The Supreme Court ruling in favor of comedian Mike Ward has been hailed by several personalities, who see it as a victory for freedom of expression. However, although the majority of judges ruled that the jokes aimed at Jérémy Gabriel were not discriminatory, many still believe that this long saga will have established a culture change in the world of humor.
“I’ve seen it since this saga began, young comedians are much more sensitive to the consequences of humor. I feel them more open to think, to have a political perspective of humor. They are more aware of what they represent: if they are white, if they are rich… They also question themselves before pointing out people in vulnerable situations rather than the powerful ”, notes Julie Dufort, professor of political science at the National School of Humor.
The latter welcomes this change in mentality, which has nothing to do with any phenomenon of self-censorship, according to her.
Vice-president of French-language content for the Just for Laughs Group, Patrick Rozon also notes that the world of humor has evolved since Jérémy Gabriel went to court in 2015.
“I think we would still be able to make those jokes, but differently, with maybe more context. But with this judgment, the public also understands that they have the right to be offended, but that this is not a sufficient reason to go to justice, ”notes the one who welcomed with relief the judgment that fell on Friday. morning.
If the highest judicial body in the country had ruled in favor of Jérémy Gabriel, this would have created a dangerous precedent and would have possibly led comedians to censor themselves, says Patrick Rozon.
He is not the only one to reason thus. On social networks, Guy Nantel was also delighted with the decision.
“Unfortunately, the right not to be offended cannot exist in law. It would be opening a breach that would cause more damage than repair, ”the comedian wrote on his Facebook page.
A nuanced judgment
However, for many jurists, the Supreme Court judgment is not a total victory for Mike Ward, even if it is true that it overturns the two previous decisions of the courts in this case.
Me Louis-Philippe Lampron even believes that Jérémy Gabriel could have continued his proceedings against Mike Ward in civil matters.
“What the court is saying is that it is not so much a discrimination remedy, but rather a defamation remedy. However, the Court does not have jurisdiction in defamation matters, ”analyzes this professor from the Faculty of Law at Laval University.
By a majority of five judges to four, the Court concluded that an impairment of sensitivity was not sufficient to rule that there was discrimination. The five judges also took into account the fact that they were jokes and that Jérémy Gabriel was a public figure.
Lawyer Stéphane Beaulac said he was surprised that the majority had not considered that Jérémy Gabriel was a minor when Mike Ward made fun of his physique in his shows.
“The message we’re sending is that it’s okay to laugh at a disabled child, as long as it’s a public figure. Do you really think the kids in the schoolyard are going to make a difference? »Protested Me Beaulac, who represented the International Commission of Jurists in this case.