babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Comedian Mike Ward ordered to pay 35k+ in damages for offensive comedy
July 23, 2016 - 11:33pm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-comedian-ordered-to-...
As for my stance I think the first line in this writeup says it all...
http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-ruling-against-mike-ward-in-j...
The first rule of comedy that all comedians are taught is “F**k’em if they can’t take a joke!”
So, yeah, fuck 'em.
Mike Ward also has to pay the kid's mother five grand in moral damages, and two grand in punitive damages. Fuck him and fuck her too.
To be clear, Mike Ward's comedic treatment of Jeremy Gabriel was repulsive and not at all funny, but he should have the freedom to be repulsive and even to maliciously target specific disadvantaged individuals with his comedy.
I wouldn't say it was not at all funny, though he overdid it with the "kill him" stuff.
And the "subwoofer on the head" and calling him ugly is making fun of his disability.
I expect that what put this over the top is the fact that he is a child, and that it was argued he faced bullying because of it.
I think it is good that there is going to be an appeal, not because I think he shouldn't have faced some sort of censure (specifically in treating a child this way), but because this ruling, and the size of the award, and the fact that it was done by a tribunal, leaves a lot of things hanging in the air.
There's a lot of things people say that is repulsive. Most comedians these days like to have an 'edgy' act because it sells tickets.
I heard it,it wasn't funny,it was offensive abd Mike Ward is an asshole.
Having said that,suing someone over a joke,no matter how bad tasting it is,is frivulous.
It's ridiculous. I like knowing I can say whatever I want but apparently,I can't.
I think the courts went way too far. There's no excuse to fine or criminalize speech. Unless that speech incites and encourages violence and murder.
George Carlin was a genius and was proudly profane.Like Lenny Bruce before Carlin's 'change', Carlin was arrested simply for saying a word - 'fuck' which doesn't even have a clear definition anyway.
Bill Hicks was funny too.
Red Skeleton? Would you argue that Milton Berle was a bigger comedic genius than Carlin? C'mon.
The courts were not involved because in Canada you cannot sue based on discrimination you have to go to a tribunal. We have criminal hate laws and human rights laws. One to protect groups from being subjected to hate speech that could lead to violence and the other to protect individuals from having their dignity stripped away from them because of things like a disability. He discriminated against an individual and walked the line on saying he wished he was dead. This is a 12 year old boy with a disability. There is no humour in it just vile nastiness.
Many people don't like our human rights laws and one of their main spokespeople is Ezra Levant. He also believes that you should be able to say any vile and nasty thing you want about people based on things like their sexual orientation or gender or diability.
This story has a good explanation on the leagl reasoning the adjudicator used.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-comedian-human-rights-t...
Oh please,K. Don't mix me in with Ezra Levant.
I don't condone his speech but suing someone for making fun of you or offending you is frivilous. If we start suing people for mocking you or making fun of you or offending you we open the doors to religious bullshit,where these loons can sue at will for being made fun of and/or being offended by words.
Having listened to Jeremy Gabriel singing, I wonder how he got to sing for the Celine Dion and the Pope.
Interstingly enough, Mike Ward's joke about Jeremy Gabriel was almost the first thing I thought of when I heard the Tragically Hip were doing a final tour with Gordon Downie who had been diagnosed with terminal brain tumour. I had not heard the Mike Ward joke when I thought to myself, those Hip fans who buy tickets to this final tour are going to be paying a big price, and will probably feel ripped off if Downie lives to tour again.
Now, if the subject of Ward's joke had been Gord Downie, does anyone thing there would have been such a complaint lodged, and upheld by a human rights tribunal? My opinion is the complaint would not have been upheld, mostly because Downie is a public figure, subject to public comment and criticism.
In my mind, the Jeremy Gabriel issue hinges on whether he was a public figure. Having sung at Montreal Canadiens games, for Celine Dion, for the Pope, and having many other public performances, I suggest he is a public figure, and subject to the same scrutiny as Gord Downie.
