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

Pondering wrote:

Comics get a lot of latitude which they should but there are limits.

Where, though?

Joking about someone really wishing a child dead, and deliberately encouraging someone to commit murder? Do you think that might be a little bit further over the line than making fun of someone's appearance? 

Fact is we have limits, which are for the most part a good balance. Whether this decision will stand or, like some others, be struck down, remains to be seen.

Unionist wrote:

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.

Unionist wrote:

I see. So, what if I call some Catholic bishop, by name, a fucking asshole and pervert because he opposes women's right to choose? And what if I mercilessly ridicule his stupid and anti-human "faith", you know, that Jesus fucking Christ told him to be a shithead, haw haw haw. And what if I kept going after him in that vein day after day after day, and earn a million bucks from all my laughing audiences. And what if the poor shit is profoundly "hurt" by my attacks and charges me with discrimination based on his sincerely held fascist religious beliefs.

You think he is protected by human rights legislation??

As you see, all I've done is replace "disability" by "religion".

SMH

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Comics get a lot of latitude which they should but there are limits.

Where, though?

Joking about someone really wishing a child dead, and deliberately encouraging someone to commit murder? Do you think that might be a little bit further over the line than making fun of someone's appearance? 

Fact is we have limits, which are for the most part a good balance. Whether this decision will stand or, like some others, be struck down, remains to be seen.

I quoted him. I wasn't joking. He expressed the desire that by the time the court case is heard Jeremy will be dead. He should be aware that a crackpot fan could take him at his word and seek to make it happen. "I was only joking" is not a license to say whatever you want.

I don't have the public platform that Ward has. The judge took that into account. The impact of Ward's "jokes" about Jeremy's illness were heard by millions.

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

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.

Unionist wrote:

I see. So, what if I call some Catholic bishop, by name, a fucking asshole and pervert because he opposes women's right to choose? And what if I mercilessly ridicule his stupid and anti-human "faith", you know, that Jesus fucking Christ told him to be a shithead, haw haw haw. And what if I kept going after him in that vein day after day after day, and earn a million bucks from all my laughing audiences. And what if the poor shit is profoundly "hurt" by my attacks and charges me with discrimination based on his sincerely held fascist religious beliefs.

You think he is protected by human rights legislation??

As you see, all I've done is replace "disability" by "religion".

SMH

Can't believe Unionist of all people juxtaposed disability vs religion. Nevermind the false equivalencies of degree.

I guess minors don't deserve our protection. It's all fair game, like the real world. Damn kids need to grow up.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Can't believe Unionist of all people juxtaposed disability vs religion.

I didn't. It's the law which makes zero distinction between discrimination based on disability and discrimination based on religion.

We have to be careful when we're suppressing speech. When you open a door for a guest, you never know who else will rush in.

Quote:

Nevermind the false equivalencies of degree.

It's hard to tell people, "your hurt isn't as bad as that other person's hurt" - when the law reads exactly the same way.

Quote:

I guess minors don't deserve our protection. It's all fair game, like the real world. Damn kids need to grow up.

So if Jérémy had been 18 years old, no problem? See, I don't see in the law where it distinguishes between minors and adults. In fact, the Commission awarded punitive damages not just to Jérémy ($10,000), but also to his mother ($5,000), for "jokes" that Ward told about her.

It's a tough case, because everyone is disgusted by Ward's assholery. But those are the kinds of cases where we have to be most vigilant not to open the door, unless we're absolutely sure about what we're doing and what impact it will have on other future cases.

This was not a case about incitement of hatred. And his being a minor is not a legal factor (though I'd say it, as well as his personal story, may have played into the decision).

It was about discrimination which they found harmed his dignity and reputation.

And my point is that there is no absolute scale of degrees when it comes to the things which are protected under the Act. Nor should there be, when someone can be attacked just as badly for any one of those things.

Ironically, Mike Ward is willing to self-censor when it comes to religion, but he stands up for his right to mock children with disabilities for profit as a sacred cause. 

swallow wrote:

Ironically, Mike Ward is willing to self-censor when it comes to religion, but he stands up for his right to mock children with disabilities for profit as a sacred cause. 

There's nothing "ironic" about it. Mike Ward is a despicable asshole. You think his "logic" in these matters is worth considering, even for its irony? I don't. The reason I am skeptical and concerned about the "human rights" charges against him has nothing whatsoever to do with him. It has to do with how the despots who rule this society will use such precedents in cases that really matter - to suppress dissent and rebellion. Mike Ward is a useful idiot to establish such a precedent. Let's not get sucked into that game, please.

I agree with you, Smith. Forgive me for wishing that we had a more worthy martyr to take on this cause.

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems that your biggest problem with the case and human rights law is that it extends to religious views. 

Nope, sorry, wrong. If some comedian makes merciless and offensive jokes against someone who loves Israeli apartheid or U.S. imperialism - yeah, some individual American - and calls them horrid offensive names because of their sincerely held political beliefs and thereby offends against their "dignity" - even if the jokes are as horrible and inexcusable as Mike Ward's, my first instinct will be to defend them against any "human rights" charges.

