Do you think it’s OK to say someone’s ugly? Not to their face (if you could bear it), but in a context they might hear about. Or on TV, which might be saying it to their face if their face happened to be watching it on TV and the screen didn’t shatter. Some people would say it isn’t OK. Others would say it is. The rest of us would be a lot better off without either of those groups, in my opinion.

What I think the rest of us would say is, “It depends on your definition of ‘OK’.” If we take “OK” to mean “nice”, “polite”, “admirable” or “kind”, then it isn’t. But if, by OK, we simply mean “legal”, then of course it’s OK. And quite right too. It may not be a pleasant thing to do, the rest of us would say, but it should certainly be allowed.

Well, it’s not allowed in Canada. Comedian Mike Ward has just been fined $42,000 by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal for a comic riff at the expense of Jérémy Gabriel, a young disabled singer, which culminated in the line: “I didn’t know what illness he had, so I Googled it and it turns out he’s just ugly.” Ward is incensed by the ruling and has responded with an Edinburgh fringe show, entitled “Freedom of Speech Isn’t Free”. Neither is putting on an Edinburgh fringe show, if memory serves me right. If I were his bank manager, I’d text him the first rule of holes.

It’s ironic that Ward’s joke has been broadcast so much more widely as a result of the tribunal’s ruling

There’s a strange reverse-libel system at work when it comes to insults to people’s appearance. It’s not lies that people mind, it’s honesty. If you call a beautiful person ugly, no one much cares – it just reflects badly on your eyesight. It’s saying it when it’s true that’s taboo. Echoing the unexpressed thought in others’ minds is what gives greatest offence. To a person who’s been called ugly, the louder the offended clamour against the insult, the greater the implied endorsement of the insulter’s opinion.

Which isn’t to say that the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal secretly shares Ward’s view of Gabriel’s appearance. The tribunal is a body dedicated to stamping out unfair discrimination, and its judgment, as expressed by Justice Scott Hughes, is that “The discrimination that Jérémy fell victim to is unjustifiable.” Jérémy himself has claimed that Ward’s riff “made me think my life is worth less than another’s because I’m handicapped”.

So it’s the fact that Jérémy Gabriel is disabled that makes insulting him unlawful, according to the tribunal. Which, as Ward has pointed out himself, sounds a bit discriminatory in itself. So it’s fine to insult someone without a disability, but a disabled person can’t take it? They have to be given an easy ride, a life of patronising compliments. It all sounds a bit “Does he take sugar?” and unlikely to result in a marked increase in the number of wheelchair-using CEOs.

It’s not as if anyone, whether disabled or not, is really in control of their appearance. We can have a bit of a go – wash regularly, dress smartly, try and stay in shape – or a massive go – get hair implants, facelifts, tattoos, piercings and perms — but our look is primarily determined by nature, and some people are just uglier than others. We can’t help it any more than if we were also deaf. Why is it logical that legal protection against facial slurs should only be extended to disabled badge holders? If you’re going to fine people for calling others ugly, on the basis that being called ugly makes someone feel like shit, why not extend that to the whole community, not just those with parking privileges?

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Illustration by David Foldvari.

Much of the above makes it sound as if I like Mike Ward’s joke, which I don’t. But I haven’t seen it in context. I can understand how a long tirade against Gabriel’s ubiquity in the Canadian media might be funny. He’d come to prominence as a frail child who’d been picked to sing for the pope – and then he stayed in the papers, day after day, month after month, endlessly, unjustifiably, like a slightly more deserving Kate Middleton.

Channelling frustration at the media’s mawkish, uninventive, repetitive page-filling pap into rage against a vulnerable child could be funny, purely because it’s unfair and disproportionate, but with a kernel of irritation that the audience shares. The viciousness of the punchline must have rounded it off very effectively. I can imagine, in context, laughing at that. I don’t think it makes Mike Ward a horrible person.

But it is mean, there’s no doubt. In a way, the target is the media’s banality and vacuous feelgood nonsense, but what elicits the laugh is almost certainly the dig at the disabled boy’s face. I think, if I’d made that joke, I’d find myself hoping Jérémy Gabriel never found out about it. I think it’s material I’d regret.

Right up to the point, that is, when some judge told me it was unlawful. It would take a statement of spellbinding barbarity such as this from Justice Hughes – “Unacceptable remarks in private do not automatically become lawful when delivered by a comedian in the public sphere” – to engender pride in what I’d said. The notion that remarks we make in private are not “automatically… lawful” is totalitarian.

Give a big cheer for our political correctness | Barbara Ellen Read more

And it’s ironic that Ward’s joke, which most people would probably find a bit unpleasant, has been retrospectively dignified, and broadcast so much more widely, as a result of the tribunal’s ruling. What was a nasty thing to say – probably funny in the room, but harsh and without much satirical justification – has been ennobled by proscription. The unkind has become the transgressive.

Does the tribunal really believe this sort of fine will do any good? Does it think those groups within Canada that are susceptible to discrimination will be helped by giving jokes at their expense the glamour of illegality? There is no suggestion that Mike Ward doesn’t believe in equality of opportunity for disabled people and yet the tribunal’s ruling has made him its enemy and turned a vulnerable disabled teenager into the poster boy for censorship.

The tribunal’s powers undermine principles vital to a liberal society, while simultaneously allowing those who want to express properly racist, sexist or homophobic views to present themselves as freedom-fighters. It is prepared to sacrifice liberty in the name of equality, a truly ignoble compromise. As a result, it imperils both.