Canadian Cincinnatus

Free Speech defeat in the British Columbia Supreme Court

According to the National Post:

‘In a ruling that could carry implications for comedy clubs across Canada, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has upheld the right of a bar patron to receive five-figures in damages from a comedian whose performance she alleges gave her post-traumatic stress disorder.

In 2011, Toronto comedian Guy Earle was ordered by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to pay $15,000 to Lorna Pardy, a homosexual woman who said she suffered “lasting physical and psychological effect” after Mr. Earle directed a string of lesbian slurs at her during a 2007 Vancouver open mic night. 

On Wednesday, B.C. highest court ruled against Mr. Earle’s assertion that comedy clubs should remain special places devoted to the “fearless pursuit of free speech” and that the Tribunal’s decision would have a “chilling effect on performances and artists in British Columbia.”’

The “chilling effect” is a feature not a bug.

‘Rather, ruled Justice Jon Sigurdson, while comedy clubs may swirl with “offensive, irreverent and inappropriate” language they are not operating in “zones of absolute immunity from human rights legislation.”’

Nothing - NOTHING - is immune “from human rights legislation.” What do you think? Ya live in a free country or something?

‘Nevertheless, in the judge’s words, “Mr. Earle was not giving a comedy performance when he launched into his tirade of ugly words directed at Ms. Pardy.” 

So, in 21^st century Canada, we need Supreme Court Justices to decide on what constitutes comedy and what constitutes a “tirade of ugly words”. I’m old enough to remember a time when comedy was defined by whether an audience laughed or not. Any word on how the other patrons in the comedy club reacted? Were they splitting their sides in mirth, or were they hysterically shrieking while clutching their hemlines? 

And while we’re at it, since when is a “tirade of ugly words” and “a comedy performance” mutually exclusive activities?

“In the end, this is not a case about the scope of expression in a comedy performance or an artistic performance,” he wrote. “It is about verbal and physical abuse that amounts to adverse treatment based on sex and sexual orientation.”’

OK, so how exactly does being berated by a comedian at an edge comedy club - that you entered voluntarily in order to attend the performance of an edgy comedian - constitute physical abuse?

And since when have we considered our adult citizens so fragile that their egos need to be protected by inquisitions and law courts?

Oh yes. For heterosexual, conservative white males such as myself, the answer is never. Sorry, my mistake.

But make no mistake about this: unless and until people start actively pushing back against the PC bullies, the boundaries of what we can and cannot say, will continue to become steadily constricted over time; and more of us get to experience the visceral, increasingly omnipresent dread associated with saying the wrong (career ending) thing that necessarily comes with the privilege of living in a ‘harassment-free’ society.

More Fear and Political Correctness on the campaign trail in British Colombia

I thought I was finished with the topic of provincial candidates imploding over gamey comments in the BC election, but I was wrong. There is also the case of Ian Tootill.

When I first heard that a BC Conservative candidate had made a Hitler comment, I winced. I thought, among all the candidates knocked out unfairly for comments that would be considered perfectly commonplace in a healthy body politic, here we have one guy who legitimately stepped over the line.

But no. I was wrong:

‘Mr. Tootill is a freedom-loving libertarian, a first-time political candidate whose candour and outspokenness were what drew the BCCP to him in the first place.’

‘A consummate grouser and rabble-rouser, the Vancouver resident and driver’s rights advocate was recruited to the party earlier this year.’

‘His causes included but were not limited to: Slow-moving cars and trucks; photo radar; bicyclists who wear helmets; bylaws aimed at smoking, drinking and excessive noise; prohibitions on drugs such as marijuana; and what he’s described as Vancouver’s “do-gooder, controlling types.”’

Sounds like a great guy to me. But trouble awaited the outspoken candidate:

‘On Wednesday, the Vancouver Sun hauled from the Twitter vault some “controversial” Tootill posts.

“Who’s really to blame,” Mr. Tootill had typed in October, “Hitler or the people who acted on his words?”

Hitler references are trouble. Like dynamite. But Mr. Tootill wasn’t hailing the Führer or anything like that.

He said Wednesday that he can’t recall the precise context in which he invoked the name, just that it had something to do with bullying. Indeed, the record shows he was claiming that some folks are too “thin-skinned” for their own good, that they should not allow mere “words” to hurt them.

Among the responses his Tweets received was this: “The Malleus Malifecarum was ‘just words’ but led to more deaths than ‘Mein Kampf… again, ‘just words’.”

Mr. Tootill replied with his Hitler comment. He still sees nothing wrong with it.’

He shouldn’t. There isn’t anything wrong with what he said. And I am glad he is unapologetic. We have too many people in our society apologizing for things they have no need to apologize for.

