SEXUALITY VILIFICATION - CASE STUDIES

The following case studies are based on matters which have been received by the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland. They are provided as a guide to the range of outcomes which can be achieved, and kinds of issues raised.

Public acts by neighbours

The complaint was one of sexuality vilification and sexual harassment related to an ongoing dispute between a same sex couple and their mother and son neighbours.

The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal found that some incidents amounted to sexuality vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 as they were public acts that were clearly designed to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of the complainants on the ground of their homosexuality, including:

• They were called ‘faggots’ to their faces, to their landlord and in circumstances where neighbours were potentially able to hear it.
• When Mr Wilson was in his driveway getting help from a mobile battery supplier, Mr Lawson peered over the fence and said ‘Make sure those poofs pay you. They have a habit of not doing that’.

The Tribunal also found that some remarks amounted to sexual harassment as they were made with sexual connotations and with the intent of offending, humiliating or intimidating them, including:

• Mrs Lawson repeatedly described the complainants as ‘faggots’.
• Mr Lawson referred to Mr Wilson and Mr McCollum repeatedly as ‘princess’ (accompanied by a wolf whistle), as ‘ladies’, as ‘girls’, and once as ‘poofs’.

The Tribunal found that the use of the term ‘wanker’ was not sexual harassment as it did not contain a sexual connotation.

Compensation of $9500 and $11,500 was awarded to Mr McCollum and Mr Wilson, respectively for sexuality vilification and sexual harassment.

Wilson and McCollum v Lawson and Anor [2008] QADT 27 (6 November 2008)

Complaint by a relevant entity

A complaint of sexuality vilification was brought by Sharon Isle on behalf of the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Intersex Anti-Violence Committee Inc. The GLBTI Committee is entitled to make a complaint of vilification because its purpose is to promote the welfare and interests of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people under section 134(5) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (the ADA).

The complaint relates to a letter published in the Mission Beach Advertiser headed ‘POOFTERS BEWARE!!!’, demanding that homosexuals leave local beaches. It also invited members of the public to assault people if they do not move on.

The complaint was made against both the editor of the newspaper and the author of the letter. The author of the letter did not appear at hearing.

The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal found that the publication of the article was a public act that had the capacity to incite the ordinary reasonable person to hate homosexuals.

The Tribunal ordered that:

• each respondent make a published public apology, in words decided by the Tribunal, in the Mission Beach Advertiser and another local paper; and
• the respondents pay the legal costs of the GLBTI Committee.

GLBTI v Wilks and Anor [2007] QADT 27 (30 November 2007)

Abuse capable of inciting hatred

Mr Peters worked as a drag queen, Tamara Tonite, and hosted a well known television show.

He alleged vilification on the basis of his sexuality by the respondent who was employed by a debt collection agency and attended Mr Peters’ home, in his line of his work. When Mr Peters refused to open his door to the respondent, it is alleged that the respondent loudly abused him from the front of his home, calling him a ‘gutless wonder’, a paedophile’ and saying that he would see him at the Wickham Hotel - a well known gay hotel in Brisbane. Neighbours in the vicinity were likely to have heard what went on outside Mr Peters’ house that morning.

The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal was satisfied that paedophilia is a characteristic often wrongly attributed to homosexual men. Together with the reference to the Wickham Hotel, the Tribunal was satisfied that the comments were made on the grounds of the complainant’s sexuality.

The acting President Jean Dalton, SC decided that there was incitement, saying: ‘I bear in mind that an accusation of paedophilia is a very serious accusation and one likely to cause serious damage to the complainant’s relations with anyone who overheard it.’

$3000 was awarded to Mr Peters for his distress, after taking into account that Mr Peters had settled a claim with the respondent’s employer at the Anti-Discrimination Commission prior to the hearing.

Peters v Constance [2005] QADT 9 (23 May 2005)

This information is intended as a guide only. It is not a substitute for legal advice. For more information contact the Commission on 1300 130 670 statewide or Teletypewriter 1300 130 680 statewide.