Comic Guy Earle, whose (mildly funny) work can be seen on Youtube here, is being hauled up before the BCHRT for
...peppering two Vancouver lesbians with derogatory comments at a Commercial Drive restaurant.
I haven't heard enough about this case to develop an opinion, but you can watch Earle defending his actions (and offering a few apologies) below on the Dave and Chuck Show (about 12 minutes long):
Seems like a nice enough fellow, and drunken hecklers at comedy shows are a curse upon the planet. But not mentioned in The Province is the fact that, towards the end of the episode, something resembling a "physical confrontation" sort of occurred.
So we shall see.
PS. More background on the original incident here and here.
PPS. The ruling that sends this case to the tribunal is here. Note that the criteria for sending it to the tribunal is that the tribunal chair H. MacNaughton can not rule out the possibility that the complainant will win their case.
Note: Update and disappointment for DP readers here.
Give me a fricken' break. I'll admit what the guy says is pretty offensive, but it's not like he said "you lesbians must die" or any truly hateful statements. Call it a severe roast that crossed a line. If this case gets anywhere, it sets a dangerous slippery slope precedent. Chris Rock won't be coming back to Canada, if this kind of threat exists. Or Russell Peters.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think BCL? It wasn't clear from your post.
DT,
ReplyDeleteI haven't decided yet. Sounds like everyone was bombed at the time. And then the guy goes and busts up the one gal's glasses...
I am inclined towards thinking its a stupid complaint. But note that these people are all probably on the left side of the political spectrum so you can't really argue that they are being targetted for their conservative beliefs.
Yeah, no doubt the guy acted like a retard (oops HRC complaint coming my way), but there's a massive massive difference between something of this nature and nazi hate propaganda.
ReplyDeleteI feel sympathy for these lesbians, but that's gone when they go to the HRC. Do it the old fashioned way and sue him for slander or something.
Sounds like everyone was bombed at the time.
ReplyDelete...and they're still bombed, from what I can see watching the "Dave and Chuck Show."
I have nothing to say about the merits of this as a human rights issue, but none these people strikes me as particularly funny. They all just seem like inarticulate, angry drunks.
if the comedian physically assaulted one of the lesbians, breaking their glasses, as you allege in the comments of Kinsella's site, then the real police need to be involved.
ReplyDeleteotherwise, the comedian's bigotry should be his own punishment - look at what happened to Michael Richards (and there was no need for the nanny state to intervene).
if the comedian physically assaulted one of the lesbians, breaking their glasses, as you allege in the comments of Kinsella's site, then the real police need to be involved.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the nanny state have to intervene?
ti-guy, i know this is one of your poor attempts at sarcasm, but the real police is not part of the nanny state, no matter how broadly you wish to define the term.
ReplyDeletephysical violence is criminal. there is no debate on this question anywhere on the political spectrum.
that you fail to grasp the objections to real nanny-statism is one thing, but how about for once, only once, just try it: have an argument in good faith.
that you fail to grasp the objections to real nanny-statism is one thing, but how about for once, only once, just try it: have an argument in good faith.
ReplyDeleteBecause you'll start using terms like "nanny statism" and I'll get a migraine. I don't have time for argument and dialogue that is structured around slogans and clichés. It reveals an underlying ignorance deliberately masked by a pantomime of erudition. Kind of like the way Mark Steyn writes when you think of it; a pastiche of chauvinism, dyspepsia and class prejudice sprinkled with references he pulls out of Barlett's and his desk encyclopedia.
Also, a google search reveals that you are an insulting and arrogant authoritarian...ergo, mockery and insult is all anger-management cases such as you deserve.
Have you visited Stageleft yet and participated in its poll to decide which speechy produced the most grandiose, grandiloquent, hysterically lunatic take on THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR FREEDOMS IN THIS MILLENIUM!
You should. It's a hoot.
ReplyDeleteBecause you'll start using terms like "nanny statism" and I'll get a migraine
Right, of course you're the one who brought up the term "nanny state" in this conversation, but let's not let things like facts and your own words get in the way of insulting anybody who doesnt agree with you. In any event, comparing me to mark steyn is the finest compliment you could make.
And you googled me too? Wow, obviously I mean more to you than you do to me.
Right, of course you're the one who brought up the term "nanny state" in this conversation, but let's not let things like facts and your own words get in the way of insulting anybody who doesnt agree with you.
ReplyDeleteWhat? You're the one who mentionned "nanny state" first. Right there in your first comment.
And you googled me too? Wow, obviously I mean more to you than you do to me.
It only occurred to me to do that after you flipped out and started acting like an angry lunatic. I determined it's simply a pattern with you.
