What George Hook said wasn't so bad after all, was it?

Comhrá

Egyptian lawyer jailed for saying women in ripped jeans should be raped


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42209755?ocid=socialflow_twitter

The Rape of Lucretia

Comhra wrote: »

Egyptian lawyer jailed for saying women in ripped jeans should be raped


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42209755?ocid=socialflow_twitter

George Hook is an Egyptian lawyer ? Never knew that. Quite the varied career he has had.

evolving_doors

No, George is a woman in ripped jeans

Odhinn

evolving_doors wrote: »

No, George is a woman in ripped jeans

George would rip womens jeans if he tried to wear them, I thought.

Vladimir Poontang

What George Hook said was perfectly correct in that he was acknowledging that the world is a big bad place and advocating that people take precautions for their personal safety in lieu of that reality.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.

We don't live in this fantasy utopia. It would be great if we did, but that is not the reality of the situation.

So George Hook made the mortal error of saying women should take precautions.

And was villified by opportunists in the media who seized the chance to silence one of their enemies.

Ditto for Kevin Myers.

Muahahaha

OP is trying to pull a three card trick. The whataboutery is strong in this one.

Sleeper12

Ah we don't need another George Hook debate just as he's returning to the Airways.

byte

There is no spoon.

Odhinn

byte wrote: »

There is no spoon.

Screw the utensils as long as there's cake.

_Brian

I thought they’d just decided he was too ugly for radio ?

wally1990

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah we don't need another George Hook debate just as he's returning to the Airways.

True

However what this lawyer said was just absoutely ridiculous

The Rape of Lucretia

wally1990 wrote: »

True

However what this lawyer said was just absoutely ridiculous

To us maybe, but everyone is entitled to their view, and other cultures and traditions must be respected even if a long way from our own.

biko

What OP failed to mention in their post is that Nabih al-Wahsh was fined and sentenced to prison for saying this.

Sleeper12

wally1990 wrote:

However what this lawyer said was just absoutely ridiculous

Agreed. Unfortunately this world is full of a-holes

riffmongous

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To us maybe, but everyone is entitled to their view, and other cultures and traditions must be respected even if a long way from our own.

Human rights are universal and need to be treated as such, different traditions are fine up until they break the fundamental rights

Rubberchikken

Ill respect others traditions and beliefs when they respect mine.
And i had no probkem with what Hook said. People have to take responsibility for themselves.

Paddy Cow

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To us maybe, but everyone is entitled to their view, and other cultures and traditions must be respected even if a long way from our own.

No they shouldn't. Some things are too barbaric to be respected. Gays are still prosecuted in many countries. Should I respect ISIS for throwing gay men off buildings just for being gay or women being stoned for adultery because that's how they roll?

professore

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To us maybe, but everyone is entitled to their view, and other cultures and traditions must be respected even if a long way from our own.

No they shouldn't. Some things are too barbaric to be respected. Gays are still prosecuted in many countries. Should I respect ISIS for throwing gay men off buildings just for being gay or women being stoned for adultery because that's how they roll?

ISIS are equal opportunity genocidal maniacs. They kill or turn into sex slaves anyone who is not them. Not just gays.

kylith

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.

We don't live in this fantasy utopia.

And we never will, with that attitude!

the_pen_turner

first of all nobody should

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

What George Hook said was perfectly correct in that he was acknowledging that the world is a big bad place and advocating that people take precautions for their personal safety in lieu of that reality.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.

We don't live in this fantasy utopia. It would be great if we did, but that is not the reality of the situation.

So George Hook made the mortal error of saying women should take precautions.

And was villified by opportunists in the media who seized the chance to silence one of their enemies.

Ditto for Kevin Myers.

first of all nobody should be raped, attacked, assaulted etc. but there are things we can do that reduce our risk of these things happening to ourselves. of course there is no guarantee that these things wont happen


I look at these rape and sexual assault situations like someone breaking into your car
if your parking your car you don't leave expensive items on display for thieves to see and steal , you try not to park in rough areas etc.
if you leave you phone on the dash of your parked car, its not your fault for some scumbag stealing it but it is fair to say that there are precautions that would have reduced the likelihood of it happening .
the thief is still responsible
you should be able to do allsorts of things but because of scumbags you cant.
its not the victims fault but there are things we can do to reduce the risk

lawred2

To protect morals one must rape..

Interesting thought process

Vela

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

What George Hook said was perfectly correct in that he was acknowledging that the world is a big bad place and advocating that people take precautions for their personal safety in lieu of that reality.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.

We don't live in this fantasy utopia. It would be great if we did, but that is not the reality of the situation.

So George Hook made the mortal error of saying women should take precautions.

And was villified by opportunists in the media who seized the chance to silence one of their enemies.

Ditto for Kevin Myers.

