I have found a legal precedent to convict comedian Guy Earle!

As readers will know, Guy Earle is the Toronto-based comedian who has been charged with the legal offence of making un-funny jokes in Vancouver. The charges of un-funniness -- which the B.C. Human Rights Code calls "discriminatory publication" "discrimination in service" -- came after Earle's rough response to some drunk, rude hecklers in a Vancouver night club last year. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled that there was enough substance to the charges that Earle must stand trial.

As I've mentioned before, it will be fascinating to hear the government's rules about which jokes are funny, and which aren't. For example: if a rude joke is funny, does that make it legal? If a heckler is illegally rude, can the comedian be illegally rude back? Will the government send out joke-testers to night clubs, with big red stop signs? Or giant hooks? There's so much we're going to learn from the humourless prudes who preside over the BCHRT.

But let it not be said that I lack objectivity when it comes to Canada's kangaroo courts. Let not my name be put on the list -- and you know there's a list -- of people who are always against the human rights commissions. For today, I shall come to their aid.

I have found a legal precedent that the BCHRT can use to convict Earle even if his jokes were funny. Especially if his jokes were funny!

I spent some time today reading a book I found on Google Books. (It's an amazing resources; not only has Google scanned countless books, included old and rare books, but they've made those books text-searchable.) I was reading a book called The Star Chamber, published in 1880, that contained hundreds of decisions of that court. It also has a very interesting preface, that describes that court's descent from a well-intentioned idea -- a court big and tough enough to take on law-breaking bishops and sherriffs who would be impervious to justice of regular courts -- into a corrupt political tool used to destroy the kings enemies, and confiscate their wealth.

The book has a readable summary of hundreds of cases. In it, I read a footnote about someone fined "severlie", not for telling an offensive joke -- but for laughing at it.

I couldn't find the case of the illegal laugher, but I found a reference to it in a defamation judgment in another old book of Star Chamber cases. It starts on page 149, and the reference to the laugher is on page 152:

Interestingly, most defamation cases in the 17th century were for spoken slander -- partly because of illiteracy, and partly because of the difficulty in getting things printed. Defamation often took the form of clever rhymes, even songs, the funnier the better to aid in their dissemination. I don't doubt that the defamation in question was foul indeed -- I've read a few Star Chamber defamation cases, and medieval slanderers could be pretty cruel and creative at the same time. But to try and convict a man for merely laughing? And to punish him "severelie"? That's the kind of abusive exercise of power that soon brought the Star Chamber into disrepute, and helped to feed the anger that led to King Charles' overthrow and execution.

The Star Chamber was shut down shortly after these most abusive and capricious rulings. But it is "case law". Human rights tribunals aren't run by judges, and often not even by lawyers; their grasp of the concept of precedent, let alone constitutional protections for our fundamental freedoms, is weak.

If I were one of the angry hecklers who is suing Earle, I'd bring in this case from the Star Chamber as a precedent that the BCHRT should follow. Sure, it was written by dead white men. But I think the more the BCHRT learns about the Star Chamber, the more they'll see their spiritual ancestors: prudish bullies with a vicious streak. I don't doubt they'd like to punish Earle "severelie". For his sake, let's not let the BCHRT know about some of the Star Chambers' other orders -- like the cutting off of ears, and slitting of noses.