A report from Guy Earle's comedy benefit last night
See update, below.
I received another report from a free speechnik who attended Guy Earle's comedy benefit last night.
As regular readers will know, Earle is the comedian who has been ordered to stand trial in British Columbia for sparring with two lesbians who heckled him during a show last year. The chair of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Heather MacNaughton -- who also chaired Mark Steyn's five-day show trial last month -- ruled that Earle and Zesty's (the nightclub he performed in) must stand trial for "discrimination" because their jokes hurt the hecklers' feelings.
Here's the report I received from last night's event, emphasis in the original:
I was at the benefit last night. I’m going to tell you what I thought, but I ask that you keep my identity strictly confidential...
I see [Jason Kenney's] attendance is on record: great.
I arrived with a donation for Mr. Earle at about 8:00. I was sorry to see there was no line up. The building was totally non-descript and one entered the basement venue via a glass door, covered with brown paper. Various comics were milling around. I had a nice chat with Guy and one other comic: I mentioned both you and Mark Steyn and they both seemed to have very little idea of your importance in all of this. E.g., I said to Guy what an honour it is to be linked to your and Steyn’s blogs where thousands of people have been made aware of his plight. He was polite but not at all excited: I honestly felt, including my discussion with him, that he doesn’t really get it. I explained that, as an observant Christian, I’d been unhappily aware of the HRCs for a couple of decades. I noted that we’re unlikely allies but that it was good that we’re fighting the illegitimate power of the state together. He was very grateful for the support, but I feel, in talking to him, another comic, at length, and watching the show, that these people don’t understand who the enemy is or how deadly serious this issue is.
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;-)”
The show, itself? Unimpressive, I’m afraid. Almost no dealing with the topic of the gulag. There was loads of smut and very unsavoury references to various bodily parts, orifices, and fluids, in the bluntest language. I found it juvenile and unfunny. I wasn’t offended, per se. It’s just that a golden opportunity to educate people—but one has to know what the ISSUE is—and to ridicule our political masters was almost entirely squandered.
There were all kinds of nasty, sexually explicit jabs at lesbians—lots of laughs, from lesbians too, I think!—as if they’re the enemy. Judging by the potty language and grossness of nearly every performance—for its own sake, IMO—the level of political knowledge and sophistication seemed extremely low. And at the beginning, when, Earle made a few a propos comments about freedom of speech—sorry, I can’t recall his words—[my friends and I] clapped like mad and cheered: about the only three to show any enthusiasm about this at all.
The crowd seemed under informed and uninvolved. They often didn’t even bother to clap for the performers: perhaps that was discernment, as most of the routines were really quite dreadful! Not witty or intelligent political commentary, which is what was needed, IMO: just juvenile, sexual filth. I altogether support their right to make fools of themselves—their T-shirts say, “It’s not illegal to be an asshole”—but I don’t see that the benefit educated anyone about what’s really going on or made fun of the HRC assholes who so richly deserve it.
The crowd seemed to be a group of isolates. Except for being generally friendly to the comics—the audience was probably mainly made up of their friends/relatives (but not many!)—I didn’t discern any momentum or community spirit. In general, the audience response was relatively flat and I’m quite sure that most were there for a lark. There was no feeling that we were all there with a serious purpose and a serious enemy that needs to be defeated. That (and to leave my donation) was why I’d left home last evening to visit an underground dive and listen to substandard comedy!
I found the experience disheartening: the usual Canadian ignorance and apathy, even as the HRC tentacles are wrapped around one’s body! These people seem to be fiddling while Canada burns. Just WHAT does it take for Canadians to wake up and fight back? This group of threatened Canadians are still sleepwalking. They, including Guy Earle, who has obviously not been following your blog, are not informed: some soldiers they are! Very disappointing.
Ezra, you’re a bright light in the gathering gloom. Maybe these people will see the light: at this point, though, it seems they need to spend some time at boot camp!
I thought it was an interesting report. I replied:
It's a little bit depressing. But recall how you were when you first heard about human rights commissions -- like me, you probably didn't have any idea of the depth of the problem. I remember, clearly, that I thought the HRCs critics were nutty, and that their accusations were conspiracy theories or madness. It took me months of immersion to realize they were the sane ones!
So don't be too tough on these folks, who are closer to "severely normal" Canadians, in terms of political activity, than you and I are!
My correspondent made some good points about the apathy of the crowd. But as I mentioned in reply, most Canadians are closer to those fellow comedians than to the revved up blogosphere. My estimate is that, seven months ago, 99% of Canadians hadn't even heard of human rights commissions, and that now the figure was down to 90%. That's a spectacular success, by the way, since most people don't care about politics of any sort, even during an election campaign. The key is getting normal people to care, not just the political die-hards.
That's why, though I sympathize with the hassle he is going through personally, I am glad that Earle has been persecuted. Again, what is being done to him is immoral; evil, even. And I don't wish such a persecution on anyone. But if Canadians are to be targeted by these HRCs, it is better that they should target comedians like Earle, and political cartoonists, like Bruce MacKinnon at the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. That is, people who are mainstream. For decades, the HRCs were strategically smart enough only to target politically marginal people -- neo-Nazis, then Christians, and now conservatives. But going after Maclean's, and Earle, and the Herald -- that's hubris, and it will generate a backlash that would not come to the defence of more marginalized targets.
My correspondent's report is somewhat depressing for its description of apathy. But I'm not too alarmed. If only one or two people out of that theatre -- including Earle himself -- decides to become well-briefed and political as a result, that's a good start.
Earle filled a room with 100 people, mere weeks after he was ordered to stand trial. I'm not sure if my case -- which is now a cause celebre -- could have filled a room with 100 people when it first began.
Last night was a baby step in the right direction.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Earle's rant in response to the lesbian hecklers was quite rude, and it was for these very rude remarks that he's being sued. This doesn't weaken my point at all. The phrase "free" speech means that speech is free from other factors that would limit it -- including other values or dogmas that may also be worthwhile. It means that speech can trump politeness, or correctness. That's the whole point here. Earle wouldn't have been charged with "discrimination" if he hadn't offended some other value -- in this case, someone else's standard of politeness in the face of two very rude women (who threw drinks at him). That he chose to pick on them for their sexuality may be offensive; but it does not erode his right to free speech.
We have to stand up for the hard cases, for they set the precedent for the rest of us. We didn't stand up strongly enough for the "neo-Nazis" who were charged with hate speech, so now we have 30 years of jurisprudence being used against Maclean's, and me, and Earle, etc.
Canadians understand the importance of giving rights to everyone, including odious people, when it's in the context of violent criminals. We all knew that Paul Bernardo was guilty. But we gave him all the rights of our constitution anyways. We didn't void those rights because we hate what he had done. I don't know why there is a disconnect for the rights of political criminals.
My correspondent who was at the benefit made it clear that she didn't find the evening particularly funny. (My other correspondent last night mentioned one funny skit.) If we only believe in free speech for comedians we think are funny, then we're not really for free speech at all. It's frustrating how often this has to be clarified for Canadians, who think that other values -- like "compromise" or "niceness" -- trump free speech. But then it's not free speech.
Blogrolls
