News Talk 770 Blogs
Podcasts
Share This Page
    Like us on Facebook
     
Main | Blog | Redux - The Podcast

Funny Man Trapped in Unfunny Human Rights Hell
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.
 
UPDATE: From the great Mark Steyn: 
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)
Posted By: Rob Breakenridge  

Leave a comment:

showing 25 comments · show all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 43
  1. Mark A. Roberts posted on 02/02/2010 05:27 AM
    Since the Supreme Court has the ultimate and final say on virtually any issue of law...in my opinion it seems that you are "mistaken" about the issue being 'quashed'. But then, 'Bad Guy' tends to be "mistaken" a lot when defending inappropriate drunken behavior on his part. The inability to 'Man Up' is the true waste of the taxpayers money in this case...but then, that's what the Tribunal is there to help recreants do.
  2. What Your Average Level-Headed Canadian Believes posted on 02/02/2010 08:56 AM
    Miscreants, like those that staff Human Rights Tribunals should be tried as the harassing criminals that they are.
  3. Denyse O'Leary posted on 02/02/2010 09:37 AM
    Okay. I do not go to late nite comedy clubs, but if I did, I would assume that a lot of people are drunk and I might hear offensive stuff. (That is why I do not go, actually.) Now, someone smarter than me, please tell me why what goes on there is a matter for public business - if it does not involve violence? To me, the biggest outrage here is the pretence that Earle gave offence when that is - more or less - his job. If you do not like that, do not go to late nite comedy clubs. If you do go, live with it. Another reason why "human rights" commissions/tribunals should be wiped from the face of the earth. I am sorry for Earle and have raised moner for him, but I hope his case will help bring home a point I keep screaming: It's NOT about Ez Levant, Mark Steyn, Kathy Shaidle, or any commentator at all in particular. It is about YOU, your right to live in peace and have your opinions in peace. This used to be the True North Strong and Free. What happened?
  4. Robert posted on 02/02/2010 10:28 AM
    you know, i get yelled at all the time for telling christians that they are sinning for worshiping the false god of christ over God, idolatry for wearing crucifixes and commiting the mortal sin of greed by amassing personal wealth, i get called an awful lot of obscene names from 'faithful' christians, and haven't gone crying about it to anyone. unless a verbal attack is a published (as in a newspaper editorial section) or televised, thus possibly entering the category of libel/slander and defamation of character, then it sounds like the lesbians just need thicker skins. i mean, this is western canada...intolerance of all kinds is just kinda the norm, even in BC.
  5. KC Montreal posted on 02/02/2010 10:37 AM
    Is there no recourse for this guy? What he's being put through is outrageous. He should be suing somebody for ten million bucks. But who?
  6. Mark A. Roberts posted on 02/02/2010 02:04 PM
    Sigh. The Tribunal hasn't got the Authority to over-rule the Supreme Court...so nothing is 'Quashed'. So in my opinion, what else is "Bad Guy" 'mistaken' about, like perhaps--the truth?
  7. Chris posted on 02/02/2010 03:48 PM
    These "Human Rights" commissions are populated with dim witted conformists to the dogma of the political correctness monster, and they allow themselves to be used to abuse and oppress anyone who happens to cause the slightest "offence" to any of the PC monster's identifiable victim groups. Lacking the wit to rebut the ham-fisted insults of the shock "comedian" Earle, the lesbian "victims" realize that they can, on a moment's notice and without any effort or cost on their part, bring the full force of the state to demoralize, punish, and impoverish anyone who they don't like. Anyone who defends these commissions must necessarily be extremely dense, or a sadist. Mark Steyn has an excellent article on Mr. Earle's plight, and on his interview with Rob. http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128/
  8. Sholto Douglas posted on 02/02/2010 06:25 PM
    Last night I attended a meeting at a think tank here in Sydney (Australia) on the issue of a Charter of Rights. We don’t have one federally, although two of our more leftist states do. The current Labor government is keen to bring one in. I mentioned that we should look at Canada as an example where it could lead. Your HRC’s provide such a rich mother lode of horror stories that it was hard, in the interests of brevity, to choose a single one to recount. In the end I opted for the gym owner and the (pre-op) transvestite who wanted to use the female showers – receiving the predictable gasps and guffaws from the audience. I think Guy Earle's tale of woe is even better, especially given the BCHRC is ignoring Supreme Court advice. I will send the link to the main speaker of last night, a legal academic. That audio with Mr Earle should be compulsory listening to all our politicians. Leftist commentators are saying that such a Charter would be “nothing to worry about”, and we “wouldn’t notice it”. Well yours probably started out modestly in the seventies, but such artifices are ever prone to mission creep, and the bodies that administer them will inevitably be stuffed with leftie activists (who else would employ them?) Ominously the drafters of our two state Charters explicitly stated that more “rights” could be added later. At the end of the meeting someone said we should be grateful to Canada for providing such a wealth of cautionary tales. Thanks Canada!
