A "very serious" Homophobic Crime? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2008, 03:16 PM   #16
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Also wondering if it would have been dealt the same way if the boy would have called the other one FAT or UGLY instead?
The UK Equality Act covers race, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. So no, weight status and subjective perceptions of physical attractiveness would not be covered.
Quote:
I don't think police involvement was warranted or necessary.
As a matter of personal opinion that's fine, but again it's my understanding that police in the UK are obligated to investigate such complaints, since the relevant legal provisions make them by nature criminal complaints.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 04:11 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:09 PM
posted in another thread, but putting it here ...



this gets at the issue of hate crimes and why i have an ideological problem with them, even though i understand why they exist.

the reason why hate crimes are termed as such, and why they are in theory punished more severely is because when a person is singled out for a crime on the basis of a specific, known, quantifiable characteristic -- race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity -- then that crime is not only against that individual person, but against all those who share the same characteristic.

take a cross on a lawn. or the burning of a black church. are these actions done to bother that particular household, or that particular church, or is it done to intimidate *all* black people or all black churchgoers in a specific area?

likewise, if in my neighborhood, someone vandalizes a car and spraypaints "AIDS KILLS FAGGOTS DEAD" on it, how am i, obviously not the owner of the car, going to *not* be affected by that? the message was intended for me as well, in a way that it would not be for you.

this is the logic behind hate crimes.

now, the issue i have with hate crimes comes in determining which groups are worth of what must be termed a special group. you'll see federal hate crimes laws in place for blacks, women, jews ... but not for gays.

and that, to me, is just as discriminatory.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 07:01 PM   #18
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 09:09 PM
So where exactly do we draw the line on protected groups of people? Do we protect fat people, people who wear glasses, kids with acne, republicans, etc.? Anyone of these groups could say they were part of a protected class of people, couldn't they? I'm using the example in this story to make my point. Obviously, their aren't to many examples of hate crimes against fat people, or people who wear glasses, but in school, many of these groups are singled out and bullied. Do they also not deserve some sort of protection as a group?
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 07:12 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
1. I thought this forum was here to discuss any topic that anyone felt was pertinent, interesting or just plain curious. I didn't realize that I had to explain why I chose to post a particular topic. Many here post whatever they want, including YOU, and are never asked the same question. I will tell you that I'm interested in knowing what people's feelings are regarding police involvement in this "hate crime" issue. I'm not very knowledgeable on the laws regarding this in the UK. Also wondering if it would have been dealt the same way if the boy would have called the other one FAT or UGLY instead?
This forum is here to discuss any pertinent topic; that is true. On the other hand, usually when people post articles, they throw in some context or other discussion lines. None of this was here, so I guess that means I'm free to interpret what you've posted based on my initial reaction. And my "initial reaction" is precisely what I posted above. Freedom of speech is a two-way street.

Quote:
2. My personal opinion is that this is PC gone to far. These are kids, first off. I don't agree with name calling in any form. I believe that if we don't learn how to handle ourselves as children, we will never learn to handle ourselves as adults. I was teased in school. I think most everyone probably was. The real world is harsh. Kids can be brutal to one another. But adults can be worse. I don't think police involvement was warranted or necessary.
From an American POV, where we do not have anti-hate speech laws, I think we'd generally be in agreement here. Contrary to what some might believe, both the America Right and the Left are against laws prohibiting hate speech. The leftist argument against laws like this is that we're more comfortable with our hate groups out in the open, so we can "know our enemy," so to speak. It is probably worse if they head underground, because then we don't really know what hate groups are up to.

On the other hand, I just happened to see a news item locally last night, where a gay couple was verbally harassed and attacked, but because Ohio is one of like 16 or so states that do not include sexual orientation under hate crimes statutes (unlike such categories as race, religion, and gender, where hate crimes statutes do apply), no hate crimes charges could be pursued.

We can argue the merits of hate crimes laws, in general, and I believe that to be a reasonable debate; but it seems to me that these kinds of "outrages" that conservatives post are only when gays get legal protections. They're most certainly silent when state and federal laws hypocritically protect religious groups from hate crimes, while completely ignoring another hated group from legal protection.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 07:15 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:09 AM
I'm not sure that I'd give a lot of credit to these arbitrary distinctions between 'gay' and 'straight', they seem quite exclusionary to me.

Unfortunately a lot of the agenda of the US gay rights movement seems to be about establishing protected and in some cases exclusive rights for an 'anointed' group and (in some cases) it seems to be an agenda encompassing actual prejudice against 'heterosexual' people.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 07:16 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
So where exactly do we draw the line on protected groups of people? Do we protect fat people, people who wear glasses, kids with acne, republicans, etc.? Anyone of these groups could say they were part of a protected class of people, couldn't they? I'm using the example in this story to make my point. Obviously, their aren't to many examples of hate crimes against fat people, or people who wear glasses, but in school, many of these groups are singled out and bullied. Do they also not deserve some sort of protection as a group?
When we have demonstrated a traditional or present mainstream hatred of any of those groups, then hate crimes protections would be potentially necessary. But the fact remains that we don't have organized groups calling for the deaths of all fat people, inflammatory literature saying that kids with acne are causing the ruin of America, or roving gangs of people beating Republicans to death.

If, in fact, any of that changed in the future, then maybe it would be necessary. But I'd venture to say that it probably won't happen, so hate crimes legislation protecting any of those groups are trivial.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 07:20 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
I'm not sure that I'd give a lot of credit to these arbitrary distinctions between 'gay' and 'straight', they seem quite exclusionary to me.

Unfortunately a lot of the agenda of the US gay rights movement seems to be about establishing protected and in some cases exclusive rights for an 'anointed' group and (in some cases) it seems to be an agenda encompassing actual prejudice against 'heterosexual' people.
I think this is real B.S. Again, demonstrate to me evidence of a corporation refusing to hire or firing an individual, because he or she is heterosexual. But, oddly enough, the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class, in regards to anti-discrimination laws, means that a company could full-well decide to fire someone for being heterosexual, if they so wished.

On the other hand, there are several documented cases of companies harassing or firing someone heterosexual based on perceived homosexuality; that is, an effeminate-seeming man or a masculine-seeming woman. Again, since sexual orientation is not a protected class in anti-discrimination legislation, these people, too, can legally be fired at will.

As for the rest of what you've written, I'm sorry, but I think it reads like homophobic paranoia.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 07:56 PM   #23
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the reason why hate crimes are termed as such, and why they are in theory punished more severely is because when a person is singled out for a crime on the basis of a specific, known, quantifiable characteristic -- race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity -- then that crime is not only against that individual person, but against all those who share the same characteristic.

take a cross on a lawn. or the burning of a black church. are these actions done to bother that particular household, or that particular church, or is it done to intimidate *all* black people or all black churchgoers in a specific area?

likewise, if in my neighborhood, someone vandalizes a car and spraypaints "AIDS KILLS FAGGOTS DEAD" on it, how am i, obviously not the owner of the car, going to *not* be affected by that? the message was intended for me as well, in a way that it would not be for you.

this is the logic behind hate crimes.
(I'm repeating myself from another recent thread here, but...) as a corollary to the above, it's also part of the logic behind hate crime laws that such crimes are typically more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes (e.g., '92 LA riots) and to stir community tensions and civic unrest (e.g., fallout from the black church burnings across the South in '96, or the 'Howard Beach Incident' in NYC in '86), as well as inflicting more emotional distress on the victims than they would have otherwise. In application *most* hate crime laws are effectively penalty enhancement provisions for conduct that's already criminal anyway (harassment, assault, vandalism etc.). I think this elaboration is important, because one of the more common misconceptions about hate crime laws is that the protected categories they employ (race, religion etc.) are based on nothing more than arbitrary perceptions about how "hateful" one perpetrator is compared to another, or how traumatized one "type" of victim is compared to another. That is really not the point.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 08:24 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:09 PM
How anyone can take the side of the authorities on this one is way beyond me. Let's be truthful here...This is politically correct facism plain and simple. Period. No argument.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 08:33 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 12:09 AM
In situations like this, you have to keep in mind that "gay" is a common playground putdown or remark, "That's pretty gay".

It's not right, nor is it acceptable, but these are kids and the authorities have to keep that in mind when dealing with situations like this.

This case is [b[much[/b] different than a group of high school kids chasing and taunting a classmate for actually being homosexual. That is when the school administration and the police become involved. Totally different situation.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 08:33 PM   #26
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 10:09 PM
It's so easy being white straight and male, you get to bitch about everyone...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-22-2008, 08:38 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

kids with acne are causing the ruin of America
But of course they are.

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 08:51 PM   #28
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
establishing protected and in some cases exclusive rights for an 'anointed' group
Can you give an example of an exclusive right gay people have that straight people do not have?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 09:24 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Can you give an example of an exclusive right gay people have that straight people do not have?
I think he's still bitter about the farm lobby.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 02-22-2008, 10:10 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Unfortunately a lot of the agenda of the US gay rights movement seems to be about establishing protected and in some cases exclusive rights for an 'anointed' group and (in some cases) it seems to be an agenda encompassing actual prejudice against 'heterosexual' people.
Dying Lesbian's Partner Denied Access To Her
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: February 22, 2008 - 1:00 pm ET

(Miami, Florida) Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond had planned to take their three children on a family cruise. The Olympia, Washington couple had been together 18 years and with their children were looking forward to the holiday.

But just as they were about to depart on the cruise from Miami, Florida. Pond, a healthy 39-year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami with Langbehn and the children following close behind.

But once Langbehn and the children arrived at the hospital the hospital refused to accept information from her about Ponds’s medical history.

Langbehn says she was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family.

A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery.

Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Langbehn’s request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor’s acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither she nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival.

Soon after Pond'’s death, Langbehn tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

With the help of Lambda Legal Langbehn has notified Jackson Memorial Hospital that she intends to file a lawsuit.

"There is nothing that can make up for what my children and I endured that day,” Langbehn says of the day Pond died. “We only want the hospital to take responsibility for how they treated us and ensure that it doesn’t happen to another family.”

In accordance with Florida law, Lambda Legal is waiting for the hospital to respond to the notice of intent to sue before formally filing a complaint with the court.

"The treatment that Janice and her children received was unethical and discriminatory," said Beth Littrell, Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal.

"This letter puts them on notice that we are advocating for justice for Janice and her children."

-----------------

Yup...it's just an anti-heterosexual conspiracy!!!!!
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com