The Shotgun Blog
« The Left Myth | Main | Liberal Party dumps Lesley Hughes for her 9/11-related opinions »
Friday, September 26, 2008
Guy Earle: A bitter joke
As part of our freedom of speech & expression week here at the Western Standard, we're proud to bring you the latest column in our series--"A bitter joke" by Toronto-based stand-up comic Guy Earle.
Guy Earle is facing down the Human Rights Commission thanks to an exchange he had with a couple of lesbians at a Vancouver comedy club. They heckled him, and he responded as comics typically do, with a volley of cutting jokes.
The jokes hurt the ladies' feelings. So much so, that one of them decided to launch a "human rights" complaint. And now Earle is fighting for his human right--the right to freedom of speech and expression. Supposedly guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Oops.
Earle's column describes the stand-up comics art. He explains that comics are the second-most likely group to commit suicide, next to dentists. And small wonder. They're up on stage, every day, bearing their soul to a group of people who may, if the comic is lucky, think they're funny. Or they might respond by heckling.
In spite of this, writes Earle, comics "...do comedy to deal with our deepest fears and bring our darkest character flaws into the light. Traditional stand-up... is a pure form of expression that comes from the need to question ourselves, our perspectives, our society and our government. We all know it is important to stand up for the right to state our opinions.
Whether or not we agree with these opinions is totally irrelevant."
I had an opportunity to interview Guy Earle with my co-hosts Terrence Watson and Jay Lafayette on Political Animals back in July. You can listen to that interview here.
Another excerpt:
"Let’s pretend, just for a moment, that I am an unfunny, homophobic, misogynistic prick. Let’s all just take a little moment to count to ten and imagine it to be true. What kind of world is this, to allow me onstage? A free one!
Lenny is undoubtedly laughing his ass off with his new roommate, George Carlin. Someday, my three-day-old bloated dead body will reveal that I have just joined them. The three of us will have an ironic chuckle about the joke that has become the HRC."
Read the rest. Visit Guy's website here.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on September 26, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534d80a29970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Guy Earle: A bitter joke:
Comments
"And now Earle is fighting for his human right--the right to freedom of speech and expression. Supposedly guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Oops."
Very little is gauranteed by the Charter. Except one thing...its just a damned piece of trumped up, meaningless paper. Totally Ambiguous.
I wish Mr. Earle all the luck in the world going before the Kangaroo Bureaucrats.
Hey, he's a comedian right? maybe he should dress for the occasion...in a Kangaroo suit! :)
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-26 7:36:43 PM
Guy,
If you're such a fan of Lenny Bruce, you might do him the favour of getting his wife's name right. Her name was Honey Harlow, not Bunny. You could also a) learn a little about this history of stand-up - the notion that Bruce created stand-up isn't supported by the facts -- and b) show a little humility. Having seen your act, I can fairly say that you and Lenny and George Carlin aren't going to be forming a comic triumvirate in heaven or elsewhere.
That said, good luck with the HRC complaint.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-09-26 8:26:59 PM
JC,
As I recall, during our interview with him, Guy said he was thinking of wearing a clown suit to his hearings, and that he would answer all the questions by honking his nose.
A YouTube video of that could gain quite the following :-)
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-09-26 9:10:16 PM
truewest,
Care to comment on the thrust of the post or are you content on nit-picking?
I await the usual ad-hominem attack rather than correcting your mistake and apologizing for the tangential post.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-09-26 9:15:48 PM
As I recall, during our interview with him, Guy said he was thinking of wearing a clown suit to his hearings, and that he would answer all the questions by honking his nose.
A YouTube video of that could gain quite the following :-)
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 26-Sep-08 9:10:16 PM
I'd pay good money to see that! :)
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-26 9:29:10 PM
h2o,
Playing the misunderstood, martyred genius hasn't done Earle much good so far. And comparing himself to Bruce and Carlin is, to put it mildly, delusionals.
If everything Earle says is true - that he was set upon by nasty, thin-skinned lesbians and merely responded as any comic would to any heckler -- then a modestly talented law student could have had this thing tossed on a preliminary motion. Instead, Earle represented himself and botched it. Now he's got a hearing to deal with.
