If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Province)   Why are Canadians so polite? The fact that you can be sued for hurting someone's feelings with your stand-up comedy act might have something to do with it   (theprovince.com) divider line 181
    More: Weird, Vancouver, stand-up comedy, Canadians, Supreme Court of British Columbia, poor taste, comedy clubs, legal burden of proof, physical abuse  
•       •       •

6286 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2013 at 6:13 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 12:34:30 AM
Earle even confronted the woman, pushing her and breaking her sunglasses.

I think more than her feelings were hurt, assmitter.
 
2013-06-27 01:02:04 AM
I can't believe this is still going on
 
2013-06-27 01:23:06 AM
Done in one and two.

(assuming "this" in the second was in reference to verbally and physically assaulting people based on their sexuality)
 
2013-06-27 01:41:01 AM
It was hate speech. Illegal in canada and sueable to boot.
 
2013-06-27 01:55:19 AM

sithon: It was hate speech. Illegal in canada and sueable to boot.


Wut are you talkin' aboot?
 
2013-06-27 05:24:55 AM
assets.nydailynews.comsouthparkstudios.mtvnimages.com
 
2013-06-27 06:18:41 AM
Because feelings are the most important, most sacred thing, ever. How DARE someone offend you?
 
2013-06-27 06:30:28 AM
That guy sounds like a dick.

/don't be a dick
 
2013-06-27 06:37:50 AM
A: this guy seems like a jackass.

B: how did a room full of people let this guy lay a hand on her and not whip his ass?
 
2013-06-27 06:40:25 AM
Human rights tribunal?  WTF Canada?
 
2013-06-27 06:43:04 AM
I'm all for edgy, offensive comedy and generally think audiences need to chill the fark out if they get offended, but this isn't comedy. Douche being douchey, adds assault to the mix. Fark him.
 
2013-06-27 06:44:36 AM

show me: Earle even confronted the woman, pushing her and breaking her sunglasses.

I think more than her feelings were hurt, assmitter.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court-upholds-decisio n -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/">http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court-up holds-decision -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/

Here is a better link.

The "victim" initiated the physical confrontation by throwing two glasses of water at the comedian.

And the judge does make very clear comments on how the comdian didn't have the right to say what he did at an open mike.  fark him and fark the Canadain HRC for having no understanding of freedom of speech.
 
2013-06-27 06:44:54 AM

show me: Earle even confronted the woman, pushing her and breaking her sunglasses.

I think more than her feelings were hurt, assmitter.


Yep. I think this is less about hate speech and much more aboot physical assault.
 
2013-06-27 06:46:35 AM

Herr Morgenstern: I'm all for edgy, offensive comedy and generally think audiences need to chill the fark out if they get offended, but this isn't comedy. Douche being douchey, adds assault to the mix. Fark him.


jaybeezey: A: this guy seems like a jackass.

B: how did a room full of people let this guy lay a hand on her and not whip his ass?


It was a mostly gay restaurant, so the guy wasn't going to go there if he had a real problem with lesbians.

She attacked him first.
 
2013-06-27 06:47:53 AM
Bad!  Bad Subby!

Your headline was bad and you should feel bad.
And so should the mod who greenlighted that.
 
2013-06-27 06:49:24 AM

Bigdogdaddy: Human rights tribunal?  WTF Canada?


It's basically arbitration for discrimination suits.

If you don't like the ruling, you can go to a court instead, like these guys did...
 
2013-06-27 06:52:15 AM

Bigdogdaddy: Human rights tribunal?  WTF Canada?


Canada = England
 
2013-06-27 06:54:05 AM

liam76: Herr Morgenstern: I'm all for edgy, offensive comedy and generally think audiences need to chill the fark out if they get offended, but this isn't comedy. Douche being douchey, adds assault to the mix. Fark him.

jaybeezey: A: this guy seems like a jackass.

B: how did a room full of people let this guy lay a hand on her and not whip his ass?

It was a mostly gay restaurant, so the guy wasn't going to go there if he had a real problem with lesbians.

