Canadian “human rights” and the absolute power to destroy;
The BCHRT has ignored the Supreme Court of Canada, ignored reason and, now, ignored our plea to allow me to “testify” by telephone. Three years of my life have been jumping through HRC hoops and hiding in the shadows that accompanies a man found guilty until proven innocent. The HRC has crushed my spirit to perform and offer no faith in the current state of affairs in our country. This self-appointed, quisi-legal board of powertrippin’ losers need to be dissolved. Despite the majority of Canadians crying “bloody murder” over the continuing inhuman wrongs perpetrated by the oxymoronic Human Right’s Tribunal, the humorless, little people of the HRT go happily on, trying to destroy unqualified hapless dudes, such as myself.
Comedian Guy Earle is due to appear before the BCHRT in Vancouver today. I don’t know why he bothers when he could simply await the guilty verdict at home. The National Post has more on the incident. Bulletproofcourier will be live blogging the hearing.
Proud homophobes and heterophobes alike can help Guy out by clicking on and donating via his paypal button on his website. I sent him a few dollars yesterday.
Rednecks and knuckledraggers – doing the job Rick Mercer and Mary Walsh won’t do.
Related – the First American Prime Minister, with this reminder – “Robert Fowler has earned the right to say whatever he pleases…”
h/t Gord
I’m glad that a quasi-judicial apparatus of the state has undertaken to prosecute a comedian who had the nerve to respond to heckling from a couple of Lesbians.
So all Canadians can have a safe environment.
I can understand why the “entertainment community” would never want to support Steyn or Levant but their utter silence in supporting one of their own speaks volumes.
1) Ignore the commission
2) see how they enforce.
3) use civil/criminal law to deal with enforcement.
People are using wrong venue – quasi/extra/pseudo- judicial ‘commissariat’ with no due process.
But if they try to enforce, that enters normal flow of Canadian jurisprudence and can be dealt with in real court.
People in Canada are being way too compliant to abuse, AKA tolerant.
The HRC/HRT all offend me…..how about me?
Rickle’s going to be performing up in Edmonton soon. Perhaps someone should tune him into this Guy’s plight.
Or at least warn him…
Courts have already overturned HRC convictions of this hate speech offensive behaviour whatever. CHRC tribunal chair also determined sec 13 to be unconstitutional.
Its time the Harper government brought sec 13 to the supreme court for ruling and thus neuter all HRCs in Canada of this power to shake down those who don’t hold their social/political ideals.
Its time the prime minister started to be a prime minister that represents the majority of the people. Time to rid the disguise of being a liberal in sheeps clothing.
After reading the article in the NP, I wonder whether this wasn’t a set-up from the beginning – the lesbian complainant deliberately and aggressively heckled the comedian, trying to provoke him into insulting her so that she could file a complaint with the HRC. She wants $ 20,000 because he called her a ‘fat, ugly lesbian’ – sounds like a shakedown to me.
And Fritz – ezcellent point. Where does the entertainment industry stand on this, and why are they not supporting one of their own? Stand-up comedians always poke fun at members of various groups – it’s part of their act. And they trade insults with hecklers – that’s also part of their act. Maybe we should outlaw comedy and comedians altogether because, gee, they might OFFEND somebody.
Smitherenzes
Great idea….one little problem.
In practicle terms the government cannot dismiss all the AGW/Kyoto nonsense as nonsence despite the being no empirical evidence for it.
Now you think that this would fly? Get a grip, the howl would go up that the government is attacking human rights by disbanding these kangaroo courts…when in reality these CHRC/CHRT/HRT attack human rights.
Most citizens just hear the media slant…..it’s a motherhood/apple pie thingy.
Politics is the art of the possible….
And the Jennifer Lynches etc know it.
The reason the entertainment community isn’t circling the wagons around Guy Earle is that he loudly and publicly insulted a member of the Untouchables — a politically correct identity group. Earle crossed the unmarked PC line. He slurred the PC shibboleth. Ms. Pardy could have lit Mr. Earle on fire and still he wouldn’t have been able to call her a “fat, ugly” lesbo.
As for Mr. Earle, if he can hang in until the “verdict” is passed, he has an excellent chance of recuperating all legal costs and perhaps damages by the BCHRT through the Courts based on the ruling of the SCC.
Just checked on CBC to get the politically correct take on this. They have been completely silent other than a short mention by Jian Ghomeshi on Q.
