Comedians defending Jerry Sadowitz

[FenlandFuckwit]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-62533592

His latest gig has been cancelled after he told racist jokes and got his dick out. Why are other comedians defending his right to do this? This behaviour is not ok, AIBU to think this is indecent and disgusting behaviour and the venue were correct in cancelling him.

No one has AFAIK know published what he said.

The venue had booked him before, knew it would be offensive, but declined to host the second show for what the BBC describes in its headline as ‘extreme racism’

If it amounted to hate speech, or incitement to racial violence, then he could in theory be prosecuted. And there are such prosecutions. Are they always wrong?

The idea that ‘I’m just joking’ isn’t necessarily sufficient

Police Scotland are normally all over hurty words, as long as they are deemed to relate to a specific group, so I'm amazed he hasn't been arrested yet if the claims were true.

As I've said, I've seen his show and the "ectreme racism" was anti-racist irony, I doubt he's become a hard-right loon in the interim.

The culture certainly has changed though.

But he’s not saying these things and excusing them by saying he’s joking. He is in character as the most objectionable person, and lampooning his unacceptable attitudes. Like Alf Garnett in the 70s - you’re not supposed to agree with him, you’re supposed to condemn and be horrified by him. It shows where we are a a society now that there are enough people genuinely holding similar views that this has been lost.

The definition of "misogyny" has been expanded by some to include males who "identify as" women. Until we know what was said and how they are using this word, it seems hard to say.

Discussions on comedy and festival themed subreddits are all about the racism.

It’s only on MN that trans issues feature - is this based on actual accounts of the show or use assumption?

His shows didn't sell out.

I was there it was about 40 per cent full.

I wonder what the Daily Mail would be saying if he had been cancelled because it was anti-Christian language?

Would their response be the same if it was anti-Muslim, Anti - Semitic language?

I wonder what kind of extreme sexism, homophobic, racist language was being used?

And were there people there agreeing with what he was saying - laughing along with people also laughing at the same lines..nothing like people laughing and agreeing together when minority groups are being joked about and belittled to help reinforce an audience member's views and perceptions about the subject being belittled.

I don't like JS's brand of humour and I didn't see the show but I want to comment on one thing someone mentioned upthread.

"If a trans comedian or a drag queen had exposed their penis during a show MN would be up in arms calling for them to be cancelled. I can't believe the blatant rank hypocrisy of defending indecent exposure just because he's anti-trans."

I don't think anyone would object to a trans comedian or drag queen exposing their penis in the context of an adult show (although it might be a bit tedious waiting for them to untape and untuck). It's about audience expectation. It might cause an uproar if Michael McIntyre or Eddie Izzard got their wee man out in an act because no one would have gone along to one of their shows expecting that.

However if JS had been booked for a Storytime Magic Session at the local library then there would be a justifiable uproar.

Personally I find JS's brand of comedy irritating but I'm completely mystified as to why The Pleasance didn't know what kind of show he was going to deliver. He's been part of the alternative comedy scene for decades. It would be like suddenly cancelling Stewart Lee for being unkind and sweary about people who voted for Brexit.

but I'm completely mystified as to why The Pleasance didn't know what kind of show he was going to deliver

That’ll be because they did know - they’ve had him there before.

But he went well beyond what an experienced venue was prepared to tolerate.

Interesting thread

If a trans comedian or a drag queen had exposed their penis during a show MN would be up in arms calling for them to be cancelled. I can't believe the blatant rank hypocrisy of defending indecent exposure just because he's anti-trans. I swear Mumsnet would cheer on Pol Pot if he was anti-trans.

Give it a rest. If a drag queen exposed their penis during a show in front of children, MN would rightly be up in arms. In a show where most people know that this is highly likely to happen? not so much.

I'm at the point where i think that all "comedy" should be allowed. There should be zero taboos. (penis waving - well, it seems this is also highly likely during a JS show, so meh). If there are no taboos - all is allowed: racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, ableism etc - then all you need to do is find out what is likely to be in a show and then vote with your feet by not buying a ticket.

Would i go to a show featuring those things? probably not. Also not likely to want to see a penis waving around but that's personal taste. Free speech doesn't apply to illegal acts/speech, so any "cancellations" or prosecutions aren't out of the question if the line of illegality is crossed.

But he went well beyond what an experienced venue was prepared to tolerate.

I wonder what was different between his act at the last Fringe, and now. Nothing, I'd suppose which is what makes this all so fascinating and concerning. Why has an 'experienced venue' suddenly decided it is unacceptable?

I doubt very much that he did the same show at this Fringe to previous, so I don’t agree that the differences would be “nothing”

And unless someone publishes in more detail what he said, then all we have to go on is the statement of an experienced Fringe venue, who knew what sort of act was booked and who had hosted without issue previously. Which said this show was too extreme even for them

“I don’t believe in censorship of the arts”

I find this very interesting to debate! I’d say I want to agree with this, but - in the context of film/if you look at films banned by the BBFC/18 certificate/what is suitable for children to watch - I’d say that censorship IS needed.

If a child was exploited on stage as part of a comedy act - for example - of course that needs censorship. Doesn’t it??

