Court removes references to dead parrot Monty Python from judge
A British Columbia Supreme Court ruling referring to British comedy crew Monty Python’s Dead Parrot sketch has been “corrected” to remove references to the legendary sketch.
British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Ward Branch had issued a ruling on July 16 on a consumer complaint with quotes from British comedy legends’ dead parrot sketch.
“Now that’s what I call a dead parrot,” Branch said in a decision prefaced with the words, “Sometimes a consumer will make a purchase, but not receive what they ordered. “
In the Monty Python sketch, a Mr. Praline bought a dead parrot nailed to its perch. The store owner denies the bird is dead, claiming the buyer knocked it out while shaking the cage.
“Yes! You knocked him out, just as he was waking up! The Norwegian Blues are easy to stun.
The trader further claims that the bird was nailed to the perch to prevent it from escaping.
“Like poor Mr. Praline, the complainant complains that she was sold a health product that did not contain what he said on the bottle,” Branch said in his decision.
Apparently, the court did not appreciate Branch’s application of the cultural touchstone to its decision.
When the ruling was released on July 23, all references to dead parrots had been removed.
“Corrected judgment: paragraphs 1, 2 and 143 of the judgment were corrected on July 23, 2021”, indicates the new version.
To quote the sketch, references to the dead parrot have “ceased to be”.
The ruling was removed from legal rulings databases earlier in the week.
When asked why, BC Supreme Court spokesperson Bruce Cohen, a retired judge, said: “I am informed that Justice Branch has decided to make changes to its law. decision. “
Vancouver comedian Mark Hughes believes the court action raises censorship issues. He wonders what else is being removed from court decisions.
“It didn’t even appear to be controversial,” Hughes said. “It didn’t sound like insulting anyone. I think it’s funny.
However, Hughes questioned why the court would revert to and vary the rulings.
“Aren’t they having fun with court documents? ” He asked. “Is this a form of censorship? “
Hughes said humor is a subjective thing. He asked if a horror movie was referenced rather than a comedy sketch, would the court rewrite that?
“If someone gets upset about something and thinks it’s inappropriate, should it be deleted? Hughes asked.
He said the judge used the sketch as a device to communicate and suggested that using something like a horror movie reference would be no more and no less than a device.
Python John Cleese was in the sketch. Glacier Media contacted him for comment without success.
The plaintiff in this case is Uttra Kumari Krishnan. She initiated a class action lawsuit against several defendants, including numerous supermarkets and pharmacies in British Columbia.
She had requested glucosamine sulfate (GS) for joint pain on the recommendation of a pharmacist.
It alleges that the manufacturer defendants – Jamieson Pharmaceuticals Ltd., WN Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Natural Factors Nutritional Products Ltd. – made supplements labeled as containing GS when in reality the products did not.
She said she was not sure what was in the bottles, but argued that what is important is that it was not GS.
The proposed class includes those who, since May 2016, have purchased a product labeled as containing Glucosamine Sulfate, Glucosamine Sulfate, Potassium Chloride, Glucosamine Sulfate KCL, or Glucosamine Sulfate.
On July 21, the branch approved a settlement agreement that included the companies’ commitment to request the re-labeling of their GS products, cooperation through the provision of documentation and payment of $ 450,000.