I'm disgusted and disappointed at the amount of thanks this post has received.

This man said that if a woman goes home with a guy she's just met, it's her fault if she is raped.

Are.you.fcuking.kidding.me.

Every single weekend in Dublin, a girl meets a guy in a pub and goes home with him, or a guy meets a girl and goes home with her - same thing. So tell me, if all of those women are raped, you think it's their fault? That's your actual opinion? Because that's the opinion you're defending.

Words fail me.

Pithythefool

riffmongous wrote: »

Human rights are universal and need to be treated as such, different traditions are fine up until they break the fundamental rights

On the contrary. Universalism, on its own terms, mandates that there is right and wrong, and no shades of grey in-between.

So who decides universal values?

The UN declarations are nice, but not universal besides their supposed applications.

Leave every country to its own business, within reason. That is the only true universalism (ironically!)

super_furry

George Hook played a corpse in last week's Going Nowhere by Alison Spittle. Did a decent job of it too.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

I'm disgusted and disappointed at the amount of thanks this post has received.

This man said that if a woman goes home with a guy she's just met, it's her fault if she is raped.

Are.you.fcuking.kidding.me.

Every single weekend in Dublin, a girl meets a guy in a pub and goes home with him, or a guy meets a girl and goes home with her - same thing. So tell me, if all of those women are raped, you think it's their fault? That's your actual opinion? Because that's the opinion you're defending.

Words fail me.

Its just a case of applying different parameters. He is correct in the broad sense, you are correct in a particular sense.

Theres no reason to be disgusted, surely?

Vela

Vela wrote: »

I'm disgusted and disappointed at the amount of thanks this post has received.

This man said that if a woman goes home with a guy she's just met, it's her fault if she is raped.

Are.you.fcuking.kidding.me.

Every single weekend in Dublin, a girl meets a guy in a pub and goes home with him, or a guy meets a girl and goes home with her - same thing. So tell me, if all of those women are raped, you think it's their fault? That's your actual opinion? Because that's the opinion you're defending.

Words fail me.

He didn't say that though

milehip

Vela wrote: »

Words fail me.

They certainly do.

eyerer

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To us maybe, but everyone is entitled to their view, and other cultures and traditions must be respected even if a long way from our own.

Strong username to post correlation

Vela

milehip wrote: »

They certainly do.

:rolleyes:

Vela

Pithythefool wrote: »

Its just a case of applying different parameters. He is correct in the broad sense, you are correct in a particular sense.

Theres no reason to be disgusted, surely?

There's every reason to be disgusted. What he said and equally implied was irreprehensible and he should be off the air entirely in my opinion.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

There's every reason to be disgusted. What he said and equally implied was irreprehensible and he should be off the air entirely in my opinion.

I wasn't talking about George hook, I was talking about the poster.

Vela

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't say that though

It was directly implied from what he did say:

"Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She's only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, no idea what dangers he might pose.
But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her."

George Hook than goes on to discuss the "responsibility of women.
"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger? You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her."


Source

Bullsh1t of the highest order.

milehip

Pithythefool wrote: »

I wasn't talking about George hook, I was talking about the poster.

Pretty sure they'd be okay with them both being silenced.

Vela

Pithythefool wrote: »

I wasn't talking about George hook, I was talking about the poster.

Same applies.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

Same applies.

Ah that's too far, or at least hyperbolic.

If someone dresses provocatively, it is intended to provoke. Now I know its not the same exact issue, but its the same principle at play here.

There is your own responsibility, and then there is societal responsibility. They are not on an equal footing.

Just to clarify about using the word "provoke".......it obviously isn't intended to bring the likes of unwanted attention, but it can. That's just reality.

People cant, on the one hand, say "I can do whatever I want", and then if something bad happens, also say "Why didn't society protect me?"

Basically there are multiple levels of responsibility at play, and that's why I said in my original comment that your post was correct in a particular fashion, whereas the other post was correct in a broader fashion.

irishproduce

Angela Lansbury said something similar the other day. She referenced "time immemorial" just like George does. She was basically that women everywhere and forever have worked on making themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. George said something similar. She's getting similar treatment in fairness.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/angela-lansbury-women-blame-sexual-harassment-1202624492/

Broadcasters job is to challenge opinions and ask questions, it requires the panelists to justify them and shows the strength of the argument. Regardless of how obvious the merit of their argument seems to be. It has always been thus and broadcasting should challenge all arguments equally.

George hook has been demonised for challenging an argument, and effectively silenced. That's a massive issue in my opinion and a catalyst for something that we might regret.

Dancing Inferno

Vela wrote: »

It was directly implied from what he did say:

"Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She's only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, no idea what dangers he might pose.
But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her."

George Hook than goes on to discuss the "responsibility of women.
"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger? You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her."




