Censorship Laws Do Not Protect Everyone

On June 19th, comedian Guy Earle lost his appeal of a 2011 BC Human Rights Tribunal decision. The Tribunal found that Earle discriminated against Lorna Pardy during an open mic event for amateur stand-up comics. The story of what happened is difficult to piece together, but it seems that Pardy heckled Earle and he responded by making insulting comments regarding her sexual orientation. The confrontation escalated to the point where Pardy threw a glass of water in Earle’s face. The Tribunal ordered Earle to pay Pardy $15,000 for injury to her “dignity, feelings, and self-respect”—yes, that’s something that human rights laws often protect. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld the Tribunal’s decision.

In contrast, in 2003, the Alberta Human Rights Commission did not protect the dignity, feelings, or self-respect of Quintin Johnson. Johnson, a Christian, had complained to the Commission regarding a song titled “Kill the Christian” by the death metal band Deicide. The lyrics included “you are the one we despise”, “I will love watching you die”, and “kill the Christian”. The Commission dismissed Johnson’s complaint on the grounds that Deicide did not have a wide enough listening audience or popular appeal, even though the band had sold nearly 500,000 albums in the U.S. alone by that time.

So why is Earle’s artistic expression discriminatory while Deicide’s is not? What makes Earle’s expression more harmful than Deicide’s?

It’s not the content of the expression. Deicide is counselling violence against Christians, while Earle only demeaned Pardy’s sexuality. Earle may have hurt Pardy’s feelings, but Deicide’s lyrics may be vociferous enough to sustain an investigation under the “hate propaganda” section of the Criminal Code.

It’s not the context of the performances. The song “Kill the Christian” can be purchased at nearly any popular music record store. It is available online via iTunes, Amazon, and from a myriad of other online music retailers. And because of the nature of recorded music, a listener can choose to hear the song over and over again. Earle’s insults were purely transient. After he uttered them, no one, including Pardy, could hear them again.

It’s not the size of the audience. Deicide regularly tours the world, including Canada, and is free to perform music that advocates killing members of the Christian faith. Yet when Earle stood on a stage and made one-time remarks about Pardy’s sexuality, she was awarded $15,000 of Earle’s money. The complaint against Deicide was dismissed because the audience was deemed too small. Yet Earle’s audience was much smaller.

Maybe it’s who the complaint was made about? Deicide’s lyrics are written by the band’s vocalist, Glen Benton. It would be an extreme understatement to say that Benton is a controversial figure in the music industry. He has been labelled an animal abuser, a misogynist, and an anti-Christian Satanist. Earle, on the other hand, is a law-abiding amateur stand-up comic who has an otherwise untarnished reputation.

To be absolutely clear, both Deicide and Earle should have won their human rights cases. Freedom of expression and the liberty to speak freely should prevail. Further, no government official should be in the business of deciding what qualifies as artistic expression or determining the value of that expression.

Even if Pardy and Johnson suffered hurt feelings, neither one should be permitted to drag the party who hurt their feelings through a human rights process. Both Pardy and Johnson should have demonstrated their maturity by walking away. Pardy could have walked out of the club that night at the first sign of trouble. If she had, there would have been no problem. Johnson could have easily avoided Deicide’s music. Had he done so, he could not have been offended.

Any clear-headed appraisal of these cases would find Deicide’s expression more harmful than Earle’s. So if it’s not the content, the context, the audience, or the person who the complaint was made about, then what?

The lesson to be learned is that human rights laws only protect certain people—the identity of the complainant matters. Because Pardy is a lesbian, her feelings are protected by the law. As a Christian, Johnson’s are not.

This piece first appeared in the Huffington Post in July 2013.

More Thoughts on Earle and Deicide

I recently wrote an op-ed that was published by Troy Media and the Vancouver Sun. The gist of the piece was that Human Rights legislation only provides protection to some, and definitely not to all. In the article, I point out that Lorna Pardy is protected, but Quintin Johnson is not. Since op-eds are brief, I thought that I would make some further observations about the same two cases.

• Both Pardy and Johnson should have lost their human rights cases. Freedom of expression, particularly artistic expression, should have been the winner. And no government official should be in the business of deciding what is artistic expression or determining the value of that expression.
• Even if Pardy and Johnson had hurt feelings, neither one should be permitted to drag the party who hurt their feelings through a human rights process. Both Pardy and Johnson were trying to do a “shakedown”, in Ezra Levant’s sense of the term.
• Both Pardy and Johnson should have demonstrated their freedom by walking away. Pardy could have walked away from Earle. If she had, her problem would have been solved. Johnson could easily have avoided Deicide’s music. Had he done so, he could not have been offended. 

