Man told to pay gay man $1,000 for comment

[charmtrap]

Story

MONTREAL - Quebec's Human Rights Commission has ordered a used car salesman in Sorel to pay a gay man $1,000 for a derogatory comment made three years ago.

Aggressive "hate speech" laws are scary.

 

[Western Deity]

Inciting violence isn't OK, but what is wrong with insulting somebody? It isn't my job to go around ensuring that I don't humiliate anybody.

 

[charmtrap]

Inciting violence isn't OK, but what is wrong with insulting somebody?

You got me. Ask Canada.

It isn't my job to go around ensuring that I don't humiliate anybody.

Unfortunately, in some places, it is.

 

[wvernon]

Thank God I'm not Canadian and may we never embrace Canadian values.

 

[Ave Maria]

Thank God I'm not Canadian and may we never embrace Canadian values.

I love some Canadian values but not this one!

 

[Western Deity]

Canada is still a long way ahead of America, but this is just stupid.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

Ok. That's scary on a couple levels.

First is the the accuser was not identified and did not have to face the man that he accused in open court.

Second, the fact that the government is regulating what people say in everyday life just scares me.

That should simply have cost the used car salesman a sale, nothing more.

 

[charmtrap]

Ok. That's scary on a couple levels.

First is the the accuser was not identified and did not have to face the man that he accused in open court.

Yeah, I was gonna say. I don't agree with rape shield laws either. If the accuser isn't identified neither should the accusee, or they both should be. Very bad laws.

 

[Brother Christman]

"Hate speech". There's a bright idea. No way anyone could manipulate that to suit their agenda, right?

Oh, Canada: What have you done?

 

[Western Deity]

Yeah, I was gonna say. I don't agree with rape shield laws either. If the accuser isn't identified neither should the accusee, or they both should be. Very bad laws.

We should try to make sure both of them are not identified (ideally). If one has to be identified and other doesn't, however, it's stupid to identify the other so as to "even it out" or whatever. I also think this "right to face your accuser" idea is nonsense. These are just my opinions, though .

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

As far as personal comments go you should be free to argue with whomever you want about whatever you want, so long as you don't get to threatening. Getting up on a soapbox and saying things like "Homosexuals/Christians/Asians/Short people suck and should die!" is a completely different thing.

 

[Brother Christman]

As far as personal comments go you should be free to argue with whomever you want about whatever you want, so long as you don't get to threatening. Getting up on a soapbox and saying things like "Homosexuals/Christians/Asians/Short people suck and should die!" is a completely different thing.

I think we agree on this one: If I get up and quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 or you stand up and say "Christians are full of baloney", and neither of us calls for violence, the government has no business bothering either of us.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

I think we agree on this one: If I get up and quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 or you stand up and say "Christians are full of baloney", with neither of us calling for violence, government has no business bothering us.

Yeah, that's kinda what half of our talk shows are about. Heck, even our presidential debates are only slightly more civilized than that.

 

[burrow_owl]

Yeah, I was gonna say. I don't agree with rape shield laws either.

Ah, the good old days, when a man could get off by arguing that a rape victim was 'easy'. Good times, good times.

 

[Sycophant]

It does seem a little over-reactionary, but it's hard to know without more information - some seemingly simple statements can cause all sorts of anxiety for people. Obviously you can't always know who will react to what. The way something is said carries far more weight than the words as well.

It's a weird area of law I guess. I can't say whether I agree with this or not really, it is a case by case thing. But I do think it's good that there are avenues to address these issues, and hopefully it stays relatively sane.

 

[Sycophant]

Yeah, I was gonna say. I don't agree with rape shield laws either. If the accuser isn't identified neither should the accusee, or they both should be. Very bad laws.

That sort of thing is very different. Rape has an incredible emotional toll, one I can't even imagine. As it is, a huge number of rape victims refuse to come forward, many more are unwilling to testify. A victim of a crime like this should not have to fear any potential or percieved stigma in relation to their attack.

 

[SirKenin]

Some people need to learn to stop wearing their hearts on their sleeves and grow thicker skins. This isn't limited in any way to homosexuals either.

 

[chalice_thunder]

The Fifi should have just made a cutting remark about the saleman's tacky clothing and awful hairstyle, and left it at that.

 

[xMinionX]

Well that's stupid.

 

[lilray]

nice! does that mean 1,000's of people owe me millions for calling me a shorty... i mean - it's vertically challenged!!!