The Bad Comic Vs. The Rowdy Lesbian, Part Bazillion

I've written about the Earle/Pardy case many a times.  Essentially, an amateur comedian named Guy Earle went off on a lesbian couple during an open mike comedy show that he was MCing.  One of the couple, Lorna Pardy, took Earle and the restaurant owner to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, claiming that she had been discriminated against  under Section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which disallows "discrimination in accommodation, service and facility".  Basically, she claimed that a restaurant employee--Earle--had verbally/physically assaulted her because she was lesbian.  Pardy  won, handily.  But Earle appealed, and attempted to convince BC Supreme Court that his assault on Pardy was part of his performance, and therefore protected speech.  Yesterday the court told him "no way":

 “In the restaurant that night, Mr Earle was an emcee who reacted to the disruption caused by the movement of some patrons, including Ms Pardy, to a new table (by the restaurant management). Ms Pardy and her companions that night were not hecklers. And Mr Earle was not giving a comedy performance when he launched into his tirade of ugly words directed at Ms Pardy.”

The judge also referenced Whatcott to establish the notion some limits to free speech are "reasonable", but the gist of the ruling is, as noted above, that Earle was not engaged in an artistic performance at the time.  He was acting more along the lines of a waiter who flew off the handle at the sight of lesbians.  So his  appeal to free speech was inappropriate on this occasion.

No Talent Thug Back In The News

Purported comedian Guy Earle his back in the news, trying to convince a judge that assaulting lesbians is free speech.  Because the article through the link is a piece of crap, and contains several falsehoods about the context of the incident, I would just note a few bits from the BCHRT decision:


 • Mr. Earle made two sets of comments from the stage at Zesty’s, to and about Ms.Pardy and her friends, and recorded above, including referring to them as “fucking cunts”, “stupid cunts”, “stupid dykes”, and “fucking dyke cunts”;

• Mr. Earle cornered Ms. Pardy and continued to physically intimidate and verbally abuse her by the bar as she returned from the washroom, including referring to her as “fucking stupid dyke, stupid fucking bitch”, and he grabbed and broke her sunglasses;


• The Zesty respondents failed to restrain Mr. Earle, protect Ms. Pardy from his verbal or physical assault, or otherwise take effective steps to remedy his treatment of her.

Basically, the Earle case isn't about free speech at all.  Its about a functionary at a restaurant going off on one of the patrons because of their sexual orientation.

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.

A Further Note On Guy Earle

A reader reminds that when comedian Guy Earle--recently judged to have physically and verbally assaulted two women for the crime of being Lesbians at a comedy night he was hosting four years ago in Vancouver--held his "Comics for Freedom" rally,

Jason Kenney, the federal cabinet minister and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, [was] there, along with his Director of Communications, Alykhan Velshi.

No shots of them at the event, unfortunately.  In any case, given the damning nature of the ruling against Earle, I doubt the minister will be attending any future events--to fund Mr. Earle's court appeal, for example.

Human Rights Potpourri: Guy Earle Wants To Play Martyr On The Cheap; Boisson Ruling Appealed

So comedian Guy Earle instructed his lawyer to walk out on his BCHRT hearing in Vancouver yesterday, claiming "abuse of process". I guess that's one way to keep your legal fees down. However, it left testimony like this go (because Ms. Pardy was cross-examined by a non-lawyer) unchallenged:

Did Guy Earle get upset because you kissed your friend, she was asked. She said she thought this was not right though she didn't know what Earle was thinking. Her girlfriend had simply kissed her on her cheek because she was glad to see her out as this was not a common occurrence. They were not trying to make a scene (as previously reported by Earle).

She said she thought Earle thought they were causing a disturbance when they were talking to two waitresses about their patio bill.


[...]

They had spent the time listening to another comedy act, a short set, and talking to comedians. [Lorna Pardy] went to the bathroom to gather herself, and on the way back Earle at the bar physically assaulted her. (I assume this was a reference to Earle snatching her glasses and smashing them.) Her party were in shock and stayed because they couldn't get up from the table. They left around 11.30.

I don't know. It seems a bit of a stretch to argue that this behavior would have been a legitimate part of Guy Earle's "comedy" act.

On a somewhat related note: in December Stephen Boisson won the court challenge of his
conviction by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for hateful messaging directed at gays. Now, Darren Lund, the University of Calgary professor who brought the original HRC complaint, is appealing that decision. Not much in the way of detail yet, but if you scroll down through the FreeD comments you will see that Mr. Boisson has confirmed.