She attacked him first.


What how do you know this? The article said nothing of the kind.
 
2013-06-27 06:56:30 AM

Vodka Zombie: show me: Earle even confronted the woman, pushing her and breaking her sunglasses.

I think more than her feelings were hurt, assmitter.

Yep. I think this is less about hate speech and much more aboot physical assault.


Sounds like it, good for Canada I need to find a girl up there to marry.
 
2013-06-27 06:59:30 AM

jaybeezey: A: this guy seems like a jackass.

B: how did a room full of people let this guy lay a hand on her and not whip his ass?


They weren't her buddies, friend
 
2013-06-27 07:01:17 AM
From what I gathered elsewhere, the lesbian was seriously making out in the front row and he asked them to stop as it was distracting. They said no and insulted him so he went off on them.

The implications of this ruling mean that anyone making any disturbance during a performance in Canada will likely mean the performance totally stops until the person making the disturbance is ejected. At least that would be my reaction if I was a comedian in Canada and I got heckled; everything stops until the person doing the heckling is gone.
 
2013-06-27 07:04:41 AM
So really Canadians are just kind of quiet for fear of offending anyone lest they be sued.
 
2013-06-27 07:05:30 AM
Got it backwards, subby - because Canadians are so polite (and have been for generations at least), the Human Rights Commissions (HRC's) have been able to gain a foothold in Canada. If anything, the HRC's are going to make Canadians LESS polite because we're going to see stupid stuff like this (and a guy in Ontario, I believe, who sued a restaurant in order to be able to smoke "medicinal" marijuana outside the restaurant... in public, where other customers were around) and get annoyed.

/I quite enjoy a puff of the wacky tabacky every once in a while, but it has a very potent effect on me. If a restaurant were to allow patrons to smoke up, I'd avoid the place and everything within scent distance of the place. That's sort of bad for the businesses in the area...
 
2013-06-27 07:05:32 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: What how do you know this? The article said nothing of the kind


I linked it in my initial post.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court-upholds-decisio n -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court- up holds-decision -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/

starsrift: It's basically arbitration for discrimination suits.


If discrimination is expanded to saying things I don't like, even if they are facts.
 
2013-06-27 07:11:56 AM

liam76: show me: Earle even confronted the woman, pushing her and breaking her sunglasses.

I think more than her feelings were hurt, assmitter.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court-upholds-decisio n -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/">http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court-up holds-decision -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/

Here is a better link.

The "victim" initiated the physical confrontation by throwing two glasses of water at the comedian.

And the judge does make very clear comments on how the comdian didn't have the right to say what he did at an open mike.  fark him...


FTA:

Justice Jon Sigurdson noted in his ruling that comedic expression may be protected, even when it's in poor taste.

But he noted: "Here the conduct and expression in question was not part of any performance per se, it was not a response to hecklers in the audience, and it was coupled with physical abuse. The comments by Mr. Earle were some distance from the core values underlying the freedom of expression."

fark the Canadain HRC for having no understanding of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech has different rules and boundaries in Canada than the US. In Canada, there are limitations on what people can say without getting in trouble with the law. Here the Judge made it very clear that this person crossed that line. I also think it is a fair assumption that a Judge and HRT have a slightly better understanding of Canadian Jurisprudence than you do.

Please do your self a favour and stop commenting on things you do not understand.
 
2013-06-27 07:13:02 AM
In the U.S. you can sue anybody for any reason. The key is finding a judge and a jury to go along with you.
 
2013-06-27 07:17:03 AM

Bigdogdaddy: Human rights tribunal?  WTF Canada?


Canada is terrible on free speech issues.
 
2013-06-27 07:18:28 AM

jaybeezey: A: this guy seems like a jackass.

B: how did a room full of people let this guy lay a hand on her and not whip his ass?


Its Canada. Someone asked him politely to stop.
 
