|
|
|
 Posted
2/1/2010 9:00:00 PM
It's one of those cases - now tragically numerous - which show how Orwellian and Kafkaesque Canada's human rights bureaucracy has become.
Comedian Guy Earle is one of the unfortunate souls trapped in an ongoing nightmare - almost three years now - stemming from his smackdown of some rude and aggressive hecklers. The hecklers happened to be lesbian, which is why this matter is now in the hands of the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Background on the story here - I've written about it here.
Just as it seemed as though this case was close to a just and proper dismissal, Guy Earle gets word that his nightmare will continue:
Did ya hear the one about the BCHRC Chair that ignored the Canadian Supreme Court? Well, apparently, even though the S.C. has quashed the process that has been brought against me, the BC Human Rights Commission has decided to proceed with the original tribunal?!! At great expense (and suffering), I went to Vancouver last year for the tribunal. My lawyer had the process QUASHED, so I came back East to get back to work... Well, we are still a-go for March 29, 2010. So, I was a little premature in thinking there is justice in this world. Fans of freedom, we are not out of this mess yet!
Even though Canadians (and denizens of many other countries) have shown their 99.9% disgust for this action (read the comments) AND the Supreme Court has ruled against it; the tribunal happily marches on, regardless. You would think that their philosophy should be in line with the opinions and desires of the Canadian people as a whole...(?) Not so. Their money is made by sucking the life out of good Canadians. Wasting taxpayers money, hand over fist. I don't want to even imagine the loss of revenue, the cost of fighting this and the time wasted which has been leeched from me. I can't - it makes me sick to think about it.
Guy Earle sounds like he could use a bit of Ezra-type advice right now, so for what it's worth here it is: Get on with your life. Do comedy shows. Do a show somewhere in Vancouver while the trial is on, even if you have to rent the room yourself. You're a full-time comic and a part-time defendant, not the other way round. And, if you do talk about the case, don't meet 'em halfway by talking bullshit about making donations to "women advocate groups". The only issue is this: Canada is now a land where the state regulates comedy acts.
The trial on March 29th will be a disgrace. You don't apologize, you don't donate, you put the system on trial.
That's really the only insight you need: It's about them, not you.
(Via The Shotgun)
|
|
Rob Breakenridge
|
|
|
|
Manishi, I'll give you a little lesson on constitutional law. The Charter sets out a number of "freedoms" such as freedom of expression, etc... they are not unlimited Freedoms. They are subject to "reasonable limits" such as hate propaganda laws, libel
and defamation, national security, and many, many other limits. Obviously you can't have unlimited freedoms otherwise you could not have order in society. It's found in section 1
1. 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 REASONABLE SOCIETY.
The Charter language "reasonable limits" is there. The courts interpret it. Any government has the right to pass a law "notwithsatnding" such a court ruling. And Canadian governments have
the authority to change the constitution.
But where we stand right now, you're wrong. Canada's hate laws are not
unconstitutional.
|
|
Posted By
Tom Brodbeck
On
4/4/2010 7:16:53 PM
|
|
Hey Tom Brodbeck, as much as you like totting out the criminal code(and how little you understand Canadian law). The Charter is the supreme law of the land in Canada and supersedes the criminal code(see CA 2(b)). Which means that his speech is protected unless it can actually be proven that there was an actual crime committed which causes actual harm.
The HRC in any flavor however does not supersede any law in Canada and is in truth a violation of the charter. Learn the laws and flow of constitutional law or don't tote off.
|
|
Posted By
Manishi
On
4/3/2010 12:32:32 PM
|
|
Free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want publicly.
There’s something called hate propaganda in Canada and it is illegal.
From the Criminal Code of Canada:
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any 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) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The law clearly shows you can’t just say publicly whatever you want, not in newspapers, not in broadcast, not on the Internet, and not in a night club either.
Apparently Guy Earle doesn't understand the law.
|
|
Posted By
Tom Brodbeck
On
4/2/2010 7:11:18 AM
|
|
How Pathetic is this. DOWN WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. Free speech is the principal right for a people, or nation to remain free. We should be able to say anything we want without fear short of asking people to kill or harm others, and that has always been a prosecutable offense in Canada. Radical gays and their appeasers are really to blame for this stupid inhuman rights commission. Now every one who feels offended by anything gets the right to put innocent people through hell. I believe in freedom. Gays are free to express and live a happy, safe life in Canada as a gay person and I should have the right to live and even disagree with them but never to bring harm to any one what they say or how they live. Freedom. So leave me alone, and stay out of my life.
|
|
Posted By
William Legge
On
3/26/2010 1:10:28 PM
|
|
I'm staying the fuck away from Canada. If I wanted to go some place where I've got to walk on fucking eggshells to keep from getting arrested for saying the wrong words or expressing the wrong thoughts, I'll go to Cuba. At least there the fucking women are hot.