And Exra Levant doesn't come into this argument at all. He published a slander, Mike Ward didn't.
For the record, the kid is now 19, not 12, nor was he 12 when Ward began making his jokes. And he was not "discriminated against" any more than Chris Rock "discriminates" against black people by telling his black people vs niggers routine. Speech alone cannot be discriminatory. It is a fundamental principle of free speech that speech is not an action.
I hate Ezra Levant but I agree with him about speech. Canada's hate speech laws are not in anyone's interest, and "free speech trolling" is a glorious and noble enterprise. Mind you, I was the kid who drew a swastika on my shirt in high school because people told me I couldn't. And I would say much worse things than Mike Ward did in the name of free speech. It's much more important to stand up for the right to be offensive than it is not to offend. I realized my actions were in poor taste, but I didn't care. I wasn't trying to be funny, I was trying to make a point - you have no right not to be offended, and if you think you do, you deserve to be offended, and I will be the one to offend you.
I don't like this ruling because of the precedent it sets. Should Jean Chretien have been able to sue comedians who made fun of his facial paralysis? What if the comedian took it to the next step and said Chretien should go die? Suppose we find ourselves with a terrible, dictatorial leader, who just happens to have a lazy eye, and he says "I'll sue the pants off anyone who makes fun of my lazy eye!"
This is kind of a tough one. On the one hand, I don't doubt that those jokes really did make Gabriel and his family feel like shit. On the other hand, I can imagine lots and lots of people who've felt laughed at or mocked or whatever are going to be eager to get their dignity reparations too.
That said, I'm seeing two non-sequiturs creeping into the discussion:
1. "Gabriel was a minor" -- if this is important to the case, is it important enough to be written into law?
2. "Ward wasn't even funny!" -- if this is important to the case then don't we have to at least acknowledge that anyone who did find Ward funny has every right to believe he's innocent?
Every time a discrimination issue arises on this board the same people bemoan the loss of the right to free speech. Strange how a person's right to enjoy life without discrimination is not as high a priority as your right to say vile and nasty things about anyone for any reason. I suggest you move to the US where they allow more hate speech and have no human rights legislation. I like the idea that you cannot attack my son because he is disabled especially if you are trying to make money mocking his disability.
Personally, I'd agree that Ward's set wasn't particularly funny -- and I'll be honest here, and admit that I've had many a very guilty laugh over patently offensive material that's at least clever. And I've heard it suggested that meanness is, in a primitive way, the essence of humour (which explains things like the old banana peel).
I did, though, find his "joke" about "... and he's still not dead!" to be at least a little bit interesting. I think many people erroneously believe that "Make-a-Wish" only grants wishes to terminally ill kids who are soon to die. The notion that, upon receiving the free trip to Disneyland, some kid should be expected to hold up his end of that contract is so petty and absurd that I think it can only qualify as satire, though probably not of the "LOL" variety.
Magoo, do you REALLY want the kind of cookie-cutter justice you are talking about in saying "why isn't there a hard law on this"? We might as well get rid of judges.
I'm conflicted about this too. But I do think the fact he was a minor, and that the argument was successfully made that he suffered bullying because of it is significant.
But I also think it should be appealed, because I am sure a lot of people ARE left wondering how far they can go.
And kropotkin, the last time a high profile case on an issue similar to this went to the supreme court - the Whatcott case - they struck down the parts of Saskatchewan's human Rights code that denied the right to ridicule.
It was a good decision.
Is it nice? No. But should it be criminal? No. Not if you want the same freedom to ridicule people for their religious beliefs.
Who said it should be criminal. The only thing in our criminal code are anti-hate speech laws which I agree with. Should some speech be banned by human rights laws and the perpetrators forced to pay fines is a very different topic. This comedian was trying to make money off of someone's personal circumstances. If he went over the line and violated that persons rights to dignity and security of their person then why shouldn't he be made to pay them for their loss of dignity and security. It's not like he did it for giggles at a drunken party. He did it for profit. He gambled on getting away with a vile joke and lost his money, so sad isn't it.
I don't think it's "cookie-cutter justice" to write down somewhere that if you make fun of a minor you should expect a more likely penalty, or a harsher one.
If a drunk driver plows into a van, killing one occupant, should they face a greater chance of conviction, or a larger sentence upon conviction, if the person they killed:
- was a pregnant newlywed
- was 12
- had just landed their dream job, and had their whole life ahead of them
- etc.
My understanding is that the law doesn't differentiate between the values of those lives. If we should, is there some reason we couldn't write that into law? Somehow make it clear IN LAW that this is worse if you do it to a minor? I'm not really seeing the difficulty here, nor do I think that a clause about minors means we have to anticipate every possible case. We do this all the time in law -- a familiar example would be that the killing of a police officer, even if unintentional, is first degree murder. If that were NOT written down anywhere in the law, and yet someone unintentionally killing a police officer were charged with first degree murder, and sentenced to 25 years, would anyone say "wait a sec... where does it say anything about this??"
Or how about we get rid of "tribunals"?
I believe in the law of the land, and that it dictates to us what we can and cannot do, but I also believe that the law should both specify this clearly, and be interpreted narrowly. Otherwise is to invite judges to make it up as they go along, or to make judgements based on their personal emotional reaction rather than just the law.
Your son should be fair game for mocking as far as the law is concerned. I am sure you like the idea of the law backing you up so that you don't have to confront such a person yourself, but is this a valid matter for the courts, or a waste of their time?
As for anyone's "right to enjoy life without discrimination," nobody has a "right" to enjoy life, because enjoyment is a state of mind. Depending on what you mean by "discrimination," you might have a right to freedom from it, but I don't see how a comedian telling jokes in poor taste should be any kind of matter for the law, or can be said to cause actionable "harm." Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can only harm me if I allow them to.
Was that an element in the decision? I haven't read it in full yet.
How would that distinction make a difference in law? I appreciate that the laws are different in each jurisdiction, but I'm just wondering why you're emphasizing this aspect. If what Ward did is similar to bullying, why is money vs. just plain "fun" a factor?
More "Nordic model" laws.
Actually you can only go to a tribunal not a court of law. When you get to the Tribual if your complaint makes it through the filtering system designed to keep frivilous cases from going forward then in fact you are requitred to confront the person directly.
Sorry about the choice of words that gave you an opportunity to play semantics, let me rephrase. Everyone has the right to live life without discrimination. That is not a uniquely Canadian viewpoint but it is one that varies widely from country to country. I will not argue with you over whether or not we should have any human rights laws at all.
I did post a good summary of why the Tribunal found the way they did. Rather than the "sky is falling view" of fining an asshole for a personal attack based on someone's disability it seems to me that the worst case scenario is that some other asshole will think twice about doing the same thing.
I don't think it is a bad thing to insist that if it can be shown that you suffered actual harm from the words of someone who was using you to make money that you can be your own version of an asshole and take them to a Tribunal. Personally I would likely just attack the asshole verbally in person and on the internet. I would also probably have information pamphlets made up to explain to people what they are about to pay money to see. The controversy might bring him a bigger audience or it might ruin his career. I would be willing to take that chance with his livelihood similarly to how he would be willing to chance it that his "jokes" might cause damage that is actionable. In our legal system you are held accountable for creating dangerous situations if the damage manifests itself. The Tribunal found that harm had occurred if had not harmed him they would not have awarded any damages.
I was highlighting it because IMO it makes his actions more reprehensible. It is a personal thing that I think being an asshole for money is worse than just being a run of the mill asshole. I also think that a contract killer is more reprehensible than someone who murders for personal reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34
Though Magoo, my point was that these cases often come down to the circumstances, so I wouldn't expect every possibility to be written into law. Like I said, I think the fact he was a minor (and more importantly, the fact Ward was ridiculing a specific person) played into it.