He might start by leading evidence from both comics and comedy club regulars as to the nature of the relationships between those on stage and those in the audience. If he can make clear that the culture of a comedy club is one consensual confrontation, then he should be fine.
If he want to whine about how stand-ups are sensitive souls, doomed to die on bathroom floors, on the other hand, he's on his own.
As for you, you continue to waste bandwidth trolling this space. Develop an argument or grab a life.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-09-26 9:37:34 PM
truewest,
"Playing the misunderstood, martyred genius hasn't done Earle much good so far. And comparing himself to Bruce and Carlin is, to put it mildly, delusionals. "
Hmmm. I wonder what Carlin would have said about Earle before Carlin himself became famouse bucking the system.
"As for you, you continue to waste bandwidth trolling this space. Develop an argument or grab a life. "
My life is fulfilled trolling this bandwidth and causing you to waste your breath responding.
A task, at which, I fruitfully succeed.
Thank you!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-09-26 9:49:45 PM
h2o.
You're a sad little man. So little in fact, it takes less than a breath to dispense with you. Indeed, a fart seems to do the trick.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-09-26 10:38:09 PM
truewest,
Perhaps you'd like to provide a specific refutation.
As for "sad little man". What makes you so sure I'm "sad", "little", or a "man"
This is the problem with you. You assert much and prove much less.
Is it snowing? How's the base this time of year?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-09-26 11:15:01 PM
Guy, if you could, imagine a year ago if someone told you that you would be writing an article for the Western Standard and facing court actions for simply doing your comedy act. What would you have said to that person?
Posted by: qwerty1 | 2008-09-27 9:53:43 AM
truewest: I made the mistake of not changing Bunny to Honey. Guy had sent me the correction, and I failed to change it.
Also, Guy was not sent to court. He had a complaint lodged against him with the Human Rights Commission. I'm not sure where you've been the last six or so months, but I think we've explained, and argued ad nauseam, about the absurdity that is the HRT process. While a real court would toss this complaint out as frivolous, these kangaroo courts haven't.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-27 9:18:24 PM
For the last six months or so, I have pointing out the sundry misinformation, distortion and out right lies that you and yours have been promulgating about the human rights process. A few distortions relevant to this complaint:
- The complaint was filed against Earle by Lorna Pardy under s. 8, which bars discrimination in provision of a service. Apparently Earle was appearing in a restaurant that held stand-up nights. It`s not clear that Pardy went to the restaurant expecting to find herself as a stand-up show. It is clear, however, that this wasn`t filed under the Human Rights Codes provisions dealing with publications or speech
- BC has eliminated its human rights commission, which performed a screening function. As a result, all complaints are set down for hearing.
- A respondent can bring an preliminary application to dismiss a complaint before hearing on any number of grounds, including that there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed. Such applications account for about 40 percent of the Tribunals decisions. Claims are frequently dismissed.
- It is actually far more difficult for a court to dismiss a claim than it is for a tribunal. A court may only dismiss a claim on the basis that is discloses no cause of action or is an abuse of process. Unlike a tribunal, it may not consider the merits of the claim. So, if a court was administering the human rights code - a job no court would ever want, incidentally - it would end up tossing far fewer complaints than the BCHRT does under s.27 of the act. This one would almost certainly go ahead.
- Earle, represented by Mark earle (a relative perhaps), made such an application. The complainant, acting on her own behalf, opposed it.
(Curiously, the two high-priced lawyers Macleans hired to act for it before the BCHRT in the complaint about Mark Steyn`s ramblings did not bring such an application. Go figure. But I digress)
- Earle`s application was unsuccessful. If his arguments bore any resemblance to this article, which manages the nice feat of being both self-pitying and self-aggrandizing in under 1000 words - I`m not surprised. In any case, the tribunal found that was a conflict on the evidence, that Earle had admitted that he made comments that he now regretted. The commission found that these comments may establish discrimination. Barring settlement, the case will proceed to hearing
- if it does proceed to hearing, the complainant will act for herself or will hire a lawyer. The tribunal will not provide her with counsel. Earle, likewise, has a choice between acting for himself or hiring counsel.
