Comedian Mike Ward ordered to pay 35k+ in damages for offensive comedy

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.

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.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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?

Thing is, jokes about Gord Downie would probably make him and his family feel pretty shitty as well, but as someone else opined, most people would probably think that, as a well-paid public performer, he should just bite the bullet, especially if the real target of the joke is not Downie himself, but the allegedly harebrained nostalgists who are shelling out big bucks just because they think Downie is gonna die soon.

Of course, Downie's been in the public eye for long enough that most people would probably say he should be able to roll with it. Which might not be the case with Gabriel, but then, how do you write THAT kind of cutoff into the law?

As for Gabriel being a minor, well, Prussian Blue(google with caution) were minors when they hit the big time, and one of them got cancer. But I'd really like to see any progressives defend THEIR right to be free of illness-based public bullying. Or, at least, defend it with a straight face.

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.

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.

Quote:

why is money vs. just plain "fun" a factor?

More "Nordic model" laws.

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This comedian was trying to make money off of someone's personal circumstances.

Was that an element in the decision? I haven't read it in full yet.

Quote:

It's not like he did it for giggles at a drunken party. He did it for profit. 

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?

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. 

Rev Pesky wrote:

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.  

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. 

[url=http://soquij.qc.ca/decisions/fr/51307297-1.doc]Here's the decision[/url], 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.

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.

Yes, perhaps you are right. Though the issue was discrimination, not slander. It was a human rights tribunal.

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.

Wasn't there a Québec comedian whose act was mimicking a parapalegic or someone suffering from MS ? I know I'm not hallucinating. Where was the tribunal for that? And how many hundreds of suits would have been launched?

To clarify, Jean-Marc Parent I think his name is...overweight dude with a beard...part of his act was feigning being disabled..He'd do his act in a wheelchair.

alan smithee wrote:

Wasn't there a Québec comedian whose act was mimicking a parapalegic or someone suffering from MS ? I know I'm not hallucinating. Where was the tribunal for that? And how many hundreds of suits would have been launched?

To clarify, Jean-Marc Parent I think his name is...overweight dude with a beard...part of his act was feigning being disabled..He'd do his act in a wheelchair.

The difference would seem to be that in the case we are discussing the "jokes" were about a specific identifiable individual and the Tribunal found that it had caused harm to him. Ergo since the comedian harmed someone he was told to pay restitution.

I guess no one else on this board believes that dignity of the person is the basis of all human rights. It must be one of those quaint ideas like a woman should have the right to walk down the street without being harassed by misogynist assholes. After all what harm can it cause to shout show us your tits at random women? Its only a joke and how could it be anything but a free speech issue. That kind of speech could never cause any real harm, right?

Or is it only disabled people who should not expect to have the right to dignity of the person. If you see a disabled person then obviously the only real right is the right of freedom speech to go up to them and mock and joke about their disability. The disabled person has no right to their personal dignity, that is just frivolity. It would be frivolous for women or disabled people to have a forum like a human rights Tribunal that can look at the specifics of the case and see if they believe harm has occurred that should be the subject of restitution.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The difference would seem to be that in the case we are discussing the "jokes" were about a specific identifiable individual and the Tribunal found that it had caused harm to him. Ergo since the comedian harmed someone he was told to pay restitution.

Incredibly dangerous, the way you pose it. "Caused harm". So if my stand-up comedy act consists of calling you a "closet Liberal" (where it's obvious that this isn't intended as some false factual allegation), and you bring evidence of how much that horrendous charge hurts you, and affects your dignity, and infringes on your freedom of thought and expression... you believe there's some human rights law in your province, or federally, that exposes me to some penalty? Or to a "cease and desist" order? If so, please identify that law.

Or how about this: "Rabbi so-and-so is a traitor to Judaism, because of his support for Zionism!!" Infringement on freedom of religion? On the Rabbi's "dignity"?

FYI, the Mike Ward case was decided on the basis of very specific articles of the Québec Charter:

Quote:

4. Toute personne a droit à la sauvegarde de sa dignité, de son honneur et de sa réputation.

10. Toute personne a droit à la reconnaissance et à l'exercice, en pleine égalité,des droits et  libertés de la personne,  sans distinction, exclusion ou préférence fondée sur la race, la couleur, le sexe, la grossesse, l'orientation sexuelle, l'état civil,  l'âge sauf  dans la mesure prévue par  la loi,  la religion,  les convictions politiques,  la  langue,  l'origine  ethnique  ou  nationale,  la  condition  sociale,  le handicap ou l'utilisation d'un moyen pour pallier ce handicap.

49. Une atteinte illicite à un droit  ou à une liberté reconnue par  la présente Charte confère à la victime le droit d'obtenir la cessation de cette atteinte et la réparation du préjudice moral ou matériel qui en résulte. En cas d'atteinte illicite et intentionnelle, le tribunal peut en outre condamner son auteur à des dommages-intérêts punitifs.

You can find the English version [url=http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/rsq-c-c-12/latest/]here[/url].

The decision also cites sections 3 and 35 of the Québec Civil Code re damage to reputation. Unfortunately, such civil law is not reduced to writing in the "common law" provinces, so far as I know.

So, again: What human rights law would Mike Ward have been charged with violating in your province? Just wondering, because I'm obviously not familiar with all the different human rights codes.

Quote:

I guess no one else on this board believes that dignity of the person is the basis of all human rights.

That hurts. That really hurts. Please retract that with ten (10) business days, or I'll see you in court.