But he went well beyond what an experienced venue was prepared to tolerate.

Did he? We still don't know what happened. Unless it's now been reported somewhere?

"Presumably it was included in "among other things" in their statement."

"The definition of "misogyny" has been expanded by some to include males who "identify as" women. Until we know what was said and how they are using this word, it seems hard to say."

These both seem a bit of a stretch. If the Pleasance received numerous complaints about transphobic content (which is what seems to be the assertion - that these would be the only type of complaints that would get a show cancelled) and they were self-righteous and confident enough to cancel the show and publicly denounce the comedian because of it, why wouldn't they include the very easy word 'transphobia' in the list of complaints? Sadowitz also seemed unaware of this apparently main element in his response.

Not only this, but the only media-reported comments from the show were racist and sexist, and about him getting his dick out. People are generally not shy about complaining about transphobia, so why no details if this is the main reason?

Perhaps some jumped the gun and decided it must be a trans thing that got him cancelled and now are trying to stretch words to fit that narrative?

Joe Lycett recently got reported to the police over a donkey dick joke and I'm pretty sure he hasn't been making transphobic jokes, so clearly other comedy can still attract action.

Sorry Rose, I meant the nature of the act in general rather than just performing the exact same show.

Like others I'm still not sure where transphobia comes into it.

If a child was exploited on stage as part of a comedy act - for example - of course that needs censorship. Doesn’t it??

There is a difference between pure censorship, a system of licencing for age-restricted content and clearly illegal acts.

Exploiting a child on stage (how is this exploitation to manifest itself? some would say a child working on stage is exploitation full stop. Is it the number of hours, or if they are being subject to sexual acts or something else? we have laws around that kind of thing which would be applied)

Having age classifications for films has had some interesting results over the years. Particularly if you compare what is restricted in different jurisdictions. For example there are often comments on the fact that in the US relatively violent films are allowed at relatively young ages, but the mere hint of sex or a female nipple will get an NC certificate (or 18 or whichever it is)

I remember when Jaws first came out (because I'm ancient) that it was certified 18 (or as it was in those days X) but later it was reduced to A (12 now?) after having some of the worst scenes deleted. Some studios are very very careful about what they include in order to have the correct certificate for widest distribution etc etc.

So there really isn't a reason why such certification couldn't be applied to all shows (having said that upthread someone said that JS's shows are over 18 and he is pretty strict about applying that himself).

So censorship - in that illegal things are not allowed, is fine. But a series of certification for non-illegal acts might help some people?

The point is that we still don't know. I still find it odd that there is no detail at all, which makes whatever is said, increasingly hard not to look at from all angles and with a lot of "what ifs" and "but what do they mean by this".

Whoever complained hasn't come forward (and I'd expect that to be anonymous to a newspaper or some other means like a new Twitter account or whatever) and that also seems really unusual especially by this point in the proceedings.

As to definitions and their statement, some schools of thought ie CRT, would have quite a different take on the definition of "racism" so given there is still no detail - and because I don't want to live in a totalitarian state - I would prefer to remain curious about this.

Sadly I think this might be disastrous for Sadowitz. He has an audience who knows the score, shares his view of life and politics and appreciates what he's saying.

If this makes him a hero of the "you can't say anything nowadays, I'll buy a ticket, that'll show the snowflakes!" Daily Mail tendency then it could get nasty. As per a PP's anecdote he can deal with one person actually agreeing with some of the terrible things he says, but what if it was half the audience? And what if hundreds of people expecting Jim Davidson turn up to each show, have a conniption at the actual content, demand refunds and complain to the local paper in unmanageable numbers. I'm not sure all publicity is good publicity in this case.

Like others I'm still not sure where transphobia comes into it

Transphobia in relation to this seems to come only from those who assume the issue must be trans related.

That is not the working assumption on other sites, such as comedy and Fringe subreddits

Erm, it is public. Agree that this is very grim.

The cast of the recent revival of the stage musical Hair
Daniel Radcliffe (and a number of earlier actors) in Peter Schaffer’s Equus
Benedict Cumberbatch in the National Theatre’s award winning adaptation of Frankenstein

Three examples I know off the top of my head where there is full frontal male nudity.

None of these have resulted in the shows being cancelled.

There are plenty of Fringe acts involving full nudity. I mean you're told when you buy the ticket so presumably if you don't want to see a knob you don't go and see JS or Puppetry of the Penis.

”shock” acts have to keep getting more extreme, or they no longer shock

so level of offence rises, and may well tip in to absolutely unacceptable hate speech

”I was only joking” and “can’t you see it’s a joke” already cover a wide range of offensive utterances, that are tolerated in some circumstances, but it’s not an exemption for everything always. If it was a venue other than The Pleasance, I’d e rather more sceptical of the assessment. But they’re not naive, host some real eye-openers, and yet found this too much

(I too am baffled by the trans comments on this thread, and agree they could fairly be seen as arising from transphobia)

And I hasten to add, the recent outrage about onstage nudity on MN was specifically because the show was aimed at a family audience, not 18+ as this was.