TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Two women heckle/interrupt comedian. Comedian makes fun of them for being lesbians. Women sue. Comedian ordered to pay $15,000

nicethingyoucanthave

June 24, 2013
126 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Two women heckle/interrupt comedian. Comedian makes fun of them for being lesbians. Women sue. Comedian ordered to pay $15,000
Author

nicethingyoucanthave

Upvotes 126
Comments 98
Date June 24, 2013 9:23 PM UTC
(13 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1gztk2/two_women_heckleinterrupt_comedian_comedian_makes/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/two-women-heckleinterrupt-comedian-comedian-makes.234151
https://theredarchive.com/post/234151
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by nicethingyoucanthave

The Onion satirizes the plight of the Nice Guy

294 upvotes
October 7, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

A Red Pill truth in a comic strip

277 upvotes
September 12, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

23 year old virgin posts to CMV that he's frustrated and considering TRP. Helpful redditers assure him it's a bad idea. I posted a response to one such redditor and I wanted to share.

254 upvotes
January 3, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

/r/TheBluePill mods threatening to dox people

198 upvotes
September 24, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Woman posts craigslist ad asking to be beat up - then tells the police she was raped, sparking an 11-day manhunt and needlessly scaring everyone on campus

136 upvotes
June 30, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Example#3 of doxing from /r/thebluepill

122 upvotes
December 4, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

"Long term for me is a weekend"

99 upvotes
September 21, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Feds Spend $1.5 Million to Study Why Lesbians Are Fat

93 upvotes
December 5, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]Sword11 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Throwing water = assault. The comedian should sue

[–]rapscallionx 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I feel like this is an appropriate reason to discriminate against women. Say if you have a business and you are worried that women will come in and either take your employees or other patrons to court for ridiculous reasons. Why would you want to serve or employ someone with that kind of power who is also that volatile? It would be in your best interest to keep woman as far away from you and your business as possible.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because without women, men wouldn't come either. It's a necessary evil.

[–]rapscallionx 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really hope this is a minority belief. I was under the impression that this sub was filled with people who don't find it necessary to fall all over themselves chasing something as useless as female company. There are very few places I would not go if I knew women wouldn't be there. One of them being the strip club. Sure if you can end up taking a girl home from the comedy club and fucking her that's great... but I'm not going to cancel my plans there because women aren't allowed. I do have thoughts and interests that occupy my mind throughout the day that don't involve women.

[–]RG68 67 points68 points69 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

She claims she has PTSD... I'd like to see her try to survive in the middle of an active warzone, perhaps then she would understand what PTSD really is.

[–]RedSunBlue 44 points45 points46 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"I am woman, hear me roar!"

"...but don't say anything that hurts my feelings or I'll take your ass to court."

[–]Hookson2691 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Hear me chirp"!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Hear my bank account roar!"

[–]TehKazlehoff 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"hear my asscheeks flap as i shit all over your life for no reason whatsoever"

[–]turnipslice 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know, it's ridiculous. She is so sensitive it's frustrating. Grow some fucking thicker skin, and brush those words off your shoulders. I know that words can hurt, but they don't cost you any money. Those words did not cost that woman 15 grand, and if she claims it's because she missed work, that's her own fucking fault. This woman is a fucking lunatic and it bothers me that people like this exist.

“She said she didn't leave because she was too shocked, and that she literally could not get up from the booth,” -- Oh yeah, I'm sure those words literally shut down your body and nervous system to the point where you couldn't move. Ridiculous.

[–]RG68 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If it's legitimate PTSD, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down

/s

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Every now and again I get sad thinking about the time someone insulted me, I must have PTSD. I wish people like her would stop abusing the name of the disorder because it creates a stigma against people that actually have the disorder and need treatment.

[–]RG68 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well put. I can't imagine how awful having legitimate PTSD must be and the kind of horrible things you must have seen to trigger it. Its an insult to veterans and others who have witnessed the worst in humanity that this pathetic excuse for a woman is allowed to get away with it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

PTSD is one of the few things that exist where I go from indifferent to preacher the second I learn the someone is abusing the name of the disorder. Maybe it is that of my high school friends 11 went into the military and several have already been in active war zones but it infuriates me when people to anything that would trivialize their suffering. Luckily they are all well and never suffered traumatic events, but I still get whipped up pretty quickly about the issue.

