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

232 posts / 0 new

Wed, 2016-08-24 11:49

voice of the damned

Smith wrote:

Quote:
I don't think it would automatically be against the law even at a rally. You'd have to tell people to go out and start burning houses down for it to be inciting hatred.

Well, I don't think Keegstra ever told his students to go out and attack Jews, or commit any other sort of crime for that matter. As I remember from following the trial as a kid, the prosecution was really focussed on just the promotion of hatred itself. I recall they were very interested in questioning a student who was rumoured to have referred to himself as a "Jew-hater", as if that woulda been some sorta smoking-gun.

If someone is telling people to go out and start burning houses, I assume that's covered by the laws against incitement, full stop, never mind hate-promotion. Though I suppose if you combined the two(eg. "Hate 'em AND burn their houses!!"), the authorities could get you for both.

Wed, 2016-08-24 13:01

#203

6079_Smith_W

Holocaust denial is a specific case, actually. And even there it isn't automatic. Doug Collins was charged, but not convicted, even though he published an editorial questioning it.

My point is that just yelling nasty names, no matter how bad, and no matter where, is usually not enough in itself to land one in front of a tribunal.

I agree with you that in general all of this depends on the circumstances, but the bar is usually pretty high, and that is as it should be.

Wed, 2016-08-24 13:02

#204

6079_Smith_W

Wed, 2016-08-24 13:24

#205

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Holocaust denial is a specific case, actually. And even there it isn't automatic. Doug Collins was charged, but not convicted, even though he published an editorial questioning it.

I'm not aware that Canadian law has any provisions specifically outlawing holocause-denial, does it? I thought it would just be subsumed under promoting hatred, if that was the context in which the denial took place.

I know in Germany, it is illegal to deny the holocaust, even apart from any considerations about hate-promotion. Not sure what exactly they define as holocaust-denial, though.

Wed, 2016-08-24 17:46

#206

6079_Smith_W

No. I didn't say there were.

But it (and the whole international Jewish conspiracy lie) has a lot higher profile than denial of other genocides and mass murders, and has a long history of going hand-in-hand with other racist and political ideologies.

(not to mention that that racism is also held up as a foil by defenders of the state of Israel)

In the same way that Gabriel being a minor may have had an effect, even though it was not written into law, I expect the nature of Keegstra's racism, and where he was promoting it, had some bearing too.

After all, you don't have to search too far online to find people saying exactly what he did, and worse. Yet they aren't being shut down, or prosecuted.

Fri, 2016-08-26 17:22

#207

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze wrote:

It is absolutely a privilege. This is not a commentary on anyone's position within society. Google defines privilege as "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."

You can't separate this from social reality. And there is no special right, advantage, or immunity. They don't get to do anything special that the rest of us don't. This is a protection against systemic discrimination which they have to deal with, and we do not.

It is a shield, not a sword, which is why the interpretation in this case rightly raises some concerns.

I'll say again Boze, I am in agreement with you on this basic issue, and even on the question of ridicule as distinct from discrimination (in this case) and promotion of hatred.

But to suggest that people who face discrimination are more privileged than those of us who do not? Sorry, I don't buy that poor white guy crap from A Voice For Men, and I don't buy it here.

Yeah, and I didn't say that, or anything like that, and you know that. But we are smart enough to have a nuanced (gasp!!) discussion about the concept of privilege and the different meanings of that word. For instance, minors are second class citizens in every way, while adults are on the whole privileged relative to minors - yet the law privileges young people by treating young offenders differently, and by looking more harshly on those who transgress upon minors than on those who transgress upon adults. These statements are not incompatible, and I shouldn't need to virtue-signal by qualifying my comments with something like "I recognize that these groups are, on the whole, not privileged."

Also, if it's, hypothetically, illegal to deny the holocaust (in Germany, for example), but not illegal to deny other genocides, then that would be privilege as well. It's not like privilege is a dirty word, so you don't need to read anything further into that, but you could understand why that would be a problem for people who want a consistent set of laws for an ideal world even though we don't live in one.

Quote:
And U, you know as well as I that you can ridicule religion and call the people who believe it stupid as much as you want. There is no law against it.

Just to be clear, Canada does still have a blasphmous libel law on the books, section 296 of the criminal code:

Quote:
296 (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.

I should not be restricted to expressing anything in good faith, or in decent language. I ought to be able to troll using profane language if I so desire, including defaming the prophet Muhammad, peace and feces be upon him. You could argue this law is effectively dead, but it's still on the books.

