An Indian man was allegedly subjected to homophobic posters placed around Launceston, racist videos on social media, violent threats and "constant harassment" by phone, Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Tribunal has heard.
The man - who has not been identified to protect his privacy - took the matter to the tribunal after a restraining order against the respondent had lapsed, and the behaviour restarted.
The matter was heard in the tribunal and determined in April, when the man decided to withdraw his complaint after a two-year restraining order was taken out in court.
The tribunal heard that the respondent allegedly created posters with the man's face and obscene homophobic slurs which were attached to street signs and noticeboards around Launceston and the University of Tasmania campus.
IN OTHER NEWS:
The respondent also allegedly posted several YouTube videos with racist abuse, further homophobic slurs and threats of violence against the man.
In one instance the respondent claimed to have thrown an "Indian immigrant into a fountain", which the man said did occur.
A hearing was held on April 19, and while the respondent did not attend, he did earlier indicate to the tribunal that he made the YouTube videos. He claimed "to have been suffering from PTSD at the time" as a reason for his behaviour - but the tribunal found that mental health was not an "obvious defence".
The tribunal agreed to allow the victim to withdraw his complaint after the granting of a further restraining order, which gave him the same protection he was seeking from the tribunal.
In their decision, Anti-Discrimination Tribunal chairperson Alison Clues and member Kate Cuthbertson said the language in the videos could have been breaches of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
"On the face of it, those videos contain a number of references to the complainant's race and actual or imputed sexuality," the decision reads.
"Those references utilise derogatory language which may constitute a breach of a number provisions of the Act.
"The tribunal does not consider it is in the public interest to conduct an inquiry itself in relation to the complaint. The respondent's behaviour is currently being controlled by the terms of a restraint order."