[–]Hormander 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"But you know he raped her intellectually which is the same thing as a physical rape."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

His comments were from from intelligent but also far from what I think should be illegal.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This probably pisses me off more than anything. What a slap in the face to soldiers who actually suffer from ptsd.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her claim of PTSD is highly laughable.

She is a manipulative lying idiot, too bad the Canadian legal system appeases these types of fools.

[–]5 Endorsed ContributorStayinghereforreal 46 points47 points48 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Canada sucks.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's true, we (straight white males) have almost zero rights here.. Other than that, just look at our "self defense laws".

[–]PipingHotSoup 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why what's up with them?

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

They're non-existent. Last year, a known criminal tried to break and enter an occupied house where a family and their children were in the room he tried to break into (via the window). Buddy got his gun, killed him and he is now in jail for defending his family from a known criminal.

[–][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh I know all about the Zimmerman/Martin case. It's basically a race war as opposed to a "right to personal defense" war. Though Zimmerman is Jewish/Latino, how he is called racial slurs implied to whites only points out the numerous fallacies in this "case".

[–]Sporkosophy 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't.

[–]Hookson2691 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"Zero Rights" though? You don't feel that's excessive? lol. Trust me when I say I "grasp" what you're getting at, but to say you have no rights takes away from your stance.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From what I have read here about Canada it's not that-much excessive. Pussy pass everywhere ...

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If you grasp what I'm getting at then that's IT (unless you're a chick and I have to explain in very literal terms exactly what I mean). Obviously we have "rights" but as an example, I have been pulled aside and accused of shoplifting simply because I have tattoos; while if I simply accused someone for being a thief just because of their skin colour, I would (not even joking) make the cover of the newspaper.

Edit: I guess I should mention that it was a Muslim woman wearing a complete Burka (you couldn't even see her eyes because of the stupid material over them) that reported me to the (also Muslim female) manager who called the cops. I will also mention that I am a career Firefighter and take such an accusation, from someone who looks Noob Saibot, very seriously. I have never stolen in my entire life.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it is more that when we are up against a protected class in court we are pretty much out of luck. If the accuser is a non-white, non-heterosexual male we are automatically guilty. If we are up against one of our own it I don't think it matters as much, unless they are pressing some kind of hate speech charge.

[–]Hookson2691 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I hear you on the shoplifting situation. I have a similar incident of my own. I was working at a kiosk doing sales at this mall (2nd biggest in America. First, actually). We were selling those "extreme energy bands" and recently hired a new guy, about 2 weeks prior to my termination. He was black, and aspired to be a marine. His father was also a cop. He was polite, respectful...He was a bit homophobic, and that got old, but...back to the story... Money started to go missing. The boss looked at the only two employees he had. One white. One black. There was no evidence that it was me stealing. The money didn't start to go missing until the new guy came along. This put my boss in one of "those" situations....I got fired.

Later, my boss found out it was the marine guy who was actually stealing and offered me my job back!.

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]5 Endorsed ContributorStayinghereforreal 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Live in Boston, NYC, or Chicago and all the spawn from prior immigrant Irish generations will love your brogue ass.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lesson learned. Never offend women. They will ruin your life. Butthurt girls win yet again.

[–]Nuke_Jerusalem 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women have a hard time understanding funny or comedy. The late great Patrice Oneal explained it well.

[–]Nihilism0 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The late Christopher Hitchens also wrote a great article on "why women aren't funny"

[–]FascistComicBookHero 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Found the article in question here.

[–]foooow 33 points34 points35 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If you know anything about the Canadian "Human Rights Tribunal", you know that, in their words, "Truth is not a defense".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc-nOf0h3Z0

as for comedy clubs, they need to ban women from entering. "to provide a safe space for comics".

[–]Nihilism0 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Ban women? Really? Why not ask them if they are easily offended. Or get them to sign something on the way in to say they are not easily offended, that way it can be presented in court and men and women can both enjoy the show without hecklers having any legs to stand on.

