Some might be interested in this interview with Ezra Levant’s new little buddy Guy Earle, the Vancouver comedian whose case before the Human Rights Tribunal is the latest cause célèbre being championed by the same unsavory group of crackpots that rallied to Mark Steyn’s defense.
Today, Levant retails an account from one of his readers about the dismally attended “benefit concert” recently staged for Earle :
When I had an extended conversation with one of the comics, while sipping my wine in a plastic cup, he became more and more interested. He had no clue about who you and Mark are: I said, “Get over to Ezra Levant’s blog and read ALL OF IT!” He had no clue what’s at stake—the end of democracy, period! After we talked, he said, “Now I have a much better idea about how serious this is.” And the fact that there were only about 100 people at the benefit—I was really disappointed at the puny turn out—displayed, I thought, the typical Canadian apathy to what’s really important.
Guy was very pleasant, very grateful for the support, interested to hear I was a Christian and that this kind of thing had been happening to Christians for some time. He was also solicitous that some of the show might offend me (nice of him!): I told him not to worry, “Christians have big shoulders about these things.)”
Interesting to note that Jason Kenney was there.
Just for the record, here are some of the Earle’s “Christian” comments made in connection with the event subject to the HRC complaint, as related by the self-described “washed up comic” on the Dave and Chuck Show from November 18, 2007 shown above:
So these girls were in the front row and they were making out and they said “Shut up” or “Fuck you, asshole” and I asked them to be quiet and, um, and they were intimating that I maybe didn’t like them because they were lesbians. And then I broke into it, you know. I said, “Come on, you’re fat and ugly. You’re not even lesbian. No guy will fuck you and that’s why you’re with each other. Somebody shut her up and put a cock in her mouth and shut her the fuck up. Which one of you wears the strap-on dildo? Because silicone cock-crazy is still cock-crazy in my book.”
I haven’t been following this case, but vaguely recall some blogger providing an interesting take on the situation to the effect that it really has nothing at all to do with “free speech” as it’s been touted by Levant & Co. Unfortunately, I can’t for the life of me remember who it was, so if anyone knows and could advise me, I’ll be happy to link up with that information.
Update: Turns out Big City Lib was the blogger in question. As he said: “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.”
21 Comments
July 21, 2008 at 12:33 am
as funny as he is charasmatic. still, a comedy club, fer chrissakes. there’s no room for propriety in a comedy club. the very essence of comedy is victimization.
you’ve seen the last of don rickles….
KEvron
July 21, 2008 at 12:49 am
The whole situation is absurd. To me, it’s of interest solely for the way some people are projecting their own sense of “persecution” and supposed “victimhood” onto this guy’s drunken fracas with a couple of lesbians. I particularly liked the “Christian” spin that Levant’s correspondent put on it here.
As indicated at the end of the post, I don’t think this is actually about “free speech” at all, but may have more to do with the two women in question effectively being denied service. That is, if I recall that other blog posting correctly… I could be wrong about that. Hopefully, someone will provide me with a link to the article I’m referring to.
July 21, 2008 at 2:54 am
Is it just me, or does Ezra come across as the most narcissistic little twit north of Paris Hilton? I can’t read his stuff…moi this…moi that. POOR ME!!!! If this HRC stuff hadn’t happened, Ezra would be writing product descriptions for the shopping channel.
“Guy was interested to hear I was a Christian…” WTF…
July 21, 2008 at 3:21 am
That blogger was me.
July 21, 2008 at 5:04 am
sq, paris levant… eees good!
July 21, 2008 at 6:47 am
BCL — Thanks and sorry for the memory loss. Update to follow…
July 21, 2008 at 10:14 am
RedTory asserts that the B.C. Human Rights Commission issue is not about free speech, but is rather about the discriminatory service of someone who is a “bit like a waiter.” Well, of course. Two drunken female clients come into a restaurant, do the tonsil-tongue tango in front of everyone, eat the meat and toss the bones on the floor, fart loudly, and the waiter must show the utmost sensitive respect or else face the penalty of thousands of dollars in defensive-litigation and whatever penalty the BCHRC deems appropriate. You’re right RedTory — Self-Righteous Indignation must prevail.
July 21, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hey Wally, seeing as you have all the evidence to this case, how about sharing it with us.
By the way, the assertion to which your refer is that of another blogger, not mine. I’m simply saying that he might well have a good point.
Please learn to READ. Idiot.
July 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Well, redtory, I am not the spineless jellyfish that you are. I take ownership of my postings by using my real name up front.
There was nothing in my posting asserting that I “have all the evidence in this case”, so your strawman putdown is nothing more than a self-serving pat on your own back. However, I have no problem asserting that I have a better handle on this case at this moment than you do.
Case in point? Your strawman — indicates that you have no comeback, other than peurile schoolyard name-calling; you present a very low bar of debate on an issue, but I understand, you’d otherwise trip on your own shallow speed bump.
July 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm
As a matter of fact Wally, my name is no secret (mentioned from time to time in the posts — or go check Patrick Ross’ website where you’ll see it mentioned in every other post) and I don’t hide behind my screen name (people actually seem to prefer it for some reason).
I’m soooo glad to know that you take “ownership” of posting pictures of blocks and similarly vapid constructions on your witless little blog.
Your version of events involves “Two drunken female clients come into a restaurant, do the tonsil-tongue tango in front of everyone, eat the meat and toss the bones on the floor, fart loudly…” and so on. Unless this capsule account is meant to be entirely hypothetical, I would take it this is your understanding of the women’s’ behaviour on the night in question. Personally, I haven’t seen all the evidence, so I’m not in a position to describe it this way. I assume therefore you must have some additional insight provided by information not widely known to the public.
What “strawman” are you referring to? Or, in addition to having an apparent reading disability, is it your habit to just toss words around even when you seem not to understand their meaning?
By the way, your low bar/speed bump analogy is nonsensical.
July 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Noting that you are self-indulgent in peurile name-calling, I wouldn’t expect you to comprehend the low bar / speed bump analogy.
Your buddy asserts the issue is about service akin to a waiter, a point that you have allied yourself with. I ran with the waiter contention. Your dim-witted assertion that I “have all the evidence to this case” is indicative of your own reading and comprehensive disability. I suggest that you close down your open mind because it is badly in need of repair or upgrade.
July 21, 2008 at 2:58 pm
wow.
i just took a look at wally’s blog. what an abortion. at one point, he posted more than two dozen pointless posts in the space of an hour.
just…. wow.
KEvron
July 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm
So KEvron, I see that you and redtory have the same disability to stray away from the issue — I guess the both of you are impoetent to address the issue of the BCHRC’s triburinal of Guy Earle’s discrimination against the protected minority woman.
I quite agree with redtory’s characterization of Guy Earle’s response to the woman, however, I find myself opposed to the unnecessary expense incurred by taxpayers to prosecute such comments.
Otherwise, your denigration and the peurile redtory’s denigration of my blog is largely insignificant.
July 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Ooo, Wally learned a new word today: puerile.
If you look at the second comment, you’ll see that I stated that the whole situation is “absurd” and is really of no interest to me other than how others are using it to advance their own agendas. Why you seem intent on characterizing my position as one of advocacy for the HRC or the complainants, is beyond me.
As for the position of my “buddy” I merely said that he may have a point and that he had an “interesting take” on it. I neither support it necessarily, nor have I “allied” myself with it.
Maybe the two women have a legitimate complaint, maybe they don’t. I’m not in possession of sufficient facts to determine that one way or the other. Generally speaking, I don’t support HRCs when it comes to so-called “hate speech”.
Stop imagining things and deal with the facts and what is actually written, not what you imagine to be the case.
July 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm
My agenda is the expansion of freedom of speech, not just the defence of freedom of speech. Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and several others, that you condescend to from your self-appointed great height, share that similar agenda.
I’ve known about puerile for a long time. Guy Earle’s comedy is puerile, and your initial response to me (“idiot”) was also puerile. That appears to be the way you debate issues — name-calling. Btw, I would defend your right to wallow in puerility to your heart’s content.
Excuse me while I wipe the bottom of my shoes on your blog and depart for other places where there’s more of a semblance of intelligence than your pretentious punditry.
July 21, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Good riddance. Go haunt some other blog, stack blocks, or do whatever it is that you do for fun, you horrid old crank.
July 21, 2008 at 11:06 pm
hey, rt, can you see my house from your self-appointed great height?
“Go…. stack blocks”
sounds like a premise for a pixar film….
KEvron
July 22, 2008 at 6:24 am
Hi Red Tory,
I didn’t sense that you were defending the BCHRC. Unlike some others, you were just looking at the other side instead of blindly calling “free speech, free speech, free speech!” It’s nice to see a little balance of views on this subject. I have been on the other side of Guy’s anger-I know why those girls were incensed enough to file a complaint about him, justified or not. I think originally they wanted an apology and a replacement of their sunglasses (Guy broke them). At the end of the day, Guy is going to have to have to face something more scary than a tribunal. He is going to have to face his failings and shortcomings as a comedian.
July 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“his failings and shortcomings as a comedian.”
or, as we say in the states: “keep your day job.”
KEvron
July 22, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“I didn’t sense that you were defending the BCHRC. Unlike some others, you were just looking at the other side instead of blindly calling “free speech, free speech, free speech!” It’s nice to see a little balance of views on this subject. I have been on the other side of Guy’s anger-I know why those girls were incensed enough to file a complaint about him, justified or not.”
I agree. Wally misread RT’s observations from the beginning.
But I take issue with “justified or not.” Whether Earle’s actions justified retribution should be for a court of law to determine, not a quasi-judiciary like the human rights tribunals. While I believe the tribunals work, more or less, to assist people fighting discrimination in housing or employment who otherwise couldn’t afford expensive legal recourse, I also believe they have no business regulating free speech. Defamation, libel and slander are highly subjective issues, and must be subject to strict and rigorous legal examination. This involves rules of evidence, discovery and the right to call witnesses and cross-examine.
As I understand it, in the Canadian human rights tribunals, the only standard of proof is that something is likely to cause a climate of hatred. To me, this is bogus. Any number of things people say on a daily basis would fit under this umbrella. The burden of proof should be something did cause it — and should include here’s the evidence to show why, and here’s where legal precedent says so.
In Guy Earle’s case, had the proprietor of the club forbidden entry to the women in question because they were lesbians, that would have better fit a discrimination model; but as it was, it’s my opinion that these women, angry though they may have been, resorted to the wrong venue for redress. It was a comedy club contretemps got out of hand, in my opinion, and should have been treated as such. Instead, it stands to put a chilling effect on what comics dare to say about whom, which is a scary state of affairs. Having said that, it still remains for the facts — such as a lack of rules of evidence permits to emerge — to ascertain whether these women’s claims are justified, or not.
(Apologies for length, here, RT, but I guess you can tell I feel pretty strongly about this issue.)
Disclosure: I happen to think what Guy Earle said was sleazy. I’d never heard of him before, and I hope not to again, after this case is settled. But I do support him, albeit backhandedly, in this case, as I do Ezra Levant, Stephen Boissoin, Mark Steyn, Marc Lemire, Harry’s Place blog and any others, left, right, extremist or mild-mannered, against the attempt to restrict their speech in the name of “likelihood” to cause a climate of hate. I say prove it, under proper legal standard.
I agree that reaction to cases like these among conservatives often borders on hysteria. But the reason is — and I’m only speaking for myself — that even the hint of an encroachment on free speech is worth being alert to. Restrictions on other kinds of social behavior — violence, theft, and, yes, defamation — are rightly imposed. That is because they involve overt, provable acts. (In a court of law.) But speech, in itself, is simply that. The standards by which we prove speech has actually incited hatred should be high. Was Mark Steyn dramatizing his own paranoia in his book and the article in Maclean’s? Perhaps. Did mobs of people start attacking Muslims because of what he wrote? No.
If he’s wrong, the public debate allows a more convincing rebuttal to be put forward. (Frankly, I’d love to see it. Tarring all Muslims with the same brush simply begs for some good, biting polemic.) The point is, let the speech be heard, and then judged — by the public — on its merits. If it’s defamatory, go to (real) court. Otherwise, let it out there.
Once you put a chilling effect on speech, it’s my belief it can never be reclaimed. And that’s what’s so scary. Scary enough to account for the hysteria. To many conservatives, it’s better to err on the side of paranoia than to wake up one day to discover you can’t say anything offensive about anyone without having to cough up a lot of cash and wear a scarlet letter — and not having been able to properly defend yourself.
And now, a word to our friend Wally.
You really need to put your patella back in line with your femur and tibia. Anger is no excuse to let your emotions run away with you. It’s people like you that (rightly) earn many conservatives a lot of scorn.
Let me tell you a little story. Not too long ago, regular commenter KEvron and I engaged in discussion on my blog about a couple of points of fact. I had commented here on an issue that I had not bothered to properly research, and he called me on it. Over the course of many days, he managed to make me see where my thinking was astray — and I’ll never forget it. Sure, he was blunt about it — as he should have been. [And since.] That doesn’t mean I can have a free pass to tar him as a [fill in your favorite expletive] liberal, nor does it mean I can throw angry ad hominems back at him with a clean conscience. The fact is, he was right. And so is RT.
Far from wishing to protect my own worldview, reflexive and easy though it may seem, I chose to learn, and I did. (The lesson is still being learned, but at least I’m on the road.)
So stop — and THINK. You’ll only make yourself look like an idiot, otherwise. And I, for one, don’t want to be associated with that.
(Anyone interested can read KEvron’s and my exchange here — http://tinyurl.com/55h735. It was a wakeup call that has changed my thinking.)
Whew … sorry again about the length, RT.
July 22, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Addendum:
Wally, your blog defies belief.