Bullsh1t of the highest order.

No it's not. If a woman gets raped I don't blame her but I do question why she did foolish things, like getting drunk and going to a stranger's house.

The disgraceful thing was how Hook was treated.

kerrylad1

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

No it's not. If a woman gets raped I don't blame her but I do question why she did foolish things, like getting drunk and going to a stranger's house.

The disgraceful thing was how Hook was treated.

I agree

uck51js9zml2yt

O look... another G Hook bashing/ defending thread.


When is he back? I miss common sense on 106!

Vela

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

No it's not. If a woman gets raped I don't blame her but I do question why she did foolish things, like getting drunk and going to a stranger's house.

The disgraceful thing was how Hook was treated.

Wow. Just.. Wow.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

Wow. Just.. Wow.

Taking hook out of the conversation, I don't see whats wrong with the sentiment behind that posters comment.

As I said above, you cant absolve yourself of all responsibility and expect society to pick up the slack. It a two way street.

I cant go prancing through a gang of shady blokes in an alley with 50 euro notes sellotaped to my head AND blame society when they attack/mug me.

Its not absolving the gang of wrongdoing, they'll get their comeuppance under the law. But what about my own responsibility for my safety in that hypothetical situation? Do I not need personal responsibility?

Should I be able to sellotape money to my head in dark alleys? Yeah, I should.

Is it a good, responsible decision for me to make? No, its not.

Vela

Pithythefool wrote: »

Taking hook out of the conversation, I don't see whats wrong with the sentiment behind that posters comment.

As I said above, you cant absolve yourself of all responsibility and expect society to pick up the slack. It a two way street.

I cant go prancing through a gang of shady blokes in an alley with 50 euro notes sellotaped to my head AND blame society when they attack/mug me.

Its not absolving the gang of wrongdoing, they'll get their comeuppance under the law. But what about my own responsibility for my safety in that hypothetical situation? Do I not need personal responsibility?

Should I be able to sellotape money to my head in dark alleys? Yeah, I should.

Is it a good, responsible decision for me to make? No, its not.

I understand what you're trying to say, I simply don't agree.

You DO realise that people, who have never previously met, get drunk and go home with each other every weekend? This happens all of the time in pubs/clubs around the country.

So, let's look at what he's said. The woman in question had a responsibility not to get drunk and go home with a guy? Right so, go tell that to every woman who gets chatting to a guy on a Saturday night and goes home with him.

How about, the guy has a responsibility not to go around raping women?

This actually really angers me, because I got a call from a friend in the early hours last weekend - after she went home with a guy and he wouldn't let her leave his house until she agreed to sleep with him. Which she didn't, FYI. She was in a terrible fcuking state over it, and kept repeating how "stupid" she was to me and it pissed me off so much. I spent the guts of an hour reassuring her that she wasn't stupid, that going home with a guy doesn't mean you're consenting to have sex with him, and that it wasn't her fcuking fault. Because it wasn't.

So for a man to be saying that the onus was on the woman in that situation, to be more responsible? That's just beyond the amount of BS that I'm willing to tolerate from anyone, and I'm glad he's been put through the wringer about it.

Pithythefool

Vela wrote: »

I understand what you're trying to say, I simply don't agree.

You DO realise that people, who have never previously met, get drunk and go home with each other every weekend? This happens all of the time in pubs/clubs around the country.

So, let's look at what he's said. The woman in question had a responsibility not to get drunk and go home with a guy? Right so, go tell that to every woman who gets chatting to a guy on a Saturday night and goes home with him.

How about, the guy has a responsibility not to go around raping women?

This actually really angers me, because I got a call from a friend in the early hours last weekend - after she went home with a guy and he wouldn't let her leave his house until she agreed to sleep with him. Which she didn't, FYI. She was in a terrible fcuking state over it, and kept repeating how "stupid" she was to me and it pissed me off so much. I spent the guts of an hour reassuring her that she wasn't stupid, that going home with a guy doesn't mean you're consenting to have sex with him, and that it wasn't her fcuking fault. Because it wasn't.

So for a man to be saying that the onus was on the woman in that situation, to be more responsible? That's just beyond the amount of BS that I'm willing to tolerate from anyone, and I'm glad he's been put through the wringer about it.

Nothing about that experience is nice. But you said yourself a couple times there that people get drunk (invariably, i'm sure) very late at night, and then go to a strangers house.

And the onus, in ANY situation, is ALWAYS on the potential victim. How could it be any other way? Do you expect criminals not to be criminals, just cos it isn't nice?

Its just not sensible. And perhaps instead of trying to MAKE that kind of behaviour okay, we should be encouraging people NOT to get drunk late at night and go to strangers houses.

People, no matter how much they don't want to hear it, can NOT do anything they want while at the same time have zero responsibility for it. Its just completely impractical, not to mention dangerous.

