Stand-up comedian Guy Earle is facing a human rights complaint over material that an audience member claims was homophobic.
Posted on 06/30/2008 12:39:39 PM PDT by Renfield
Edited on 06/30/2008 12:47:54 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A Canadian stand-up comedian will face a human rights tribunal hearing after a woman complained she and her friends faced a "tirade of homophobic and sexist comments" while attending one of his shows.
In a decision released this week, the B. C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled there is enough evidence to hear the case of Vancouver woman Lorna Pardy against Toronto comedian Guy Earle. Zesty's Restaurant in Vancouver, where the May 22, 2007, show took place, has also been named in the complaint.
Ms. Pardy could not be reached yesterday for comment. However, the tribunal's decision says she alleges she was discriminated against over her sex and sexual orientation when Mr. Earle made public comments "intended to humiliate her."
The ruling says Mr. Earle and Ms. Pardy "have very different versions of who was to blame for the incidents, how it came about and how it escalated." There is also a dispute over what role alcohol played in the incident.
"Mr. Earle does, however, admit that he used comments which he now regrets," says the tribunal. "Those admitted comments may go to establish discrimination."
Reached yesterday, Mr. Earle said he was the show's emcee when Ms. Pardy and two of her friends walked in, sat in the booth closest to the stage and began heckling him and other comics.
"Two of them started making out, flipping me the bird and saying I hated lesbians," he said.
Mr. Earle was reluctant to repeat the remarks that led to the human rights complaint. "Everybody wants to know what I said, and I invite people to come see me on stage because you can't take it out of context. And that's exactly what's happened here.
"The reader or the listener or whatever has no feeling for the environment of the comedy show that is triple-X, edgiest-show-in-town, controversial and offensive, so when you walk in there you're making an agreement to be a party to this controversial show."
"They were drunk, they were being jerks and I was very rude and visceral to them because, like I said, if you have a heckler what you want to do is put them in their place by offending them, so I tried to hit them where it hurts and the only thing I had to key on was the fact that they were lesbians.
"I don't care if they're lesbians, heterosexuals, homosexuals or giraffes."
Mr. Earle said the complaint is an attack on comedians' right to perform. "I would never have expected it would get escalated to a philosophical battle."
He added it's been more than 40 years since controversial U.S. comic Lenny Bruce was jailed for obscenity over his comic material-- "and we're still fighting the same battle. I know it's a fight I can never win. But I've got to keep fighting."
Mr. Earle is holding a benefit concert on July 19 in Toronto to raise money for his legal fees.
Stand-up comedian Guy Earle is facing a human rights complaint over material that an audience member claims was homophobic.
People who don’t have thick skin shouldn’t attend comic shows.
Paging Mark Stein...
Free speech is dead in Canada.................
Canada has become a totalitarian nation almost overnight.
Is this the same kangaroo court that’s persecuting Mark Steyn for his book “America Alone”?
It will be on life support here in the US if the Rats win in November.
Typing not thinking.
“There is also a dispute over what role alcohol played in the incident.”
No there isn’t.
I bet those two lesbians are hosers.
Zesty’s?
The concept of “hate speech” is in direct contradiction to the concept of free speech. Free speech is useless if we don’t protect even the most offensive speech.
Always thought the term “phobic” meant fear. What word do we have to append to the prefix to confer the feeling that something is just plain repulsive?
F**k em if they can’t take joke.
I wouldn’t show up for the hearing. If one shows up at the hearing that is lending credibility to this farcical court. I mean, what are they going to do? If they fine you, don’t pay it. I would force them to either shut up or arrest me.
Then once arrested for possibly insulting a lesbian who has already twice assaulted me, let the fray begin.
I read today that they dropped the case against Mark Steyn.
More sensible heads prevailed, I guess or they got tired of being mocked.
If this lesbain thinks that she is the only one that gets targeted, she’s a buffoon. I’ve seem some absolutly vicious fixations on guests at nightclubs. One night I saw a very attractive young white women get attacked without mercy, for nothing more than being a good looking young white woman. And yes, the comic was black. This guy didn’t leave a stone unturned, a cell of her body, or a possible friend or family relation unaddressed in verbally brutilizing her. She, her group and my wife and I left the club. We never returned. We didn’t know her and her group. It was just over the top.
Off to the “sensitivity camps” with him!
Coming to a comedy club near you if the Libs have their way (and BHO is elected)
Canada Free Speech Ping.
I can only imagine if Frank DeLima brought his act from Hawaii to the Mainland.
I believe it's miso- as in misogynist (One who hates women).
We just need a term like miso-faggotry .... one who hates the practice of homosexuality.
Miso- soup ... it's pretty repulsive too.
Welcome to the world of the Libs, who have successfully redefined MANY words to fit their agenda.
I keel you!!!
Is it pretty ripe? I’m not familiar with him.