If something like this document was presented in the court case the comedian would be fine.

[–]foooow 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

they will just say that they were forced to sign under duress, or find a way to not sign. There are always ways to get out of a contract - prenups are nullified all the time at the judge's discretion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You know the video you posted is attempting to downplay the immorality of the Holocaust, right?

[–]foooow -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Truth does not fear investigation.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Truth is not by definition the unpopular opinion.

[–]foooow -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

or the popular one, therefore an honest and open investigation into the truth is needed.

[–]RedSunBlue 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When asked why she did not simply leave the establishment, instead of staying until the very end of the performance, “she said she didn’t leave because she was too shocked, and that she literally could not get up from the booth,” according to decision documents. As for the water-throwing, “Mr. Earle’s conduct had put Ms. Pardy in a condition where she was unable to immediately formulate a measured, or even rational, response.”

Where I come from, that's called a "sick burn", also known as "getting told".

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The first thing I thought when I saw this headline was this better not be America. Canadian's could learn from our 1st Amendment.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

lol in america she'd probably sue for emotional trauma or defamation. don't act like it's any different in the us

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't think our courts will let that fly. At least I hope not lol.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Comics rip apart hecklers in the US. It would've come up already, I hope...

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You just reminded me about Kramer. Who got heckled and responded by calling the heckler a nigger multiple times.

Kramer didn't incur any legal liability, so I highly doubt there will be a cause of action against a heckler who makes fun of lesbians. 1st amendment.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What everyone forgets is that yeah he said that to the black people but they proceeded to call him every anti-white label in the book (honkie, cracker, etc).

Yes, SRS, it's not the ssaaaammmee but it's not like they were innocent in the first place (heckling, being annoying, etc) nor after the first insult (anti-white shaming). But yes, he grovelled big time when it went viral.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And that motherfucker was famous. He had money to sue for. This guy was doing an open mic night at a restaurant. I wonder how long it's gonna take to pay the "damages".

If the court transcripts (that is, the remembered-through-a-drunken-haze story they decided to believe) are correct in what he said to them, it still doesn't matter. When did "stick and stones may break my bones" stop being relevant? When did we start conflating something we put soldiers to death for in WWI, something we denied the existence of after the Nam and Gulf War, something we finally got around to recognizing and treating in 21st century soldiers, with hurting someone's feelings?

"When asked why she did not simply leave the establishment, instead of staying until the very end of the performance, she said she didn’t leave because she was too shocked, and that she literally could not get up from the booth'"

"I'm sorry your Honor, the sense of agency that I am legally assumed to have at 18 just didn't seem to work right at the time."

I'd love to see a gay man pull that one off.

He's not pointing a gun at you, he's just calling you a cunt. Like you've never heard it before.

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

B..But...but a man said it!

So what if the guy who calls men niggers doesn't incur any legal liabilities. Black men are privileged too they'll be fine!

[–]bunker_man 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's better in the US. Individual times might have that fly, but its better than the places where you literally know youre getting sued.

[–]p3ndulum 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Men, man up!"

"Women, here's $15,000."

[–]MrStinky 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When asked why she did not simply leave the establishment, instead of staying until the very end of the performance, “she said she didn’t leave because she was too shocked, and that she literally could not get up from the booth,” according to decision documents. As for the water-throwing, “Mr. Earle’s conduct had put Ms. Pardy in a condition where she was unable to immediately formulate a measured, or even rational, response.”

Heaven forbid you treat an adult like an adult and make them responsible for their actions. No man would have been able to argue the same defense without being laughed at and shamed

[–]xhapfighter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really, really, really, really hate to say this, but stuff like this makes lesbians the butt of jokes in the gay community. At least this is in a far away, semi fictional land with hornless unicorns.

[–]The_smartest_man_evr 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This came up a few days ago in r/justiceporn....... I promptly unsubscribed. You should have seen the comments. I was disgusted. One "Comedian" said he was a big supporter of free speech.....but not this type of free speech.

[–]zombiejesus1 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

This is a thing?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has a 100% conviction rate. It's a kangaroo court used for character assassination and repressing dissent.