  9. A guy from Sask posted on 02/02/2010 07:23 PM
    I can't believe the BC HRC wouldn't just let this thing die. You'd think they'd still be licking their wounds after the media coverage due to Mark Steyn and the lawyers from Macleans last year. Don't give up Guy! The overwhelming majority of Canadians believe in real rights. Where would the gay community be today without free speech?
  10. Bocephus posted on 02/02/2010 11:12 PM
    Earle might be a little more persuasive if it appeared he had even the tiniest clue about his own case. Sadly, he doesn't. He thinks the Supreme Court of Canada "quashed" the human rights complaint, when all that appears to have happened was that a Master of the BC Supreme Court sent the complaint back to the Tribunal. He blames the Human Rights Commission, a body that doesn't exist in B.C., for his woes. He (and Steyn, whose ignorance of the facts and law rivals Earle's) thinks he's being accused of hate speech, when in fact the complaint alleges that the he, and by extension, the club he performed in, discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation by verbally attacking the complainants because they were lesbians. Whether he did that, or whether they were merely overly sensitive hecklers, is a question of fact. Guy has his story. They have theirs. The HRT, like any adjudicative body, is a forum in which that issue can be resolved, if necessary. It's probably not necessary. Disputes like this are why mediation exists. Nobody lost any money. Nobody lost an eye. There's a settlement out there somewhere, one that likely involves both parties swallowing their pride and walking away. The only thing standing in the way is the ideologues -- the likes of Steyn, Shaidle and the other jackals -- in the peanut gallery.
  11. Robert posted on 02/03/2010 06:53 AM
    Anybody raising money for this guy?
  12. Michael Ross posted on 02/03/2010 03:30 PM
    Bocephus you're an idiot for defending this obscene affront to justice. Sten and Levant are real Canadian heroes not venal lesbians, offended Muslims, or any other minority. Grow up.
  13. ddickinson posted on 02/03/2010 03:46 PM
    He'll win his case. It was only a single incident. But should there even be a human rights tribunal? If the majority of Canadians are against human rights, then we should get rid of human rights tribunals and set an example for the rest of the civilized world to follow. In Nazi Germany, the majority had their way against the Jews, Gypsies, and others who were a little different. Seventy years later, after having defeated Hitler, Canadians have had a change of heart and now support the ideology of Hitler, as espoused by [CENSORED]. This is what Canadians want and that's why we elected Stephen Harper. So, the majority should decide what is best for minorities. Scrap all the human rights tribunals and instead put all the minorities in jail or send them to a country that does respect human rights. It's high time we Canadians changed our image.