Guy Earle: My "Waiter" Metaphor Vindicated

"Restaurants have an obligation to provide a service that is free of discrimination," Cousineau [Lawyer for Complainant Lorna Pardy] said. "If you go to a restaurant and the waiter comes up to you and calls you names based on your race or your disability, or whatever, even if you are still technically getting your food and getting your drink you are still being subjected to discriminatory treatment in the provision of that service."

Moreover, Cousineau alleges that the comments were not made during Earle’s official artistic performance.

"This isn’t the case of a comedian standing on stage and saying ‘two lesbians walk into a bar.’ It’s the case of individuals in the audience being targeted and being subjected to slurs about their sex and sexual orientation," she said.

An important thing to note here is that, Zesty's (the Vancouver restaurant where this all took place) was only partly given over to comedy club business on the evening in question, and one of Pardy's supporters, at least, has indicated that the two lesbians were not there for the comedic performances:

No, the ladies did NOT go to Zesty's to see the show. But when the patio closed, they were taken to the table by the stage by the waitresses.

By the way, Guy Earle has a blog/website devoted to his adventures, which was dead for many months and has become active again in the runup to his hearing. For example:

For almost three years, I have been defending myself to attacks from would be heroes blowing intolerance through their misguided horns. I AM NOT A HOMOPHOBE. I don't give a flying shit what you do in your bedroom and for that matter, it's none of my business... so why do you have to ram it down everybody elses throats?

Admittedly, that quote is a bit of a cherry pick on my part.

The distinction above is important to note, because as I've said several times, some will want to portray this as a "free speech" case and it really isn't; the fact that words were used to discriminate is incidental in this case. And were anyone to repeal the relevant section of the B.C. code (section 8), it would leave the provincial analogue to section 13 of the federal code (which is called section 7) in place. Some people with broader anti-HRC agendas may want to see the distinction elided.

Guy Earle BCHRT Hearing

...is not about free speech, though you may hear otherwise. Its not about being an "edgy comedian" testing the limits of acceptable expression; it would be more accurate to say its about being an abusive waiter.

More on this case as it plays out, hopefully.

All Shook Down

A quicky review of Ezra's Magnum Opus, because he doesn't mention me one single time and therefore I wasn't going to buy the damn thing, so wound up reading it quickly in a book store while I waited for my wife to teach her skating class.

Well, his fact checking skills haven't improved. The wind up to the RCMP and Privacy Commission investigations of the CHRC in the "hacked wifi" case, which essentially exonerated the federal agency, isn't touched upon at all.

Now, you might say that's because the book was written in 2008 before this came to pass, but there is no excuse for Ezra's misinterpretation Guy Earle's BCHRC complaint (he's the comedian that went off at a couple of lesbians). Ez is still calling this a section 7 case. Section 7 covers "discriminatory publication" and is the B.C. equivalent of Section 13 of the CHRA. However, it isn't a section 7: it's a section 8 case, which concerns "discrimination in accommodation, service and facility". So, nothing to do with "free speech".

Which Ezra knows or should know by now.

And, oh yeah, I looked three of four times and couldn't locate an index. In a non-fiction book about Canadian Law. That tells you something.

Comedian Hides Behind Free Speech

Guy Earle is holding a benefit show to raise funds for his legal defence. He says

"It is imperative that I don't lose this battle to find myself in a post-tribunal world where every stand-up comic - or artist for that matter - is subject to any kind of censorship or restriction on what they say while performing," he said.

"We comics are the canaries in a coal mine for freedom of speech."

Another martyr for the speechy cause. Sigh. Well, let me just say it again. This case is not primarily about free speech. Earle is being charged under section 8 of the BC Human Rights code, which covers "Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility". If you want an analogy, he's being charged with acting like a bit like an abusive waiter, not an edgy comedian.

As an interesting aside, according to one of the complainants supporters (see last comment), our two lesbians were not there to see comedians, Zesty's being a restaurant only part of which was given over to the open mic comedy show. However, "when the patio closed, they were taken to the table by the stage by the waitresses". This, if accurate, kind of spoils the notion that our gals were hecklers and therefore subject to comedy show justice.

h/t slap.

Ezra Can't Read

As readers will know, Guy Earle is the Toronto-based comedian who has been charged with the legal offence of making un-funny jokes in Vancouver. The charges of un-funniness -- which the B.C. Human Rights Code calls 'discriminatory publication' -- came after Earle's rough response to some drunk, rude hecklers in a Vancouver night club last year. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled that there was enough substance to the charges that Earle must stand trial.

