Comedian facing tribunal over a joke

[davedan]

UP How can you still suggest that Canadian Law requires law reform after admitting that you don't know what you're talking about?

Do you not understand how fucking stupid you sound?

Finally I find your disregard for hurt feelings in this context hilarious given what you think is appropriate in regard to your own hurt feelings.

[Ultimate Paragon]

This case hasn't actually gotten to a hearing in the Tribunal. So what UP is complaining about is not the result but rather the process of determining the dispute.

You don't think its important to maintain the process? Or should certain people be restricted from bringing suits?

What I think is that there needs to be some kind of reform.

Look into tort reform and the Hot Coffee lawsuit as to why I think this is an entirely asinine thing to say. It's not even worth my time to argue with you, or even present sources. So, from now on, take the time to do some reading. It will help you learn things and not be wrong so often.

I'm not talking about tort reform.  What I'm saying is that some lawsuits are bogus to begin with, and should be laughed out of court.  This guy is literally suing over hurt feelings.

No, there is already a function for that, called dismissal on the pleadings or summary judgment.

 So, you are talking about tort reform. You are advocating making changes to the legal system that will make it harder to bring torts against various people. Tort reform is not just economic caps, it is raising and shifting burdens of proof, which will reduce successes that plaintiffs have in court. Much like the hot coffee lawsuit, there will be collateral effects beyond the change you wish to effect, and plaintiffs will have a harder time bringing and being successful in lawsuits.

And please do not attempt to pull a fast one on me in legal matters.

You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me.  Trying to make this about tort reform.  Quit it.

[Eiki-mun]

UP, this is literally well within the field of tort reform. These are torts and you are calling for reform about them.

[davedan]

Yeah Queen, please don't distract UP from his inane mental flatulence with coherent thoughts articulately expressed.

Otherwise you'll get in the road of UP's "think of the children people who resemble him" moment.

I mean this is as stupid as me calling for nursing home reform because almost all of the patients die in them.

[Canadian Mojo]

You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me.  Trying to make this about tort reform.  Quit it.

Okay big guy, what is it then?

What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.





edit: typo

[Ultimate Paragon]

You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me.  Trying to make this about tort reform.  Quit it.

Okay big guy, what is it then?

What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.





edit: typo

Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues.  Not people getting pissy over jokes.

[Canadian Mojo]

You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me.  Trying to make this about tort reform.  Quit it.

Okay big guy, what is it then?

What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.





edit: typo

Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues.  Not people getting pissy over jokes.

And here is where you miss the point that they are trying to decide if this is a human rights issue or not.

Complainant says: "my rights have been violated"
Tribunal says: "okay, lets see (and rather than jump to conclusions lets ask the accused to come in and give his side of the story)"

What mechanism do you want to see in place that will preempt getting to that stage? What filter do you propose we use to keep people from getting a chance to formally air their grievances?

[davedan]

You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me.  Trying to make this about tort reform.  Quit it.

Okay big guy, what is it then?

What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.





edit: typo

Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues.  Not people getting pissy over jokes.

It's a shame they don't have you there to help them UP. Perhaps you could be a permanent addition to the Tribunal telling them which cases should be allowed to proceed.

Given that your distaste for the phrase 'Die Cis Scum' spawned multiple pages of shit on this forum, I'm a little shocked that you aren't more on the side of the particular individual who is being publicly shamed for 'not being dead yet'.

[Ultimate Paragon]

You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me.  Trying to make this about tort reform.  Quit it.

Okay big guy, what is it then?

What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.





edit: typo

Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues.  Not people getting pissy over jokes.

And here is where you miss the point that they are trying to decide if this is a human rights issue or not.

Complainant says: "my rights have been violated"
Tribunal says: "okay, lets see (and rather than jump to conclusions lets ask the accused to come in and give his side of the story)"

What mechanism do you want to see in place that will preempt getting to that stage? What filter do you propose we use to keep people from getting a chance to formally air their grievances?

Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?

[Eiki-mun]

Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?

I'm glad you asked! Let's ask the complainant what he has to say:

Gabriel said Ward went too far in his jokes about him. He said the jokes hurt his confidence and his career and led to intimidation at his school.

"It was horrible during all those years to endure, to be a teen, to be a successful artist, with all those comments, with all those laughs. So I wanted to say that it's not acceptable for me and for my family. And I think for the entire society too," Gabriel testified before the tribunal Wednesday afternoon.

"When we make a joke about someone, about a disabled person, we can laugh, we can make comments, but we always have to do that in full respect."

Taken from this article here from the CBC. Sounds to me like, in his opinion at least, some pretty substantial harm has been done! In fact, while I'm not saying Mike Ward should be declared guilty, that sort of testimony would at least convince me that there's a trial to be done!

So I'm glad we got that out of the way.

[Canadian Mojo]

You're the one trying to pull a fast one on me.  Trying to make this about tort reform.  Quit it.

Okay big guy, what is it then?

What does your ignorant American ass think my country should do to our legal system to keep this travesty of justice from happening any more? And don't say be more like America or you'll be outing yourself as a troll.





edit: typo

Maybe have human rights tribunals deal with, I dunno, human rights issues.  Not people getting pissy over jokes.

And here is where you miss the point that they are trying to decide if this is a human rights issue or not.

Complainant says: "my rights have been violated"
Tribunal says: "okay, lets see (and rather than jump to conclusions lets ask the accused to come in and give his side of the story)"

What mechanism do you want to see in place that will preempt getting to that stage? What filter do you propose we use to keep people from getting a chance to formally air their grievances?

Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?

I believe the complaint mentions something about pain and suffering. That's probably why the tribunal is looking into the matter since if the complaint had read "I'm pissy about a joke" they would have turned it down.





Dammit Eiki, you beat me.

[Even Then]

UP, have you stopped molesting kids and raping women yet? You know, since you're a Christian.

Oh wait, this isn't working. I'd have to be saying this in public, incorporating this into an act I give to dozens of people. With your real name. With your employment possibilites suffering, with your name being a laughing-stock and with you being associated in the public eye with child molestation and rape. And harassed IRL. Yeah, that should be appropriate by your standards.

And you're not allowed to complain about this to the Human Rights Tribunal: otherwise, you're just "being pissy about a joke".

[Ultimate Paragon]

Ask a simple question: what harm has been done?

I'm glad you asked! Let's ask the complainant what he has to say:

Gabriel said Ward went too far in his jokes about him. He said the jokes hurt his confidence and his career and led to intimidation at his school.

"It was horrible during all those years to endure, to be a teen, to be a successful artist, with all those comments, with all those laughs. So I wanted to say that it's not acceptable for me and for my family. And I think for the entire society too," Gabriel testified before the tribunal Wednesday afternoon.

"When we make a joke about someone, about a disabled person, we can laugh, we can make comments, but we always have to do that in full respect."

Taken from this article here from the CBC. Sounds to me like, in his opinion at least, some pretty substantial harm has been done! In fact, while I'm not saying Mike Ward should be declared guilty, that sort of testimony would at least convince me that there's a trial to be done!

So I'm glad we got that out of the way.

The article's not working for me.  So before we continue, I'd like to ask if the article answers either of these questions:

1. How much of that was caused by his joke?

2. Why didn't he sue the people who directly bullied him?

[dpareja]

Try this link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693

[Ultimate Paragon]

Try this link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-tribunal-1.3461693

Well, okay, it answered one of my questions.  It repeated the claim that Ward's joke did lead to bullying.  Wish it said how much, but you can't have everything.