Gay Que. couple awarded $12,000 from neighbour for gay slurs

Too bad the US is so bent on letting harassment be covered up under that "free speech" crap.

__________________

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-que-couple-awarded-12-000-neighbour-20110113-165124-581.html

Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal has awarded $12,000 in damages to a gay couple in Pointe-Claire because of the homophobia they endured from a neighbour.

Gordon Lusk was ordered to pay the money to his neighbours, Theo Wouters and Roger Thibeault, after the tribunal found that Lusk subjected them to homophobic slurs, invitations to fight and death threats.

When Wouters and Thibeault would drive down the street, Lusk's children would also shout homophobic remarks at them, the tribunal said.

Wouters said he's pleased with the decision, adding that it affects more than just him and his partner.

"It is good for the gay community and it is good for us," he said. "We hope that all the harassment, finally, will stop in our neighbourhood.

"The important message is that gay people can live in peace in any kind of neighbourhood in Quebec," Wouters said.

The couple had support from the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations, a non-profit civil rights organization that helps victims of discrimination through advocacy, research and legal representation.

Lusk's lawyer said no decision has been made on whether to appeal the decision.

So if they challenged them fights and death threats because they were overweight, it would've been okay? What those people did with the slurs and threats is harassment plain and simple. Whether it is homophobic or not, behavior like that shouldn't be tolerated.

Forgiveness Man wrote:So if they challenged them fights and death threats because they were overweight, it would've been okay? What those people did with the slurs and threats is harassment plain and simple. Whether it is homophobic or not, behavior like that shouldn't be tolerated.

I can't even imagine having to live next door to people that hated and harassed you for any reason, that'd be awful!

TPP, I applaud the compassion of your reply but you missed the point of the comment you co-signed. Of course the harassment they were subjected to would have still been just as despicable if they were aimed at someone who was obese, or handicapped, or black. Some people object to the “special treatment” some groups receive even though there is no evidence that someone in the other categories wouldn’t have received as much or more in damages

To Robbie, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that under “The Fighting Word Doctrine”, that fighting words, (confined to direct personal insults) are not protected by the First Amendment.

alan smithee wrote:TPP, I applaud the compassion of your reply but you missed the point of the comment you co-signed. Of course the harassment they were subjected to would have still been just as despicable if they were aimed at someone who was obese, or handicapped, or black. The person above you was objecting to the “special treatment” the gays received even though there is no evidence that someone in the other categories wouldn’t have received as much or more in damages

To Robbie, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that under “The Fighting Word Doctrine”, that fighting words, (confined to direct personal insults) are not protected by the First Amendment.

Well, I cosign his words, not his objection! I don't believe it's "special rights"...I believe it's human rights.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

alan smithee wrote:TPP, I applaud the compassion of your reply but you missed the point of the comment you co-signed. Of course the harassment they were subjected to would have still been just as despicable if they were aimed at someone who was obese, or handicapped, or black. The person above you was objecting to the “special treatment” the gays received even though there is no evidence that someone in the other categories wouldn’t have received as much or more in damages

To Robbie, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that under “The Fighting Word Doctrine”, that fighting words, (confined to direct personal insults) are not protected by the First Amendment.

Well, I cosign his words, not his objection! I don't believe it's "special rights"...I believe it's human rights.

alan smithee wrote:TPP, I applaud the compassion of your reply but you missed the point of the comment you co-signed. Of course the harassment they were subjected to would have still been just as despicable if they were aimed at someone who was obese, or handicapped, or black. Some people object to the “special treatment” some groups receive even though there is no evidence that someone in the other categories wouldn’t have received as much or more in damages.

I objected to the wording of the original post and the implications the OP made. Harassment is harassment. And what if the person they were aimed at was not obese, handicapped, or black? You gotta label yourself to get sympathy in today's world. Harassment is wrong and should be punished in whatever form it comes under.

