The cancel caucus cometh

The target? Their colleagues

Way back in 2007 I lived in Vancouver, and was tangentially connected to the comedy scene through an improv troupe. Around this time, a comedian named Guy Earle performed at a Commercial Drive venue. It did not go well.

There are a few different versions of events, but the crux was that a lesbian couple went to the venue for drinks, but were told the only space available was in the front row of the comedy show. Before they even sat down, Earle lobbed some insult comedy their way, saying, “don't mind the inconsiderate d**e table that just walked in.”

It only escalated from there. Some of his comedic gems included:

“You’re fat and ugly, you’re not even lesbian, no guy will f**k ya that’s why you’re with each other.”

“Somebody put a c**k in her mouth and shut her the f**k up.”

“Which one of you wears the strap-on dildo? Because silicone c**k crazy is still c**k crazy in my book.”

While the venue did nothing to intervene, the audience was not impressed, booing Earle off the stage. The couple later sued the comedian and venue for putting them in the line of the comedian's fire and doing nothing to stop him. The BC Human Rights Tribunal ruled in their favour.

What I remember was the immediate response from some comedians in my friend circle lamenting how Earle had been “cancelled”.

One argument was simple — comedians push the edge and shouldn't be punished for going too far. It was a comedy show, after all. This ignores the fact that the couple hadn't come to watch the show, but were placed there by the venue. It also ignores that the venue didn't punish or even try to stop him — it was the audience that booed him off.

It also ignores maybe the most important part — his attacks on the couple in the audience weren't funny. The audience did not enjoy the show. A quick online search suggests he has not gone on to a successful career in insult comedy. In fact, his only achievement since that fateful night seems to have been a self-published book called Cancelled: The Death of Stand-Up.

He calls himself “North America's most infamous comedic anti-hero” which is hilarious because I couldn’t remember his name and had to look it up.

This leads to the other criticism of Earle’s “cancellation”, which was that it brought him more attention than his poorly-received routine ever would have. It has become a common trope that a comedian is “cancelled”, and goes on to sell out massive venues and make millions off complaining about how they can't do comedy anymore.

The trick here is that, whether anyone genuinely tries to have them cancelled or not, the comedians who make this work are generally actually entertaining. Talented insult comics make entire careers out of mocking people — sometimes with vicious cruelty — because they make a show out of it. Comedy Roasts are wildly popular, and comedians like Jeff Ross and Lisa Lampanelli make their living off being entertainingly mean.

The reality is very little is off the table in comedy — if it’s done right. It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia crosses the comedic line constantly, and is one of the most popular shows on television. Shameless is deeply politically-incorrect and has won armloads of awards and been nominated for even more. The violent, gore-drenched satire of The Boys is about the enter its fifth season, with multiple spinoffs in the works. Offensive, boundary-pushing comedy is incredibly popular, as long as it’s legitimately entertaining. A grumpy man yelling slurs at the audience is mostly sad.

The idea of cancel “culture” is that there exist legions of people who will target individuals because of opinions they share, believing that they should be shunned from society for making an obtuse statement. Proponents of this theory position themselves as victims of an unforgiving culture rather than being criticized for a single (or multiple) comments. In this way, they can argue against the culture itself instead of defending their words — or just dropping a bad joke from their set.

It becomes more complicated when this is applied to politics, because elected representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, even the indelicate ones. If people did not want politicians to make these kinds of public statements, they wouldn't vote for them.

The United dossier

At the same time, politicians are expected to develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of issues on behalf of the people they represent, so they can make informed and thoughtful decisions. They are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard in order to do a better job. Rather than delivering an entertaining comedic performance, they are expected to deliver on public services and policy changes.

At the end of November, the Vice Chair of the Vancouver Police Board, Comfort Sakoma-Fadugba, posted a multi-page text post on Instagram. They were screenshot, posted on Reddit, and raised many eyebrows. Her lengthy diatribe included thoughts on Christianity, Hinduism, transgender people and how Arabs should apologize for slavery.

The comedic stylings of the Vice Chair of the Vancouver Police Board

It was not long before people began to question whether Sakoma-Fadugba should continue as Vice Chair while simultaneously posting pages on pages of posts like these. She resigned shortly after and deleted her social media profile.

One of the politicians to be asked their opinion was Elenore Sturko, who was formerly an RCMP officer and is a current BC Conservative MLA. She offered a generic statement about it being appropriate for the board to accept her resignation to build trust between the board and general public.

"It comes down to trust. When we have statements being made that erode the public's trust, or their comfort with their police service, it makes it that much harder on the front-line officers."

Cue the outrage. Sturko’s comment was so offensive it necessitated a public condemnation from her caucus-mates on social media, and in a formal letter written to leader John Rustad.

The comedic stylings of the BC Conservative Party president

"It is our view that the statements [by Sturko] caused undue harm to Ms. Sakoma and called into question our commitment to the core values shared by Conservatives."

The official letter is signed by MLAs Tara Armstrong, Rosalyn Bird, Dallas Brodie, Brent Chapman, Reann Gasper, Sharon Hartwell, Anna Kindy, Jordan Kealy, Kristina Loewen, Macklin McCall, Heather Maahs, Korky Neufeld and Ward Stamer.

Much like beleaguered comedians, the politicians do not comment on Sakoma-Fadugba’s original post, nor the issue of public trust in police departments that was raised by Sturko. Instead, they focus on the need to oppose “cancel culture”. Their points include questioning how Sturko was allowed to make comments without being vetted and blocked by staff, and demanding that Sturko apologize to Sakoma-Fadugba. If Sturko does not apologize, they demand Rustad issue an apology on behalf of the caucus instead.

To summarize the letter:

• Cancel culture is bad

• Everyone should be free to express themselves

• Elenore Sturko should not be free to express herself

• She should be cancelled forced to apologize

The mission of the Vancouver Police Board is “to provide independent civilian oversight, governance, and strategic leadership to the Vancouver Police Department, reflecting the needs, values, and diversity of Vancouver’s communities.” The public posts by Sakoma-Fadugba called into question her reflection of the needs, values and diversity she was tasked with representing. She offered her resignation, and it was accepted. Sturko’s position — for the moment, anyways — is that that it was appropriate for that resignation to be accepted. Much like a comedian being booed off the stage, if the people Sakoma-Fadugba was tasked with representing do not have trust in her, it makes sense for another person to be appointed to that position.

John Rustad is now in a corner. Sturko already abandoned her own party and community to join his party. She was a media relations officer with the RCMP, and knows more about the challenges regarding trust and police departments than most. He could stand by her and do nothing, and let a rift form in his caucus.

Or, he could do what the cancel caucus wishes, and oppose cancel culture by cancelling his colleague.

PS. A brief blog break

I just want to let folks know — unless something happens I simply must write about — I’m going be taking a brief break for the rest of December to recharge. Look for new posts coming in 2025! I hope everyone has a wonderful holiday season and a happy new year. 🎄