Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss for a mob
Discussion
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I think the idea that the BBC and the Guardian have their editorial line is well short of swivel eyed lunacy.
As to my being disingenuous, I am perfectly open about the fact I think the BBC and the Guardian are mouthpieces for an evil ideology, which uses its superficial niceness to manipulate muddle headed fools.
I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I wasn't definitively saying anything about it other than noting that there was a focus on the identity of the victims and a suggestion of blaming right wing populism but nothing to say that this was the motive.
As a right wing conservative myself I don't often demand perfect strangers put on a porn show for me then beat them up if they refuse. Nor do I travel around on night buses, and nor would any child of 14 or 15 that I was responsible for. I wouldn't even assume two women travelling on the same bus were lesbian lovers.
In fact the whole sorry saga is grotesquely un-conservative, and the fact that the victim mentioned it at all seems to point towards either over eager "journalism" or a campaigning victim.
Neither of which amount to a wild conspiracy. Neither is particularly wrong. But nor is pointing this out.
This is remarkably forthright for you.As to my being disingenuous, I am perfectly open about the fact I think the BBC and the Guardian are mouthpieces for an evil ideology, which uses its superficial niceness to manipulate muddle headed fools.
I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I wasn't definitively saying anything about it other than noting that there was a focus on the identity of the victims and a suggestion of blaming right wing populism but nothing to say that this was the motive.
As a right wing conservative myself I don't often demand perfect strangers put on a porn show for me then beat them up if they refuse. Nor do I travel around on night buses, and nor would any child of 14 or 15 that I was responsible for. I wouldn't even assume two women travelling on the same bus were lesbian lovers.
In fact the whole sorry saga is grotesquely un-conservative, and the fact that the victim mentioned it at all seems to point towards either over eager "journalism" or a campaigning victim.
Neither of which amount to a wild conspiracy. Neither is particularly wrong. But nor is pointing this out.
Some degree of b
ks but at least honest. Terminator X said:
Just a mugging though which surely happens in London every few minutes? Added pizzaz here given they are gay, would it be in the papers if me and Mrs TX were beaten up 
TX.
You’re about 10 pages late for the trite comments laden with complete lack of understanding of context. TX.
Been listening to some interesting discussions about this incident, and one of the topics was the difference between how lesbian relationships are perceived versus the gay male equivalent. Point of discussion was that for many, many young boys/men, their first exposure to the concept of lesbianism is very likely to be via lesbian pornography of the kind designed primarily for consumption by straight men. That produces a distorted media portrayal and means lesbians are already objectified and sexualised in the minds of many men in a way that doesn't apply to their interactions with male homosexuality. They're being objectified both as women in general, which is bad enough, and as lesbians specifically, which is amplifying the idea that they're somehow there to perform for an audience. I think there's merit in that viewpoint.
An interesting point that feeds into the wider discussion is the nature of lesbianism in gay rights worldwide. Many, if not all of the countries where male homosexuality is illegal have very few, if any such laws for female homosexuality. ISIS weren't throwing gay women off of rooftops (that's not wishing to look like I'm playing "Oppression Top Trumps") and fundamentalist Christians only seem to get agitated about "Adam and Steve". Not quite sure what that demonstrates, beyond perhaps that heavily patriarchal cultures and belief systems already have a dim enough view of women's rights that female homosexuality isn't deemed threatening or challenging in the same way male homosexuality is. I think there's a softer manifestation of that in our culture. An exaggerated example maybe, but two women kissing in a pub full of football fans would garner a very different reaction to two men, so there's clearly cultural influences causing asymmetry of perception and reaction.
An interesting point that feeds into the wider discussion is the nature of lesbianism in gay rights worldwide. Many, if not all of the countries where male homosexuality is illegal have very few, if any such laws for female homosexuality. ISIS weren't throwing gay women off of rooftops (that's not wishing to look like I'm playing "Oppression Top Trumps") and fundamentalist Christians only seem to get agitated about "Adam and Steve". Not quite sure what that demonstrates, beyond perhaps that heavily patriarchal cultures and belief systems already have a dim enough view of women's rights that female homosexuality isn't deemed threatening or challenging in the same way male homosexuality is. I think there's a softer manifestation of that in our culture. An exaggerated example maybe, but two women kissing in a pub full of football fans would garner a very different reaction to two men, so there's clearly cultural influences causing asymmetry of perception and reaction.