Perhaps the overwhelming response by the bent gender CBCer’s in favour of Earle have led CBC to conclude there is no upside on this story for them.
http://tinyurl.com/Jian-Ghomeshi-Earle
Our Human “Rights” Commissions are a repeat of Nazi Germany’s “Volksgerichtshof” or “People’s court” which was set up outside the operations of the constitutional frame of law.
If you haven’t already, you should watch the movie “Sophie Scholl – The Final Days” to see how it operated.
“Politics is the art of the possible….”
first, there was a fellow named Machiavelli, then impossible happened, someone invented the guillotine .
sasquatch..with all respect to you as I don’t mean to heckle you personally, but whoever invented this quote was a political coward willing to compromise anything and everything. The full quote should read: politics is the art of possible in short term, sooner or later you have to pay the price.
This sounds a bit like the McCarthy Hearings in reverse. Are you, or have you ever been a heterosexual (or homosexual, for that matter) comedian? Other things to be considered here, such as, is Ms.Pardy, in fact, a “fat,ugly, lesbian”.
Is Mr. Earle, in fact, a mouthy chauvinist male pig, comedian, with a dislike for mouthy women. Prpbably, and probably that is why that Ms Pardy (presumably) paid to enter and see the show.
My question would be: Why wouldn’t he file a battery lawsuit or use of a dangerous substance in a battery case against his aggressor?
If the drink-chucker had partaken of the drink, her bodily fluids would have been present in the mixture which she would have then thrown in his face. The eyes are the most porous surface (other than our mouths) on the human body, and having the drink, with all of its contents, would have entered through his eyes. Has he been checked for any STD’s or any other potentially lethal or communicable diseases? Sounds like a great start for a counter-lawsuit against these aggressive social activists pawns.
I would accuse them of standing behind the skirt of the BCHRT, but not quite sure whether that could or would be taken as an insult, and then have my carcass hauled in to the principles office!
According to Otto Von Bismark “Politics is not the art of the possible” “It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”
The HRC’s are both , they are McCarthyism on a National scale, Canada’s shame really.
Good point bubba, political correctness is the new McCarthyism.
We – and Ann Coulter- need to be held hostage by al-Quaeda to earn the right to say whatever we please?!
I would love to hear what ” T ” has to say. would he really be on the wrong side of this issue too, as he was with Ann Coulter?
Most of us are aware that the BCHRT will probably return a guilty verdict. As one considers that the $20,000 in legal fees already spent is about the same as the damages sought, one cannot help but think Mr. Earle should not have fought so hard with the HRC because he will still have to expend costs on the next round. However, there are some reasons that a guilty verdict at the HRT level could be a good thing.
Mr. Earle does have some support from previous court decisions in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Although these decisions are in different jurisdictions than his in BC, there is at least one point that is different about his case.
In the other two cases, the question of costs being awarded to the Defendant came up; they were denied in the Alberta case and allowed in the Saskatchewan case. It is significant to note that the Saskatchewan Defendant (William Whatcott) received an award from the SHRC and not from the Plaintiff. In the Alberta case, Justice Wilson denied any cost award from the Plaintiff (Darren Lund) to the Defendfant (Stephen Boissoin) and did not address the issue of awarding costs from the AHRC to the Defendant. On a related point, I wonder about Mr. Boissoin’s chances of bring a claim for costs against the AHRC – a claim against Mr. Lund has already been denied.
In the two overturned cases, both Defendants were making moral statements in a public venue based upon religious convictions that essentially “offended” the respective Plaintiffs. Although the essential claim of “being offended” was overturned in both cases, it was clear in both cases that the Plaintiff had done nothing to initiate the public statements by the Defendants.
The Earle case appears to be different. Although Ms. Pardy, who disputes Mr. Earle’s version of the facts, should also get her day in court should it get that far, Mr. Earle’s claim of a minor assault by Ms. Pardy is believable, even if not yet found as established fact in a court. Should a Justice overrule a HRT decision and then further find that Ms. Pardy was at fault in instigating the altercation, the Justice could award costs back to the Defendant – and not only from the BCHRC, but from the Plaintiff herself. A ruling from a court that for the first time could actually cost a Plaintiff some actual cash would go a long way to stopping any claims that are based simply upon a Plaintiff’s desire to receive an easy cash settlement.