I am a non religious, white, temporarily able bodied, hetrosexual, male. There is no personal insult you could sling at me that would engage human rights legislation. The same goes for Israelis or imperialists. You are really trying hard to prove your point but it seems more and more like you haven't got a clue what a human rights complaint entails. The last red herring you threw out would be speech that contributes to social and political decision making.  It's not all that hard if you open your mind a little and try to analyze it in your usual thoughtful fashion.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

If some comedian makes merciless and offensive jokes against someone who loves Israeli apartheid or U.S. imperialism - yeah, some individual American - and calls them horrid offensive names because of their sincerely held political beliefs and thereby offends against their "dignity" - even if the jokes are as horrible and inexcusable as Mike Ward's, my first instinct will be to defend them against any "human rights" charges.

I am a non religious, white, temporarily able bodied, hetrosexual, male. There is no personal insult you could sling at me that would engage human rights legislation. The same goes for Israelis or imperialists. You are really trying hard to prove your point but it seems more and more like you haven't got a clue what a human rights complaint entails. The last red herring you threw out would be speech that contributes to social and political decision making.  It's not all that hard if you open your mind a little and try to analyze it in your usual thoughtful fashion.

First, this is from the 1966 U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Quote:

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

That's the international gold standard.

Now for your further information, here is a list of jurisdictions whose human rights legislation prohibits discrimination on the ground of political belief:

Quote:

Yukon, Newfoundland, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Northwest Territories

That's correct - Canada and Ontario aren't on that list. But Québec is. So if Mike Ward's ruling isn't quashed, then a comedian making merciless fun of a neighbour who supports (say) Netanyahu's policies, would be liable.

Oh, and British Columbia is on that list too. I'm sure you don't require me to cite the pertinent provisions showing that political belief enjoys exactly the same protection against discrimination as disability in B.C.

Wow, sorry I'm so naive that I didn't realize we could still bash disabled people all we want. I'm serious.

I'm shocked that race and sexual orientation are included, never mind religion (puke) and disability is not.

I'm very perturbed that some of you can't see why this is the same as Mike Ward making fun of an individual's race or sexual orientation and subjecting them to ridicule.

Colour me confused, I really thought this was the same.

Please mods, move this topic. Won't really matter anyway will it. The crippled and deformed are on their own.

Have at it U and WS. Now I see where your position comes from. Jeremy is not deserving of any protection.

Fucking pricks.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Wow, sorry I'm so naive that I didn't realize we could still bash disabled people all we want. I'm serious.

We can "bash" any group we want, so long as it doesn't cross over into hate speech.

Quote:

I'm shocked that race and sexual orientation are included, never mind religion (puke) and disability is not.

You're seriously misreading this thread. There is no difference in human rights law between race, sexual orientation, religion, and disability. You can legally do, or be prohibiting from doing, all the same things in all these cases (and others). 

Quote:

I'm very perturbed that some of you can't see why this is the same as Mike Ward making fun of an individual's race or sexual orientation and subjecting them to ridicule.

RP, listen please. It's [b]exactly[/b] the same. And it should not be banned by law - unless it's hate speech, or unless (and this didn't come up in the Mike Ward case) it's "defamation", either civil or criminal. But defamation can take just about any form, like me publishing articles saying you're a lousy pipefitter, when that's your trade and livelihood.

Quote:

Colour me confused, I really thought this was the same.

It's the same, and yes, something we said may have confused you. But let me be clear. If Mike Ward had made relentless fun about the hue and pigmentation of his young neighbour's skin, it would have been just as disgusting and repulsive. And if he had made relentless fun about his young neighbour's support for Israeli apartheid, some other people would have found it disgusting and repulsive. But once you ban one form of these jokes, the rest will not be far behind.

I'm sorry if you don't get this. You're entitled to disagree. But for you to suggest that anyone here doesn't care about a disabled minor - well, it's not true. And before making that accusation against comrades (which we all are), you should give your head a serious shake and say, "it must be me - I know these folks - this can't be what they're saying".

"...put down the malt liquor and chicken wings..."

http://tinyurl.com/zuf6jy4

I wonder what a human rights commission would have to say about that speech.

My sincere apolgies for misreading things. Still disgusted at Ward not you my friends.

voice of the damned wrote:

"...put down the malt liquor and chicken wings..."

 

http://tinyurl.com/zuf6jy4

 

I wonder what a human rights commission would have to say about that speech.

Still not remotely the same, Ward identified and targetted an individual. Enough to subject him to hate. I don't agree with the above either, but it's degrees of difference from generalizing to individualizing and personalizing, isn't it?

Morally, it's perhaps worse to denigrate a group of people but to ignite hate on a specific target? A child, with a disability? That is easily identifiable? Shame to anyone that defends that. I know your caveat, and concerns for precedent. However, I think you might (i hope) be able to agree that this is exactly the type of abuse that needs to be curtailed. This wouldn't be tolerated in the workplace, and why am I trying to reason here? You all know this shouldn't be tolerated.

I have my limits when I call abuse/bullying for what it is.

And so should you, fears notwithstanding. The only thing to fear is fear itself.

We can't allow this to happen, it's where our children learn to bully the weak.