2013-06-27 07:18:58 AM

liam76: tinfoil-hat maggie: What how do you know this? The article said nothing of the kind

I linked it in my initial post.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court-upholds-decisio n -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/supreme-court- up holds-decision -to-force-comedian-to-pay-15000-for-tirade-of-ugly-words-against-lesbi an-heckler/

starsrift: It's basically arbitration for discrimination suits.

If discrimination is expanded to saying things I don't like, even if they are facts.


Wow, that.s an interesting article but a court or something heard the evidence and they decided what the guy did was wrong and the National Post sounds like the Daily Mail.
 
2013-06-27 07:28:53 AM

ghostwind: Justice Jon Sigurdson noted in his ruling that comedic expression may be protected, even when it's in poor taste.


He also said, "Mr. Earle was not giving a comedy performance when he launched into his tirade of ugly words directed at Ms. Pardy." If you say comedy act is protected, but then can after the fact unilaterally define which part of what you said is the comedy act thent he protection for comedy is meaningless.


ghostwind: But he noted: "Here the conduct and expression in question was not part of any performance per se, it was not a response to hecklers in the audience, and it was coupled with physical abuse. The comments by Mr. Earle were some distance from the core values underlying the freedom of expression."


See above.  If he can say it was not part fo the performance, then nothing is protected.

The "physical abuse" was in response to her inittiating physical abuse.

What this boils down to was Comedian A thinking that crowd member B was being rude. 
A
made fun of B.
B attacked A by throwing glasses of water, and A responded physically.


ghostwind: Freedom of speech has different rules and boundaries in Canada than the US. In Canada, there are limitations on what people can say without getting in trouble with the law. Here the Judge made it very clear that this person crossed that line. I also think it is a fair assumption that a Judge and HRT have a slightly better understanding of Canadian Jurisprudence than you do.


I do understand it, and I don't give a fark for any kangroo court that has a history of punish people for speech even if it is true, that has a history of using a litmus test that boils down to "that hurt my feelings" to decide if something is legal.
Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."


ghostwind: Please do your self a favour and stop commenting on things you do not understand


If you support a system where speech is punishable even if it is true, go fark yourself.  You are complete scum.

If you didn't know that is how your prescious little comission runs take your own advice.
 
2013-06-27 07:32:55 AM
*paging Ow! That was my feelings!*
 
2013-06-27 07:32:55 AM

liam76: ghostwind: Justice Jon Sigurdson noted in his ruling that comedic expression may be protected, even when it's in poor taste.

He also said, "Mr. Earle was not giving a comedy performance when he launched into his tirade of ugly words directed at Ms. Pardy." If you say comedy act is protected, but then can after the fact unilaterally define which part of what you said is the comedy act thent he protection for comedy is meaningless.


ghostwind: But he noted: "Here the conduct and expression in question was not part of any performance per se, it was not a response to hecklers in the audience, and it was coupled with physical abuse. The comments by Mr. Earle were some distance from the core values underlying the freedom of expression."

See above.  If he can say it was not part fo the performance, then nothing is protected.

The "physical abuse" was in response to her inittiating physical abuse.

What this boils down to was Comedian A thinking that crowd member B was being rude.
A made fun of B.
B attacked A by throwing glasses of water, and A responded physically.


ghostwind: Freedom of speech has different rules and boundaries in Canada than the US. In Canada, there are limitations on what people can say without getting in trouble with the law. Here the Judge made it very clear that this person crossed that line. I also think it is a fair assumption that a Judge and HRT have a slightly better understanding of Canadian Jurisprudence than you do.

I do understand it, and I don't give a fark for any kangroo court that has a history of punish people for speech even if it is true, that has a history of using a litmus test that boils down to "that hurt my feelings" to decide if something is legal.
Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."


ghostwind: Please do your self a favour and stop commenting on things you do not understand

If you support a system where speech is punishable even if it is true, go fa ...


They also mention in the linked article for the thread he lied in interviews about the situation. You weren't there man give it up.
 
2013-06-27 07:34:37 AM
Guy's side of it.

Video.  Language NSFW

Seems there might have been a bit of attention whoring going on.