JagLover said:
gregs656 said:
JagLover said:
The problem with this argument from my point of view is that it seems to be the re-emergence of old attitudes with a new justification, a new puritanism if you will.
It is not an argument, it is an observation. You appear to be reading in a conclusion which was never reached and then complaining about it.
"They're being objectified both as women in general, which is bad enough, and as lesbians specifically"
What's interesting about these threads on pistonheads is that there's always a desperate desire to paint this as an issue that has nothing to do with the attitudes of men towards women, or general homophobia in society.
From the very first post where there were people claiming that they had lied, to the posters throughout the thread wanting to know a description of the attackers the thread is full of posters with a desparate need to prove to themselves that there isn't a problem, and that they must be lying/it's an ethnic minority problem.
I wonder why this is such a common trend in NP&E threads?
From the very first post where there were people claiming that they had lied, to the posters throughout the thread wanting to know a description of the attackers the thread is full of posters with a desparate need to prove to themselves that there isn't a problem, and that they must be lying/it's an ethnic minority problem.
I wonder why this is such a common trend in NP&E threads?
Countdown said:
To be fair I thinkthat’s only “some” posters rather than most. I think the reason why they do it is so they can use it as a stick against another group in society that they don’t like. A prime example is the “Teaching about LGBTQ issues in Schools”, some thought it was hilarious because (seemingly) it was a “Lefties vs Muslims” issue (aka an NP&E double-win). The fact that it had little or nothing to do with lefties or that Muslims weren’t the only religious group opposing it was irrelevant. It helped to feed their bigotry, ergo it must be true.
TBH I also think that rape and sexual assault is a good example of the views on here as well.Posters are always very keen to emphasise the racial aspect of the rape gangs that have been caught but are much more reticent about doing something about the estimated 1 in 5 women experiencing a rape or serious sexual assault, or the low conviction/reporting rates of rape.
Bill said:
I think the only people who can't see it's straightforward can only see in black and white. Those of us who don't tar all muslims with the extremist/rapist brush think most are just ordinary people who happen to be muslim. Some of their views are less progressive, just like some of those of christians, hindus and even atheists. And those views can be criticised.
It's the "if you're not with us you're with them" issue.
Far too sensible.It's the "if you're not with us you're with them" issue.
It’ll never catch on in NP&E
Mandalore said:
You paint a very bleak picture.
In your opinion how high a percentage of all men in Great Britain fit your default profile profile?
What's the default profile that I am talking about?In your opinion how high a percentage of all men in Great Britain fit your default profile profile?
But yes it can be a bit bleak when you begin to think about it.
First, some statistics
The ONS found that one in 5 women will experience a rape or sexual assault, with 99% of those recorded as being a male perpetrator.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
A survey of students found that 8% of female students reported being raped.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar...
Now to your question to me, those statistics beg the further question of how many men carry our sexual assault or rape in the UK, and you're right, it is pretty bleak when you begin to think about how many men it probably actually is.
When you add in that (iirc) more than half of women will experience sexual harassment at work and more than 60% of female University students experience some form of sexual violence (see guardian article above) it seems very clear that we have a big issue with the attitudes of men towards women in society.
I haven't really dealt with homophobia here but it wouldn't surprise me if there is a similar picture there.
Mandalore said:
Although, you response included a number of statistics, That doesn't answer my question, as directed to YOU and your own opinion..
In YOUR opinion how high a percentage of all men in Great Britain do YOU believe fit your default profile of total intolerants ?
If it helps, I can repost the comment I was asking about, so that the question asked remains in context.
No need to requote-i don't think I said anywhere in that post that men or some men are complete intolerants. That's my confusion?In YOUR opinion how high a percentage of all men in Great Britain do YOU believe fit your default profile of total intolerants ?