Defend that if you want.

Also, religion.  A Catholic church is under no obligation to hire a Methodist priest.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

"...put down the malt liquor and chicken wings..."

 

http://tinyurl.com/zuf6jy4

 

I wonder what a human rights commission would have to say about that speech.

 

Still not remotely the same, Ward identified and targetted an individual. Enough to subject him to hate. I don't agree with the above either, but it's degrees of difference from generalizing to individualizing and personalizing, isn't it?

 

Morally, it's perhaps worse to denigrate a group of people but to ignite hate on a specific target? A child, with a disability? That is easily identifiable? Shame to anyone that defends that. I know your caveat, and concerns for precedent. However, I think you might (i hope) be able to agree that this is exactly the type of abuse that needs to be curtailed. This wouldn't be tolerated in the workplace, and why am I trying to reason here? You all know this shouldn't be tolerated.

So, if Warren Beatty had capped off his critique of African-American Democrats by saying that SOME PARTICULAR African-American politician needs to "put away the malt liquor and chicken wings", that should open him up to a human-rights complaint?

As for the argument that we wouldn't tolerate it in the workplace, therefore we shouldn't tolerate it as part of public debate, how far are you prepared to take that argument? Here's a picture(from another website) that someone posted a few months ago on babble(under the mistaken impression that it was real)...

http://tinyurl.com/zhszdf6

Now, assuming we all know it's a fake, if you were to make that photoshop with a picture of a woman at your office and send it to all your co-workers via e-mail, I'd certainly think that she should be able to sue you for sexual harassment or discrimination. Do you think Condi Rice, a public figure involved in numerous controversies, should be able to launch the same sort of legal action?

I realize that, for most people(myself included), the kid in Quebec is going to make a more sympathetic figure than a US Secretary Of State. Doesn't change the fact that, having sung for the Pope and at various sporting events etc, the kid HAS willingly become a public figure.

Oh, probably not, but I think I'm right about the Priest, though.

Anyway, the important thing is that I was being facetious, in response to the post right above mine.

voice of the damned wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Also, religion.  A Catholic church is under no obligation to hire a Methodist priest.

If they need an office secretary, or a gardener, can they put "NO JEWS NEED APPLY" in their ad?

Your example is not well thought out.

 

 

Well, I'd imagine that religion is something like political-beliefs, in provinces where that is a protected class. If you want to run for leader of the NDP, the party can presumbaly require that you be a member. Not so if they put an ad in the paper asking for someone to clean their offices on the weekend.

Nothing to do with religion or political beliefs as such. It's closer to what Magoo said (facetiously) above. Here's a typical exception, this one from the federal code, but all the provincial ones have similar exceptions:

Quote:

15 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if

• (a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;

Thus, depending on the job, an employer could lawfully argue for an exclusion of applicants of the "wrong" religion or political persuasion (as in your example, and Magoo's - although in your example, NDP leader is not defined as an employee, so it would be moot). Likewise, you can think up examples where an employer could lawfully exclude a particular gender (e.g. modelling men's clothes), or age group, or others. But there's a big onus on the employer to establish that the exclusion is a necessary part of the job, not concealing some other motive.

Quote:

And I seem to recall from high-school law class that discrimination laws only kick in where the job is publically adveritised.

That part is wrong. There's no distinction in law between a job that's advertised or not. Likewise with lodging. If a lesbian hears you're renting (without advertising), and you turn her down in preference to someone else, and if it can be shown that you did this for no "bona fide" reason, then you're in violation of the law.

ETA: Just as an example from the federal code again, here's the clause:

Quote:

6 It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation

• (a) to deny occupancy of such premises or accommodation to any individual, or

• (b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Note that it says "provision", not "advertising" or even "offering". 

Unionist:

Thanks for the clarification. But just to be clear, I think the bona-fide exemption would give a church the right not to hire a cleric from another faith, wouldn't it?

Since party-leader isn't considered an employer, suppose that the NDP adverises for a speech-writer, and Ezra Levant applies. I would assume the NDP has the right to say "Sorry, but you're an extreme right-winger, and hence your beliefs are incompatible with this job."

Who gives a fuck about the minutia. Fuckface Ward is abusing a disabled person. For shame. We need to realize that our disabled friends need protection.

And I don't like the tone of the conversation.

Will you stand for the disabled? Or are they not worthy of us progressives defending them?

FUCK

Unionist you are out to lunch on this issue.  You really think that since our austerity driven society provides no services to people with disabilities that is a reason that it should also be alright to harass them. 

Yes indeed political and religious rights are included as human rights but you have been willfully blind to the actual case law that says there is a public interest defence that is always applied in those cases. In this case the adjudicator found there was no public interest in harassing this individual. With cases involving religion or politics that defense wins the day. But in your world it is better to harass people with disabilities to the point that they might commit suicide, as was the case with Ward's "jokes" and the following online harassment by people who thought it was just fine to harass a vulnerable human, because maybe at some time in the future the case law might change.

So if Ward had incorporated Rehtaeh Parsons into his act, while she was still alive, that would be fine because you know people should not be ruled by their feelings and he should have the right to harass anyone he pleases.