More seriously, I was under the impression that human rights laws are intended to protect marginalized groups against discrimination in employment, lodging, provision of public services, treatment by government at all levels, etc. I never realized that a public speaker saying "All Americans are war criminals, because they benefit from the crimes of their regime!", who responds to a heckler saying "I resent that, I'm American!" by saying, "well, then you're a war criminal too!!!" - would be liable to penalties for having discriminated against an individual based on their national origin.

In fact - if that is indeed the consequence of human rights laws, whether in Québec or elsewhere, then we need to change the law.

Thanks, Smith - never knew about that Supreme Court decision. Food for thought, indeed.

Unionist wrote:

More seriously, I was under the impression that human rights laws are intended to protect marginalized groups against discrimination in employment, lodging, provision of public services, treatment by government at all levels, etc.

Actually the Charter protects us from discrimination by the government. Human rights laws protect us from discrimination by individuals and other non-governental actors. Your Quebec Charter uses the words; "No one may" and is clearly meant to do prohibit all discromination not just governmental.

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms wrote:

4.  Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.

49.  Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages.

In BC the relevant portion of the Human Rights Code restricts "A person" from various forms of discrimination including;

BC Human Rights Code wrote:

Discriminatory publication

7  (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

As you can see it does not include private communications but this was not private it was intended to be public and despite intention not being a factor in human rights complaints it is clear that this asshole was purposely trying to expose this young man to contempt if not hatred as well. So go ahead throw out some more deflections to show that it is outrageous that this young man's dignity is not worth protecting. Like I said above even on babble it is clear most people don't really believe in human rights legislation that protects people's right to dignity only their right to not be refused an apartment and similar things. Fair enough we will just have to agree to disagree since I think dignity is the basis for all human rights and a comedian trying to get a public laugh out of a disabled person should indeed be ordered to pay restitution if harm is shown. 

So basically, some posters here are claiming that if you are saying it to be funny you can say anything at all, like say people of a certain color deserve to be lynched is fine or saying certain people deserve to be raped is fine as long as it is part of a comedy routine so you are only "joking". 

The right to free speech was intended to protect political speech not abuse of minorities.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

An interesting take on this from the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/quebec-comed...

I agree with the bit about Ward getting sloppy, and that in some ways it is good timing for him. Still think this decision needs a second opinon, because not everyone who might run afoul of it has a new TV show launching.

And come on, kropotkin. I can appreciate that this is an issue which hits close to home for you, but you aren't shy with the smears either. Case in point, this misrepresentation you are trying to pass off. Saying that no one here cares about dignity of the person is simply nonsense.

That comment was about people on private message board within that melieu. If he started a vendetta against babble posters on youtube that would be a different matter.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So go ahead throw out some more deflections to show that it is outrageous that this young man's dignity is not worth protecting. Like I said above even on babble it is clear most people don't really believe in human rights legislation that protects people's right to dignity only their right to not be refused an apartment and similar things. Fair enough we will just have to agree to disagree since I think dignity is the basis for all human rights and a comedian trying to get a public laugh out of a disabled person should indeed be ordered to pay restitution if harm is shown. 

Thanks for the info about the BC human rights legislation.

And please see someone in health care about your hands. They must be hurting something awful from that "biggest straw man evvveerrrr!" you're building.

I get that you deeply love Jérémy, while I think he deserves every vicious and dirty insult he gets from that saintly Mike Ward. What I don't get is how you uncovered the Real Me quite so quickly.

And by the way, on a more serious note, let go of the "dignity" theory. Sounds like a very cool First World preoccupation. Human rights are about women having the vote, children of colour being allowed to go to the same schools as whites, Jews being allowed to buy property in Québec (remind to send you a 1955 bill of sale wherein the purchaser guarantees not to re-sell or lease to "persons of the Jewish race"), Indigenous folks being served in public establishment whether the asshole owner wants to or not, LGBTQ+ folks not being fired when their gender or orientation is discovered - etc.

Look after all that, and in my humble submission, dignity will grow incrementally.

But if I publicly call you an asshole and an idiot, I really don't expect the authorities to round me up. Your dignity would survive such a slur, anyway.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yeah, that's exactly what we're saying Pondering. You forgot to mention kicking little dogs for fun, though.

Thanks for the confirmation. I disagree with you. Ward is planning on taking it to the Supreme Court, which I haven't got a problem with. Hoping Jeremy will die before the case reaches that level I do have a problem with. Maybe Ward can motivate one of his fans to grant him his wish.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Maybe Ward can motivate one of his fans to grant him his wish.

See.... two can play at that game.

With any luck you won't have someone knocking at the door with a subpoena.

His supporters have been equally hyperbolic, many of them proclaiming the end of free speech in Canada. And yet Ward was not prevented from taking the Nasty Show stage the evening after the judgment, or from adding to his stock of Jérémy Gabriel jokes by saying: “I’ll go to the Supreme Court … I’ll stretch this thing out until the kid dies!”

...

We’ve had legal protections against harmful speech since before Confederation. A cadre of libel lawyers make a good living vetting articles for The Globe and other media outlets, to make sure we don’t say something actionable. There are many possible comments that I wouldn’t and shouldn’t be permitted to make about Ward, or anyone else, in these pages.

To pretend that those legal constraints apply to everyone but stand-up comics is naive. To imagine that standards of civility don’t apply to comedians or social media trolls is a malady of the times, but the condition is treatable. Don Rickles, a pioneer of insult comedy, appeared at JFL two years ago, and as usual ridiculed a number of people sitting near the stage. He also made it up to them immediately, with a word or phrase that showed he respected their humanity. The current generation of nasty comics could learn from his example.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/quebec-comed...

Ward targeted a specific 13 year old with a disability. When asked to stop instead of showing some humanity he doubled down on picking on a 13 year old. Comics get a lot of latitude which they should but there are limits.