[–]The_smartest_man_evr 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For anyone that's interested.

http://www.reddit.com/r/JusticePorn/comments/1gv2nv/comics_homophobic_abuse_of_lesbian_costs_him/

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will get me paid.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Le Sigh, Canada.

At some point, lots of people are going to be highly offended daily in the developed world. They'll call it Canada's Glasnost.

[–]sirpsycho3 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

God bless America

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You might get a payout if you are stupid enough to fall down my stairs, but at least I can call you a dumb-ass for falling down my stairs.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This occurred in Canada.

[–]iseeyou1312 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is why he is saying God bless America...

[–]Mooshaq 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ms. Pardy threw two glasses of water at the comedian and he, in turn, broke her sunglasses.

The couple was...repeatedly interrupting the set with obscenities

Ms. Pardy [screamed] to restaurant patrons that the owner condoned violence against women

Seriously? Also, how has a psychiatrist not been called in yet to say that this shit does not cause PTSD?

[–]Ragnar09 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It annoys me how the west is full of fag lovers.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So much this

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Human rights tribute"

ahahahahahhaahhahahahaha

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing annoys me more than hecklers or people that interrupt the comedian. Those should be escorted out of the premises after a warning.

[–]watersign 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

fucking ladyboy dikes, hate em!!

[–]Angus_Fraser 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Human rights tribunal bashing down freedom of speech. Isn't there a word for that?

[–]TehKazlehoff 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a canadian, the only lasting physical and psychological effect of this that that bitch suffers from is being fucking greedy as fuck. OMG I HECKELED A COMEDIAN AND HE PUT ME IN PLACE, IMA SUE! fuuuuuck that. dont like getting told by the comedian, keep your fucking mouth shut and laugh in the approriate pauses.

[–]Stopher 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is just insane. She doesn't even have to work now. She can just go around to comedy clubs, make out with her gf, and wait for her feelings to be hurt. Could you imagine a guy trying to pull that?

[–]Unicornmayo -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Maybe someone should actually read the court decision:

[66] In the next very short while, Mr. Earle, from the stage, using a microphone, and in his capacity as host or master-of-ceremonies of the open mic night, said the following words, directed exclusively at Ms. Pardy, Ms. Broomsgrove, and Ms. Sandor, or words to substantially the same effect:

"Don't mind that inconsiderate dyke table over there. You know lesbians are always ruining it for everybody."

"Do you have a strap-on? You can take your girlfriend home and fuck her in the ass."

"Are you on the rag; is that why you're being such a fucking cunt?"

"Stupid cunts" and "stupid dykes".

[67] These comments were not made in response to any heckling by any of the women. Rather they were a response, generally, to the noise associated with their being moved by Zesty staff from the patio to booth 3 and asked if they wished to order drinks. Mr. Earle's words were a response, specifically, to seeing Ms. Broomsgrove kiss Ms. Pardy.

...

[71] Shortly after Ms. Pardy threw the first glass of water at Mr. Earle, Mr. Earle returned to the stage to finish introducing Mr. Wolfe, and said the following words, directed exclusively at Ms. Pardy, Ms. Broomsgrove, and Ms. Sandor, or words to substantially the same effect:

"Thanks for ruining the evening, fucking dykes”,

"You're a fat ugly cunt. No man will fuck you; that's why you're a dyke. You fat cunt."

"Do you want to be a man; is that why you're such a fucking asshole?"

"Somebody shut her up. Put a cock in her mouth and shut her the fuck up."

Decision:

[357] I have concluded that the Human Rights Tribunal was correct in holding on the facts before it that the derogatory comments and conduct of Mr. Earle at the club constituted discrimination as that term is used in the Human Rights Code. The decision of the Tribunal correctly balanced the severity of any interference with the Charter protection of freedom of expression against the statutory objectives of the Human Rights Code.

[–]Mooshaq 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

So every time someone is mean to you, they should have to pay you? Even comedians, whose job it is to be politically incorrect and purposely exploit social stigmas, should have to pay you?

And you think this is so absolutely terrible that she magically developed PTSD?

[–][deleted] 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sword11 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Go back to bluepill

[–][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sword11 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes she couldn't have left, she didn't physically assault the comedian (water in the face twice, words do not equal assault), and stayed for the whole performance.