Fri, 2016-08-26 17:58

#208

6079_Smith_W

But you did call it privilege, even when I asked for clarification.

There is nothing privileged at all about being discriminated against to the degree that there have to be laws made against it.

LGBT people are somehow more privileged because when someone assaults them their orientation can make it discrimination or an act of hate. Whereas if you or I have something similar happen it is just plain old assault?

I saw your definition. Somehow I don't get how it is privilege if it is something that requires you be put in hospital, lose your job, get thrown out of restaurants, or get continually harrassed by cops.

You see an advantage or immunity or a special right there? How?

Really, these laws have nothing to do with the victim. They are about the motive of perpetrators.

And blasphemy laws? Come on. No one is going to be charged for saying religous people are hateful, arrogant, narrow-minded brainwashed fools.

Fri, 2016-08-26 19:19

#209

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No one is going to be charged for saying religous people are hateful, arrogant, narrow-minded brainwashed fools.

That might come as a surprise to Eric Brazau, but I suppose we'll all still have to wait for the perfect victim of laws criminalizing speaking against religion. Nobody (except Andrew Coyne) wants to defend Bill Whatcott, even though his freedom of speech is as important as ours.

So the perfect victim will need to be an atheist (since speech from the pulpit is exempted from hate speech laws), someone with exactly the right level of socioeconomic privilege, someone who carefully distributes attacks among all religions, has nothing to fear from pissing off 3/4 of Canadians, and has complete and total economic freedom and enjoys publicity enough to become a test case. Then, and only then, can we establish that there's a chilling effect.

Know anyone who fits the bill? I might donate a dollar or two to her legal defense fund myself.

Fri, 2016-08-26 20:25

#210

6079_Smith_W

The charge was wilful promotion of hatred, disturbance of the peace and criminal harrassment, not blasphemy.

And it definitely goes beyond Unionist's concern about protection from mockery.

And I just posted a link about an atheist in danger of losing her job.

Fri, 2016-08-26 21:43

#211

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And U, you know as well as I that you can ridicule religion and call the people who believe it stupid as much as you want. There is no law against it.

Refusing someone work, or a seat in a restaurant, or firing them based on their personal faith? That is another matter, which is why this case is interesting:

You seem to be trying hard to disagree with me about something or other. I can't fathom what it might be. Do you seriously think I don't understand human rights legislation? That it's unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sincerely-held religious beliefs in matters of employment, lodging, and provision of public services? I've been pleading such cases in the workplace for the past 35 years or so.

So I'm perfectly prepared to violently disagree with you about something. Just do me a favour. Tell me what it is. Thanks.

And yes, people who sincerely believe in Allah, Yahweh, Jesus and the rest, really need a brain transplant to get the shit out of there and replace it with functioning neurons.

Fri, 2016-08-26 23:06

#212

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
And yes, people who sincerely believe in Allah, Yahweh, Jesus and the rest, really need a brain transplant to get the shit out of there and replace it with functioning neurons.

I think every atheist understands that the appeal of religion isn't the kneeling, or the praying, or the hymn-singing or the having your foreskin sliced off part. It's the idea of never dying. Of living forever in a paradise.

To their credit, atheists have never tried to concoct some sort of myth about this in order to woo the ontologically worried. Live while you can; cease to exist.

Sat, 2016-08-27 09:30

#213

6079_Smith_W

I'm talking to Boze, Unionist.

The only point I was making in reference to what you said is that there is no serious legal barrier to our most recent comments about religious people. We can say pretty much any insulting and mocking thing we want about them, so long as it doesn't cross the line into slander and promotion of hatred.

So no, I am not disagreeing with you.

As for Boze's point about Canada's blasphemous libel law, in the first place, it was last used in 1935, which puts it on the same order as not hitching up your horse. And in that case it was an Anglican minister libeling Catholicism (in the form of posters) so without getting into the actual case, it was an expression of the anti-Catholic discrimination that was very common at the time among dominant anglos, not the big powerful church stepping on anyone who dares to criticize them.

Not only has that law been long dormant (and from a time when it was a de facto hate law), it is now subject to the right to freedom of expression in the Charter which makes it highly unlikely that it could ever be used.

And there is a petition to repeal that law which will be presented next month.

