For years now, a few spiteful men have been getting even with former girlfriends and ex-wives by posting shared moments of consensual sexual intimacy online without the women's permission.
One brave young women undertook a civil suit against her ex-partner for doing this and the judge recently handed down her decision.
In a brief four-page ruling, Quebec Superior Court Judge Sylviane Borenstein held that the man breached her fundamental rights by intentionally and illicitly invading her privacy, and that his conduct cannot be tolerated or trivialized by the courts.
“The actions were ignoble and the Court expresses its indignation over these actions. One can understand that the woman, who is only 20 years old, feels betrayed and humiliated.”
The Court issued a publication order that forbids media from identifying the parties in order not to aggravate the harm she has suffered. Judge Borenstein barred the man from communicating, distributing, publishing, reproducing, or transmitting pictures, e-mails or videos of the filmed events as well as prohibited him from reaching her in any way. Further, the Court prohibited him from having in his possession photographs and videos of the plaintiff.
The decision also forbids him to contact the woman in any way or to approach within a kilometre of her workplace or home.
7 comments:
Cool. And the swine has to pay her $39,000 in damages. Maybe other asshats will think twice before pulling similar stunts.
Sadly, down here in the Excited States of 'Murkkka, that sort of behavior is Constitutionally protected, it seems.
I see that no one wants to know what pushed this man to do such acts...
While this decision is just, lets not condemn other "asshats" that may have done similar acts.
If one starts to read some of what goes down in divorce court and the injustices that are done to men in Quebec (courts to seem more fair in Ontario), you'd understand that there are cases where you wonder why there are not more cases like this...
If you read the judgement, you will notice that he admitted his guilt, that what he did was wrong.
There is nothing that justifies being "pushed" to post such material online.
Are you suggesting that a bunch of Hells Angels bikers showed up at this guy's house and forced him at gunpoint to do what he did?
And yes, I think that other dickheads who did the same thing should be held accountable in a court of law for their actions.
Anony seems to miss the point that if a man has a woman (or personage of whatever stripe) do something actionable against HIM, he has the same right to go to court and sue HER (or whoever) for cyberharassment (or whatever the official legal description was). This is a two way street.
It just means you don't get to use the internet as an international weapon of vengeance against someone, *without consequences*.
PS: if you still manage to believe it's a-ok to *punish* someone in such a manner because someone 'pushed' your sensitive, fragile male/female ego to testerical/hysterical depths, seek therapy.
Niles, "personages" use psychological violence and most of it does not get reported.
"Violence" between the sexes is usually expressed differently.
When people feel powerless, abused and vulnerable they will do stupid things.
As I prefaced, there was not sufficient context to be able to even guess why he would do what he did - only a judgement.
Niles, women and men use the courts as a weapon of vengeance, it seems almost ingrained.
testirical?
Anonymous/'Monsieur Pincourt' - your testerical generalization about women and men abusing the court system is incorrect. Unless you're talking from personal experience and as a member of F4J, of course.
Most women and most men only use the court system as a recourse when they are the victims of a criminal action, corporate negligence or individual malfaisance.
As I said, the man cited in the blogpost did recognize that his action was inappropriate and accepted responsibility.
Post a Comment