Tuesday, April 26, 2011

NOW On Jason Kenney And The Anti-Gay Comic

They take note of Kenney's appearance at Guy Earle's 2008 fundraiser.  Di Matteo says he emailed Kenney to see if he had changed his views  since the judgement dropped, but the Minister has gone to ground.

15 comments:

thwap said...

Thanks for staying on top of this one.

When i google Guy Earle to get some news coverage, 80% of the links i get are from right-wing troglodytes for whom Earle is a free-speech hero.

bigcitylib said...

...And they all continue to suggest that Pardy and Co. heckled Earle, which the decision says is bullshit.

deBeauxOs said...

It's unclear whether Guy Earle is a homophobe, but it's evident from the detailed judgment that his anger and loathing for women and lesbians is MASSIVE.

Jerome Bastien said...

And they all continue to suggest that Pardy and Co. heckled Earle, which the decision says is bullshit.

That's because the "judge" accepted the testimony of the plaintiff wholesale and dismissed all the other testimony with the back of his hand.

We can now rest in peace knowing that our all-knowing and infallible state apparatus will protect us from bad comedians.

thwap said...

JB,

Actually, "the judge" considered the testimony quite carefully. As would any judge when presented with conflicting testimony.

BTW: my thoughts on the story.

R. G. Harvie said...

Yes.

Earth-shattering effort on the part of the BCHRC.

Only in Canada do we take great pride in the degree to which we can prevent our citizens from having the right of free expression.

And why is it when a so-called "judge" makes a finding, it's beyond reproach, until they make a finding, for example, that certain facts in a sexual assault case reduced the sentence of the accused.

Then it's lynch-mob time for the Judge.

Funny, that.

thwap said...

R. G. Harvie,

So where did you read that the tribunal ruling must be unassailable simply because?

Jerome said that the tribunal "accepted the testimony of the plaintiff wholesale and dismissed all the other testimony with the back of his hand" and that's simply not true. You can read how the conflicting testimony was weighed.

Jerome made an assertion that isn't based on the facts of the ruling.

Do you think that when people go out for dinner that they should expect to be insulted for the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation by the restaurant staff?

Do you think that in an at times MURDEROUSLY homophobic culture, that two lesbian women should have had to endure Earle's insults and abuse?

Susan said...

I thought Kenney was in the closet - sort of like Hoover.

thwap said...

Susan,

That's the scuttlebutt anyway.

D'you think Kenney and Baird would make a cute cupple r wutt?

R. G. Harvie said...

@thwap: "Do you think that when people go out for dinner that they should expect to be insulted for the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation by the restaurant staff?"

No. I don't think that should be expected. But if it occurs, the response is that I would leave and not go back.

Now.

This wasn't a restaurant. It was a comedy show.

And in a comedy show or concert, I think you take what you get - and if it's Eminem attacking women or homosexuals.. or this Earl guy, or Lisa Lampanelli (see: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/961635/)

..as long as they are not asking people to go out and actually cause harm to someone or some group - the whole prohibition of "harm by insult" to me is a gross over-reaction and unreasonable constraint on free expression and democracy.. leading to things like editing "Huckleberry Finn" because of it's use of the word "nigger" - where, when one reads it, it is imrpessively progressive for its time and the use of the offensive epithet, while not perhaps completely appropriate to our current day standards, is of monumental importance to obtaining a full grasp of the importance of Mark Twain as a writer and of the reality of the day in which he lived.

If the market of free ideas is to mean anything, it has to allow the unpopular minority to express unpopular opinions, even if suggested to be "harmful" to society, broadly speaking - otherwise, we might as well be in Saudi Arabia or under Taliban rule where discussion of educating women is "damaging" to society and forbidden.

We either have freedom to express ourselves, or we don't.

bigcitylib said...

Jesus, RG, you've lost it. A free market in ideas doesn't mean some thuggish restaurant employee can chase a couple of lesbians around a bar, and then out into the street, abusing them and busting their stuff, without suffering consequences.

If you're used to otherwise, then remind me not to go out to dinner next time I'm in Calgary. They probably rank Torontonians just below gays out there.

mauser98 said...

Iggy is in a nose dive. Jack whack may be opposition leader. lets talk about diesel dyke jokes.

R. G. Harvie said...

BCL - the gay community is fairly open and vibrant in southern Alberta. So - gay and lesbian people are more than welcome to visit.

Regarding this case?

I've read the full decision.

To call it a ham-fisted effort on the part of the hearing officer to justify a decision where the evidence was massively contradictory would be an understatement.

At various times the officer finds the complaintant lacking in credibility - her two friends, according to the evidence, had drank 12 beer and one cider before she even arrived.

By and large, the weight of the evidence, which to some degree the officer affirms, was that the talk amongst the complaintant and her friends was interrupting the show.. and most witnesses gave evidence that the complaintant and her friend were making out - beyond a simple kiss as they alleged in their evidence.

But - regardless.. was Guy Earl offensive and ignorant (and not funny)? No question about it.

Would I have joined in to abuse him?

Probably.

Should we start fining people for being ignorant assholes?

Nope.

Otherwise, hell, we could stop paying taxes in Alberta and make a full-time living off of the fines which would be levied in the GTA alone (ba dump bump).

thwap said...

The difference between reading Huckleberry Finn and being personally insulted and abused is pretty vast.

I would think that that goes without saying.

And, no, going to a restaurant's amateur hour and being personally attacked isn't remotely similar to going to see Eminem and hearing him go into tirades against generalized faggots and niggers is also not the same thing.

There is free speech and then there is discrimination against individuals.

Tell me something R. G. Harvie, ... are you a white guy? (I am.)

bigcitylib said...

"By and large, the weight of the evidence, which to some degree the officer affirms, was that the talk amongst the complaintant and her friends was interrupting the show.. and most witnesses gave evidence that the complaintant and her friend were making out - beyond a simple kiss as they alleged in their evidence."
---
Not heckling. Talking and kissing. So Earle directed a stream of homophobic slurs at them, chased them around the bar and outside, and broke their stuff. And he being a glorified waiter. Again, dude, if thats how you want restaurant staff to behave in Alta., well, its your province. Where there are also de facto whites only night clubs. But again, I don't think your views are widely shared.