- The parties will be subject to the same or similar rules of evidence used by small claims courts, securities commissions and other administrative bodies, which are more flexible and less technical than the rules of evidence used by superior and criminal courts. If HRT`s are kangaroo courts, then so are these other bodies.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-09-27 10:19:02 PM
great debate... what are you guys talking about anyway..?
I'm a comic people... ofcourse I'm ego-centric, self-pitying and love the sound of my own voice... that's what I do.
As far as, the 'provisions' or sections sited in the complaint... the result is the same. A conviction would undoubtedly result in me being restricted to use certain words during my act.
UNACCEPTABLE
I am NOT a homophobe, sorry, it would be easy if I was, but I aint.
I asked these punters three times to shut the freek up... after that they get the full range of my imagination. Yes, I regret having to deal with hecklers; EVERY COMIC DOES. That is the regret... that there is hecklers in the first place.
Come on 'truewest'.. wouldn't you be upset if I kept knocking dicks out of YOUR mouth while you were trying to work?
(see: that is a heckler come back line... not nice... but it does the job - truewest- just kidding, bud)
Oh and hey QWERTY1...?
If you asked me a year ago if this would have panned out to where we are today... no way could I have guessed... I knew there HAD TO BE a shoe that WAS GOING to drop. I just didn't think it was gonna be on my head.
It has been a tough year leading up to when this went public. I was fighting this myself and I was quite distraught. People didn't believe it was real. When the whole thing went public in late June, after reading so many comments and realizing that people weren't wanting to stand for this - it really took it out of my personal 'offended' realm to a national fight that I can't afford to loose for ANYBODY's sake.
Now, QWERTY1, I do believe that this moment will, at least for a while, be the defining point of my life.
Last again, truewest.
When I talk about the origin of TRADITIONAL stand-up, I am referring to a socially driven commentary; this is NOT TV friendly and comes from a deep dark pit of social disgust. There were fringe comics that appeared around or before Bruce (like, Johnathon Winters) but guess what, he made it mainstream and it wasn't by choice.
I'm a fricking comic and now I have to learn about politics. What a pain in the arse.
Ah well, back to writing jokes about loving one another - that sells big.
Remember folks, I'm just a joker... and our important lesson is to take yourself a little less seriously. Ironically, because of this whole thing, I all of a sudden have to do the opposite.
see you in the funny papers
Posted by: Guy Earle | 2008-09-28 12:27:38 AM
After all the publicity Guy still only has 18 subscribers on his youtube channel. Nobody is interested in his comedy. Guy is a sad, bloated desperate parody of who he thinks he is.
Posted by: Lisa from Halifax | 2008-09-30 10:04:04 AM
Note to Guy: Just because someone gets on stage and talks about whatever they want to talk about, doesn't make them Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, any more than giving a speech about civil rights makes them MLK, Jr. Not everything hung on a wall is art and not everyone standing on a stage is a stand up comedian.
Posted by: Bella | 2008-09-30 10:31:59 AM
Lisa and Bella - Your criticisms are beside the point. Whether or not Guy is the perfect comedian, or someone who will have a career in the movies, or be an exceptional instance of his kinds is irrelevant. Guy is earning his keep as a comedian and gets booked regularly.
Not all actors get to be in blockbuster movies. And you don't measure success that way. Not all professors are professors at Ivy League institutions, and it would be daft to measure success that way. Not all fashion designers design for Milan.
Guy is a blue collar comedian. That's what makes the HRC case against him so odious, and so particularly troubling.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-30 10:41:14 AM
I'm not talking about the case, I'm talking about the narcissistic tone of the writer of the article. Guy's overblown sense of self-importance, and not his act, is the real comedy.
