Freedom of Speech in Canada

[flylock shox]

Didn't see a thread on this interesting human rights case in Canada.

Quebec’s Human Rights Tribunal ruled Wednesday that the popular bilingual comedian Mike Ward violated the right to equality of Jérémy Gabriel and ordered the comic to pay $35,000 for mocking the 19-year old singer who has a condition that causes facial disfigurement.

The tribunal said the comedian’s jokes discriminated against Gabriel, who came to fame when he travelled to Rome to sing for Pope Benedict XVI in 2006.

In a recurring bit that Ward used in his stand-up act between 2010 and 2013, he would tell his audience that he was pleased to see Gabriel achieve fame and attention after his papal visit. “Everyone said he sucked, but I defended him,” Ward would repeat to the crowd. “They would say he is terrible, but I was like, ‘He’s dying but he’s living a dream, leave him alone.’ ”

Ward would then pivot into a feigned realization that Gabriel isn’t dying: while Treacher Collins syndrome, which he has, can sometimes cause serious, life-threatening respiratory complications, that is not the case in this instance.

“But now, five years later, and he’s still not dead. Me, I defended him, like an idiot, and he won’t die,” Ward would exclaim.

“He’s unkillable. I saw him at the water park. I tried to drown him, but I couldn’t. Then I went on the Internet to figure out what was wrong with him, and you know what it was? He’s ugly, goddammit.”

Justice Scott Hughes said in his decision that Ward’s jokes were “discriminatory” and “clearly prohibited by the Charter.”

I heard about this case a year or so ago, and had been waiting for the outcome because, to me at least, it has pretty powerful implications for free speech in Canada (well, Quebec anyway).

My own views are that - as harsh as the jokes are, and as young as their target is - they're clearly jokes, and this ruling is pretty bad for the art of black humour and freedom of speech generally. This ruling, along with the general law of defamation in Canada (and, moreover, the lack of a cap on damages for defamation), could result in too much of a squeeze on free speech - which is one of the most critical rights a person can have.

I'd be curious to hear what others think about this case, and where people would draw the line if it was up to them.

[4X4]

As funny as it would be for that "comic" to get fined for his ridiculous "jokes", this wont hold up. And it shouldn't. Even though in this case, I kinda wish it would.

[Canehdianman]

It's funny that they didn't consider that stopping people from making fun of him is treating him not equally.

I hope that human rights tribunals do good most of the time, but all of the cases that make the news make them look idiotic.

[RougeUnderoos]

Wow. What a maggot.

If some hack was making money by ridiculing my (hypothetical) disabled child, I think I'd go after him too. I'd be a coward to just let him go ahead and keep doing it.

On the other hand, if that's how the guy pays the bills, he's got bigger problems, and will probably end it for himself soon enough.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Low brow humour should definitely be illegal.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Low brow humour should definitely be illegal.

You might be a redneck?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You might be a redneck?

Better watch out or someone will tattle on you to a human rights tribunal!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Obvious abuse of the legislation, even the guy who drafted it says so, appeal, judge fixes it, let's move on.

... I really, really hope...

[GGG]

We really need to get rid of human rights tribunals. The regular courts can address these things under regulat laws. No need to abandon die process

[btimbit]

"Now, just because what is being said comes around to you, and you decide to take it seriously, all of a sudden they're not jokes anymore they're treated at statements" - Bill Burr

"Theres a big difference between what I think, and what I think is funny" - Jim Jefferies

They're just jokes folks. You aren't meant to take them seriously

[Fuzz]

Jokes are fine, I'm ok with a lot of stuff in bad taste but I do think that piking on an individual who is not a public figure and going at it more than a one line joke is perhaps going a bit far. Kind of a dick move, really. Now, does this need to go to the human rights tribunal? Seams a bit extreme as well.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Obvious abuse of the legislation, even the guy who drafted it says so, appeal, judge fixes it, let's move on.

... I really, really hope...

Human Rights Tribunals have been abused for decades now. Why would this case trigger change where previous abuses would not?

But yes, this is just a flat out embarrassing judgment.