People are not allowed to drink and drive. You don't hear drunkards shouting about their right to drink. If they kill people on the road, society isn't going to take responsibility, the courts will rightfully blame the person for making less-than-optimum decisions. Equally so, the onus is placed on the drinker, not the pub that served them the alcohol.

Is it really so difficult to look after yourself, that you need literally everyone else to do it for you? Why not have women walk around naked whenever they want with no personal responsibility, we'll blame the people that look at them.

Or how about a man turning up to an interview wearing a bin bag for clothes, why don't we blame the employers for not hiring him?

Look after yourself to a decent degree, and society will try to cover the other side of it.

Vladimir Poontang

Vela wrote: »

I understand what you're trying to say, I simply don't agree.

You DO realise that people, who have never previously met, get drunk and go home with each other every weekend? This happens all of the time in pubs/clubs around the country.

So, let's look at what he's said. The woman in question had a responsibility not to get drunk and go home with a guy? Right so, go tell that to every woman who gets chatting to a guy on a Saturday night and goes home with him.

How about, the guy has a responsibility not to go around raping women?

This actually really angers me, because I got a call from a friend in the early hours last weekend - after she went home with a guy and he wouldn't let her leave his house until she agreed to sleep with him. Which she didn't, FYI. She was in a terrible fcuking state over it, and kept repeating how "stupid" she was to me and it pissed me off so much. I spent the guts of an hour reassuring her that she wasn't stupid, that going home with a guy doesn't mean you're consenting to have sex with him, and that it wasn't her fcuking fault. Because it wasn't.

So for a man to be saying that the onus was on the woman in that situation, to be more responsible? That's just beyond the amount of BS that I'm willing to tolerate from anyone, and I'm glad he's been put through the wringer about it.

Sorry but you are wrong. The onus is on everyone to be more responsible, male or female. As a grown adult you are ultimately responsible for your own safety. Nobody else. The only exceptions are parents being responsible for their children's safety.

Your friend took a risk going back to that guy's house. We live in a world where going back to someones house, in the early hours and presumably where alcohol is involved by one or both parties (more than likely) also implies that sex is on the agenda. Because it is more often than not.

That doesn't excuse his behaviour when sex turned out to not be on the agenda but one has to wonder what your friend was doing if it was not her intention. Because that's what the vast majority of people would assume.

She took a risk and it ended in a dangerous situation for her. She has to own that which doesn't absolve the guy of any responsibility for his role.

She chose poorly. Luckily for her it didn't end up being worse.

Welcome to the real world.

Dancing Inferno

Vela, your friend was foolish to go to house of a random stranger. Thankfully nothing bad happened to her and hopefully she will be wiser in future.

Pithythefool

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

Vela, your friend was foolish to go to house of a random stranger. Thankfully nothing bad happened to her and hopefully she will be wiser in future.

I agree, but for the sake of balance in all of this, the man shouldn't have been doing what he did either. Isnt it the same when you mix bad decisions with criminals in ANY scenario?

That's the key word in all of this, balance.

Dancing Inferno

Pithythefool wrote: »

Dancing Inferno wrote: »

Vela, your friend was foolish to go to house of a random stranger. Thankfully nothing bad happened to her and hopefully she will be wiser in future.

I agree, but for the sake of balance in all of this, the man shouldn't have been doing what he did either. Isnt it the same when you mix bad decisions with criminals in ANY scenario?

That's the key word in all of this, balance.

Agreed. The man sounds scummy but the woman should not have gone to his house.

Vladimir Poontang

It has been pointed out by several posters that the guy was a scumbag.

How many times does it need to be said?

Pithythefool

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

It has been pointed out by several posters that the guy was a scumbag.

How many times does it need to be said?

This is the internet, you cant assume anything, no matter how obvious or redundant the point may be.

The equivalent of introducing yourself by name each time you meet your family. You know, just in case it wasn't clear or you didn't think it needed to be said!

Vela

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Sorry but you are wrong. The onus is on everyone to be more responsible, male or female. As a grown adult you are ultimately responsible for your own safety. Nobody else. The only exceptions are parents being responsible for their children's safety.

Your friend took a risk going back to that guy's house. We live in a world where going back to someones house, in the early hours and presumably where alcohol is involved by one or both parties (more than likely) also implies that sex is on the agenda. Because it is more often than not.

That doesn't excuse his behaviour when sex turned out to not be on the agenda but one has to wonder what your friend was doing if it was not her intention. Because that's what the vast majority of people would assume.

She took a risk and it ended in a dangerous situation for her. She has to own that which doesn't absolve the guy of any responsibility for his role.

She chose poorly. Luckily for her it didn't end up being worse.

Welcome to the real world.

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.