Posted by: Bella | 2008-09-30 11:37:00 AM
Whether or not you agree with the merit of this HRC case the fact remains that Guy's rant had nothing to do with his artform. It's a case of a comedian who lost his cool bigtime,has no idea what he is doing, is unprofessional, and has delusions of grandeur. He was not trying to get these girls to "question the status quo."
Guy's article might have some merit if his temper tantrums served some kind of aesthetic purpose. But they don't. Maybe the HRC case has no merit but Guy is not even close to being in the same category as Lenny or George.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-10-01 7:22:13 AM
Bella, Lisa, Craig. yer the same person over and over again, same email...
at least I use my real name.
Just because you hate me doesn't make you profound!
The comparisons are born from legal necessity...
I could give a shit what YOUR opinion is of me bella/lisa/craig... you don't even know who you are.
All you are doing is trying to insult me. You wanna talk about merit. SO you don't like my piece, so you don't like my comedy... so what?
you are only an angry person with an identity problem. I'm here for you to throw stones at, congratulations... you remind me of my complaintant, negative, angry, pointless and hurtful. I feel sorry for you people with no lives accept to critisize others.
I will never defend myself to ignorant rants. You don't know me, my comedy, how those assholes fought with me or apparently your own name.
I'm glad you enjoyed my article, though
Posted by: Guy Earle | 2008-10-01 8:24:23 AM
Hey Guy,
I just wanted to say: keep up the good fight! The people who are focusing on the merits of your comedy act are simply slinging ad hominems. A person's basic rights don't depend on whether certain other people find him funny or not.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-10-01 8:58:14 AM
Guy,
I have posted on free speech issues on The Shotgun a fair bit recently. In short, I strongly support the elimination of all hate speech restrictions - including the ones in the Canadian and BC Human Rights Act/Code and the ones in the Criminal Code. I think that David Ahenakew and Bill Whatcott are evil, hateful bastards that decent people should denounce, but I also do not think either should be prevented from saying what they want to say.
In your case, I don't think you're an evil, hateful bastard and certainly should be free to deal with hecklers. But what makes (for me, anyway) your case more interesting is that the complaint is NOT under the section 7(1)(b), the hate speech section, but under section 8 (Does that make you like Corporal Klinger?), the section that says you cannot deny a service to people because of who they are. This is a section that I do support. I think it's ok to be able to take action against a store if the owner kicks out black or Jewish or lesbian customers telling them "we don't want your kind here."
Having said that, it seems pretty clear to me that the complaint against you is an obvious and extreme misapplication of that section. The claim would have to be that you were trying to exclude them from being customers at the restaurant because they are lesbian. It seems pretty obvious that neither part of that is true, so the complaint is completely without merit. It seems to me you should win the case easily by either showing it was not your goal to deny them service as customers of the restaurant and, even if it was, it was because they were obnoxious, not because they were lesbians. One would hope that it is an easy win, anyway.
But my question in all this for you is this: I know you do not support section 7(1)(b) of the BC Human Rights Code, but what about section 8, the one you are accused under? Suppose, instead of being the MC for a stand-up show, you were the maître d' of a restaurant or a night club and as lesbian customers attemted to enter you told them "we don't want your kind here." In those circumstances, would you say that it would be appropriate that the law allows people denied that service to take action? (There are many posters here who, unlike me, do think business owners should be allowed to put up "No Dogs or Jews Allowed" signs.)
One reason I ask is because I think you have a much stronger defence if, like me, you do support section 8. It allows you to more clearly make the distinction between what you are accused of doing and what you actually did. "I broke your rules, but your rules are stupid" is always a weaker defence that "I did not break your rules and I think they are good ones".
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-10-01 9:58:24 AM
Don't worry, Guy. These are not real people.
They can't even decide what they want to be, and it has fried their brains. HA HA
I guess they think rights are accquired by taking them from those that already have them.
They may be not harrassed and killed anymore--but it will never be enough for them.
That's because they are deviants, they'll always be deviants--and they know it, but will always refuse to admit it. Hell, I'm a deviant--proud of it.
I don't need special treatment from anyone.
especially fags.
