Historian, sociologist, writer, Gérard Bouchard teaches at the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi in the history, sociology / anthropology, political science and international cooperation programs. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Collective Imaginaries.
The Supreme Court of Canada decision just handed down in the Ward-Gabriel case stunned me. I would never have believed this temple of wisdom capable of such wanderings. In my eyes, he has lost a lot of credit, and many, many citizens undoubtedly share my opinion. This is bad news for our society. The lesson I draw from this is that well-formed heads can easily get lost in the Byzantine refinements of law and come to forget the main thing: the feeling that is at the same time the most elementary, the best rooted and the most important. higher inspired by the act of the strongest who, most gratuitously in the world, viciously attacks a weaker one. The main one: in this case, the voice of justice.
And the protection of vulnerable people?
This episode occurs precisely at a time when a mass of parents, educators, ethicists, activists – and lawyers – are working to instill in young and old alike sensitivity to others, respect for their differences and awareness of the harm that one person can cause to another through words as much as through behavior. The supreme body which embodies these great principles of civilization to the highest degree has just inflicted an incomprehensible fang on them.
What is it exactly? A very popular humorist who, by means of repulsive jokes (“he is not killable, the tabarnak”), repeatedly attacks a child suffering from a distressing physical handicap and who has engaged in a difficult fight to overcome his infirmity. In addition, this child on the threshold of adolescence grapples with the uncertainties associated with this age. For a long time he has felt the often unkind looks that fall on him. But very courageously, he has resolved to stand up: instead of avoiding these looks by shutting himself up in solitude, he will lead his fight in the arena, he will expose himself as he is by taking all the risks: he will become an artist and perform in a show. This choice makes you dizzy and arouses the greatest admiration. It is the weak who undertakes to stand up against themselves.
I believe I am reproducing the feeling, the drama of all the people who face this kind of situation. I also believe I illustrate all the horror of the gesture committed by the one who saw there an opportunity to make his audience laugh. We can hardly go further in the lack of decency and sensitivity.
Elementary logic
Our society is committed to protecting vulnerable people, especially children. I also recall that in the name of the dignity of the person, our Charter prohibits hate speech, threats, violent comments, damage to reputation and dignity, intimidation, dehumanizing comments, that is to say all words likely to cause harm to others. Isn’t that exactly what it is about here? I summarize the argument of the five wise men who passed the sponge and the spirit which inspires it: for any reasonable person, it was only a joke, there was no discrimination there. Gabriel’s mother revealed that he wanted to kill himself; so what ?
The Commission québécoise des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse had ruled in favor of the complainant, as did the Human Rights Tribunal in 2016 and the Court of Appeal in 2019, a decision that four of the nine have just supported. members of the Supreme Court. This is to say how rocky this affair is. What is more serious is that there is no longer any possibility of appeal to correct this flagrant lack of common sense.
We now fear the consequences of this judgment which will set a precedent. The highest court has opened a valve into which many slippages are likely to engulf. Who will now protect the victims? Ward can continue to persevere; maybe he will do it again?
I think of Jérémy Gabriel, I guess he is overwhelmed by this injustice. I also see that he behaved very worthily, admirably, in the midst of this ordeal. I want to tell him that, as a citizen, as a litigant, I too feel, like many others, deeply handicapped. I also want to tell him that, before the People’s Court, that of good sense and heart, he can consider that he has won his case and that the culprit will always bear the blame for the fault.