You deserve blue pill, and your post has been reported

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You deserve blue pill, and your post has been reported

How pathetic.

edit: For those who are interested, here are the deleted posts.

[–]Unicornmayo -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

To be clear; this ruling is on a constitutional challenge of the Human Rights Code in BC brought forth by Zesty and Mr. Earle. So one tribunal has already found harm.

So every time someone is mean to you, they should have to pay you?

That's not what it means. It means that the individuals comments went beyond mere jest or poking fun and the judge stated that:

[338] In deciding whether Mr. Earle’s words and conduct constituted discrimination contrary to s. 8 of the Code, the Tribunal had to give due weight to the context -- a comedy club -- in which the events occurred. I think that it did. In the restaurant that night, Mr. Earle was an emcee who reacted to the disruption caused by the movement of some patrons, including Ms. Pardy, to a new table (by the restaurant management). Ms. Pardy and her companions that night were not hecklers. And Mr. Earle was not giving a comedy performance when he launched into his tirade of ugly words directed at Ms. Pardy.

[339] In the end, this is not a case about the scope of expression in a comedy performance or an artistic performance. It is about verbal and physical abuse that amounts to adverse treatment based on sex and sexual orientation. To illustrate this critical point, I repeat some of the language that Mr. Earle directed at Ms. Pardy, to which I referred earlier in these reasons at paras. 66 and 71:

· "Do you have a strap-on? You can take your girlfriend home and fuck her in the ass."

· "You're a fat ugly cunt. No man will fuck you; that's why you're a dyke. You fat cunt."

· "Somebody shut her up. Put a cock in her mouth and shut her the fuck up."

So, what is section 8 of the human rights code in BC?

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility 8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or (b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons.

Even comedians, whose job it is to be politically incorrect and purposely exploit social stigmas, should have to pay you?

Court decided based on the information that the comedian was providing a service as an employee and that his comments went beyond a mere joke.

And you think this is so absolutely terrible that she magically developed PTSD?

This sentence makes no sense. I have not given an opinion on it, only stating that this goes beyond a mere headline.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So every time someone is mean to you, they should have to pay you?

That's not what it means. It means that the individuals comments went beyond mere jest or poking fun and the judge stated that:

^ Lie. That is what it means. You're simply hiding in the letter of the law, and ignoring its effects to make a semantic argument, a fairly piss-poor one at that.

[–]Mooshaq 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'll admit that I did not read the court report as it was long and exceedingly boring to me. I'm a medical guy...imagine yourself reading a paper about "NKG2D receptor function in cytomegalovirus-induced hepatosplenomegaly"; that's how I felt looking at the court report. And I digress...

I understand the grounds that they were going on, stating that the comedian was an employee of the restaurant. Not that I agree that either of them should have to pay money to Ms. Pardy, but in this case, only the restaurant should be responsible. However, this seems to be a game of "he said, she said," as the comedian stated that they were heckling him and threw water at him. Sure, if they only made commotion due to being moved to a new table, the comedian acted rashly. If they were not heckling, I doubt the comedian would keep pursuing an "attack" against them after pointing out the two women kissing. Something had to trigger him to keep attacking the two of them, rather than moving on to another topic.

You're arguing that it is legal. I'm not debating whether it's legal, just stating that I think it's a stupid that she is allowed to claim "severe emotional trauma" and sue for money.

As for my last sentence, I meant to ask, "So what do you think of her claiming she developed PTSD? That's clearly bullshit and should be used against her in court for trying to further victimize herself and vilify both the restaurant and the comedian."

[–]Unicornmayo 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I'll admit that I did not read the court report as it was long and exceedingly boring to me.

Ok. Personally, if I am debating or arguing something I would read everything I could about the subject.

However, this seems to be a game of "he said, she said," as the comedian stated that they were heckling him and threw water at him.

It is made clear that the tribunal conducted interviews of witnesses and tried to clear up as many discrepancies as possible before determining damages. That's where it landed on a sequence of events.

I'm not debating whether it's legal, just stating that I think it's a stupid that she is allowed to claim "severe emotional trauma" and sue for money.