If it was just Ward making fun of a disability, well...I'd recommend going to the library and renting "The Aristocrats" to see how far one can go with that, for profit, and still have it available to the public, through a civic institution, paid by our tax dollars, no less.
Sad for us, that we feel the need to see such behaviour "punished." Why shouldn't he "gamble" on "getting away" with a vile joke? People should have the absolute freedom to joke - even to the point of slander or libel, because after all, it's a joke!
Why he shouldn't be made to pay for their loss of dignity is that you can't put a price on dignity, nor do you have the right to dignity. If I shout something offensive at you on the street, and then people point at you and laugh, should you have the right to sue me for it? Why should the legal system entertain such petty bullshit?
I don't respond to moving goal posts. Its a game that only the person moving the goalposts can win.
You acknowledge libel and slander as reasonable limits on speech. Libel and slander are damages to people reputation another one of those vague non-physical concepts of harm. Your post leads one to think that you believe in the absolute right to belittle people no matter what the consequences and that you put no value on others people's dignity only on their reputations. I obviously do not share that view and think that if you harm someone then you should pay. There is no right to harm in my version of society. You are of course entitled to hold any opinion including the opinion that people being subjected to discriminatory talk should just shut up and live with it.
This pretty well sums up my non-legal-expert view of the situation. Had Mike Ward been picking on some kid next door and consistently exposing him to public attention and ridiculing him, I'd be very disposed to penalties - maybe even (depending on the nature of the bullying) criminal ones.
In this case - who exactly was it who put Jérémy in the public eye? And was that done because of, or irrespective of, his disability? Perhaps the reasons for decision deals with that question - but I think it's an important one, in this context.
Here's the decision, by the way - not sure if anyone has cited it yet. It's en français. I'll get around to reading it and report back here. Not sure if an English version exists.
"What's weird is that when you write a joke, you don't realize that there's an actual human being behind whoever you're making fun of, and the court thing made me realize that." - Mike Ward, from his interview on richochet
Was there slander? The tribunal found there was discrimination which affected Jeremy's dignity, honour and reputation. But they did notfind that Ward said anything untrue.
Ward's jokes might have been considered protected speech if they "aimed at truth, contributed to social and political decision making or were an expression of self-fulfillment".
The court found Ward's speech did not meet those criteria.
That last bit is probably why there should be an appeal. Most obscenity cases involved material that people thought was not worth the paper it was printed on.
Should it really be up to a tribunal to decide what is and is not expression worthy of protection?
Again, in the Whatcott decision the court found that some of his printed statements which were very discriminatory were allowable because they did not specifically incite hatred. And the lower tribunal gave him similar leeway because they felt concern for the welfare of children meant that people should have greater allowance for that kind of expression, even if it is discriminatory.
Just another example (following on my comment to Magoo, above) of how there is sometimes a lot of leeway in the way these situations are interpreted.
As far as I know (and IANAL), it doesn't have to be untrue to be slander (or more properly "defamation"), whether under common law or Québec civil code.
I just have a difficult time seeing how this decision (if appealed) will be upheld, given precedents like this:
Top court sides with MP over cabbie comments
Yes, perhaps you are right. Though the issue was discrimination, not slander. It was a human rights tribunal.
Agreed - I was just commenting about the "truth" thing.
The André Arthur case (which I linked to above) is much more on point, though I'd need to go back and read the actual SCC decision. So much to do, so little time.
To be more specific, I was wondering if calling someone ugly and making fun of how they look - even if it had to do with a disability - would meet the bar for slander. It isn't a false statement, nor does cast the person in a bad light in terms of behaviour.
That is really all he did. As for making light of the fact he didn't die, if that was taken as serious, we really are in trouble.