Ah but you see, the Supreme Court ruling is only intended to protect “fair comment” that flows in a certain direction:
“The ruling had nothing to do with a comedian, mind you, but the case itself was also born in Vancouver. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the “fair comment” defence of radio talk show host Rafe Mair, who was accused of defaming a so-called “Christian values” advocate. Mair had compared Kari Simpson’s anti-gay rhetoric to that of the Nazis and the KKK.”
Had the “Christian values” advocate made an unfavourable comparison to a deviant, you can bet they’d be getting their head handed to them.
Maybe she’s fat cause she’s not getting enough meat in her diet.
“Purdy” she definitely isn’t.
“I have the impression that they (Liberals) will endorse anything and everything which might return them to power.”
Gosh, no! Say it isn’t so, Bobby!!!!
How about making the complainants foot the legal bill for their complaint? Level the playing field so to speak. This might be less politically risky and a short term solution. Just musing here.
I just dashed off some dough for him. If I wish to live in a country in which I have the right to disagree with and thereby possibly offend others then I must support the right, by definition, of others to disagree with and possibly offend me.
And for crying out loud — wandering into a comedy club, sitting in the front row, getting drunk, making out with your girlfriend and then heckling the stand up comic . . . !!! What the heck did she expect?!?! Why not just sneak up behind a rabid pit bull and kick it in the crotch? The likelihood of an aggressive response is somewhat less, and the integrity of one’s judgement and reputation subsequently, more likely to remain intact. Unbelievable. In Canada, Kafka would have been a student.
Why are people enormous infants?
If you don’t like raucous humour, don’t go to comedy clubs. It’s simple.
However, as someone pointed out, this isn’t about rights but shaking someone down.
For all of these crybabies who run to human rights commissions whenever they don’t get their way or are trying to get rich quick, place a bell around their necks. This way, we can avoid getting sued, told on, ect by avoiding them altogether.
And no, I won’t apologise for that.
Nobody has the right to be offended. If “offensive” is allowed to be a legal right, then you’ll soon all be just like America and just as messed up.
Being offended is a personal problem, not a legal right, and it never should be. If it is, then what’s offensive? Who determines that?
What if blacks are offensive? Or Jews? Do I need to file a permit before I can request permission to apply for an exemption to make a comment in a blog?
Demopoly, what is your point? If you are merely spouting nothing, don’t waste your time.
Ignatieff is the lead guest on CBC’s Power and Politics. He reiterates his ‘praise’ for “Bob” Fowler.I guess he calls him “Bob” because they are so close,kind of like him and “Mike” Pearson. Mike Ignatieff could not be more condescending than this segment shows. According to him,the conservatives have caused this deficit all by themselves for no apparent reason,and it falls on his shoulders alone to fix the problem. What an a-hole,he can’t get back to Hahvard fast enough for my liking. Bring on Justin,he is much more amusing.
The Star article on Robert Fowler at the Liberal “think” event was a little unclear on what Fowler actually thought the Libs should be doing. However, if he actually believes that the Liberals are “pandering to the Jewish vote” my conclusion would be that a few months in Al Qaeda “custody” did not teach Mr. Fowler very much.
My take thus far…
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2010/03/persecution-of-guy-earle-illegal.html
This lesbian just made a donation to Guy Earle’s defense fund. Same as I did for Kate and Ezra, and even Stephen Boisson.
The poor bastard. Bet he’s not singing the PC song of Lollipop leftist Land anymore. He’s clued into seeing them for the Inhuman rights regime they are.
A political Inquisition with larceny as a hobby.
Shakedown baby.
JMO
Good thing there’s still a way to “earn the right” to speak your mind. I’ve always wanted to live in a country where there’s only one political party and if you want to get any of the perks of citizenship you have to join that party. I have a suggestion for the Liberal Party. Change your name to the Ba’ath Party.
Anyone see Goldhawk and his two guests last night? The nights question- “Is freedom of speech at risk in Canada”?
No one seemed to think so …… It seemed the theme from callers and the guests was be careful what you say, as there are so many feelings to be hurt.
Maybe we should all wear My Little Pony t-shirts?
You and others who have donated are of good heart Kyla.
Fine example followed and tip jar bell rung by this poster as well.
You and others who have donated are of good heart Kyla.
Fine example followed and tip jar bell rung by this poster as well.
You and others who have donated are of good heart Kyla.
Fine example followed and tip jar bell rung by this poster as well.
But I thought the entertainment industry spoke truth to power ….. LOL