Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Scottish Mom Tells Court She Abused Her Son for Being Gay

A woman in Scotland has admitted in court that she sent homophobic text messages and shouted abuse at her own child because he is gay. 42-year-old Celia Duncan, from Aberdeen, had previously thrown her 16-year-old son Stuart O’Neill out of the family home. She will be sentenced next year. Duncan shouted abuse at her son when she saw him walking with his boyfriend and sent the texts when he would not speak to her. Stuart, who lives with his boyfriend, told the Daily Record “I feel really hurt by what my mum has done.” [Pink News UK]

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Dec 24, 2008
Tagged: , , ,

  • 16 Comments
    • Tallskin
      Tallskin

      Yeah, the important point here is not that there is homophobia in the UK, or that parents abuse their gay kids, but that that this evil bitch is being prosecuted!

      YES! A result!

      Dec 24, 2008 at 10:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Celia the lurker
      Celia the lurker

      On behalf of all Celias, I must apologise.

      Seriously, though, as Tallskin says, that this is being prosecuted shows a wonderful leap forward. We’ll never be able to wipe out crimes entirely, but we can make people see that they’re crimes.

      Dec 24, 2008 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John in CA
      John in CA

      If this were America, she’d probably win “Mother of the Year” and get the Congressional Medal of Honor.

      (snicker)

      Dec 24, 2008 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Distingué Traces
      Distingué Traces

      Um.

      I don’t see that this is a crime.

      Dec 24, 2008 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrianPrince
      BrianPrince

      A small step in the right direction is better than standing still.

      Dec 24, 2008 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Micky in AB
      Micky in AB

      @Distingué Traces:

      Shouting slurs and sending abusive messages when the boy tried to ignore his maltreatment?

      How can you not see that that is a hate crime?

      Thank heavens the prosecutor could.

      Dec 24, 2008 at 8:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SoCalTeen
      SoCalTeen

      My God. I couldn’t even fathom my mother doing that kind of stuff to me. Everytime I hear these stories I’m SO glad my mother is the way she is.

      Also, how can you NOT see this as a crime? The mother put her own blood and flesh out on the street when her primary goal as a mother is to provide him with a good life. She put his life at danger and should have been punished accordingly.

      Dec 25, 2008 at 1:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carsen T.
      Carsen T.

      I could never see my mom doing that to me. But I can see my father doing it, man just a few minutes ago he yelled that I was going to hell, just because I said, someday I might marry “someone” rather then “some man”. Plus the CPS is already on his ass for neglecting to show up for social worker visits, he has the time he just goes to church.

      Dec 25, 2008 at 5:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael
      michael

      How wonderful that there are societies that see such things as this as child abuse.
      America would have given the cunt a medal and maybe even chose her to run for vice president. It just reminds me of just how backward, ignorant and spiritually bankrupt the American people are. Thank God I don’t have to live in that hell hole anymore.

      Dec 25, 2008 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Distingué Traces
      Distingué Traces

      @SoCalTeen:

      The woman is not being charged with child abandonment for throwing her son out of the house (which I agree would be perfectly reasonable), but for speaking and writing insults.

      Dec 26, 2008 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Distingué Traces:

      This has something to do with something?

      The bitch is going to be sentenced next year. And it ain’t for illegal parking.

      Dec 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrianPrince
      BrianPrince

      @SoCalTeen: her primary DUTY is to provide him with a good life… you said it’s her primary goal… clearly, her primary goal is marginalize and chastise him.

      Dec 27, 2008 at 8:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Distingué Traces
      Distingué Traces

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      Regulating parking is a legitimate function of government.

      Regulating private speech is not.

      Dec 27, 2008 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Puddy Katz
      Puddy Katz

      Distingue Traces I am a stronger advocate of First Amendment rights than most on this board. You can follow my other comments when these types of issues come up and I am usually closer to libertarian on this issue than others. (Not a libertarian on all issues.)
      But I would accept limiting speech when it is
      1. directed against someone personally, i.e. face to face, over the phone, or now via text messages
      2. has no political or cultural significance
      3. is meant only to harm or inflame or anger

      This follows pretty closely the US Supreme Court definition of “fighting words” OR is a reasonable extension of that. No right is absolute and even the US Supreme Court which has tended to be more lenient in free speech than courts of other countries and in a country which tends to have a strong free speech tradition, supports limiting “fighting words.”
      Whether this falls under child abuse is questionable only because I not sure he is within the legal age of “childhood.”
      I think you are either disingenuous or just gay-hating.

      Dec 28, 2008 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Distingué Traces
      Distingué Traces

      Okay … well, thanks for ending with a personal insult in your post advocating the criminalization of personal insults.

      The “fighting words” doctrine applies to speech that causes injury or an immediate breach of the peace.

      Dec 28, 2008 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrianPrince
      BrianPrince

      @Distingué Traces:

      Fighting words applies to situations of enticement, as well — if I say, “Come on, hoe-bag…” as we say in my neck o’ the woods… “…them’s fightin’ words.”

      “Come on hoe-bag” doesn’t cause injury… they are, after-all, just words — no word will cause physical injury… and it doesn’t cause an immediate breach of the peace — somebody’s response to me saying “Come on, hoe-bag” does… but not the words, themselves. It’s reasonable, however, to anticipate that the reaction to the words would have been absent, in the absence of the words… “fighting words” comes into play there, too.

      Dec 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.