In Canada you could be jailed for that.

In Canada you could be jailed for that.

What?  Making fun of a puppet?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"Fifteen cents...mostly pennies, probably."

Of course back then a plate of spaghetti and meatballs only cost a nickel.

oh good, I was afraid great grand dad died for nothing.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"I didn't say that Jews can make fun of anyone they want"

But that's how it works in practice. Jews (blacks, fags, etc.) can make fun of whites all they want, but if whites make fun of Jews (etc.) it's 'bigotry'. If saying certain things really is a 'crime' then it should be a 'crime' for everyone. The fact so many blacks use the word "nigger", for example, demonstrates that saying "nigger" isn't really a big deal.

"Your casual reference to "Jews, fags, etc." suggests that you are a bigot"

That you're bothered by that suggests you're a prig.

I would much rather be a prig than a bigot.  Other than that, your comment doesn't really deserve a reply.

Worse yet, what if you're a man trapped in a lesbian's haircut?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Fuck, that happened to me once back in the late 70s.  It wasn't funny.

Destroy all their Indigo Girls CDs?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Destroy all their Indigo Girls CDs?

That certainly won't bring them closer to fine.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I didn't say he couldn't possibly be convicted of anything. What I'm saying is that taking what has been reported about what was said and done, I don't think he could be convicted of a hate crime (which is what he's really being charged with). As it's reported the back and forth dialog didn't rise above an analog to Imus' "nappy haired hos" remark that got him into hot water. But Imus did that on the open airwaves and really wasn't provoked into saying what he said but even that could hardly be construed as hate speech. Now if Earle had snapped and began inciting his audience to attack and assault the two lesbians because they were lesbian, that might qualify as hate speech. Not only is it inciting violence, it's totally out of proportion to the heckling he received. As a matter of fact, the only one who suffered an assault here was Earle who had a drink thrown in his face by one of the ladies and his glasses broken, if I recall from one of the articles. The only thing the two lesbians suffered were hurt feelings (and, well, maybe wasting whatever they paid for the drink they tossed in Earle's face).

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Chances are, Earle was not really guilty of hate speech.  However, without knowing exactly what he said, I can't be sure of that.  And even if he had been guilty of hate speech it was still inappropriate for the lady in question to assault him.  Even if they were acting in response to a criminal offense, they would still be guilty of vigilantism.  It is up to the police to enforce the laws, not them.

In Canada, publicly saying something like "Fags are horrible people"  would make you a criminal

See, I don't know much about Canadian law. If I were to say, for instance, "Fags are wicked gay," would that earn me a jail term? How about, "Racists are horrible people"? How about, "Fags are awesome"?

I mean if those were said publicly?

Canadian law is very similar to American law in that it addresses protected classes.  For example, I once worked at a call center as a sales manager and through ineptitude and apathy on the part of my employer was forced to assume many roles and responsibilities of HR.  The business largely revolved around the sale of repair parts and supplies for power tools.  Now, if a female employee were to disparage a customer by saying "well he's a man, why the hell can't he figure out his miter saw," then that would be OK.  But if a (male OR female) employee were to say "well she's a woman, no wonder she can't figure out a miter saw," then they would be fired for sexual discrimination, since women are a protected class and men are not.  

I'm not suggesting that you agree with this, and yes, there were many Hispanic people (protected) fired for saying things like "I'm not surprised he didn't buy, most of the Asians (protected) I've talked to didn't buy this week."  Were they racist?  No.  Did they mean harm?  No- but it doesn't matter when these kinds of things are the issue (as far as the laws are concerned).

Just trying to show you why that's the case.  I really don't have a horse in the protected class race, although I am a single custodial father who's been unsuccessfully trying to collect child support for nearly a year (at considerable legal expense) from a deadbeat mother who's admitted in open court that she's a drug addict.  Every legal professional involved has admitted to me that it's difficult to collect from a woman, no matter the circumstances; based largely on protected status and social conventions that dictate the mother should always retain custody, no matter the circumstances.  I've also been repeatedly reminded how lucky I am that I have custody, even in spite of her openly-admitted drug addiction(s) and well-documented criminal activity.

The gist of it is that yes, it's OK to say certain things if you belong to one group and it's not if you belong to another.  I don't necessarily agree with this or support it, but that's the way the laws and social conventions are written.  It will never be "OK" for you to get up there and say "fags are wicked gay," unless you've publicly and repeatedly said/demonstrated that you were gay- and even then you might run into problems.

But that's a work place environment which has different conventions. In America, for the most part, these things are judged based on civil case law and not enshrined criminal law. If everyone at your workplace enjoys greeting one another by saying, "Fags suck my dick best," every morning you'll get away with it but if someone else comes in and says that's creating a hostile work environment, then you'll have to change your ways or be subjected to a lawsuit.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Fun fact: I disciplined an employee because she was out of dress code (WAY out of dress code) and she claimed that me punishing her for violating a document she'd signed in three places (explicitly outlining that she would be punished for violating it) was creating a hostile environment- and the fucking case almost went to court.  In a perversion of the statutes, I basically got out of it by playing my own protected class cards (veteran and felon); but it still took many people hundreds of (wo)man-hours before people realized how ridiculous the whole situation was.  Protected class issues are extremely powerful, especially in a workplace setting; but they do apply in some cases to criminal law (as aggravating factors, mostly).

I know it sounds ridiculous on its face but honestly, it's a solid argument that a workplace dress code creates a hostile work environment. Sure there are arguments that the company has an interest in maintaining order and (if the worker has access to clients) putting forth a certain image but from a personal liberty perspective, it's incumbent upon the employer to demonstrate those interests. For example, a company would have little interest in requiring a dress code for telecommuters except for those times when they must visually interact with other employees or clients. The fact that she signed the document, in my experience, would be because somewhat irrelevant since at the end of the day it's the company's right to create such a policy in the first place that is at question. Obviously you should be personally protected when carrying out company policy.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

So, what was she wearing?  Inquiring minds want to know!

She had a Spaghetti strap shirt (straps had to be at least 2 inches wide, or as wide as the ID badge [size of a credit card]), "excessively low-cut" top (no strict definition on that one, it was up to "management discretion"- and this woman was falling out of her top), no bra (as far I could tell), shorts too short (had to be no more than 3" above the knee), underwear visible, and flip-flops- had to have closed toe, and at the least shoes had to have backs on them (per OSHA and insurance rules, i.e. if you fell down the stairs with no backs on your shoes you wouldn't get workman's comp and the health plan wouldn't pay for medical bills).

Basically this woman was breaking every dress code rule, and we're talking someone late 30's and quite obese.  Her hostile environment complaint centered not around the dress code, but around the fact that someone told her she was out of it.  She felt like it was making her unreasonably uncomfortable about her weight.  In a way I could kind of see her point, I'm not super-vain, but I imagine if I was obese that I might feel self-conscious.  But the way we addressed issues like that was to ask them "what is the dress code?" and "based on your understanding of the code, do you think you're in it?"  We had to do that because if you just told someone "hey you need to cover those 40DD's" you've got a potential sexual thing.  If they wouldn't play ball with the questions we'd skip to "hey, is this your signature on this document right here?  why don't you read that to me."  Sounds like you're treating them like kids, but the HR & legal people set it up like that to protect the company from harassment suits.

Then again if she was that self-conscious why dress like a Hooters girl?  This is why I don't work in HR, I guess.

If that is in fact an accurate description of Canadian law, then Canadian society has turned into a far creepier place than I had ever suspected.

You'd have to try it out and let us know what happens.