As usual, there seem to be no innocent parties
 
2013-06-27 07:44:32 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: liam76: ghostwind: Justice Jon Sigurdson noted in his ruling that comedic expression may be protected, even when it's in poor taste.

He also said, "Mr. Earle was not giving a comedy performance when he launched into his tirade of ugly words directed at Ms. Pardy." If you say comedy act is protected, but then can after the fact unilaterally define which part of what you said is the comedy act thent he protection for comedy is meaningless.


ghostwind: But he noted: "Here the conduct and expression in question was not part of any performance per se, it was not a response to hecklers in the audience, and it was coupled with physical abuse. The comments by Mr. Earle were some distance from the core values underlying the freedom of expression."

See above.  If he can say it was not part fo the performance, then nothing is protected.

The "physical abuse" was in response to her inittiating physical abuse.

What this boils down to was Comedian A thinking that crowd member B was being rude.
A made fun of B.
B attacked A by throwing glasses of water, and A responded physically.


ghostwind: Freedom of speech has different rules and boundaries in Canada than the US. In Canada, there are limitations on what people can say without getting in trouble with the law. Here the Judge made it very clear that this person crossed that line. I also think it is a fair assumption that a Judge and HRT have a slightly better understanding of Canadian Jurisprudence than you do.

I do understand it, and I don't give a fark for any kangroo court that has a history of punish people for speech even if it is true, that has a history of using a litmus test that boils down to "that hurt my feelings" to decide if something is legal.
Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."


ghostwind: Please do your self a favour and stop commenting on things you do not understand

If you support a system where speech is punishable even if it is true, go fa ...

They also mention in the linked article for the thread he lied in interviews about the situation. You weren't there man give it up.


I don't know man, I came here to call the guy a douchebag for bringing it into a physical altercation. But Liam pointed out a relevant article and now I'm on the fence
 
2013-06-27 07:46:46 AM
This isn't justice. It's profiting from compassion. Personally I don't think there can ever be reasonable legal standing on the state of someone's feelings. It is impossible to actually prove and jusge the extent of emotion stress an insividual experiences. Legal rulings should be based on facts alone. To compensate someone because their feelings get hurt is unjustifiable.
 
2013-06-27 07:47:00 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: They also mention in the linked article for the thread he lied in interviews about the situation.


You think she is telling the truth?

PTSD from this?


tinfoil-hat maggie: You weren't there man give it up


And you were?  Right now there is nothing contradictory in either article.  So will go ahead and acept them both as truth.  That makes what I said correct.  You are pretending ones is correct and complete and the other is not telling the truth.  the only reson to justify that is if you were there, is that the case?
 
2013-06-27 07:48:58 AM
Wealth redistribution has some interesting boltholes.
 
2013-06-27 07:50:06 AM
That woman's dignity is only worth $22,500. That seems pretty low. Or has Canada determined that we only carry with us a set amount of dignity per day, and $22,500 is the upper boundary on that limit?
 
2013-06-27 07:50:43 AM
If you throw something at me, I'm probably going to respond to that with equal force. Another example where Canada coddles women and only men can do wrong.
 
2013-06-27 07:51:23 AM

liam76: tinfoil-hat maggie: They also mention in the linked article for the thread he lied in interviews about the situation.

You think she is telling the truth?

PTSD from this?


tinfoil-hat maggie: You weren't there man give it up

And you were?  Right now there is nothing contradictory in either article.  So will go ahead and acept them both as truth.  That makes what I said correct.  You are pretending ones is correct and complete and the other is not telling the truth.  the only reson to justify that is if you were there, is that the case?


Nope but a court or whatever figured it knew and now go read the YouTube comments from bunner,s link. Have fun I'm out.
 
2013-06-27 07:56:13 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: That woman's dignity is only worth $22,500. That seems pretty low. Or has Canada determined that we only carry with us a set amount of dignity per day, and $22,500 is the upper boundary on that limit?