What we need less of are prissy nanny staters like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who head for the fainting couches every time they hear something disagreeable; and more of plain speaking politicians, who can identify social ills with clarity, candour and fearlessness.

Ian Tootill for Prime Minister!

Fear and Political Correctness on the campaign trail in British Colombia

Perhaps it is because I am based in Ontario, but I apologize for coming late to this story. According to the National Post:

New Democratic leader Adrian Dix accepted the resignation of Kelowna-Mission candidate Dayleen Van Ryswyk, saying she made unacceptable comments in Internet postings involving the compensation for First Nations.

On the 2009 forum, a user named Dayleen wrote in a thread entitled “Strip Them of the Status Card.”

“It’s not the status cards, it’s the fact that we have been paying out of the nose for generations for something that isn’t our doing. If their ancestors sold out too cheaply, it’s not my fault and I shouldn’t have to be paying for any mistake or whatever you want to call it from MY hard earned money.”

Another one of the posts compares the benefits afforded to aboriginal people with claims other abused groups could be making. 

“I don’t think anyone is saying that wrongs didn’t happen (incredible wrongs). You could have almost any race, group or ethnic people tell you horrible haunting stories of what happened to them. If someone did me wrong, it’s my right to sue … as it is everyone else’s.

“Again, how many Jewish, Polish, Russian, Dutch, etc. walked into a gas chamber, were gunned down, raped, tortured and starved to death. . . tell me how many Germans do you know that are handing over a (portion) of their paycheck EVERY month for what happened NOT very long ago. . . ”

Oh dear. Where to begin?

First of all, while those posts were undeniably worded undiplomatically, so what? As The Great Barack Obama once observed, “politics isn’t beanbag.” And what was so racist about what she said? That she disagrees with the Indian Act? All she did was complain about the waste of taxpayer money, and the handing out of official privileges based on race and historical grievance. What is racist is the Indian Act, not complaining about it. But according to PC calculus, the racism of an affirmative action program gets automatically transferred to its critics once they open their mouths.

Look, I have no illusions about Dayleen Van Ryswyk. In all probability, as an NDP candidate, she is a lefty loon and the Indian Act is about the only thing we would agree upon over a beer. But you know what? If free speech is to mean anything, it can’t just apply to people we like. For her fate, I am not blaming the NDP leader, Adrian Dix, for abandoning her. He has to do what he has to do in order to climb the greasy pole to the Premier’s Office. The larger problem here is the cult of Political Correctness which circumscribes the parameters of debate with ever more restrictive boundaries.

Political Correctness is a truly pernicious disease because its sole purpose is to limit public discussion. It exists because the left cannot win arguments any other way. (By left, I am not speaking about the official agents of the partisan left, the NDP in this case, but in left-wing doctrine as a whole.)  It is all very nice to be able to muzzle your critics and stifle dissent, but it does not make for a healthy democracy. For this reason, PC must be stamped out wherever it is found and it is the duty of every small-c conservative to do that.

Which brings me to problem number two: Christy Clark. According to the Post:

“The B.C. election got off to an ugly start today even before the campaign was officially declared as the Liberals demanded NDP Leader Adrian Dix fire one of his candidates for comments she made in an online forum.” 

Under Gordon Campbell, the BC Liberal party was the de facto conservative party in BC; and under him, they did a passably good job. But I guess the BC Liberal Party has entered the Kim Campbell stage of its devolution.

Going after the NDP like this is an example of the kind of short-term opportunism that makes Red Tories such public policy disasters and electoral losers. They trade fundamental principles for cheap shots and wonder why nobody likes them. After all, they’re moderates, and who doesn’t like moderates?

I thought I was finished with the subject of PC in BC, when my eye caught this item:

“B.C. Conservative Leader John Cummins says his party has done the best it could with the resources available to screen candidates, after dropping its third candidate since the campaign began.

The provincial Tories dismissed Mischa Popoff in the Boundary-Similkameen riding over comments he made in newspaper columns in the area.

Popoff  lost his position Thursday night after The Vancouver Sun revealed statements from him deriding the Missing Women Inquiry as a waste of time and criticizing single mothers for having children ‘without a man by their side.’ 

“Cummins says some of the comments were insensitive and disrespectful, to women and single mothers in particular.”

Never mind that there is sociological data by the bushel basket indicating that single motherhood correlates with a host of social ills; and never mind that one of the most effective ways society corrects its problems is via ridicule and criticism.

Oh sorry. We don’t correct antisocial behaviour any more with humour and censure. Instead, we celebrate ‘diversity’.