Zesty's ruling oversimplifies
NAKED EYE
Robin Perelle / Vancouver / Thursday, May 19, 2011
Share |

I wonder what was going through Guy Earle’s head right before the lesbians walked into Zesty’s on May 22, 2007?

Was he looking around the nearly empty room, wondering where everybody was? Was he asking himself if he should stick to his day job? Maybe he didn’t give them much conscious thought at all. Maybe he just saw them kissing and lashed out.

“Don’t mind that inconsiderate dyke table over there,” he said. “You know lesbians are always ruining it for everybody.”

Some accounts suggest Lorna Pardy and her friends engaged, heckling Earle and telling him to go fuck himself. I don’t blame them.

In fact, I don’t blame anyone here in a Human Rights Tribunal sort of way.

There’s no doubt Earle behaved badly that night. Suggesting someone stick a cock in a lesbian’s mouth to shut her up is offensive.

But do we really want a tribunal to judge how far comedians can go? Do we really want performers to tone down their jokes so nothing they say ever hurts anyone’s feelings? We might as well just put Care Bears onstage.

BC’s Human Rights Tribunal might feel more comfortable in a Care Bear world. Free expression has value but a person’s dignity has more value, Murray Geiger-Adams decided April 20. Earle’s brhaviour was inconsistent with  promoting “a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights,” he ruled.

To me, a climate of mutual respect means a society where lesbians like Pardy don’t lose their homes, jobs, education or access to services just because they’re different. But that wasn’t the case here. In its determination to defend the vulnerable party, the tribunal oversimplified an important question and dismissed any hints of complexity or even wrongdoing on the lesbian’s part.

Here’s what I think really happened that night: an offensive, talentless comedian tried to salvage his lacklustre show by lashing out at the obnoxious table that had the audacity to ignore him while he was onstage. He targeted them and their sexuality. They, understandably, gave it right back to him. A heated exchange ensued. Whatever was left of the comedy show unravelled.

At the next break, the angry comedian approached his opponents. Pardy threw a glass of water in his face. Earle walked away swearing. For some reason, both parties decided to repeat this unsavoury exchange a second time. The evening culminated with Earle ripping the sunglasses off Pardy’s head and breaking them.

The restaurant’s owners say this was a case of two adults behaving immaturely.

The tribunal says Pardy is blameless and Earle violated her rights.

“He employed, and repeated, publicly, the most extreme terms... to directly attack her identity and dignity as a woman and a lesbian,” Geiger-Adams ruled, adding: “In Ms Pardy’s poignant words, ‘All of our power was taken from each of us in front of each other.’”

That’s the problem right there. In a world where insults from a stupid comedian can take away all your power — and a tribunal agrees and tries to restore it by punishing the one who “took it” — insults are king and people are too fragile.

Rather than limiting someone’s free speech, why not reduce its power to ruin your life? Find your own power and nurture it. And leave the tribunal to the genuinely vulnerable people who are still losing jobs, homes and opportunities because they’re different.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Well Said Young Lady
An excellent column, thank you.
Blazingcatfur, Humane Society Villa Ontario
05/19/11 2:26 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
pathetic person
Yes, most people I spoke with a couple of weeks ago in the area, commercial drive in vancouver, and restaurant where the incident happened, think that this woman who did persue the charges was cracked. Her partner has left her over the incident, the guy who owned the restaurant was charged 7000, plus the 25 thousand he spent on the lawyers, How is it that we stand idly by and let the government get away with these travesties. I will continue to send letters to |MP's ministers, etc and more people who use facebook, twitter, all the other crap, lobby groups need to demand changes in these human rights commissions There isn't a river deep enough
morticia, edmonton alberta
05/19/11 3:16 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
I remember a man of Color joined the Klan...
The support that this Article gives to wrong-doing is reminiscent of that event, back in the late 70s or 80s, when a man of Color joined the KKK. In Edmonton, I even met a WW2 vet who had become a neo-Nazi. My opinion of both is that they were recreants... -Mark A Roberts
Mark A Roberts, Vancouver BC
05/20/11 12:46 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Journalism v After school special...
I have to say that after reading the ruling and then reading this 'oversimplified' trash you refer to as an 'Article', your 'Journalism' needs work. Your grade school level of thought (due to your arrested development) into this "LESBIAN V. COMEDIAN" BS 'Oversimplifies' the level that this decision impacts Canadian society. **“Mr. Earle’s treatment of Ms. Pardy was both verbal and physical, and involved both aggressiveness and physical contact,” Geiger-Adams wrote. “In my view, in the circumstances disclosed by the reliable evidence in this case, it is important both to Ms. Pardy and to the public to clearly identify that the conduct engaged in by Mr. Earle, in particular, was a breach of Ms. Pardy’s human rights under the Code.”** You also 'think' you can tell a fairytale out of your head about what YOU 'thnk' happened. Try writing after school specials for your middle-school instead of pretending that the embarrasment written above is piece of journalism... what a loser.. Ugliness all around..
Not an Ugly 'Journalist', Vancouver BC
05/20/11 6:36 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Article above = Oversimplified FAIL
..... You are either born with integrity or you're not........ "Mr. Earle made two sets of comments from the stage at Zesty’s, to and about Ms. Pardy and her friends … including referring to them as 'f--king c--ts,' 'stupid c--ts,' 'stupid dykes' and 'f--king dyke c--ts,'" he wrote in the decision. "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 'f--king stupid dyke,' 'stupid f--king bitch,' and he grabbed and broke her sunglasses," he wrote. Geiger-Adams also ruled the restaurant staff failed to restrain Earle or protect Pardy from his verbal or physical assault, or otherwise take effective steps to protect her. "Ms. Pardy did not provoke or invite Mr. Earle’s first attack from the stage, and she was far from an equal participant thereafter. She did not match Mr. Earle’s hostile and demeaning insults, engage in physical intimidation of him, or destroy his property," he wrote.
Not an Ugly 'Journalist', Vancouver BC
05/20/11 7:08 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
I agree
I agree with this writer. The very important work that human rights tribunals do on a regular basis protecting people in the areas of housing, work and education is threatened by such cases as this one which then get used by those opposed to HRCs as examples why they they should be shut down. There were other arenas for this dispute to get settled in such civil court or small claims court. But to use the HRC as a way to get back at an offensive untalented asshole distracts from and taints the very important work HRCs do in protecting people as opposed to getting revenge for people which this case seems to be mostly about. It would be different in my opinion if this so called comedian regularly attacked or used degrading speech against LGBT people but from all accounts this was a once off occasion and not a campaign of spreading hatred against lesbians or other LGBT people.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
05/23/11 8:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Good Column, Ms. Perelle
In a sane world, the manager of Zesty's would have ejected both Earle and Pardy from the restaurant for drunken and disorderly conduct. Earle would have reimbured Pardy for her broken eyeglasses, and Pardy would have reimbursed Earle for the drycleaning of his drenched shirt. The dispute would not have gone before a human rights tribunal, and everybody--including the taxpayers of B.C.--would not have wasted God knows how much money on this legal fiasco.
R. Franklin Carter, Toronto Ontario
06/12/11 2:07 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.