Sensible Canadians (yes, there are many) are fighting to preserve freedom of speech in the frozen land north of us; the details of which are voluminous; too much for my humble blog. You can get excellent background here (Ezra Levant), here (Mark Steyn), both great communicators and commenters, and here (Blogging Tories).
However, a relatively new target (of the Canadian thought police) is the not so funny comedian Guy Earle. Guy's crime, it seems, was rebuking a drunk Lesbian heckler during his time on stage at a gay night club.The charges of un-funniness -- which the B.C. Human Rights Code calls "discriminatory publication" -- 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. [Levant]What I don't get is this: if Earle's crime was offending the Dike for being a Dike, why can't Earle file a complaint with the same commission (HRC) about her offending (heckling while working is always offensive) him as a comedian? After all, it was his employment she went after? Clearly, I'm missing something.
Each of the free speech cases I look at seems to have the same character: the complainant accuses someone of a "hate crime" and the thought police go after him for offending sensibilities ... those of both the complainant and the public. Yet the vitriol in the complainant's complaint is ignored.
The offended are evidently free to say any offensive thing that comes to mind about the defendant, his family, his occupation, his religion, his race, his nationality, etc. ... even call him names, publicly.
Sorry! I just don't get that kind of law!