Well, fair enough, but is going to tonguef*ck your date in the front row of a show with a room full of people really all that dignified?
 
2013-06-27 08:02:08 AM
This guy better stay out of canada
i116.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-27 08:03:58 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Wow, that.s an interesting article but a court or something heard the evidence and they decided what the guy did was wrong and the National Post sounds like the Daily Mail.


I have no idea what kind of news source the National Post is, but they gave a lot more detail than the article linked to in the headline.

I also find it incredible that she is claiming PTSD over a bad night at a comedy club.

It would be interesting to know how the sunglasses got broken, but neither article notes any actual physical injury.  The National Post indicates a 102 page tribunal report was written which I imagine has a lot of testimony from people who were drunk at the time of the incident.

The judgment seems excessive to me and even the headline link indicates part of the judgement was just for insulting her.  (And, yes I know Canada is a bit more restrictive in their free speech laws than the US.  That doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it.)
 
2013-06-27 08:04:32 AM

liam76: I do understand it, and I don't give a fark for any kangroo court that has a history of punish people for speech even if it is true, that has a history of using a litmus test that boils down to "that hurt my feelings" to decide if something is legal.
Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."


Because nobody in the US ever sued for damages based on emotional suffering / trauma / etc ever?

It must hurt to have to go through that many contortions just to insult a country's legal system.
 
2013-06-27 08:07:57 AM
Just don't ask for American cheese at the Subway in St. John, NB.
Sandwich lady will flip out and insist you call it white cheddar.

/seriously
 
2013-06-27 08:10:15 AM
They really are polite.

Over here, the lesbian couple would take the guy down with a kick between the legs, break his nose, and the police officers sitting there eating dinner would arrest the drunk across the restaurant for cussing.
 
2013-06-27 08:16:21 AM

liam76: ghostwind: Please do your self a favour and stop commenting on things you do not understand

If you support a system where speech is punishable even if it is true, go fark yourself.  You are complete scum.

If you didn't know that is how your prescious little comission runs take your own advice.


I support a system that places reasonable limits on a person's speech. Like for instance, being an internet tough-guy, and calling someone "scum," on an internet forum. Acceptable, free speech. I think that it is a rather retarded thing to say, but you are entitled to your opinion. Belittling someone based on his or her sexual orientation, and then physically assaulting them (whether the other person started it or not), and then lying about the incident afterwards, not so much. If this guy had not responded to this woman throwing water on him, it is likely this issue would not have made it this far. But instead, he decided to assault her, and this happened.

But anyways, luckily for you, you (probably) don't live in Canada, and do not have to live by our ass-hat backwards draconian totalitarian anti-free speech laws that put dozens of people behind bars simply for speaking their minds.
 
2013-06-27 08:19:05 AM
Believe it or not the First Amendment doesn't apply to Canadians. Shocking, I know. Also they tend to frown on frothing, violent bigots.

I'm sure those things won't stop certain Americans from crying out of their self entitled anuses over this outrage though.
 
2013-06-27 08:19:43 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Nope but a court or whatever figured it knew and now go read the YouTube comments from bunner,s link. Have fun I'm out


Oh a court or whatever.  That would be a big deal if you were ignorant of the portion of  Section 13(1) I pasted above.


starsrift: liam76: I do understand it, and I don't give a fark for any kangroo court that has a history of punish people for speech even if it is true, that has a history of using a litmus test that boils down to "that hurt my feelings" to decide if something is legal.
Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."

Because nobody in the US ever sued for damages based on emotional suffering / trauma / etc ever?

It must hurt to have to go through that many contortions just to insult a country's legal system.


No.  Not when it was the truth.

And I am not insulting their entire legal system.  In many ways it is superior to the US.  However when it comes to free speech they are farked up.  Speaking the truth is punishable under their law.  If that fits with your defintion of freedom of speech you have about the same level of respect for it as they do in Saudi.
 
2013-06-27 08:20:27 AM

here to help: I'm sure those things won't stop certain Americans from crying out of their self entitled anuses over this outrage though.


They're polite, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report