by most Canadians is one major cultural difference between Canada and the U.S., and it helps explain why the Canadian responses are so weak, and for lack of a better word, “softcore.”
I think that some people on this discussion board don’t realize what a dangerous precedent is being set here. Defense of free speech in this case must be steadfast and unqualified. The idea that we can legislate away hate is utterly asinine. Hatred lives inside of people and if you shut their mouths then it says inside of them and we can not address it with the proper tool of open discourse. Let the homophobes speak their mind. Let them hang themselves with their own ugly words. Let those ugly words be heard loud and clear so that counter arguments can also be heard and we can all learn from each other. This is the essence of free speech.
Remember how “All In The Family” addressed racism? By showing a racist spewing racist slurs so we could see these attitudes in the light of day. Canada would probably ban “All In The Family” if it were presented today. It kills me that the same people who were probably against the censorship of the word “nigger” from Huck Finn seem to be for the censorship of Guy Earl. Hatred can not be censored or legislated away. It can only be addressed with intellectual discourse and we can not do that if we don’t hear it in the first place.
The only limitation on speech should be on the incitement of violence. As for incitement of hatred, I have seen both Dylan Rymer and Charlie Demers and many other comics incite hatred towards republicans and conservatives and homophobes. I have also incited hatred towards these groups and attitudes and I’d like my right to do so protected. We all learn the essence of free speech in kindergarden. It goes like this. Stick and stones may break my bones but NAMES WILL NEVER HURT ME!
Once again, here is a link to comedian Steve Hughes explaining (very funnily) this exact point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JxA9Rvs8I&NR=1
favourite part:
“Nothing happens when you’re offended. It’s not like:
‘I went to the comedy show last night, and the comedian said something about the lord, and I was offended…and the next morning, I had leprosy.’
You’re offended; so what! Nothing happens! You’re an adult; grow up, deal with it!”
Thank God for this expression of sanity from Shecky. I’ve been fuming all week over the mealy mouthed, p-c Trudeaupean b.s. being mouthed by various beta males calling themselves “comedians.”
Just one flaw. As a Canadian whose written about this case (and other, worse ones) for years, it saddens and angers me to point out that your analogy isn’t precisely correct.
That is: under Canadian “law,” Muslims are a protected group, but Christians are not. Christians who’ve tested the system by trying to file “hate crimes” complaints about, say, cartoons depicting the Pope licking the Virgin Mary’s menstrual blood (yeah, that was an actual thing) were told to get lost by the HRCs.
However, Muslims lose these cases when they make the mistake of bringing them against people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.
Guy Earle differs constitutionally somewhat from both men, and he’s fighting a lesbian.
Lesbians are also a protected group, hence Lorna’s win. Gays outnumber Muslims in Canada, you see.
Well, for now… That used to be the same ratio in Amsterdam. Things have devolved recently, I hear…
By the way, “me”:
Millions of us believe that people like you, who use made up b.s. commie words like “heterosexis,” are the REAL “idiots.”
When we’re (back) in charge, do we get to charge YOUR favorite comic or writer — or you — with “hate speech”?
For all those who want to put this down to a “Canada has no freedom of speech, the US does” debate, you may want to remind yourselves of Robert Humphreys. In March of 2001 in South Dakota, Mr. Humphreys made a joke about if you set the president on fire, would you have the burning Bush? He was sentenced to 37 months in jail for threats against the President.
We shut down comments, but this one was too good to pass up.
Secret Service found an email in Humphreys’ car that said: “Now going to ask Bush for justice, and if I don’t get it I am going to pray for a burning Bush. Get it? So if you hear that a man runs up and throws gasoline and a match to Bush you will know that God did speak through the burning Bush.”
People conveniently leave this part out. And, since this nugget of information was readily available (as part of testimony in a highly-publicized trial), we believe folks are leaving it out on purpose.
Humphreys did a bit more than make a play on words. (And, he represented himself in a federal trial. You know what they say: “He who represents himself…”)