By Jim Mauro
On November 18th, 2025, the Community Auditorium cancelled a comedy show because of the alleged content of the show. It was reported to have racist comments and would ridicule some members of society. When I asked for comments on FACEBOOK, most stated it was a bad decision.
When writing about this topic, you run the risk of offending the social justice warriors. However, no one should be afraid of asking tough questions. To do so, risks eroding a core principle of society: the right to speak.
Canada is more restrictive in this area than the US. We have hate speech laws, while good intentioned do not appear to be well defined. Can asking a question about a topic be hate speech? If someone had a concern about cross dressing individuals reading to children in a library, is that hate speech?
Can disagreeing about the use of preferred pronouns be labelled as hate speech? Returning to the auditorium, if Rhue Paul wanted to perform at the auditorium, can those who disagree, protest and have the show cancelled?
These are questions, not my positions, before the keyboard warriors start attacking.
This is the definition of hate speech in Canada:
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of either an indicatable or summary conviction offence and could face up to two years in jail.
Does a comedy show that has jokes about a non-white group of people, or that makes fun of certain members of society, meet this bar? And if not, then we are cancelling shows based on the feelings of some members of society.
The above definition also contains the words “identifiable group”. What does this mean. Does the local Rainbow Coalition (using them for an example only) speak for all people who are gay, or transgender? Of course not. That is like saying all white people, or all indigenous people, or all people of colour feel the same way about an issue. That is an absurd premise. And if a group that claims to represent one or more of these groups files a complaint, is a defence to the complaint people from these same groups taking the opposite position?
There is a more specific reference further into Canada’s criminal code hate speech section that speaks directly about the holocaust or the targeting of Jewish people. In my attempt to shorten this article, which I have failed miserably in, I will avoid that topic today.
The reporting on this cancelled comedy show stated Diversity Thunder Bay, a group consisting of 70 individuals/organizations, did not want this show to take place. If a different group of 70 people wanted the show, should the auditorium comply with those wishes instead? Again, the reason for the cancellation was not about ticket sales, it was about the content of his show.
In the cancelling of another show in Sault Ste. Marie, the new story had this quote: “In Sault Ste. Marie, the chief of an area First Nation described his references to Indigenous people and residential schools as “inaccurate” and “crude.”. Perhaps they are, but since when was comedy required to be accurate or polite and why is this the standard for determining what can be said and where?
The goal of Diversity Thunder Bay is laudable, the elimination of racism, bigotry etc. but many believe this is not how you achieve it. The cancelling of topics that anger some, only leads to cancelling things from the other side.
These progressive groups do not represent the interests of society in general. Just like those on the right do not represent society in general. No one can claim that mantel solely to their side of the political divide, but many continue to proclaim that they do.
Most people live their lives, working hard, raising their kids, paying little mind to the “political issues” attached to everything today. But the adage “do not speak about politics” has in my opinion been a great disservice. By not speaking about these issues openly, you leave them to fringe groups to dominate.
You are basically free to say what you want in our country, short of inciting violence, crying fire in a theatre etc. It used to be without exception that Steve down the street, offended as he may be by my remarks, cannot stop me. There are many in our country who believe that is no longer the case.
The auditorium is owned by the City of Thunder Bay even though it may be run at arms length. So does the cancellation of this comedy show, reach the threshold of government interference? Some believe it does.
I was never a fan of comedian Andrew Dice Clay, but I should not have the ability to prevent him for doing his show simply because I, or my “group” do not like his brand of comedy. This comedy is not my cup of tea, but my opinion on what should and should not be shown is irrelevant to the much larger part of a free democracy.
Back in the before time, the time before western society became this dismal disgusting place according to the fringe on both the left and right, there were some comedians who pushed the boundaries of “alleged good taste”. George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, “Archie Bunker”, all blasted for their rhetoric at one point, all now recognized as comedy leaders. Today they may not even be allowed to perform.
You cannot run a society trying to protect people from being offended. If someone made a joke about gay people, should they go to jail because some were offended? If someone made a joke about Christianity, should they go to jail? Tell me the difference. How many need to be offended before someone is cancelled, 5, 10, 100? Do we have a list of words or phrases posted somewhere that cannot be said?
Human rights legislation is there to protect specific groups from being discriminated against for housing, employment etc. based on race, religion, or disability. Well done I say. But that should not be extended to feelings. Does anyone care if I am offended because they disagree with this article?
Can we apply this convoluted logic to professions? Can calling politicians corrupt or every police officer racist be construed as hate speech? Can any group avail themselves of this societal effort to protect everyone’s feelings?
The cancellation of this show is not the end of civilization, but it is one more dent in the pole holding up one of the key pillars of western society: an individual’s right to expression. To have a group that does not represent this city say this show should be cancelled and then to have a taxpayer funded facility comply is not good policy.
We continue to operate by dividing people into groups based on politics, skin colour, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. Yes, some of these people were discriminated against in the past. Yes, some of that still happens. Yes, we can be better, but we are much better than we were. Is anyone really going to suggest that western society has not improved in these areas? Perhaps not as far or as fast as some would like, but what other countries besides western style democracies are doing a better job of treating all people with dignity and respect? I’ll wait.
Some believe that people should be fired for laughing at a joke, not using the correct language or heaven forbid, liking a post on FACEBOOK. Who someone voted for, is now the gold standard for some, on who to associate with. We are operating in the Twilight Zone.
Michael Smerconish is in my view, the best anchor on TV. He believes not talking to the other side, continues to fracture what we should be as a society. The ability to co-exist with different opinions on a variety of topics while still enjoying a drink together or sharing a meal. Ostracizing people from your life because they do not fit within this made-up social construct, is destroying the fabric of society. I can see your skepticism so let me ask this.
How many people leave Canada, the US, or any western country to move to a country that is not a democracy? Democracy is the lighthouse for people around the world.
There is a scene from the movie the American President with Michael Douglas where he speaks about democracy. Douglas provides a wonderful speech that I am paraphrasing: “You must defend the right of others to say words that make your blood boil. Defend that. That is what free speech is”.
Do those who love cancel culture understand those words? And what happens when a group from the other side puts pressure on the auditorium to cancel a show those on the left like?
This is a publicly funded institution, and people should be free to perform here, and others are free to attend or not attend. This nonsense is all over college campuses in the US where comedians are having their jokes vetted or shows cancelled in advance because of student protests. What the colleges should be saying instead is: if you are not happy here, go to another school but in this keyboard warrior age, few are willing to stick their neck out.
Can you fathom that we have reached the point where a university campus is too sensitive for comedians to perform when there is no obligation for students to attend. Society needs comedy to push the boundaries, to make people think, to hold a mirror up to ourselves
Archie Bunker, one of the greatest characters in television history was used for just that reason. A Jewish man created All in the Family, a show that regularly insulted Jewish people. It was used to put hatred, bigotry and racism right in our face. Sammy Davis junior appeared on that show because he recognized how important it was to speak about these issues.
Davis, a man who faced discrimination for much of his life was not demanding Archie Bunker be cancelled, he was applauding it. Today, they would be marching in the street because they are offended by what “Archie” had to say.
Is western civilization really that bad? Are we so backwards that the “protection police” need to protect the feelings of people? You cannot legislate goodness, but you can illuminate hatred and bigotry, shine a light on it and have it exposed for what it is. That is how it gets cleansed. Not by cancelling it.
What is next, we cannot show Huckleberry Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird because a group of 70 people on the political right find it offensive? Because that is happening right now in the US. Would the auditorium cancel those shows for the political right in our city?
Some on the far left want us to accept the Dean Martin song, Baby It’s Cold Outside, is offensive while thinking “Wet a** P***y is an artistic masterpiece.
If you are not happy with this comedy show, don’t attend. If you don’t like a TV show, don’t watch it. If something I write offends you, don’t read it. I foolishly believed we live in a country where freedom of speech exists.
I don’t have to like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. My question is, will you do the same for me or someone else? If you won’t then maybe the problem is the person in your mirror. Allowing or not allowing certain words is not what the founders of democracies had in mind.
But those on the far left won’t agree with this article because they believe no one should ever be offended. Well, that would certainly make thinking obsolete.
Those on the far right will not accept that some of their actions, have led to these demands by the left. Those of us in the middle? We continue to have to live with this nonsense because we want to avoid being accused of whatever accusations each side wants to throw at us.
And the political schism, gets wider with each decision not based on policy, but based on feelings. A heck of a way to run a society, don’t you think? Just a thought.
Jim Mauro