Sat, 2016-08-27 09:40

#214

6079_Smith_W

And Magoo, I think some atheists do have myths of their own. The one about all religious people being incapable of rational thought, and their being responsible for all the evils of the world is a whopper.

And that no one has ever killed anyone in the name of atheism. Oh, and that atheism isn't a worldview, except when it is.

As for wooing people, there is the line about once you give up superstition and myth you will be perfectly rational and free of hatred and discrimination.

So while I am an atheist, and agree in general terms about the dangers of organized religion, I think there are some who share my non-believe who have shown they aren't all that different in some things than those they criticize.

Not wanting to go off on a tangent of course. I think we still have an old thread on this one.

Sat, 2016-08-27 21:51

#215

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm talking to Boze, Unionist.

The only point I was making in reference to what you said is that there is no serious legal barrier to our most recent comments about religious people. We can say pretty much any insulting and mocking thing we want about them, so long as it doesn't cross the line into slander and promotion of hatred.

So no, I am not disagreeing with you.

As for Boze's point about Canada's blasphemous libel law, in the first place, it was last used in 1935, which puts it on the same order as not hitching up your horse. And in that case it was an Anglican minister libeling Catholicism (in the form of posters) so without getting into the actual case, it was an expression of the anti-Catholic discrimination that was very common at the time among dominant anglos, not the big powerful church stepping on anyone who dares to criticize them.

Not only has that law been long dormant (and from a time when it was a de facto hate law), it is now subject to the right to freedom of expression in the Charter which makes it highly unlikely that it could ever be used.

And there is a petition to repeal that law which will be presented next month.

So, it was illegal to say things like "Never trust a bloody Papist, because they owe their allegiance to Rome"? Shit, I think it ought to be legal to say things like that today, about whatever group you want. Never trust an atheist, because they have no morals. Never trust a Jew, they're only loyal to their own. Never trust a commie, they're taking orders from Moscow. Never trust a Muslim or anybody else for that matter! DON'T TRUST THEM, YOU HEAR? BE ON GUARD AROUND THEM, THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND THEY'LL CORRUPT YOUR CHILDREN. Am I crossing the line yet or is the absurdity of all this clear yet? It should not matter what group people want to say things like this about. Freedom of speech is freedom of conscience - and if you honestly believe that atheists spread immorality, then your conscience would demand that you warn your neighbours. You can go ahead and replace "atheists" with whatever persecuted minority group you want, the law shouldn't be discriminating against discriminations.

Wed, 2019-12-11 12:01

#216

lagatta4

Unfortunately, Québec's "humour" community has been making this jerk Mike Ward some kind of hero for free speech (and vulgarity, of course), celebrating him at a gala. I won't argue the merits of the case because I don't have sufficient knowledge of the fine details of libel and free speech vs discrimination issues, but I certainly wouldn't encourage this kind of vulgar and insensitive jerk.

Wed, 2019-12-11 18:31

#217

Ken Burch

Boze wrote:

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.

Does the phrase "don't punch down!" mean anything to you?

Wed, 2019-12-11 19:33

#218

Bacchus

Well he doesnt have to pay the mom now. And the son was NOT a minor at the time

Wed, 2019-12-11 21:19

(Reply to #218) #219

cco

Ken Burch wrote:

Boze wrote:

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.

Does the phrase "don't punch down!" mean anything to you?

What's in good taste (subjective) and socially just (same) should have nothing whatsoever to do with what's legal to say.

Thu, 2019-12-12 14:21

(Reply to #219) #220

kropotkin1951

cco wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

Boze wrote:

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.

Does the phrase "don't punch down!" mean anything to you?

What's in good taste (subjective) and socially just (same) should have nothing whatsoever to do with what's legal to say.

However this went far beyond those norms and that is why it needs to be censured. If you engage in activities that have the potential to harm others then you are should be subject to paying restitution for your actions. That idea is central to both out tort law and our human rights laws. Being an asshole is not protected behaviour when it goes beyond a certain point and it shouldn't be. We have libel, human rights and hate laws that set those boundaries. This asshole is not going to jail he is merely paying some of the money he earned being an asshole to a specific person.

Thu, 2019-12-12 17:45

(Reply to #220) #221

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

cco wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

Boze wrote:

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.

Does the phrase "don't punch down!" mean anything to you?

What's in good taste (subjective) and socially just (same) should have nothing whatsoever to do with what's legal to say.

