Vilification case studies
|Warning: These are real life examples and contain language or content that may offend.|
Vilification on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or gender identity is unlawful in Queensland. It is prohibited by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
Racial abuse over CB radio
A woman who speaks with a strong accent (and was from the former Yugoslavia) was called
and told to
over a CB radio channel. The woman obtained a Peace and Good Behaviour Order against the man who was making the comments. Shortly after the Order the man announced over the CB radio to give the woman
as much sh*t as you like
. The man also broadcast the woman's address as a place to go for sex, and men did come to her home looking for sex.
The tribunal said that words such as
used on their own may be racial vilification in the context of hostile, aggressive or abusive exchanges. The CB radio culture was highly racially and sexually abusive.
The tribunal found that the man had racially vilified and sexually harassed the woman, and that he had encouraged others to do so too. The woman was awarded $5,000 compensation for the pain and suffering she experienced.
Casey v Flanagan  QCAT 320.
Persistent abuse over CB radio
The woman made a second complaint, also about abuse over the CB radio.
On various occasions another man referred to the woman as a
over the same CB radio channel. He was a friend of the man in the first case and had given evidence for him. The man in the second case also gave out the woman's address as a place to go for sex, and made many comments about
Using these words had the effect of inciting contempt for, or severe ridicule of the woman because of her race.
The tribunal said this case was more serious than the earlier case because it continued for a longer period and was more persistent. The woman was awarded compensation of $10,000 and the tribunal issued a restraining order against the man: that is, the man was ordered not to racially vilify or sexually harass the woman.
Casey v Blume  QCAT 627
Student racially vilified by trainer
An Indian student studying hospitality at a college was called a
, told to
go back to your country
, and called
(which is insulting in Punjabi) by the head trainer. This occurred in front of other people including other trainers. After calling the student
the head trainer laughed and the other trainers also laughed.
The tribunal was satisfied the insults were
, and taking into account that the student was in a disadvantaged and powerless position with respect to the trainers, the mocking and derision amounted to severe ridicule which was extremely distressing for the student. The other trainers were actually incited by the
comment to laugh at the student.
The tribunal also found the student had been racially discriminated against and victimised. He was awarded compensation for his pain, suffering, embarrassment and humiliation of $10,500 ($3,500 each for vilification, discrimination and victimisation) and the college was ordered to refund for fees for the courses of $22,787.
Singh v Shafston Training One Pty Ltd  QCAT 8
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
faggotsto 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
- Mr Lawson referred to Mr Wilson and Mr McCollum repeatedly as
princess(accompanied by a wolf whistle), as
girls, and once as
The Tribunal found that the use of the term
was not sexual harassment as it did not contain a sexual connotation.
Compensation of $9,500 and $11,500 was awarded to Mr McCollum and Mr Wilson, respectively for sexuality vilification and sexual harassment.
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
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.
$3,000 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.
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).
A local newspaper published an edited version of a letter to the editor. It was headed
and included threat of physical violence to homosexuals at the beaches. The published version of the letter said that three posses of vigilantes were elected at a meeting of local residents and that homosexuals would be warned, told to leave, and they should do so. It also noted that the letter included
threats that the editor was not prepared to print.
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 the 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.
Gender identity vilification
A male to female transgender woman was successful in proving a complaint of gender identity vilification at a hearing before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The complaint related to an incident which happened late at night when the woman was at home.
She was woken by yelling from the footpath outside her home. A stream of abuse and obscenities relating to her gender identity followed.
One of the group then pulled a wooden paling from the woman's fence and called out to the others:
Has anyone got a box of matches so we can burn this fxxxxxx fxxx's place down?
The respondent did not appear at conciliation in the Commission or at the Tribunal hearing.
The member found this form of
gang style violence
constituted sexual harassment, vilification on the grounds of gender identity and serious gender identity vilification – that is where a person or their property is threatened with physical harm - which can also a be a criminal offence.
The member did not order the respondent to make a public apology as she felt that his non-attendance at any of the proceedings suggested that he does not take the proceedings seriously, and any private apology would be insincere.
An award of $15,000 in compensation was made to the woman. $10,000 was awarded for the vilification and $5,000 for the sexual harassment.
Public interest exception
The case relates to the views expressed in an election pamphlet distributed by Mr Lamb who was a candidate in the federal election held in December 2001.
The pamphlet contained some of Mr Lamb's opinions which included views about the content of the Koran, and about people who believe in its teachings. It claimed that believers of the teachings of the Koran are prone to disobey the laws of Australia when they conflict with the teachings of the Koran, to the extent of being prepared to commit murder.
A complaint was lodged by Mr Deen who is a Muslim and the Chairman of the Islamic Council of Queensland. He applied for interim relief to prohibit further publication of the pamphlet.
The tribunal was of the opinion that Mr Lamb had, by distributing the pamphlet (a public act) incited serious contempt for and hatred of Muslims as a whole.
However, the defence in section 124A(2)(c) applied. This defence provides that it is not unlawful to do a public act with the relevant tendency to incite, provided it is done reasonably and in good faith for a purpose in the public interest, including public discussion or debate and exposition of any matter.
The tribunal said :
It is plain that...the legislature did not intend to stifle debate, even acrimonious debate, upon matters of public interest and importance...even acts and publications that do indeed incite hatred, serious contempt and severe ridicule are to be tolerated provided certain conditions are met. One of
those conditions is that the person acts in good faith.
It was found that Mr Lamb had produced and distributed the pamphlet in good faith. The pamphlet had been published by him in order to persuade electors, by a disclosure of his opinions, that he deserved their vote. The pamphlet was concise and had been written in moderate language, and there was no suggestion that it had been published or disseminated other than in the electorate.
The tribunal noted that
the public has an interest in knowing the opinions of candidates, even when those views are unreasonable, unsupported, one-sided or even plainly wrong.
The application for interim relief was dismissed.