Even though I may seem to come down hard on Deicide in the op-ed, I actually support their right to freely express the views that they do… and I would defend their artistic expression from detractors. Canadian society has already ceded too much power over speech to ill-equipped and ill-informed human rights bureaucrats. Even if Deicide is offensive, I support their right to freedom of expression because the freedom they enjoy is ultimately the same freedom that protects my own expression of contrary views.

\m/

This appeared in the Canadian Constitution Foundation's blog in July 2011.

Identity Matters

Comedian Guy Earle recently filed a petition at the Supreme Court in British Columbia to appeal a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Earle discriminated against Lorna Pardy during an open mic event for amateur stand-up comics. Pardy heckled Earle and he responded by making insulting comments regarding her sexual orientation. These comments resulted in the Tribunal ordering Earle to pay Pardy $15,000.00 for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

In contrast, in 2003, the Alberta Human Rights Commission did not protect the dignity, feelings, or self-respect of Quintin Johnson.  Johnson, a Christian, had complained to the Commission regarding a song titled “Kill the Christian” by the death metal band Deicide.  The lyrics included “you are the one we despise”, “I will love watching you die”, and “kill the Christian”.  The Commission dismissed Johnson’s complaint on the grounds that Deicide did not have a wide enough listening audience or popular appeal, even though the band had sold nearly 500,000 albums in the US alone by that time.

So why is Earle’s artistic expression discriminatory while Deicide’s is not?  What makes Earle’s expression more harmful than Deicide’s?

It’s not the content of the expression.  Deicide is counselling the murder of Christians, while Earle only demeaned Pardy’s sexuality.  Earle may have hurt Pardy’s feelings, but Deicide’s lyrics may be vociferous enough to sustain an investigation under the Hate Propoganda section of the Criminal Code.

It’s not the context of the performances.  The song “Kill the Christian” can be purchased at nearly any popular music record store.  It is available online via iTunes, Amazon, and from a myriad of other online music retailers.  And because of the nature of recorded music, a listener can choose to hear the song over and over again.  Earle’s insults were purely transient.  After he uttered them, no one, including Pardy, could hear them again.

It’s not the size of the audience.  Deicide regularly tours the world, including Canada, and is free to perform music that advocates killing members of the Christian faith.  Yet when Earle stood on a stage and made one-time remarks about Pardy’s sexuality, she was awarded $15,000.00 of Earle’s money.  The complaint against Deicide was dismissed because the audience was deemed too small.  Yet Earle’s audience was much smaller.

Maybe it’s who the complaint was made about?  Deicide’s lyrics are written by the band’s vocalist, Glen Benton.  It would be an extreme understatement to say that Benton is a controversial figure in the music industry.  He has been labelled an animal abuser, a misogynist, and an anti-Christian Satanist.  Earle, on the other hand, is a law-abiding amateur stand-up comic who has an otherwise untarnished reputation.

Any clear-headed appraisal of these facts would find Deicide’s expression more harmful than Earle’s.  So if it’s not the content, the context, the audience, or the person who the complaint was made about, then what?

The lesson to be learned is that the law only protects certain people: the identity of the complainant matters.  Because Pardy is a lesbian, her feelings are protected by the law.  As a Christian, Johnson’s are not.

These cases are not anomalies.  This is the way that our human rights legislation works.  Individuals deemed to be part of “vulnerable” groups get protection, while others do not.  And it is difficult to understand how this is constitutional.  In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada said that section 15(1) of the Charter will strike down laws that harm human dignity.

Comedian, Guy Earle, recently filed a petition at the Supreme Court in British Columbia to appeal a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal.  The Tribunal held that Earle discriminated against Lorna Pardy during an open mic event for amateur stand-up comics.  Pardy heckled Earle and he responded by making insulting comments regarding her sexual orientation.  These comments resulted in the Tribunal ordering Earle to pay Pardy $15,000.00 for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Human dignity within the meaning of [section 15(1)] does not relate to the status or position of an individual in society per se, but rather concerns the manner in which a person legitimately feels when confronted with a particular law.  Does the law treat him or her unfairly, taking into account all of the circumstances regarding the individuals affected and excluded by the law?

I wonder if Johnson feels unfairly treated knowing that the law protects Pardy’s feelings but not his?


Published in July 2011 by Troy Media and Vancouver Sun.