  14. Chris posted on 02/03/2010 04:01 PM
    Bocephus, Earle may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he is suffering a shameful indignity nonetheless. You seem to be suggesting that if any Canadian is not smart enough to fully understand their legal rights and the principles of justice, then they don't deserve to have them. Yours is typical of the sanctimony of those who support these horrific instruments of oppression. The HRCs are not venues to "settle the issue". If the complainant is in an identifiable victim group, then they win. No pride swallowing for them. No cost to them. No humiliation for them. These things are reserved only for the defendant, and the facts of the case don't really matter. I truly hope that you end up on in HRC crosshairs some day. Then maybe you can tell us all about what an effective venue it was to "settle the issue". As for your comments about Steyn et al, they are hardly the peanut gallery. Steyn has been in the middle of it, for writing an enlightening book which is at best prophetic and at worst, legitimate discourse. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the "facts and law" of which Mr. Steyn is so ignorant?
  15. Sholto Douglas posted on 02/03/2010 04:37 PM
    So, Bocephus, the demand for 40 grand is just a piece of pride swallowing, is it? The HRT is not like any other body – the complainants have their ride paid for by the taxpayer, while Earle has to pay his own way with no chance of reclaiming costs if he wins. He has already made concessions, like apologising and offering to make a donation to a women’s’ group. AFAIK the lesbians have made none, and why should they with the cards stacked in their favour? The HRT’s have shown that they place more weight on the delicate sensitivities of their favoured victim groups than on the real rights of anyone else. Of course Earle can eventually win in a real court, but as we know, the law, like the Ritz, is open to everyone.
  16. bocephus posted on 02/03/2010 10:17 PM
    Several points: BC doesn't have a human rights commission. All complaints proceed to the Tribunal. If the defendant feels the complaint is without merit, he can bring a preliminary application to dismiss. It will be dismissed if the tribunal determines it has no reasonable chance of success. Earle did this. He failed. (Curiously, Macleans didn't do this. It likely would have succeeded if had done.) The BC tribunal is an adversarial forum. Each side retains its own counsel, pays its own costs. Nobody get their costs picked up by a commission or anyone else. Steyn wasn't in the middle of anything. The complaint was against Macleans, not Steyn. Nor, despite Steyn's assertions, was the complaint dismissed because the HRT was afraid of a backlash. Anyone who knew the first thing about the tribunal knew the complaint was doomed. The only question was why Maclean well-paid counsel didn't bring an application to dismiss the complaint before the hearing. To sum up: It's nice that folks like Sholto and Chris have opinions about these things. It would be nicer still if their opinions were based on something resembling reality.
  17. Chris in Ontario posted on 02/04/2010 07:44 AM
    Mark, what do you mean his "inability to man up?" So he should just pay $40,000 because somebody felt offended? He's already said he was sorry for offending someone, where's the apology from them for interrupting the show for everyone in that venue? You know, I'm starting to feel offended by your assertions. Maybe I should cry to the human rights council and have your life turned upside down. (Wow, what a great tool for keeping people in line with "accepted thought."
  18. Chris posted on 02/04/2010 01:20 PM
    Bocephus, this "reality" you speak of is clearly some sort of altered state, and if you still favour these commissions (or tribunals - what ever) either (a) you have deliberatly turned a blind eye to their atrocities (b) you are a sadist (c) you are an idiot, or (d)you are in the "human rights" racket. You consider yourself informed enough about Mark Steyn to profess that he is ignorant of "facts and law" (still no reply from you as to the basis on which you reached this conclusion), so I will assume that you have read some of his writings on the topic. If you can read such writings and still believe that these "human rights" commissions (I know, in BC it is a tribunal) are a good idea, then your skull is clearly too thick to penetrate, and I'll not waste my time trying to get anything through it.
  19. Sholto Douglas posted on 02/04/2010 06:35 PM
    It looks like I got the cost bit wrong, Bocephus, but BC seems the only HR jurisdiction where the complainant pays their way. Still Earle is being put to substantial costs in travel, time and dollars, as he is not Vancouver based, all the more onerous given he’s a new dad. Given you accuse others of being factually challenged, you yourself do a nice line in dressing up your assertions as fact. Of course Steyn became involved in the Macleans case when he wrote the article. You say that it would not have gotten past the preliminary screening. How do you know? If it didn’t work for Earle, it is rather heroic of you to assume that common sense would have prevailed in such a capricious system. Barbara Hall of the Ontario HRC was clearly disappointed they couldn’t muscle their way in on the action, but nevertheless made no secret of how she would have adjudicated had that body not wisely declared it out of their jurisdiction, and there is no reason to assume the BC crowd are any saner. You also say that the sensitivity of the hecklers can be reduced to fact, which is nonsense. It is subjective, which gives the tribunal plenty of leeway to lean towards their favoured “victim” groups.
