The Court Jests?

Perhaps April Fools’ Day was a good day for the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C. H.R.T.) to be conducting the hearing in part of comedian Guy Earle, at the suit of complainant, Lesbian Lorna Pardy for allegedly offending her.  Apparently the complainant and her girlfriend were sitting front row centre heckling Earle at a Vancouver nightclub about three years ago. Things started getting uglier when Earle made some crude remarks about Lesbians whereupon the complainant threw a cup of water at the comedian whereupon the comedian yanked her sunglasses off braking them.  Pardy filed a discrimination complaint against Earle, and surprisingly the B.C. H.R.T.  is running with the complaint full throttle.

I think that our biggest concern is the B.C.H.R.T.  As a former stand up comedian who did the Yuk Yuks et. al. circuit for several years, I think I would have given myself the hook had there been any suggestion that Human Rights can enter the sanctuary of a comedy club and come after the court jesters. And as a practising lawyer, I wonder what is to stop H.R. from finding human rights violations in virtually every comedian’s act.  

For example, take the shortest joke ever, namely Henny Youngman’s signature gag, “Take my wife, please.”  Is even this joke safe?

Human Rights Chair:

The Respondent uttered the phrase, “Take my wife, please.“  The complainant is Ms Winona Purdy, the wife of Mr. Henry Purdy, who was sitting near the rear of the Open Mike Comedy Club.  Ms. Purdy testified that she was totally offended by the remark and that she now suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. 

I agree with the complainant. This rude comment suggests that wives can be given and taken like chattels. These words are demeaning, turning wives into slaves.  The holiness of the institution of marriage, the very fibre of our society, is compromised and tarnished.  In fact this vile phrase is even more degrading than out and out suggesting that wives are slaves in that by using the word “take”, there is no request by the husband for compensation. He is simply giving the wife away, gratis. Nor is there a mitigating factor in the comment just because the Respondent said, “please”.  In fact this form of entreaty demonstrates how devious the Respondent’s intentions are. 

The Tribunal further finds that the line uttered by the Respondent constitutes discrimination, in that it says, “Take my wife, please.  He does not offer anyone to take his sister, daughter or mother in law. The so called comedian is selective in tendering a wife, thereby discriminating against other family members.

The Respondent’s counsel raises a “Charter” argument.  What relevance is charter? This Tribunal really does not care if counsel and his client and their entourage came to this hearing by chartered bus. " 

In my opinion our comedians are in jeopardy.  Are the cartoonists next? Naw, what kind of people would pick on cartoonists?