No, no, no. Discriminatory publication is section 7 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, the section Steyn was charged under. Earle is being charged under section 8, which covers "Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility". That's the section you might use to lay a charge against an agent of a restaurant/club for treating certain customers of said restaurant/club like crap based on their sexual orientation. It doesn't have much to do with free speech at all.

Honestly, Ezra links to the case documents, but apparently doesn't read them. Apparently doesn't expect his readers to either.

And it also looks like he's down to raising cash by flogging women's underwear from barenecessities. Whatever it takes to pay the legal bills, I suppose.

The Case Of The Edgy Comic Vs. The Raunchy Lesbo Radfems, Revisited

I wrote yesterday about the ongoing case of Pardy v. Earle and others , in which two Lesbians have taken Comedian Guy Earle and Zesty Food Services to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal because Earle gave them a hard time at a comedy club operating out of Zesty's Restaurant (now known as Zawa).

Yesterday, this case looked like a bit of HRT over-reach, with Mr. Earle under the gun merely for telling jokes and making rude remarks. However, having read the decision that has sent this case to the tribunal, I am no longer so sure. It states:

[3] Ms. Pardy alleges that she was discriminated against in the provision of a service, in breach
of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, on the basis of her sex and sexual orientation.

[...]

[11] Ms. Pardy alleges discrimination in the provision of services based on the prohibited grounds of sex and sexual orientation.

[12] Mr. Ismail and his company, Zesty, are public service providers. Mr. Earle, as an employee or agent of Mr. Ismail, or Zesty, was involved in the delivery of the service to Ms. Pardy. These are clearly matters over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction.

And you may ask: so what? Well, firstly, unlike the Steyn case, Pardy vs. Earle is NOT about the mere employment of hateful language. Note that Earle is being charged under Section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which is entitled "Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility". The language is quite dissimilar to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which governs hate messages. Now, the B.C. code does indeed have a section 13 doppelganger; it is section 7, which covers "Discriminatory publication ", and indeed that is the section of the code that Steyn allegedly violated.

So what does this difference amount to? Well, I am not a lawyer, but I am going to attempt an explanation anyhow.

Imagine our two lesbians wander into the comedy club, pay their cover and buy their drinks, and find themselves listening to a cheap Andrew Dice Clayton knock-off, who is making crude anti-lesbian jokes to the audience in general. Later they leave, and as they leave one of the comedy club patrons says something nasty. That would be the kind of situation where they might launch a section 7 complaint against the club and comic; they have been exposed to hatred and contempt etc. through the words of the comic. And here we may argue over the free speech implications raised by such a complaint.

On the other hand, imagine the following situation (which I think is closer to the one actually outlined in Pardy v. Earle). Our Lesbians have paid their cover charge (I am assuming Zesty's levied one, though I am not sure of this), paid for their drinks and perhaps food, and then our comedian--an employee or agent of the club--goes off on them personally with an anti-Lesbian tirade, to the point where they can no longer enjoy their beverages (in reality our comedian wound up wearing these beverages). And, in the end our comedian plucks the specs from the nose of one of our lesbians, and breaks them. During all this time, none of the other club patrons were singled out for abuse, nor their eye-glasses smashed. Were the services provided by the comedy club provided to our Lesbians in a discriminatory fashion? That's the question addressed by a section 8 complaint.

Now, there are a lot of caveats here. For one thing, alcohol seems to have played a (somewhat disputed) role in the incident, and there is a kind of comedy club justice where obnoxious hecklers can be subject to a certain amount of abuse. The question to be answered by the tribunal will be: did Earle go too far? (As an interesting aside, the club audience apparently took sides with our two Lesbians and against Earle, walking out on him and booing his tirade).

In any case, the take-away message, I think, is that:

1) The National Post bungled this story by playing up the "hateful remarks" aspect of it at the expense of the "provision of services" aspect, not to mention completely ignoring the physical confrontation that occurred between the comedian and our lesbians. (Imagine you walked into a restaurant, and your waiter abused the hell out of you for being, lets say, Jewish, then busted your specs. A legitimate Human Rights complaint?)

2) WK is wrong about this complaint necessarily being frivolous. And everyone (but me!)is wrong about its being primarily about the limits of free speech.

3) Ezra's post on the matter is another pile of foaming hot spittle.

And finally:

4) Sorry dude, I changed my mind back.

The Comic's Tale

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.