If it helps, I can repost the comment I was asking about, so that the question asked remains in context.
If you could point me to where exactly in the post I outlined a profile of men being totally intolerant? Or that was my 'default profile'.
R Mutt said:
Davos123 said:
We are talking about a situation where you are attracted to someone until you find out they're trans, though. It depends what about that puts you off, really...
Not being the gender I'm attracted to. Pretty straight forward.It's not Begbie in Trainspotting.
Have characteristics of gender you're attracted to? Yes. You were attracted to them
If they're not the gender you're attracted to, how come you're attracted to them in the first place? They must possess at least some of the gender traits you find attractive, otherwise you wouldn't find them attractive to start with. That surely shows that gender isn't purely binary thing?
Davos123 said:
La Liga said:
The crime itself isn't an aggravated crime (as in they'd be convicted of assault, not 'homophobically aggravated' assault).The aggravation is covered in the sentencing.
I thought that's what my post said... It's an aggravating factor (to the crime) which can lead to an increased sentence. Rollin said:
gregs656 said:
La Liga said:
t did, I just expanded a little.
To add a little more it is not gay people per se but crimes where the persons sexuality (or perceived sexuality) is a motivating factor. Applies to all the protected categories: sex, gender identity, sexuality, religion, disability, nationality, physical appearance, ethnicity and language.
So entirely possible these individuals will get a heavier sentence than if they hadn’t committed a crime motivated by someone’s sexuality.
I've been assaulted several times in my life. Once for being "a long haired
" and once for "looking at my bird in the wrong way". On each occasion, I never did anything to provoke the assault.Why should the perpetrators of the crimes against me expect a lighter sentence than if they had assaulted someone from a protected category?
The scope of hate crime has increased a lot over the years, but it still generally reflects minority groups. History has shown us that the targeting minority groups is rather undesirable so adding an extra prohibitive element reflects that.
Also we can't know for certain, it sounds as if in this case that the incident wouldn't have occurred had victims not been gay. The victims shouldn't face an increased probability (than anyone else) or being assaulted due to the specific bigotry and prejudice of other people.
I think this also needs to be seen in the bigger picture of aggravating factors. There are lots of factors which can aggravate an offence beyond any 'hate' element - see the picture I posted above.
voyds9 said:
So if my protected characteristics says its OK to hate another then its not a hate crime?
No idea in Sweeden or whatever that case is from. Over here it wouldn't be the case.
Cantaloupe said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I see it really simply.
If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
It's illogical, assault is assault no matter the initial motivation, no assault is worse than the other.If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
That way is inequality.
Finlandia said:
I would assume the Swedish law being more or less equal to the UK law.
Definition of the crime
Hate crime is a collective name for several crimes committed as a result of the offender's attitude towards certain characteristics of a person. Hate crime legislation is founded on:
• Skin colour
• National or ethnic origin
• Religion or other belief
• Sexual orientation
You do not have to fit in any of these descriptions in order to be a victim of a hate crime. It is enough that the offender thinks that you have some of these characteristics, for example, that he or she thinks that you are a homosexual.
Regardless, if you commit a hate crime it's irrelevant if you do it because of your beliefs / because you're also have a 'protected characteristic'. Definition of the crime
Hate crime is a collective name for several crimes committed as a result of the offender's attitude towards certain characteristics of a person. Hate crime legislation is founded on:
• Skin colour
• National or ethnic origin
• Religion or other belief
• Sexual orientation
You do not have to fit in any of these descriptions in order to be a victim of a hate crime. It is enough that the offender thinks that you have some of these characteristics, for example, that he or she thinks that you are a homosexual.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I see it really simply.
If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
I don't see why one is more wrong than the other. In both cases an innocent person is assaulted for no other reason than the violent stupidity of the attacker.If I beat you up because you were "looking at my bird in the wrong way" that's bad.
If I beat you up solely because you're black, gay, of a certain religion etc. that's worse.
The law recognises this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff