Home

Email Us

Useful Links

Message Board

Latest Newsletter

 

 

 
DV8 Message Board
Register Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Aileen

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #1 
What does everyone think of this - hope the press commission have them!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/30/clare-balding-lesbian-complaint-gill
k-dog

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #2 
i think its a slight over reaction to a bad joke made in very bad taste, but i think i understand slightly where Gill (the columnist) is coming from in saying that members of the Gay community have 'special victim status'.  i think that Gill is saying (very badly) that some gay people feel victimised or insulted where no true insult is intended, when you have to defend yourself (as gay people do) its easy to become overly defensive and i think gay people sometimes do this.

his comments were, as i said, in bad taste, but they don't sound malicious at all to me.

maybe a case of 'only we can use that word'.  which isnt something i agree with.

Aileen

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #3 
In this case I don't think it's that simple.  In reviewing her new television programme I can't really see where having a 'joke' about her sexuality has any relevance at all and I think it was that lack of relevance that annoyed Clare Balding in the first place.


laurie

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #4 
Well at least now gay people get victim status! Before, gay people were only ever blamed for the attacks upon them and no matter the words used to insult them, they had to pretend to joke along, ignore it or accept it. Something is beginning to shift.

Sometimes when gay people are victimised they do not become oversensitive, in fact, they become the opposite as they learn to normalise their experiences and fail to realise how badly they are being treated until someone else, usually a straight person, points out what has happen or been said.

I do accept what both of you are saying to some degree and confess it is not something that I can be objective about. I am just delighted that these things are now being talked about.
Aileen

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #5 
I try to be objective by looking at other marginalised groups in society that I don't belong too.  For many lesbians the D word is as insulting coming from a straight person as the N word is for a black person coming from a white one.  If a journo described a black tv presenter who was presenting a building programme as a N......r with a digger can you imagine the outcry?  As a white person looking on, I would be disgusted because I would understand how deeply insulting this would be to many people.

That's not acceptable, and neither is having a pop at someone's sexuality just to prove, it seems, that you are clever enough to rhyme two four letter words.
newt

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #6 
Its not that gay people have "Victim status", in fact its about flaming time there were laws to protect any gay person. Thats the first good thing the Government have come up with in a long time. Aileen, your comment on the N word has said it all. I feel I do not have to explain any further as you hit the nail on the head. 
k-dog

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #7 
i disagree newt.

i dont think its right that black people can call themselves N but are insulted by a white person saying it without malice, and i think the same with the dyke or other gay slang words.

also, im not too sure about the new laws tbh, it seems to me that gay people are given more rights not to be assaulted or insulted that i am, if someone beats up a gay man they risk a longer sentence than they would for beating up a straight one, that is not right.

i also think the government telling people not to do something will not work, maybe it will just build resentment?


i actually think that the gay community (or movement? not sure of word, apologies) is going the same way as the feminist movement, in that they are pushing for something beyond equality (or at least are getting close to that)

you can slag me all you like for being straight, we all know it wont go to court.

Aileen

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #8 
Where's the equality in being the butt of jokes because of sexuality?

The Under the Rainbow DVD shows a gay woman and her family being hounded by members of the local community because she is homosexual.  Now, give me an example of a heterosexual woman being hounded by the local community because she's straight? She might be hounded for many other reasons, but not because she's straight.
k-dog

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #9 
she could be too straight if you know what i mean lol!

there are thousands of reasons that people will pick on you, there are straight people who have been in similar situations as the story on under the rainbow shows, my point is that with the new hate law, the gay woman has MORE protection than someone being picked on for, example, being overweight, or non fashionable, or whatever

having more protection than other people due to race sexuality etc is not equality.  and that particular story, if the law was invoked and the harresers received tougher than normal sentencing, the community would have been outraged and the situation worse, i think anyway

newt

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #10 
K. The new laws dont give Gay people more rights, all it does is acknowledges another part of diversity. It doesnt make for longer sentences at all. All it is , is an aggravation of an offence, such as an assault. The police can now use words like 'homophobic' attack rather than just an attack. Its the recognition that gay people have wanted most of their lives and now they have it. So its not about 'special treatment' its about being recognised.
Aileen

Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #11 
I agree that sentencing on crime should be fair to the entire community, and actually, in terms of crimes against the person the punishment should reflect the suffering inflicted whatever the motivation.

My haven't we moved this debate along way from the original point - if only we were in the pub it would be a perfect evening!
k-dog

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #12 
What does the law say about
hate crime?
The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice)
(Scotland) Act 2009 was created to protect
victims of crime who are targeted as a result
of hatred of their actual or presumed sexual
orientation, transgender identity or disability.
What does this mean?
Any crime committed because of prejudice
against someone’s actual or presumed sexual
orientation or transgender identity is classed
as an aggravated hate crime. You don’t
actually need to be lesbian, gay, bisexual
or transgender (LGBT) to be a victim of
homophobic or transphobic hate crime.
If a crime is classed as aggravated, the
courts will take it into account when deciding
sentences.
And in most cases, if it’s proven the main
motivation was prejudice, sentencing will be
more severe



^ from a police publication


sentencing more severe for attacks on people that are gay/bme etc (or mistaken for) = unfair

but since i think all sentences are way too lenient (spell) i guess its a step in the right direction lol

k-dog

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #13 
ps thats something i defo agree on aileen, punishment to reflect harm caused
laurie

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #14 
Lively debates are great and I take everyone's point particularly the one about laws not really changing things. But, if only there was a law in the past when I (and others around me) have experienced homophobic bullying and even attacks. Then, when calling the police I could have demanded the same rights as other people to protect myself and others. Back then, the police blamed me for not having a man. Now they must protect me. Back then, the whole community blamed me for attacks upon me , including family and friends! Stay in the closet and no one will attack you. Get a man and be normal! 
Now people possible still think the same and some might still say it now now when I call the police, no matter their views about me, they must act and give me the same rights as other people. I feel a little bit safer now but only a little.
k-dog

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #15 
the world (local wise at least) has changed a bit since those days, this law is too late.

i dont have any huge issue with it im just not convinced it is a good thing.

and whilst you are now able to feel safer due to the extra protection there are other groups of people that dont, and we all know the government is keen to prove things like this succseful, which probably boils down to crimes against other people not being taken as seriously

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!