  20. bocephus posted on 02/04/2010 09:26 PM
    Actually, Sholto, the complainant is responsible for putting forward his own case (at his own cost) in most jurisdictions. Moving right along....1 Steyn was not named in the complaint against Macleans, not did he give evidence at the hearing, although he did show up. (Macleans didn't call any witnesses) 2. The Macleans complaint was arguably doomed to fail because the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Taylor makes clear that the human rights hate speech provisions can only be used against the most extreme expression of hate. Steyn's droolings about Muslim are many things -- ill-informed, ignorant, dishonest even -- but they're not particularly extreme. The complaint against Earle, on the other hand, involved the section of the act dealing with discrimination in the provision of services - basically, he made the complainants unwelcome by verbally attacking them. Makes for an interesting case, but it would take someone more skilled that Earle's brother to get it dismissed. 3. Steyn repeatedly claims that, on the law, Macleans should have been found liable. Which is both hilariously wrong and ill-informed, ignorant and dishonest. 4. Hall is the head of the Ontario commission, which doesn't adjudicate complaints, but does have an educational role. Her comments on Steyn's piece fell within that mandate; its simply fatuous to suggest that she was passing judgment in any legal sense. Chris, I suppose by atrocities you mean the insistence that McDonald treat an employee who's worked for them for two decade with some dignity when she develops a skin condition that prevents her from washing her hands regularly. If you do, you're an idiot.
  21. kg posted on 02/05/2010 06:30 PM
    bocephus, the McDonalds employee was treated with dignity. I read the "decision". McDonalds bent over backwards accomodating her but nothing was good enough. Bottom line, before the BCHRT, the Big Corporation was NEVER going to win against a lone employee. Period. End of story.
  22. Ur 2 Sense posted on 02/07/2010 02:42 PM
    Guy Earle claims he was 'the paid entertainment' in his youtube video, later he says he wasn't paid. Someone filing a complaint with the BCHRC under 'provisions of service' makes total sense and does have merit against someone being 'paid entertainment', be it server, barback,floor sweeper, no so funny comedian etc. It is funny however, the number of people convinced to think this woman/these women were actually a drunk hecklers just because Earle says so. He admitted to saying many things to and breaking property belonging to this woman simply "because the only thing I had to key on was the fact that they were lesbians". So, if the owner, the bartender or the server had behaved in this way toward these women, you think it would be acceptable? Do you also think if this story had been explained properly, people would be using it as a tool to make the HRT in Canada look foolish?Instead the story has been half assed hummed and hawed over by Earle - though every desperate media outlet dying to sensationalize aNything, again with only half the story.
  23. Sholto Douglas posted on 02/08/2010 05:58 PM
    Ur 2 Sense and Bocephus, you display that authoritarian streak so common amongst leftists, combined with a total lack of common sense and perspective. As Bocephus said, no one lost an eye. It was a guy being rude, under provocation, late at night when everyone was no doubt smashed out of their minds. Haven’t you been pissed before? Of course his real crime wasn’t the rudeness, only the fact that it was targeted at one of your precious “victim” groups. Here in Australia where we mercifully don’t have a Charter of Rights, he would have been made to apologise (as he has), and so would the hecklers, and everyone would have gone home slightly chastened, and forgotten about it. No such common sense from the left. The guy must be tormented by this corrupt system for years.
  24. bocephus posted on 02/09/2010 08:40 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.
  25. Mark A. Roberts posted on 02/10/2010 01:26 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'.
showing 1-25 of 43 comments · show all comments