Comedian facing tribunal over a joke

[Ultimate Paragon]

http://thelaughbutton.com/news/comedian-mike-ward-currently-trial-joke-told-everyone-pay-attention/

What the hell, Canada?

[Even Then]

The ethicality of comedy aside,

- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court

So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.

[Ultimate Paragon]

The ethicality of comedy aside,

- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court

So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.

1. That's hardly a tasteful joke, but the fact remains that this is essentially a lawsuit over hurt feelings.

2. What does his talent (or lack thereof) have to do with anything?

3. Alright, I'll give you this one.  I typed "in court" without thinking.  However, this can have actual, legal consequences.  So I'd say the difference really isn't that relevant.

[Ironchew]

Here I was predicting UP would return here bemoaning Twitter taking away his special blue checkmark. Guess not.

It's another kind of social justice doom-and-gloom this time around. Watch as UP backpedals away from his flimsy claims.

[Art Vandelay]

While I realise that it's fun to hate UP, all the same I have to say having a comedian sent to a tribunal because one of their jokes hurt your feelings is really fucked up.

[Canadian Mojo]

The problem is that this one is close to the edge which is why a tribunal is looking at it. The complainant makes it sound like it is on the wrong side of the law so they have to look at it formally and as a result a comedian is called on the carpet and given a chance to tell his side of the story. That's not actually a bad thing; the alternative is we ignore a possible victim who made a formal complaint.

The reason it is on the edge is because you could interpret it as a threat and he is a visible and often targeted minority.  We're a fair bit stricter on hate speech than America is and as a consequence have a broader scope of things that are unpermissible. I don't think it rises to the level of hate speech unless there is a lot more to the soundbite this story is centered around, and will be quickly tossed out by the tribunal. If it is held to be hate speech, it WILL go before a higher court since it is a constitutional matter and the media who stand to be most affected by this won't take it lying down and have plenty of resources to fight it.

Go die in a fire -- the real world debate, Canadian edition. It was a discussion we had to have eventually.

[davedan]

The ethicality of comedy aside,

- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court

So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.

1. That's hardly a tasteful joke, but the fact remains that this is essentially a lawsuit over hurt feelings.

2. What does his talent (or lack thereof) have to do with anything?

3. Alright, I'll give you this one.  I typed "in court" without thinking.  However, this can have actual, legal consequences.  So I'd say the difference really isn't that relevant.

People bring lawsuits over hurt feelings quite regularly.

People also bring frivolous lawsuits quite regularly.

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?

[Ultimate Paragon]

The ethicality of comedy aside,

- there's a league of difference between "I don't like a joke" and "this person is publicly making jokes where the punchline is that I, a physically disfigured person, am not dead and that's terrible (also that defending me is idiotic because I'm alive)"
- Mike Ward is a hack
- the Human Rights Tribunal is, as noted in the article, not a court

So in conclusion, UP doesn't read his sources and simplifies facts to spin a narrative.

1. That's hardly a tasteful joke, but the fact remains that this is essentially a lawsuit over hurt feelings.

2. What does his talent (or lack thereof) have to do with anything?

3. Alright, I'll give you this one.  I typed "in court" without thinking.  However, this can have actual, legal consequences.  So I'd say the difference really isn't that relevant.

People bring lawsuits over hurt feelings quite regularly.

People also bring frivolous lawsuits quite regularly.

How regularly?  And how far do they usually get?

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.

[davedan]

Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.

As to how regularly, that is difficult to say.  But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.

As to how regularly, that is difficult to say.  But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.

Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal.  And it follows different rules.

I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.

3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.

4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.

As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far?  You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.

[dpareja]

Why does there need to be reform? Someone has brought a case and a determination is going to be made. What about that screams a need for reform.

As to how regularly, that is difficult to say.  But regularly enough that most Courts have processes for declaring people vexatious litigants.

Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal.  And it follows different rules.

I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.

3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.

4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.

As for the "reform" bit, how about making sure stuff like this doesn't get this far?  You shouldn't be able to sue somebody because they told a joke that hurt your feelings.

As I understand it, those tribunals were set up because the court system was becoming inaccessible due to expense.

[Eiki-mun]

Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal.  And it follows different rules.

I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.

3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.

4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.

If you yourself can't even be sure of the veracity of your information, how could you possibly expect the rest of us to trust you on it?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Except this isn't a court, it's a tribunal.  And it follows different rules.

I read that these are some of the facts about Canadian Human Rights Tribunals:

1- No standard of evidence: the court can accept any claim it wants, it doesn't have to justify anything.

2- No right of cross-examination: the accused cannot confront his accuser in court.

3- The accused has to pay for his lawyer, the government assumes the cost of the accuser.

4- The tribunal can choose not to follow any rule it wants for the sake of "efficiency".

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but if it's true, something's rotten up north.

If you yourself can't even be sure of the veracity of your information, how could you possibly expect the rest of us to trust you on it?

Fair point.  I'll double-check this information.

[davedan]

I agree we need reform for the thing that I don't understand and about which I am ill informed. I just think there needs to be reform. Also I don't think everyone should be able to bring lawsuits. I think women and disabled people should have to get their husband or guardian's consent to bring an action.

[Askold]

I see nothing wrong with this.

I am certain that even in USA there are laws about libel and slander so going to court because you said something mean is not unheard of. In Finland there are also laws concerning harassing and insulting a perso. And when a celebrity publicly makes hurtful jokes about a regular person this is abuse as the message gets spread a lot more than had it been said by a regular Joe in a pub.