Posted by: Scutaw | 2008-10-01 10:27:55 AM
For someone who won't "defend themselves against ignorant rants" it sure sounds like I struck a nerve with you. If you don't care what I think, why bother responding?
My real name is irrelevant. People use pseudonyms all the time.
I just have to laugh at all your kumbaya mumbo-jumbo about people's intrinsic worth and enlightenment blah, blah, blah. This is coming from someone who told the audience (in reference to the lesbian) "stick a cock in her mouth to shut her up."
Why can't you simply say that you went too far in dealing with the hecklers but having said that, you don't deserve to be taken to trial? You admitted to the HRC that you regretted the comments. So how can you say it was part of your 'art'?
I don't hate you personally. Just your posturing as a victim and a genius comedian "bucking the system." Please.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-10-01 10:57:35 AM
Sorry Miss,
I AM real. See what I mean, Guy?
This is what Canadians get for being nice to people. Time to go back to the barbed wire.
Craig sure is a fast typist--I guess he must be on the bottom.
Posted by: scutaw | 2008-10-01 11:00:16 AM
I can't believe you call yourselves a free society, trying to BAN WORDS. Do any of you realize how ridiculous the idea is? Do you honestly think that it will stop the internal shame you feel? No--it's not the words that are the problem--it is what's inside your head. The words are there so the rest of us can describe you to other people. You are not OK with your sexuality--or these words would not bother you.
You propose these communist measures to make people equal again--you admit by so doing that you are NOT equal. Sure you have a right to live and work--but you don't have the right to be spared from all life's embarrasments.
Posted by: Scutaw | 2008-10-01 11:10:33 AM
Truewest wrote: "The parties will be subject to the same or similar rules of evidence used by small claims courts, securities commissions and other administrative bodies, which are more flexible and less technical than the rules of evidence used by superior and criminal courts. If HRT`s are kangaroo courts, then so are these other bodies."
These other bodies do not sit in judgement of your Charter rights.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 11:19:05 AM
These laws are intended to exacerbate the situation by giving a tiny, deviant population the power in the courts to harrass anyone that disagrees with their putrid lifestyle. I personally don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. Having those acts legalized was not enough for them--they want to be able to do it in public purely to offend the rest of us!
Actually I'm not offended, just sickened.
I thought it entirely appropriate to say what you did, Guy. You know they both had big, black plastic ones in their purses--dripping funk from before the show. Can't do without them either, I wager.
Posted by: Scutaw | 2008-10-01 11:40:53 AM
In the really big picture, we are just between ice ages anyway. Reading & typing this is more precious time I'll never get back.
~Woody
Posted by: Wody O | 2008-10-01 4:51:45 PM
Honk Honk....Honk Honk Honk...Honk Honk. Honk.
Personal attacks on Guy...so sad, after you finished writing those stupid hyper opinionated paragraphs did you go stand in the mirror and admire yourselves. Did you feel superior to that starbucks employee while you ordered your coffee without removing your sunglasses or stopped talking on your cell-phone...Did you...Does making direct personal attacks on GUY through a friggin COMPUTER give you that superiority feel again...
The Human Rights Commision...Honk Honk...exemplifies the bullshit society Canada has become.
Vancouver BC - why don't they worry about all the homeless living on the street & their rights, all the abused/neglected kids across this country and their rights & well being, all the soldier's getting killed every day & their families rights & well-being...no no no, they have the audacity to consider the rights of some hungover, angst filled, childish, SELF-CENTERED, SELF-RIGHTEOUS individual simply because they are a LESBIAN!!!...what the f$%k..I mean come on...come on already.
It is a complete farce unfolding in front of us, an utter mockery of the title which they claim to bear. Guy - go in a clown suit, I'll go in a baboon costume and only then will we be able to decipher the true mission of their contentiousness.
Posted by: Deezer | 2008-10-01 6:48:32 PM
In last November's podcast, this great 'defender' of Free Speech tried to dump 100% of his incident onto the owner/manager of Zesty's--who defended him! Hmmm, check out the live podcast interview at www.straight.com.
Posted by: Lela | 2008-10-02 5:54:19 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.