Panhandler at Quebec Human Rights Commission

[Boges]

Looks like Quebec is trying to outlaw being a smug jerk.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/06/montreal-man-to-pay-8000-for-writing-diatribe-against-panhandler-outside-montreal-liquor-store/

The Quebec Human Rights Commission has ordered a Montreal man to pay $8,000 in moral and punitive damages to a woman who was begging outside a Montreal liquor store, after he wrote an email to the liquor board suggesting four ways to kill the woman.

In his defence, Robert Delisle argued that it was the liquor board that eventually printed the email and showed it to the woman, and he had never intended for her to read it.

The case dates back to 2010, when Mr. Delisle, a regular customer at a Société des alcools du Québec store in northwest Montreal, spotted Francine Beaumont panhandling outside the store. He wrote, in the human rights commissions words, a diatribe about her, which he sent to the SAQ.

The last SAQ in the city where I could shop without being bothered by a drunken beggar has just capitulated, Mr. Delisle wrote. The SAQ on Henri-Bourassa Boulevard just inherited a drunkard who begs when customers enter or leave. She looks like Mme. Loulou in And God Created Laflaque [a satirical show on Quebec television]: a 200-pound welfare bum enriched with trans fat. No apparent intellectual quotient.

Ms. Beaumont, 63, suffers from a degenerative bone disease and lives on welfare, the ruling notes. She says she has to beg to survive, adding that she was able to earn about $15 to $30 a day begging from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. She said she was always very polite and never bothered anybody, the tribunal judge wrote.

But her presence infuriated Mr. Delisle, who suggested in his complaint that beggars come to Montreals suburbs from downtown because its more profitable. In his letter, reproduced in the tribunals decision, he invents four macabre solutions to rid his city of these beggars.

Solution No. 1: We could burn all this with napalm or flame-throwers (Americans used that technique for much better people than this.)

Solution No. 2: Pick up these walking microbes in a garbage dumpster and burn them in the Carrières incinerator.

Solution No. 3 (Chinese solution): a bullet in the back of the head, and send the bill to the welfare-collecting family of the dead.

Solution No. 4: Drop all these people and their dogs over James Bay. Their chance of re-offending is quite slim.

Though he opines on killing panhandlers he doesn't actually threaten to kill pan handlers. I also find it hilariously convenient that a person that has the lack of pride to beg outside a liqour store somehow gets traumatized to the point of being a shut-in after reading about one person's distain for them.

I'm not defending this man, he's an absolute A-hole. But do we really want to live in a culture where you can be fined for such behaviour. What will the lady in question think when/if she ever discovers what's said on the internet.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Boges

[PIK]

Talking about killing is a slippery slope.

[cybercoma]

His violently aggressive behaviour is completely unacceptable. He got what he deserved.

[segnosaur]

Talking about killing is a slippery slope.

Errr.. not really.

In order to accept the 'slippery slope' argument you'd have to provide some sort of justification where its reasonable to assume one action (i.e. talking about killing) automatically leads to another (such as actual murder).

Given the fact that there are a large number of individuals who have engaged in similar acts (everything from children playing 'cops and robbers', to comedians invoking dark humor) and who have never engaged in any violent behavior suggests that the 'slippery slope' does not apply.

[segnosaur]

His violently aggressive behaviour is completely unacceptable. He got what he deserved.

Dictionary definition:

Behavior: The way in which one acts or conducts oneself.

Please tell me, when exactly did the individual actually act violently in relationship to the panhandler?

[The_Squid]

I don't think Human Rights tribunals should be involved in something like this. If he did something criminal, charge him with a crime. If he didn't, there should be no extra-judicial repercussions.

The solution might have been to ban him from liquor stores, since that was where his idiotic letter was mailed to. But fining someone for being a dick? That's not appropriate in a free society.

[Boges]

But fining someone for being a dick? That's not appropriate in a free society.

Which is why I initially named this thread, "Is this what Canada has come to?"

He was simply making a complaint. What the company did was paramount to anyone making a complaint about someone and the company forwarding your name and contact information to the person you're complaining about.

He was being very over the top and controversial in the way he made his complaint but he wasn't threatening anyone. You could argue he advocated for violence against this lady but considering he privately submitted the letter and didn't make it public, I would question that sentiment.

If he has stopped at calling her fat and dumb, would it have been fine?

Edited August 7, 2013 by Boges

[guyser]

He was simply making a complaint.

Uh...you sure about that boges?

[The_Squid]

The letter may have advocated for violence against this lady... in which case the letter should be turned over to the police for investigation. And the liquor stores should ban this idiot from buying from their outlets. It is tempting to say this a-hole got what he deserved, but the precedent of fining people for being a-holes is just not a good thing.

We have enough hate laws and laws against threatening violence that there is no need for HR tribunals to be involved. It seems when the activity doesn't meet the legal requirement for charges, they stick it to the person anyway via a mechanism that has lower requirements to find someone "guilty".

Your thread title was hyperbolic... one incident, or HR tribunals in general, don't make Canada a bad place...

[Boges]

Uh...you sure about that boges?

The crux of the letter was "why are you letting vagrants in front of your store?". He added ridiculously offensive recommendation as to getting rid of said vagrants.

Apparently the liqour store did go to the police but they said they couldn't act on a threat from a 3rd party. So that's why they showed the lady the letter.

One could argue the store management inflamed the stress to the lady by showing her the letter, as ignorance is bliss and the defendant never actually threatened to commit a violent act.

As for the title of the thread, hyperbole was the intent but I understand they it was changed.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Boges

[The_Squid]

So if you hear someone threaten a person, the police can't act on this information and investigate? That sounds a bit silly.... I bet if the letter mentioned blowing up parliament that the cops would have acted despite "coming from a third party"...

[g_bambino]

So if you hear someone threaten a person...

No particular person was threatened.

[segnosaur]

So if you hear someone threaten a person, the police can't act on this information and investigate? That sounds a bit silly.... I bet if the letter mentioned blowing up parliament that the cops would have acted despite "coming from a third party"...

I suspect whether the police would be able to act would depend on whether a reasonable person would believe that the accused has the ability and inclination to carry through on any statements that were made.

For example, if someone said "I'm going to use my mental powers to make your brain explode", a reasonable person would probably look at that and say "I assume this threat is not credible", whereas if someone said they were going to meet you after work with a baseball bat (and they actually knew where you lived) that would be a different case.

Given the fact that the man's threats involved things like using Napalm (something not commonly available) or dropping people from the air (again, suggesting resources that people don't commonly have) then I think a reasonable person shouldn't feel that their life was really in danger.

Here's what I find particularly disgusting about the situation...

An individual named Dennis Markuze (a.k.a. David Mabus) has been spamming the internet for years. He's made threats that were much more direct, aimed both at specific individuals and against atheists in general. And unlike this single letter (one that wasn't even meant to be seen by the panhandler), he's been spamming and threatening through email, on line forums, and twitter repeatedly and directly. So the result? The individual complaining about the panhandler gets a judgement against them, whereas Markuze (after getting picked up by police) is able to go free and continue pretty much unhindered, and nobody in authority seems to have an interest in dealing with it.

[guyser]

Hi Dennis...er David ...er whatever name you use today!

See ya !

Edited August 28, 2013 by Guyser2