However this went far beyond those norms and that is why it needs to be censured. If you engage in activities that have the potential to harm others then you are should be subject to paying restitution for your actions. That idea is central to both out tort law and our human rights laws. Being an asshole is not protected behaviour when it goes beyond a certain point and it shouldn't be. We have libel, human rights and hate laws that set those boundaries. This asshole is not going to jail he is merely paying some of the money he earned being an asshole to a specific person.

Absolutely. Free speech does not include the right to be a bully.

Thu, 2019-12-12 18:07

(Reply to #221) #222

Pondering

Bacchus wrote:

Well he doesnt have to pay the mom now. And the son was NOT a minor at the time

He was 13 years old. That's a minor.

Thu, 2019-12-12 18:07

(Reply to #222) #223

Pondering

Bacchus wrote:

Well he doesnt have to pay the mom now. And the son was NOT a minor at the time

He was 13 years old. That's a minor.

Fri, 2019-12-13 08:14

(Reply to #223) #224

cco

Ken Burch wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

cco wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

Boze wrote:

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.

Does the phrase "don't punch down!" mean anything to you?

What's in good taste (subjective) and socially just (same) should have nothing whatsoever to do with what's legal to say.

However this went far beyond those norms and that is why it needs to be censured. If you engage in activities that have the potential to harm others then you are should be subject to paying restitution for your actions. That idea is central to both out tort law and our human rights laws. Being an asshole is not protected behaviour when it goes beyond a certain point and it shouldn't be. We have libel, human rights and hate laws that set those boundaries. This asshole is not going to jail he is merely paying some of the money he earned being an asshole to a specific person.

Absolutely. Free speech does not include the right to be a bully.

Then it literally has no meaning whatsoever. Uncontroversial speech has never been in need of protection. If you say the government should have the right to censor "bullies", you're essentially betting you'll always agree with the government on the definition of bullying. And you don't have to reach for absurd hypotheticals to demonstrate why that's a bad idea; just listen to the Tories going on about social conservatives being "bullied" for being bigots of faith.

Fri, 2019-12-13 09:04

(Reply to #224) #225

Bacchus

Pondering wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

Well he doesnt have to pay the mom now. And the son was NOT a minor at the time

He was 13 years old. That's a minor.

In 2016 he was 20. When did it happen?

Fri, 2019-12-13 14:14

#226

swallow

Jérémy Gabriel was born in 1996. He became well-known in 2006 when he sang for the Pope.

Mike Ward started to routine that mocked him viciously in 2010, when Jérémy Gabriel was certainly a minor. Mike Ward did the routine for several years.

The tribubal ruling came in 2016, when, yes, Jérémy Gabriel was no longer a minor, no longer on the receiving end of schoolmates repeating the routine to him, mocking him incessantly for his appearance, asking when he was going to die. But the death threats continue to this day. You can look at Jérémy Gabriel's facebook page for examples.

In 2019, the comedy elite gathered around to lionize Mike Ward as a hero.

Fri, 2019-12-13 14:17

(Reply to #226) #227

Pondering

Bacchus wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

Well he doesnt have to pay the mom now. And the son was NOT a minor at the time

He was 13 years old. That's a minor.

In 2016 he was 20. When did it happen?

2016 was when the judgement was handed down. You think something like that goes through the courts that fast? It's easy enough to find the facts. The judgement was based on "jokes" from 2010 to 2016. He was 13 years old when it began. Even if he were not a minor people with all manner of disabilities don't need further dehumanization. Be angry at the people who abuse free speech for personal profit.

Fri, 2019-12-13 18:43

(Reply to #227) #228

kropotkin1951

cco wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

Absolutely. Free speech does not include the right to be a bully.

Then it literally has no meaning whatsoever. Uncontroversial speech has never been in need of protection. If you say the government should have the right to censor "bullies", you're essentially betting you'll always agree with the government on the definition of bullying. And you don't have to reach for absurd hypotheticals to demonstrate why that's a bad idea; just listen to the Tories going on about social conservatives being "bullied" for being bigots of faith.

Free speech in Canada does not include the right to defame an individual or to libel them or in this case to harass them based on a personal characteristic that is protected from discrimination under both the Charter and Human Rights Codes. What he did was not merely rude it was life altering for this young man and that is what he is being fined for. He did damage so he should pay, that's the legal principal underlying most of our laws relating to interpersonal relations. I will remember his name and make sure I never watch anything he is involved with, he's an asshole not a free speech activist..

