Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Guy Earle Trial Day 3: Noon Update

Comedian Marlo Franson. Watch him on YouTube

Marlo Franson testimony con't:

Ismail: What happened next?

Franson: Guy introduced the next comedian, and as he walked by table 3 - I saw it very clearly, as I was in eye contact with him the whole time - water splashed from [Pardy's] table. He didn't stop at their table. He walked by me, appearing wet and dumbfounded. There was no physical threat from Guy Earl, only the verbal exchange.

Ismail: Do you think that Guy Earle is homophobic?

Franson: I'd known him since late January [2007] and hadn't seen anything that indicates that.

Ismail: What was the behavior of Pardy after?

Franson: They were not distressed, or scared for their lives. I approached the table and asked if they were OK and they seemed OK, maybe just a little shocked about the sunglasses.


Cousineau: Have you spoken to Mr. Ismail about your testimony today?

Franson: Yes

Cousineau: Have you heard anything about the witnesses that already testified?

Franson: No, other than something I read in the province, they quoted her.

Cousineau: Do you remember specifically if Guy Earle used the word "dyke" or "cunt"?

Franson: If you want an idea of the comments, there's a YouTube video, you're going to have to watch it.

Cousineau: But do you remember?

Franson: It's there, on the video. I remember watching it a few times thinking "yeah, that's exactly what he said." But I'm not here to confirm or deny what anyone said.

Geiger-Adams: Mr. Franson, as a witness you must tell the Tribunal what you remember, and if not, tell us so.

Cousineau: What do you remember?

Franson: [slightly raised voice] I remember it was something, but not what exactly, so I'm not going to deny or confirm what words he used. This is not a high priority thing for me. My mind is busy.

Cousineau: Were they yelling at the stage?

Franson: They and Guy Earle were engaged in a back-and-forth game of insults, with lots of profanity being used on both sides.


GA: How did the arrangement come about that you would perform that night?

Franson: Guy Earle had told me about the open-mic Tuesdays at the restaurant. After 4 weeks observing, I went onstage.

GA: And how do you do that, how exactly do you get on stage?

Franson: Arrive early and request to perform.


Ishmail: Were you compensated in any way for your performance?

Franson: No, there was no compensation either way.

Ismail: So it was an open mic night?"

Franson: Yes. Both amateurs and professionals performed.


Cousineau: And Guy Earle was the MC?

Franson: Yes, every Tuesday.

Witness excused.

.....coming next: What Pardy wanted to do with a beer bottle.


  1. Why did Ismail ask Franson if he thought Guy was homophobic? Whether he is, or isn't is irrelevant. Guy should be viewed on what he said and did, not what he thought or might have thought.

    This just falls into the trap of accepting the human rights commission's idea of thought-crime.

  2. The question "Do you think that Guy Earle is homophobic?" also jumped out at me.
    The issue, I think, is not whether the queston is "irrelevant" but that it is (a) unanswerable, and (b) it should not matter or be anyone's business whether he is, or his statements could be so construed, unless you are talking about a speaker at a children's event, vs. a comedy club.
    The question is unanswerable garbage because the current, PC phrase "homophobic" is itself an ungrammatical, fuzzy-minded oxymoron. "Phobic" means "to fear." The PC catch-phrase "homophobic" is intended to make a persons (justified or unjusitifed value judgment) of disliking homosexuality into a pathology, an "unreasonable fear" such as arachnophobia (fear of spiders) or agoraphobia (fear of open spaces).
    So, in PC land, a person can't even "own their own" actual hatred, but must be clinicalized into a person suffering from a mental disorder.
    This is disturbingly like the old Soviet Union sending dissidents to mental hospitals and torturing them with psychiatric "medications" for having obivously "pathological" ideas about political economy.
    So, if a person actually hated gays, they are not necessarily "homophobic" --though the word has come to replace the thought of actual bigoted hatred, and left no word in its place to actually express the implication behind the question.
    This is not insignificant wordplay, in my view, as the whole insidious process of replacing actual words that mean what they say with euphemisms that actually adopt a specific, and highly questionable set of assumptions is, in microcosm, the PC debate itself. This is about thought control.
    And, unfortunately, if these ideas are legitimized for any period of time, the self-censorship and intellectual dishonesty will become an ingrained habit in the next generation. Very, very sad.
    I am also dismayed by witness after witness simply answering each asinine, fuzzy minded question in turn, which to my view justifies a wholly illegitimate inquiry.
    I would suggest that everyone who appears before these "Tribunals" answer each question with a statement as to why such a question is an insult to any free thinking adult and a supposedly free society, and decline to answer the question.