|
|
Posted By
ThePaganTemple
On
3/25/2010 8:42:38 PM
|
|
People that think they can get others to understand their point of view by telling others to "shut up or else" will not succeed. Speech starts with thought. Thought is not modified by being forced to keep silent. The power in freedom of speech issues is held by the listener's freedom to ignore what is being said.
|
|
Posted By
Jesse Sumrall
On
3/25/2010 7:31:03 PM
|
|
Canada is a ridiculous excuse for a country. Thank God for the United States and its religious and speech freedoms.
|
|
Posted By
Mark Andrews
On
3/25/2010 7:20:27 PM
|
|
Jeez, I guess for you Baconheads calling a lesbian fat and ugly is almost as bad as calling Gretzky "The Pretty Good One."
|
|
Posted By
JerseyJeff
On
3/25/2010 4:29:52 PM
|
|
WWLBD?
ie: What Would Lenny Bruce Do?
|
|
Posted By
One-Eyed-Jacks
On
3/25/2010 9:35:38 AM
|
|
Holy hell. If that's what happens to a stand-up comedian who gave it back to his hecklers, I guess Ann Coulter is lucky to have made it out alive!
|
|
Posted By
Jeff
On
3/24/2010 5:46:32 PM
|
|
Appraising the world with opinions. Not a single one of you knows the whole story. But you all talk like you were there. I'm sure both parties have been painting pictures in their favor. And in typical monkey fashion you all made up your minds without hearing both sides...but better yet actually being there to witness it.
|
|
Posted By
yet another opinion.
On
3/24/2010 1:16:20 AM
|
|
I'm really getting tired with all this left-wing bollocks that passes for "human rights" un the Big Empty. Canada is a wonderful country with great people. Unforuntately, since Chairman Trudeau and his Liberal successors (not to mention the do-nothing Tories) have pacified the masses with the so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians are no longer the people they were in 1967. It should be the "Charter of Affronted by Free Expression."
Then again, I'm an old fashioned Scot with old fashioned values.
Perhaps it is time for Canada's "human rights" Commissars to move to Cuba. I'm sure they will find themselves in congenial company.
|
|
Posted By
The Lone Ranger
On
3/13/2010 8:43:28 AM
|
|
Guy Earl is a balls-less dick!!!!!
|
|
Posted By
The Vancouver Comedy Comunity
On
2/26/2010 6:32:24 PM
|
|
You make an important point in your story. In regards to 'Bad Guy' it is a point that is sorely lacking, as evidenced by his lack of work over the past 3 years...he simply isn't funny. He wasn't funny, nor has he the ability to BE funny, unless you have a special tangent for Pathos.
Maybe he could land a gig in a nightclub of sadists! Ah, but then he couldn't be the bully that physically crosses over the boundaries of comedy into assault and battery...like the unimaginative brute that he is.
He simply isn't funny. He is only entertainment for the Media as fodder that generates discussion...like this.
'Bad Guy' is not a woman, lesbian nor Jewish. He is a bitter drunk who one time in the past was probably told by another drunk; "You're funny! You should be a Comedian." And the poor boy believed it.
tsk tsk so sad...
|
|
Posted By
Mark A Roberts
On
2/25/2010 7:56:40 AM
|
|
If their MP or their Premier had hollered this from a podium, then maybe there would be something to complain about. But they walked into a comedy club and heckled (repeatedly) a performer. When you walk into a comedy club, you are at risk of taking shots even when you are innocent. Challenge the performer by repeatedly heckling and you become fair game. This ain't church, people.
Several years ago, I was dating a Jewish woman. We went to a comedy club. The performer zeroed in on her and started in on how much he dislikes Jewish women and started spewing out the princess stereotypes. We laughed. Was it funny and ok because the comedian was Jewish, too? Or was it funny because it was funny?
Doesn't matter. We were sitting near the front and that was the risk we took. No HR Tribunal involved and we had some funny stories to tell afterwards.
|
|
Posted By
Marcusd
On
2/24/2010 8:06:33 AM
|
|
Hi!
Very nice questions.
To my knowledge the VPD offered to charge this fellow, but allowed the victim to seek Justice under another forum also available. The path of least requirements was actually the involvement of the Police and Criminal Justice system, I would think. Lawyers are freely provided to all, both parties make their statements to the Police who take witness reports, determine if there should be incarceration, etc etc
The Defendant would then face The Crown(Her Majesties Representative) to determine further course(s) of action.
In a Civil Justice matter, such as this, there is a lot more requirements to be met by both parties. Starting with the option of retaining their own lawyers, on both sides.
There is a bit more leeway in this format too...for instance, the plaintiff may leave town with tail tucked between legs and move to anywhere in the world without additional charges for doing so. The action does impress the same message of intent, to the persons determining the case though.
The onus is on both parties to present evidence to support their cases...this has been met.
Both parties are then interviewed together to determine the strength of their cases, and to see if their differences can be mediated in a non-binding manner. If mediation cannot take place, then based on evidence presented at the Mediation, the determination is made as to whether the issue merits going before a Tribunal for Binding Decision.
If either party believes that any part of the process is in violation of Canada's Laws, they may bring it before the Supreme Court of Canada for decision. Should there be no violation, even through error, the case will proceed to Tribunal.
Binding Decisions made by the Tribunal then are reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada to determine if lawful requirements have been met, and the Supreme Court then allows or dis-allows the Tribunal Decision.
At least, that is what I understand of it.
There doesn't seem to be very much in all of that to suggest 'weak'.
Why not put 'Bad Guy' through both Criminal and Civil Law? It might be that punishment can't be handed out twice for the same wrong, or something like that. Regardless, whichever Forum used...the Supreme Court has the FINAL say.
To wrap up...isn't violating Anyone's Rights a form of Bullying? The imposing upon another against their Will a violation of their Being, Bullying?
So 2 REGULAR customers go to their favorite Eatery, sit on the patio because they aren't interested in the Show inside. Later, due to City By Law, the patio closes and staff usher the Paying Customers inside. The transition is disturbing to a 'Comedian' on the stage as he is trying to drink away a hang-over, and is in a bad mood. So he starts firing off a salvo of "jokes" at the Customers being moved. He gets told he isn't funny! MELTDOWN!! He then gets heckled.
Bully mode kicks in...and if it had been towards Male customers, I bet the whole thing would NOT have happened to begin with, as Bullies generally don't pick on someone who can walk a mudhole through them.
Which brings us all to where we are today, discussing 'Bad Guy' and Justice.
|
|
Posted By
Mark A. Roberts
On
2/12/2010 12:07:37 PM
|
|
Mark, the hecklers, as you say, expressed theirs and Earle expressed his. The fact that only one party is being punished may not be a freedom of speech issue, but it certainly is one of bias. Are you telling us that were these women not lesbians, the Tribunal would still have accepted the case? If the issue is one of violence or bullying, it is a criminal matter, not a human rights one. Why didn’t they report it to the police? The fact that to my knowledge they didn’t suggests the bullying case was pretty weak, so the women chose the path of least requirements. Earle made some over-the-top remarks, which he admitted and for which he has apologised. Is this really a human rights issue?
|
|
Posted By
Sholto Douglas
On
2/10/2010 11:39:35 PM
|
|
Really Bocephus, what have you been smoking? And where did you learn (or rather fail to learn) your grammar and spelling? From what did you deduce that “bigots like me” would exclude gays from clubs? You have a very binary view of the world. Because we don’t think that gays/Muslims/etc should get special treatment automatically means we would persecute them, does it? Like most of your kind, you divide the world into groups, some more equal than others. No, we’re all people, and being rude to a lesbian is no worse than mocking a male heckler who is bald/fat/ugly/whatever. It is completely out of proportion to hound the guy for years because of this trivial incident. And to suggest that without human rights laws Canada would be a jungle of bigotry and suppression displays a touching belief in your own propaganda. We don’t have them in Australia, yet we have the same miniscule number of neo-Nazis and racial incidents as you do. Genetics, not intrusive legislation, limits the supply of such imbecility. Really, why do I bother?
|
|
Posted By
Sholto Douglas
On
2/10/2010 4:56:24 PM
|
|
Wow! Lots of debate! Lots of personal attacks!
All of it over a worm that has impaled itself on a hook of its own making.
Silly worm.
I guess that it is truly a very good thing that Freedom of Speech is NOT the issue...THE HECKLERS EXPRESSED AND EXERCISED THEIRS, and would likely have a very solid case for being physically intimidated (assault), and with the glasses being taken off of one of their bodies (battery)...would win in THAT format as well.
But THEIR Right to Free Speech is not the issue...FREE SPEECH ISN'T THE ISSUE AT ALL.
The issue is simply the DEALING WITH A BULLY in ONE of the appropriate Forums available to people in Western Society...including Aussie Land!
So the worm wriggles over its plight on the self-created hook, not knowing how to lie its way off.
But then, that's just my less than Scholastic opinion on the matter of 'Bad Guy'.
If that is profoundly disturbing to Chris in Ont. or any other sensitive souls...my humble apologies go out to you with a 'Bronx Cheer'.
|
|
Posted By
Mark A. Roberts
On
2/10/2010 1:26:23 PM
|
|
Sholto,
You display the wilful ignorance and inability to grasp simple concepts that is so common on the rights. I know that facts are stupid things to your folks, but please do try to keep up.
First, this story has nothing to do with the Charter. Nothing. Why you think it does is beyond me
Second, the reason our precious "victims" groups need protection is because of bigots like you insist on excluding them from public life. Human rights laws barring discrimination have, without a doubt, played a key role in bringing racial and sexual minorities into the mainstream. Absent that legal protection, it's unlikely two lesbians would admitted to the club in the first place.
Finally, complainants, like plaintiffs in lawsuits, can ask for any compensation they like. Doesn't mean their going to get it, or that that amount is the cost of buying peace.
|
|
Posted By
bocephus
On
2/9/2010 8:39:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|