Heckler's Lawyer Calls For 'Balance'

A lesbian heckler's humourless attorney responds to that sassy broad, Margaret Wente. (Sorry, for some reason I can't seem to find the link to the letter online):

Re A Bad Night At Zesty's - April 1; Canadian Ruling On 'Offensive' Comedy Is A Gag - But It's No Joke- April 3: Margaret Wente and Tabitha Southey are correct - Lorna Pardy's cause is not a 'funny' one, and the ongoing tribunal proceeding in this matter is no joke. But I'd challenge them on almost everything else.

  Their description of the nature and facts of Ms. Pardy's complaint are one-sided, as are their respective understandings of the case's substance and implications. The damages amount that Ms. Wente references did not originate from Ms. Pardy. I have no professional or other affiliation or relationship with the Tribunal, and Ms. Wente's description of the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling is innaccurate.

  The suggestion that this case concerns defensible "crude," "foul" or "unpopular" language completely misses the mark.

  There are two sides to Ms. Pardy's story and to the larger debate about our human rights system. It would have been responsible for Ms. Wente and Ms. Southey to explore both. Regrettably, they did not.

Devyn Cousineau, counsel for Lorna Pardy, Vancouver

There may be two sides to the story, but only one of them has its legal fees picked up by the taxpayer. The other one had to ask his brother, who's not a lawyer, to act as his advocate before a quasi-judicial body that's wholly nutty, one that presumed him guilty before he opened his mouth and until he could somehow prove otherwise--rather a tall task when the deck is so obviously stacked against you. Anyone who defends such an absurd and inherently unfair system could only be deranged, delusional--or a lawyer.