Photograph by: Ian Smith/Canwest News Service
The Kangaroo courts have ruled, and lesbian Lorna Pardy is $22,000 richer and happier. For a woman who went to a comedy club to hear crass jokes and insulting humour about other people, the woman became upset and said her feelings were hurt when comedian Guy Earle began heckling back at her.
A Toronto comic and a Vancouver restaurant owner have been ordered to pay a lesbian patron $22,500 in compensation over a tirade of insults, after the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the comic’s claim that his words were an appropriate response to a heckler.
[...]
“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.
“Tribunal member” Murray Geiger-Adams (no surprise on the hyphenation) acknowledged the complainant “did throw two glasses of water in his face, but that is a matter best considered as affecting the extent of any remedies to which she may be entitled.”
I have yet to understand how any of these decisions can’t be made in a real court of law, within the real rules of the legal system and with real judges. If a person has injured or defamed another person there is a simple and reasonable set of procedures for filing a tort against them. Similarly if the criminal code has been breached in some way, charges can be brought against them then, too.
Guy Earle may have hurt Pardy’s feelings on the basis she is a woman and a lesbian, but why should hurt feelings be the prerequisite for entitlement to compensation? Even worse, why do we tolerate an unbalanced system of adjudication whereby the complainant receives fully compensated legal representation, while the defendant is forced to scrape together a defence of their own expense?
There is nothing in the above case that couldn’t have been settled in civil court among reasonable adults with equal opportunity before the law. But Earle never stood a chance against a court which by very nature of its existence hinges upon the assumption that there are victimized groups in our society that require greater protections than the law itself can afford.
To even call the CHRC a court is a insult to a real court with a balanced system. This is nothing less than a throwback to the Spanish inquisition. Just change religion to political correctness.
Gee if I had $22,500 for every time someone insulted me or my group, I would have been a multimillionaire a long time ago. I am still waiting for a government, provincial or federal to dismantle these little inquisition tribunals, but to date none of them have the guts to do so. I would add my total disagreement with the concept of “hate” crimes, which flies in the face of justice being blind and therefore no favouring any particular individual or group.
I wonder if a real court would enforce the payment if the loser of the case refuses to pay and forces the judgement to go to a higher court i.e. a real one where evidence has some meaning.
Protecting civil right should never mean protecting people from hurt feelings when they have a private argument.
Being refused a job or some real basic right because of race or religion or sex ( no matter how ambiguous ) is something different.
In any case real cases of discrimination should go to real courts if any money penalty is involved, at best these Human rights tribunal should be limited to voluntary arbitration or counselling to resolve dispute amiably.
Agree Jean but don’t forget these
are the idiots that you do not need to wash hands after
a crap because there connection between that and disease.
Take your pathetic and racist comment and shove it where your sun don’t shine.
I could be wrong but Pissedoff comment was alluding to a case where there was a ruling that someone at a McDonalds didn’t have to wash their hands preparing food for some odd human rights reason that I don’t remember the reason ?
As to racist comments it’s not really clear what you are referring to and I can only imagine that you are thinking of some racial comment about ” brown people ” not being clean ? In other words maybe you are reading things between the lines that are just in your perceptions ?
If my interpretation is inaccurate it’s because your comment doesn’t make any sense without explaining exactly where or from whom you perceived a racist comment ?
You can never convince anyone that you have a good argument if you can’t communicate clearly enough for people to understand the reasons for your ” creative ” use of expletives.
The conservatives could make a fortune from the vile comments at the G+M.
This court is a joke.
Harper didn’t get rid of the CHRc even though he once said they
are a danger to free speech.
Not much he can do with a minority government. If he ever gets a majority I believe he will stop the funding to those wannabe nazis.
[...] Adrian McNair: But Earle never stood a chance… [...]