It's really your problem, not mine...one you share with the rest of your demographic who either don't have enough real problems to obsess about or who are hostile to the idea that Canadians have processes by which we can challenge racist and/or bigoted propaganda.
Anyway...keep churning out the hundreds of thousands of words to complain about your restricted freedom of expression. I suppose that's easier than reading and/or articulating more sophisticated arguments.
In any event, comparing me to mark steyn is the finest compliment you could make.
Actually, a finer compliment is not calling you some of things I've called Mark Steyn.
You're welcome.
What? You're the one who mentionned "nanny state" first. Right there in your first comment.
ReplyDeletegeez, words I never imagined I would ever type: ti-guy you are righ... ah fuck it.
no for real, my bad.
No big deal.
ReplyDeleteOur Human Rights Buffoonals . . . in overdrive.
ReplyDeleteBy ti-guy:
ReplyDelete"keep churning out the hundreds of thousands of words to complain about your restricted freedom of expression"
I did a word count. Jermo:227. Ti-Guy-355. ti-guy, you have to be more efficient in your attacks if you're going to accuse someone (or at least his/her goup) of using "thousands of words".
anyhow, i stand by my original proposition. the dykes (sp?) are pushing the limits of the law.
and for the record, jermo brought up a good point with michael richards. the comedian's punishment it that no one will pay him anymore.
DT,
ReplyDeleteRelegating this guy to obscurity won't work because he is already obscure.
The trick here is: what if this guy was basically engaged in a obscene tirade right to these peoples faces?
(Part of the gals arguments is that, in being treated like this, they were being denied the services of the comedy club. Did they pay a cover and buy drinks, and were not able to enjoy them because of the actions of someone in the employ of the club? I'm not exactly sure this is just about mere speech, but I will have to read the judgement again).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe allegation in this case is that the two lesbians were discriminated against in the provision of a service. The comedy club is a service provider: they may have paid a cover, may have purchased drinks of food. And then the comedian starts freaking on them for being lesbians and...in the end...breaking some glasses. Imagine if your waiter did that.
ReplyDeleteThe discriminatory publication section of the BC is section 7; the comedian is being charged under section 8. So I think this is a bit of slight of hand by the Natty Post et al.
Relegating this guy to obscurity won't work because he is already obscure.
ReplyDeletewell not so much anymore, thanks to the complaint, but otherwise yeah you're right. anyways, as you noted, they allegedly heckled him and he responded as a comedian does, perhaps over the top in this case. do we need the state to come in? I dont think that the state should be involved in determining the appropriateness of a comedy routine, or for that matter how comedians respond to hecklers.
WRT to the judgment, I read it and its pretty benign - its a motion to dismiss, and the law seems to have been applied correctly in rejecting the motion.
But if the comedian got violent, never mind the HRT, just charge him under the criminal code.
I did a word count. Jermo:227. Ti-Guy-355. ti-guy, you have to be more efficient in your attacks if you're going to accuse someone (or at least his/her goup) of using "thousands of words"
ReplyDeleteThat was directed at all the screechy speechies who've been giving us all migraines over this for the last months, years, decades.
and for the record, jermo brought up a good point with michael richards. the comedian's punishment it that no one will pay him anymore.
I wasn't arguing the merits of this case. I rarely do because I'm not a lawyer, I'm neither a complainant nor a respondent and don't really have much evidence at hand to assert anything with any certainty. In other words, it's just pointless blather.
I wonder why the women didn't call the police; I suspect everyone was too drunk and the police wouldn't have had much time for it.
Everyone has the right to make complaints however and the feeling I get from the speechies is that that itself is some intolerable attack on one's freedoms.
Feh. Worry about surveillance, rendition, corrupted police investigations, domination of the media by corporate agendas, lazy "journalists" and SLAPP suits. Those are the real threats to freedom.
Everyone has the right to make complaints however and the feeling I get from the speechies is that that itself is some intolerable attack on one's freedoms.
ReplyDeleteIt is an attack if the complainant has no legal cost but the defendant (you know, the one that is innocent until proven guilty?) carries all their own costs to defend themselves.
carries all their own costs to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteThat problem has been solved. Just set up a self-agrandising blog, throw up a link to PayPal and funnel any extra funds to the Caymans.
You can elect to defend yourself at minimal cost, but where's the martyrdom in that?
"it's just pointless blather."
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
"corrupted police investigations"
Request: can we have blog post on one of those?
"rendition"
that was a good movie.
"domination of the media by corporate agendas"
Canwest Global stock closed at $2.90. New 52-week low. Ti-guy, for heaven's sake, haven't they suffered enough?
Ti-guy, for heaven's sake, haven't they suffered enough?
ReplyDeleteNot nearly, although CanWest's stock price yesterday did put a little spring in my step.