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