Saturday, April 23, 2011

Another "Human Rights" travesty

Standup comic Guy Earle has been fined $15,000 by the dumbass BC "Human Rights" Kangaroo Tribunal  (full 107 page decision, summary).  The BCHRT found Earle (along with Zesty's Comedy Club owners - $7500 fine) guilty of violating lesbian Lorna Pardy's pseudo human right not to be offended. What a joke.

Earle's web page
Charles Adler's interview with Earle (April 21st p3).
Mark Steyn.


Alain said...

In BC we can lay claim to having one of, if not the most, wackiest HRCs that neither the provincial Liberals or NDP are willing to dismantle. It seems most people here are unaware or indifferent unless they get targeted. I want the whole Stalinist sham dismantled and the "workers" there forced to get a real job.

JR said...

Yes. Everyone seems to be oblivious to the abusive, kangaroo nature of the HRT/HRC process. You probably saw the Vancouver Sun story. There's no hint that something might be amiss - the reporters seem clueless. You'd have thought they might at least have mentioned the controversial Steyn/Macleans case in relation to Earle's.

Mike said...

Jesus, have either of you two even read the ruling?

Her it is:

Some highlights:

"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."

In short, this has nothing to do with Earle's free speech, but the fact that he stalked Pardy, cornered her then physically assaulted her.

But I will agree with one thing. She should not have used the HRC. She should have charged him with criminal assault. Better yet, she should have beat the shit out of the cowardly little prick.

Ezra is lying prick if he says this is about "free speech". And you two are idiots for believing him.

Earle desperately needs the living shit kicked out of him. He should be happy it sonly a fine.

Alain said...

Mike, the ruling is meaningless considering who made it. Had there been physical assault, Pardy could have lodged a criminal complaint and it would have been dealt with in a real court. Clearly she had no grounds, so off she runs to the HRC. She was not out a cent for all this, since we the tax payers cover all her cost, whereas the accused my fund his own defence which must be paid even if the case is thrown out.

Last you have no understanding of what freedom of speech is, which by the way is part of our tradition and not an American concept. So the only idiot here is you.

Alain said...

Meant to write: whereas the accused must fund his own defence...

JR said...

Exactly, Alain. Mike is another example of the clueless useful idiots that keep the these corrupt "human rights" bureaucracies in business.

From the second Pardy complained to the BCHRT Earle was "guilty" (of being rude to a dyke) and, if he contested, out a ton of money besides. A "protected" minority complaining about "discrimination" (ie. hurt feelings) to a BCHRT kangaroo pseudo "judge" is a done deal.

The only cases not resulting in "guilty" verdicts were Levant and Steyn/Macleans. Here the accused had deep pockets, the ability fight back and to publicly embarass the "human rights" nitwits. Little guys like Earle never "win" and if they do they still lose a huge wad of cash and tons of their time. Win or lose the accused are punished. They have the full weight of an abusive government bureaucracy against them. There's nothing the least bit fair or "just" about any of the HRT/HRC proceedings.

And there's no way a real court would have even touched the Earle case because there were no legal grounds.

If, on the other hand, what Mike suggested came to pass ie. "Earle [had] the living shit kicked out of him." (nice touch, Mike) there'd be a real case in a real court ending with somebody in the slammer.

Wise up, Mike. Get a clue.

Mike said...

Guys, you clearly don't get it. And clearly then didn't read the ruling.

I actually don't support HRCs at all. I agree they are draconian and should be gotten rid of.

But this isn't about curtailing Earle's ignorant speech. He wasn't fined because he called them dykes or cunts, he was fined because he physically intimidated them, to the point of destroying their personal property. He didn't insult them as part of his act, he stalked and cornered Pardy AFTERWARD and continued to verbally and physically berate her. The club did nothing to protect one of its patrons from this kind of physical harassment.

If you want to find something to defend free speech on, find a case that is actually about speech, not physical intimidation (which I might add would be actionable under civil law even without an HRC).

You guys and idiots like Ezra don't want free speech, you want consequence free speech. You want to say what you want without facing the consequences of it. Yeah, Pardy should have filed assault charges. And sued the establishment in real civil court.. That she didn't and went to an HRC instead doesn't mean this is about free speech (especially if Ezra "I'll SLAPP suit you if you say bad things about me " Levant says so)

You want to defend free speech? Pick a case that is about free speech instead of this. You have now set back the real free speech movement because you claim this as your hill to die on. And when real free speech issues arise, we get lumped in with this idiocy.

I stand by my position that Earle simply needs the shit kicked out him. No lawyers or HRC required.

JR said...

Mike, Yes I read most of that ruling. In fact I referred you to it in my original post. The so-called “judge” gave full weight to Pardy’s story and almost none to Earle’s or Zesty’s owner’s. The HRT is so heavily rigged in favor of the complainant that 107 page ruling isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

You’re a bundle of contradiction on this. On the one hand you say that HRCs “are draconian and should be gotten rid of” and on the other you seem to think it was a good thing that the HRT subjected Earle and Zesty’s to nearly four years of harassment, forced them to pay huge legal fees and levied big fines. So, which is it?

You think Pardy should have filed criminal assault charges and sued in civil court. I agree, one hundred percent. Then Earle would have had a fair hearing in a real court with real rules of evidence in front of a real judge. But why didn’t she do that? Likely because her “case” wasn’t as cut and dried as Pardy and the HRT “judge” made it out to be. I don’t believe that Pardy is the blameless naif you seem to think she is. Sitting in the front row of an open-mike comedy show making out with your lesbian partner and insulting the performer is a pretty sure way to attract some (well deserved) blow-back. In any case the “draconian” HRT (which “should be gotten rid of”) offered Pardy a cheap, easy way to get back at Earle - a way that was almost certain to pay off for her. Real courts, on the other hand, carry real risks and real costs. And if you lose you end up paying the other guy’s costs.

Earle may be a rude asshole and not very funny but none of those things are illegal (except in the pea brains of HRT bureaucrats). And if there’s more to it than that as you seem to think then a real court is the place to sort it out. Personally I don’t really give a rats ass about Earle except that what happened to him can (and does) happen to anyone; and no one deserves to be subjected to the HRC/HRT process. That’s really the only POINT here.

As for your position “that Earle simply needs the shit kicked out him. No lawyers or HRC required.” that’s another of your contradictions. If you think HRCs are draconian, what do you think violent thuggery is?