Steyn
If that’s so then not only is it the very first time that a defendant won in such a case but it would be a severe disappointment to him because he wanted to appeal to a REAL court.
mis-sodomite ???
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
Also, Judges Kennedy and Ginsberg said that since Canada has a law, we should abide by it.
BTTT
More lesbians looking for pay dirt?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u-TKqcuW8A&feature=related
k.d. lang & The Reclines - “Pay Dirt”
Good thing Don Rickles no longer performing!
Warning: Language
“so long as they are based on the facts”
Because of that qualification, though, there is a lawsuit in every comment.
The CHRC had dropped the case. (Canadian - federal)
The BCHRC has yet to rule. (BC - provincial)
A phobia (from Greek: φόβος, phobos, "fear"), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or persons.
If it's not an irrational fear, it's just plain old fear.....the gift of fear, as it were.
The feeling of fear is a survival mechanism. Phobia is an irrational fear.
Care to add or correct Die hard? I enjoy your opinion.
Well, that may be the whole point?
So what are libel laws used for?
Thanks for the information. I'm not at all knowledgeable about the Canadian legal system. Does the fact that the CHRC dropped the case mean the BCHRC is likely to follow suit?
“The concept of “hate speech” is in direct contradiction to the concept of free speech. Free speech is useless if we don’t protect even the most offensive speech.”
So correct. This case is even more outlandish in that it is a comedy routine. Where has the common sense in Canada gone. I’m thinkin there is a little too much hockey without helmets being played up there.
Go Ovechkin.
See #36.
He swears a bit, (oh, my!).
I had never heard about him before this controversy, but....
They were heckling him, and he did what comedians do. He insulted them.
From what I understand, one of these women threw her drink in his face twice, so he snapped her sun glasses, and admits that was a stupid move on his part.
As he says in the interview, (paraphrasing) when did it become against the law to be an A$$h011?
Libel is very different from this, at least in the US. In order to show libel, you’ve got to show a higher standard of intent than this, almost to the point of intentionally lying about someone. More importantly, not even a lie is enough. It’s got to be a lie that injures some particular individual’s reputation, by causing monetary injury to them. So if you falsely tell your boss that one of your coworkers has HIV, and the boss fires him for that reason, and you knew that would happen, then that might qualify, if it can be proven that he did not.
In Canada, if you say anything that offends someone, you get hauled in front of a court and apparently have to prove that what you said is true.
Yes, but not because the CHRC dropped it. They are dropping this case because the embarrassment is too much for them.
Our supreme court ruled last Friday that we can say anything we want, as long as it's based on fact.
Can’t Canadians see how comministic this is? You can’t charge people for making jokes, or speaking their mind, not in a free society. Canada had better wake up fast or they will all be saluting the hammer and sickle.
Dude, they’re Homos!
LOL
That’s a guy? I thought it was the woman who complained.
"(The ruling) finally, finally puts to rest this lingering notion that comment or opinion has to be fair or reasonable," said Mark Bantey, an expert in media law with Gowlings law firm in Montreal. "It gives constitutional protection to all opinions, no matter how outrageous, so long as they are based on the facts."
Our Constitution may not look like much, when compared to yours, but our Supreme Court has confirmed that we have these rights.
9-0
Here is part of the judgement.
-------------------
In this case, the public debate about the inclusion in schools of educational material on homosexuality clearly engages the public interest, and the facts giving rise to the dispute between M and S were well known to M’s listening audience, and referred to in part in the editorial itself.
The third element of the defence is also satisfied since the sting of the libel was a comment and it would have been understood as such by M’s listeners.
M was a radio personality with opinions on everything, not a reporter of the facts.
Moreover, S did not challenge the view that M’s imputation that she would condone violence towards gay people was a comment not an imputation of fact.
With respect to the fourth element, the objective “honest belief” test represents a balance between free expression on matters of public interest and the appropriate protection of reputation against damage that exceeds what is required to fulfill free expression requirements.
Here, there was a sufficient nexus between S’s public declarations on homosexuality and the defamatory imputation to meet this element.
S’s use of violent images could support an honest belief on the part of at least some of her listeners that she would condone violence towards gay people even though M denied that he intended to impute any such meaning.
The trial judge did not explicitly apply the “objective honest belief” test to the imputation that S “would condone violence”.
However, having regard to the trial judge’s reasons as a whole, and considering both the content of some of S’s speeches already mentioned, and the broad latitude allowed by the defence of fair comment, the defamatory imputation that while S would not engage in violence herself she “would condone violence” by others, is an opinion that could honestly have been expressed on the proved facts by a person prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate in his views.
That is all that the law requires. M’s commentary was not actuated by malice in the sense of improper motive and S did not appeal against the trial judge’s conclusion that M’s fair comment defence was not vitiated by malice.
This is a precedent. Am I the only one who can see this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.