Sun, 2019-12-15 09:14

#229

lagatta4

What I find most disturbing is the comedy industry here banding around the bully. This follows in the wake of Just for Laughs; unfortunately mostly toilet or sexist humour, and the practical jokes consisting of humiliating passerby.

There were attempts to launch more political and satirical humour events, but none captured the lowest common denomination audience of Juste pour rire.

Sun, 2019-12-15 09:53

#230

swallow

Same.

Sun, 2019-12-15 14:13

(Reply to #230) #231

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Free speech in Canada does not include the right to defame an individual or to libel them or in this case to harass them based on a personal characteristic that is protected from discrimination under both the Charter and Human Rights Codes.

Actually, could Mike Ward have been found guilty of an offence outside Québec?

The Canadian Charter has nothing to say on the matter. Section 15 basically says that every is guaranteed equality "before and under the law" regardless of race, colour, disability, etc. An individual can't be "charged" under Section 15 - it only constrains the actions of governments, courts, etc.

The Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, however has a section 10.1, which provides: "No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10." - those grounds include race, religion, disability, etc. "No one" means no one, including individuals - e.g., Mike Ward.

The Canadian Human Rights Act does not contain any equivalent broad restriction. Essentially, it prohibits discrimination in: 1) provision of goods or services that are normally aimed at the public (e.g., "we won't sell to Presbyterians or amputees"), 2) employment (hiring, promotion, etc. etc.); and 3) commercial premises or residential accommodation. In other words - someone getting up in public and ridiculing or harassing people based on race, colour, creed, disability, etc. are not subject to the CHRA. They may wander over into hate speech, which is a Criminal Code matter.

So my question relates to the provincial human rights codes. Are there any which contain a provision similar to section 10.1 of the Québec Charter? I'd be surprised if they did, but I'm asking because I don't know.

Kropotkin? Anyone?

Sun, 2019-12-15 20:16

#232

kropotkin1951

I just did a quick look at the BC Code and it has not added harassment but like the CHC almost exclusively deals with denial of services or discrimination in the delivery of things available to the public by private people.

The Quebec law gives a very good direct route to protect oneself from abuse. Your laws are all based on the civil law tradition while in the rest of Canada we have a common law tort system with Human Rights Codes trying to fill in the gaps because discrimination was not recognized as a stand alone tort and thus not actionable.

My quick searches found that there is currently a legal debate going on about the extent to which tort law can be used to sue for "harassment" and other kinds of mental cruelty. If a tort of harassment was recognized it would have the potential for far more damages than the pittance that was awarded against Ward. In human rights cases the damages are very limited but in tort law you can sue for mental distress. If there is a tort case that might also be a human rights case a person has to balance which route to go. Higher rewards in the courts but greater risk since you could end up paying at least some of your opponents costs if you lose.

Interesting then to see the tort of harassment is actually proceeding through the courts. It will be interesting to see whether it gets appealed to the SCC.

he Ontario Court of Appeal has held that the tort of harassment does not exist in Ontario. The Court’s March 15 decision in Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General)1 is the first in which a Canadian appellate court has been required to determine whether a common law tort of harassment exists.

What You Need To Know

Ontario law does not recognize an independent common law tort of harassment.

Employees cannot rely on an employer’s negligence to ground a common law claim for mental suffering. They must prove their employer intended to cause the kind of harm that occurred or knew that it was almost certain to occur.

Although the Court of Appeal concluded that there is no independent tort of harassment, employers should continue to be aware of their ongoing statutory obligations to prevent harassment in the workplace, and to diligently and properly investigate harassment allegations.

https://www.torys.com/insights/publications/2019/04/ontario-court-of-app...

More recently, in Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 1333, the Court awarded $100,000 in general damages for the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering as against the employer (the RCMP) and the two individual defendants.

Conclusion:

The tort of IIMS, while challenging to establish, has been successfully pleaded against both employees and employers. To date, the highest award for the tort of IIMS is $100,000 in both Boucher v Wal-Mart and Merrifield v Canada. Note that Merrifield v Canada, is currently under appeal.

Employers should be alert to the reality that they can be found vicariously liable for the unauthorized, intentional wrongful actions of their employees and must act on allegations of harassment and tortious conduct among their employees.

https://macdonaldassociates.ca/2019/01/24/liability-for-the-tort-of-inte...

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

Pages