Off topic of the OP, but I have to say something....

FM, Robbie wrote, "Too bad the US is so bent on letting harassment be covered up under that "free speech" crap."

That could have been a sentence about anything from sexuality, obesity, or race. Or anything under the sun that would make neighbor #1 not like and harass neighbor #2. You read the post and automatically posted in a way that seemed assuming of Robbie that he only cares about a certain cause and not the plight of any other disrespected of any another demographic.

Do I think gay rights are important to Robbie? Heck yes. Do I think that is all he cares about? Heck no.

I am not gay, but one thing is that when I post on a message board, I know my audience. Especially in a setting like this...where everybody knows everybody so-to-speak. So, even if I saw a person that is supporting a cause that I would not (which was not the cast AT ALL with Robbie's article posted), I have respect for that position and not draw assumptions that just because they support litigation for case A they would never support case B. A death threat is a death threat. Somebody from my home town has a felony on her since she pointed a gun at her brother in law. Nobody posting on message boards finds that worthy of posting a topic about her because she lives in middle America and is essentially a "nobody".

FM, if you are compelled to argue something, then let's look at why this case made the news. It is not because it was afforded special consideration in court, but was afforded special media attention due to the sexuality of those offended. Your beef seems more to do with the media than Robbie's post. And perhaps all this was not your intention, but I just wanted to show you what your post alluded to.

Red, just as a broken clock is right twice a day, sometimes he is correct in what he has to say. In this case, yes, all harassment is bad but fails to recognize that sometimes people don't lable themselves to get sympathy. Sometimes they need "sympathy" because somebody else labled them.

Oh...and looking at "99" for your rep point total is starting to bug me, soo....

alan smithee wrote:Red, just as a broken clock is right twice a day, sometimes he is correct in what he has to say. In this case, yes, all harassment is bad but fails to recognize that sometimes people don't lable themselves to get sympathy. Sometimes they need "sympathy" because somebody else labled them.

Oh...and looking at "99" for your rep point total is starting to bug me, soo....

I don't fail to recognize that at all. I just don't see it in some places. And I ain't the broken clock here. Harassment is harassment and I do not see the harassment robbie is talking about in the US covered under freedom of speech at all. If you're harassing somebody like that in America, I wouldn't wanna be you. True harassment typically is dealt with in the US. I think some just try to see harassment where there is none sometimes.

I don't like singling out harassment towards gays as unusually wrong. Harassment is harassment regardless of who it is against. It doesn't really matter what you're being harassed for; it's harassment plain and simple and should be treated as such. The important message shouldn't be that "gay people can live in peace" but that ANY people should be able to live in peace. They're making this a gay issue and it's not a gay issue at all. The case Robbie posted is a case of harassment plain and simple.

@Red: I ain't set on arguing anything. I just call things as I see them and people want to see that as being set in arguing something. (As they continually refer to or quote my intended "2 cents" comments. I don't think I'm the one itching for a fight. )

They're making this a gay issue and it's not a gay issue at all.

Get the facts. The defendant was ordered to pay damages because he violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The case could have been about a citizen, who was a Pakistani-born Muslim, denied flight training, which he needed to obtain employment, solely because U.S. authorities had labelled him a security risk.

It could have been about two Air Canada pilots who were compelled to retire against their will upon reaching age 60 pursuant to the terms of their pension plan and the collective agreement between their union and the airline.

This wasn't a gay issue. It was a human rights issue.

alan smithee wrote:

They're making this a gay issue and it's not a gay issue at all.

Get the facts. This wasn't a gay issue. It was a human rights issue.

I have the facts. You need to get them now. I am speaking to the news story.

So was I.

alan smithee wrote:So was I.

Then you really got no reason to have any beef with what I said.

Yeah I do. But I won't explain why because that would entail reminding you of what you said and you're easily bored by that. I'll try to give you the last word on this no matter how ludicrous it is. I'm outta here.