The issue was not just from the event, it was the posting of the event on youtube where the victims were identified. Part of the damages were determined (i believe) on defamation, not just whatever costs the individuals went through.

Sure, if they only made commotion due to being moved to a new table, the comedian acted rashly. If they were not heckling, I doubt the comedian would keep pursuing an "attack" against them after pointing out the two women kissing. Something had to trigger him to keep attacking the two of them, rather than moving on to another topic.

That's exactly what happened based on the interviews the tribunal conducted and those facts are not disputed. And nothing "triggered" him and remember this case isn't an appeal, it's a constitutional challenge which is different in scope.

So what do you think of her claiming she developed PTSD?

Not my business. In Canada, in most cases you have to demonstrate damages- ie missed work, doctor bills, ect. The number probably wasn't picked out of thin air, but there is some flexibility to apply fines up to a certain amount. Canada has always tried to balance civil liberties with public goals (in this case freedom of speech with non-discrimination in this case).

[–]Mooshaq 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok. Personally, if I am debating or arguing something I would read everything I could about the subject.

I do as well, but I did not see this as a very important debate between the two of us. I'm not presenting anything interesting or groundbreaking, or trying to unveil the truth and enlighten you. I was just saying "this is bullshit," essentially. Thus, I did not read the court report.

It is made clear that the tribunal conducted interviews of witnesses...

How many times are people afraid to speak up because they'll be wrongly construed as "misogynistic" or "homophobic" or "sexist," etc. Even if the interviews were private (i.e. only between one judicial personnel and one witness), people still sometimes have these worries.

The issue was not just from the event, it was the posting of the event on youtube where the victims were identified.

I did not know about this, thank you for informing me. Was it in the court report? In that case, blame my ignorance of the court proceeding.

So what do you think of her claiming she developed PTSD?

Not my business.

I wasn't asking you to testify on her behalf under threat of perjury, just whether or not this seemed like bullshit to you. Mislabeling her anxiety as PTSD, which has a social stigma, is affording her a lot of extra weight in this court case. However, it is very, very unlikely to be PTSD. If it was labeled as it is, instead of PTSD, she would not get as much favor in the court case.

Thanks for the replies. You responded coherently and backed up your argument with some facts. I don't think there is any point in taking this further.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You sound like someone who needs to actually learn why freedom of speech exists. Here's a primer for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmuzrHwMkMU

[–]Unicornmayo -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In Canada, it's always been very clear that civil liberties (such as freedom of speech) have been balanced with public goals. Not saying the law shouldn't be changed, but as the court determines, section 8 of the human rights code in BC is constitutional. The comedian could elevate this to the Supreme Court of Canada if he doesn't agree with the ruling, but I would imagine it's likely to fail to the proportionality test.

Free speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want without repercussions, even in the US. In Canada, Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

  1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In Canada, it's always been very clear that civil liberties (such as freedom of speech) have been balanced with public goals.

This means you don't have freedom of speech, and never did, since it has "always" been "clear" that those rights were balanced with public goals. And who determines those goals? The majority? Maybe you should watch that video again to see why having the majority silence one person is no more justified than one person silencing the majority.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is not 15k worth of damages

[–]Unicornmayo -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In your opinion. The judge considered lowering the damages if the tribunal had erred in its process but ultimately determined the tribunal and followed its own process.

And bear in mind it was paid to two individuals not one ($7500 each) and its not just the comedian but the venue who is also liable since they were the employer.

[–]anal_cyst 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I want to hear his side of the story first.

[–]Unicornmayo -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then you should note that the challenge is not based on the facts, it's whether section 8 of the BC Human Rights Code is constitutional. The facts are no longer in dispute.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe you should read that again.

[–]Unicornmayo -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My reading comprehension is fine, thank you. Was there a particular part that is not clear to you?

[–]__var 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Really, who throws a glass of water? Go home if you don't like being made fun of.

[–]Unicornmayo -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

He could have them removed from the premises then, and perhaps should have. To say (as paragraph 71 states): "Somebody shut her up. Put a cock in her mouth and shut her the fuck up" is not an appropriate response.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter