Disgusting homophobic attack in Portlaoise

Annasopra

Blacktie. wrote: »

This is exactly the point we are trying to make here. It's pretty likely they weren't targeted because they where gay. They just happened to be gay in this incident.

Why is it likely? I dont know whether it is or not to be honest. And if there was homophobic language used are you saying that that doesnt matter?

seannash

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2748062/Savage-homophobic-attack-straight-man-left-broken-arm-turned-woman-s-advances-street.html

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/straight-man-left-metal-plates-face-life-after-anti-gay-attack110614/

I cant find any other cases off hand but I know there have been. It also works that way in Irish equality legislation. A straight person can also be the victim of homophobic discrimination.

Just skimming through but the second case was tried as grievous bodily harm and the first I don't believe was tried yet. The police treating it as a homophobic attack and it being tried as one are two different things. Once evidence is provided then it's classed appropriately.
I'm not saying that theses weren't motivated by hate, I'm simply saying that its not going to be classed as one.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Why is it likely? I dont know whether it is or not to be honest. And if there was homophobic language used are you saying that that doesnt matter?

It's likely because random acts of violence is common in that area. And to be honest, it's the casual violence that bothers me most, not the language used.

squawker

came here from the front page, absolutely shameful what happened to that couple and my heart goes out to them

but I am not surprised, this is the reality of life in small town Ireland. I hear it every day

AllForIt

Look, this is a sensitive issue.

The number of ppl in Ireland who have been physically attacked because they are gay is not particularly high, or was it ever?

But it is in other countries and I think we should be mindful of that.

If the rest of the world had the same attitudes to homosexuality as we have here now then maybe these types of cases wouldn't be co contentious.

I do get that the wider populace feel insulted, especially after the result of the gay marriage ref, that some would say we're living in a homophobic country. That the attitude still persists as it always has. I don't believer this at all.

I live in a county town now and I've never felt the 6 years I've lived here even the slightest bit of homophobia towards me. Not once. In fact when I go down to the local dive when I tell other party goers I'm gay it was always a point of interest in the convo. In fact I though it an advantage rather than standing there by myself drinking myself silly like the hetro men I see there all the time.

JustJoe7240

squawker wrote: »

came here from the front page, absolutely shameful what happened to that couple and my heart goes out to them

but I am not surprised, this is the reality of life in small town Ireland. I hear it every day

What exactly is the reality of life in small time Ireland? unprovoked attacks?

Can't help but think these lads are milking it at this stage, Bit odd setting up a go fund me page for medical bills, But why leave it open if the goal has been reached 10k ago?

speckled_park

Pretty shocking attack. Wasnt surprised when i heard about it. Portlaoise is fairly rough in spots. Im from Laois. You could call it a homophobic attack considering the language used but these scum would beat up anyone at that hour regardless of sexual orientation, so i wouldnt class it as one. I was jumped on out of blue one night in portlaoise for no reason, lucky enough i was sober so able to sprint away.

Blacktie.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why is it likely? I dont know whether it is or not to be honest. And if there was homophobic language used are you saying that that doesnt matter?

It's likely because this area is known to be rough regardless of the background of the individual.

Yes I'm saying that doesn't matter. Like a lot of previous posters have said if they where ginger they would have used anti ginger language, if black or arab then race issues. Just because homophobic language is used it doesn't make it a targeted attack.

riffmongous

I don't see why it has to be targeted to count as homophobic, how many people walked by there and were or weren't attacked? It doesn't matter if people are regularly attacked or not, only that these people were because they are gay, which we can't say yet but is likely judging by the language used

Blacktie.

riffmongous wrote: »

only that these people were because they are gay, which we can't say yet but is likely judging by the language used

Well me and a lot of posters here disagree.

squawker

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

What exactly is the reality of life in small time Ireland? unprovoked attacks?

havent lived in small town Ireland in years thank fcuk

all I know is one of my best friends growing up had to endure bullying and a few beatings from a gang of retards for years, this story brought it all back to me

AllForIt

Blacktie. wrote: »

Well me and a lot of posters here disagree.

That's a very odd statement. Were your there?

Blacktie.

AllForIt wrote: »

That's a very odd statement. Were your there?

Of course I can't say for sure. All I said was a lot of posters here disagree it was a targeted assault specifically against gay people.

riffmongous

Blacktie. wrote: »

Well me and a lot of posters here disagree.

So? Just because thugs like to beat people up doesn't mean they arent homophobic or racist as well, in fact I'd say they commonly are.

bob50

Terrible to hear those lads got bashed

But it happens as well in cities also A good gay friend of mine in his 50s was jumped on a week ago coming out of The George Bar when he was walking up Dame st heading home about 1.00 am luckilly he wasnt too bad. But "gay bashing" still goes on

Blacktie.

riffmongous wrote: »

So? Just because thugs like to beat people up doesn't mean they arent homophobic or racist as well, in fact I'd say they commonly are.

Sure sometimes they are. Maybe a lot of the time. But that doesn't mean that was the motivation of the attack.

seannash

riffmongous wrote: »

So? Just because thugs like to beat people up doesn't mean they arent homophobic or racist as well, in fact I'd say they commonly are.

There seems to be a desire for it to be labelled a homophobic attack rather than using logic and calling it an attack.
Are people trying to push an agenda that homophobia is rampant in Irish society?

riffmongous

seannash wrote: »

There seems to be a desire for it to be labelled a homophobic attack rather than using logic and calling it an attack.
Are people trying to push an agenda that homophobia is rampant in Irish society?

There seems to be an even greater desire for any homophobic aspects to be ignored..

riffmongous

Blacktie. wrote: »

Sure sometimes they are. Maybe a lot of the time. But that doesn't mean that was the motivation of the attack.

Only a full investigation will tell.

Blacktie.

riffmongous wrote: »

Only a full investigation will tell.

Somehow I doubt the investigation will yield any results tbh.

seannash

riffmongous wrote: »

There seems to be an even greater desire for any homophobic aspects to be ignored..

I think everyone acknowledge that homophobic slurs were used during the attack. But what most are saying is that homophobia wasn't the motivation.

Klonker

2 scenarios:

1. Gang sees gay couple and attack cos they are gay. This is a homophobic attack because they were attacked because they were gay.

2. Gang sees random 2 people and attack cos that's what scumbags do. When they get close to attacking they see the couple are holding hands and start shouting homophobic slurs to make the victims feel worse. If victims were black/fat/ginger etc. they'd shout something else. This not a homophobic attack as they were not attacked because they were gay.

If you can't see difference between both scenarios it's because you don't want to.

We don't know which scenario this case was.

splinter65

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is more awful if they are gay and they are targeted because they are gay.

You are saying that they are more deserving of sympathy and attention then say, a black couple, just because they are gay. Why?

Annasopra

splinter65 wrote: »

You are saying that they are more deserving of sympathy and attention then say, a black couple, just because they are gay. Why?

No. I am saying if they were deliberately attacked because they are gay then they deserve sympathy. Don't try and twist my words.

Annasopra

Klonker wrote: »

2 scenarios:

1. Gang sees gay couple and attack cos they are gay. This is a homophobic attack because they were attacked because they were gay.

2. Gang sees random 2 people and attack cos that's what scumbags do. When they get close to attacking they see the couple are holding hands and start shouting homophobic slurs to make the victims feel worse. If victims were black/fat/ginger etc. they'd shout something else. This not a homophobic attack as they were not attacked because they were gay.

If you can't see difference between both scenarios it's because you don't want to.

We don't know which scenario this case was.

I don't distinguish between both cases. They are both homophobic attacks in my view. I think the attempt to distinguish is an insidious attempt to deny and minimise the homophobia involved.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

I don't distinguish between both cases. They are both homophobic attacks in my view. I think the attempt to distinguish is an insidious attempt to deny and minimise the homophobia involved.

You may not distinguish between the two (and that is your right) but thankfully the majority of posters can.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

You may not distinguish between the two (and that is your right) but thankfully the majority of posters can.

Can you explain why you want to minimise and deny homophobia?

Squatter

Deleted User wrote: »

You may not distinguish between the two (and that is your right) but thankfully the majority of posters can.

Vive la difference!

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Can you explain why you want to minimise and deny homophobia?

I cant, because I don't.

I just don't ascribe every act of random violence against a gay person as a homophobic attack.

This has been explained to you on numerous occasions in very clear language. You are either unable or unwilling to understand and seem to want to label anyone who disagrees as some sort of homophobe apologist, when to be honest, the act of crying homophobia when it isn't applicable does more to damage to genuine cases (in much the same way as crying sexual assault for an accidental bum squeeze or for unsolicited staring is an insult to real victims)

Dtp1979

What part of Portlaoise did this take place?

B0jangles

Mods, would it be possible to create a new subforum specifically for the large number of posters who march in lockstep with the

'I hate PC/SJW/Feminazis, Facts not feelings, let me explain to you how X isn't racist/sexist/homophobic' - brigade?

I think a lot of other subforums would be greatly improved if something could be done to quarantine them, and they could post in there to their heart's content.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote:

'I hate PC/SJW/Feminazis, Facts not feelings, let me explain to you how X isn't racist/sexist/homophobic' - brigade?

Really?

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

I cant, because I don't.

I just don't ascribe every act of random violence against a gay person as a homophobic attack.

This has been explained to you on numerous occasions in very clear language. You are either unable or unwilling to understand and seem to want to label anyone who disagrees as some sort of homophobe apologist, when to be honest, the act of crying homophobia when it isn't applicable does more to damage to genuine cases (in much the same way as crying sexual assault for an accidental bum squeeze or for unsolicited staring is an insult to real victims)

In my view you are completely trying to minimise and deny homophobia. By actually separating out the homophobia from the attack itself. I mean you are saying homophobia isnt applicable in this case (if we make the assumption that there was homophobic language used) despite the fact that homophobic language and slurs were used. I don't think that is being an apologist but it definitely is minimising it and denying it.

Annasopra

B0jangles wrote: »

Mods, would it be possible to create a new subforum specifically for the large number of posters who march in lockstep with the

'I hate PC/SJW/Feminazis, Facts not feelings, let me explain to you how X isn't racist/sexist/homophobic' - brigade?

I think a lot of other subforums would be greatly improved if something could be done to quarantine them, and they could post in there to their heart's content.

I was thinking about this thread last night and how it resonates so much with Pantis famous speech.

Have you ever been standing at a pedestrian crossing when a car goes by and in it are a bunch of lads, and they lean out the window as they go by, and they shout "Fag!" and throw a milk carton at you?Now, it doesn't really hurt. I mean, after all, it's just a wet carton, and in many ways they're right – I am a fag. So it doesn't hurt. But it feels oppressive.When it really does hurt, is afterwards. Afterwards I wonder and worry and obsess over: what was it about me? What was it they saw in me? What was it that gave me away? And I hate myself for wondering that. It feels oppressive and the next time I'm standing at a pedestrian crossing, I hate myself for it, but I check myself to see what is it about me that "gives the gay away". And I check myself to make sure I'm not doing it this time....For the last three weeks, I have been lectured to by heterosexual people about what homophobia is, and about who is allowed to identify it. Straight people have lined up - ministers, senators, barristers, journalists - have lined up to tell me what homophobia is, and to tell me what I am allowed to feel oppressed by.People who have never experienced homophobia in their lives, people who have never checked themselves at a pedestrian crossing, have told me that unless I am being thrown into prison, or herded onto a cattle truck, then it is not homophobia. And that feels oppressive.And so now, Irish gay people, we find ourselves in this ludicrous situation where we are not only not allowed to say publicly what we feel oppressed by, we're not even allowed to think it, because the very definition - our definition - has been disallowed by our betters.And for the last three weeks, I've been denounced - from the floor of the Oireachtas [the Irish parliament], to newspaper columns, to the seething morass of internet commentary - denounced for using hate speech because I dared to use the word 'homophobia', and a jumped-up queer like me should know that the word homophobia is no longer available to gay people. Which is a spectacular and neat Orwellian trick, because now it turns out that gay people are not the victims of homophobia, homophobes are the victims of homophobia]

B0jangles

If someone is mugged just after leaving a gay bar, and the mugger not only takes their wallet, but kicks them in the stomach and calls them a 'f*cking f*ggot*, the attack is a mugging with a side order of homophobia. The primary motivation for the attack was to steal a wallet, but a secondary aim was to hurt a gay person.

Things don't have to be 100% driven by homophobia to qualify as homophobic.

splinter65

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. I am saying if they were deliberately attacked because they are gay then they deserve sympathy. Don't try and twist my words.

I’m not twisting your words. I put it to you that it is awful if people are deliberately attacked for being, fat, black, gay etc. (its awful to be attacked for any reason) and that anyone having had this happen deserves sympathy.
You confirmed that you think it’s more awful if the victims are gay.
I think that’s what people are here on this thread arguing with you about.
There isn’t a hierarchy of victimhood.
A bloody nose and a split lip is not worse for a gay man then a traveler man or a Pakistani man.
Violence of any type like this is totally unacceptable. Regardless of the motive.

Annasopra

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m not twisting your words. I put it to you that it is awful if people are deliberately attacked for being, fat, black, gay etc. (its awful to be attacked for any reason) and that anyone having had this happen deserves sympathy.
You confirmed that you think it’s more awful if the victims are gay.
I think that’s what people are here on this thread arguing with you about.
There isn’t a hierarchy of victimhood.
A bloody nose and a split lip is not worse for a gay man then a traveler man or a Pakistani man.
Violence of any type like this is totally unacceptable. Regardless of the motive.

You are twisting my words. Completely twisting them.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

In my view you are completely trying to minimise and deny homophobia. By actually separating out the homophobia from the attack itself. I mean you are saying homophobia isnt applicable in this case (if we make the assumption that there was homophobic language used) despite the fact that homophobic language and slurs were used. I don't think that is being an apologist but it definitely is minimising it and denying it.

What if I was attacked randomly in a dodgy area and during the beating they called me a fat ****? That wouldn't be a fat shaming attack. It would be a random act of violence where they insulted me during the attack.

You would assume, from posters saying that random attacks are commonplace in that area, that this was a random beating in which some homophobic insults were thrown., not a homophobic attack.

But look, you have already said you cant/won't differentiate so we are going around in circles. I'm not downplaying anything I just have a difference of opinion.

seachto7

I was called a “******” loads of times in my youth when getting picked on or hassled by scumbags. I’m straight. That’s what scumbags do. What would you expect from a pig but a grunt.

splinter65

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are twisting my words. Completely twisting them.

Can’t see how I am but if that’s how you feel then it can’t be helped. That’s how your coming across to me.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

What if I was attacked randomly in a dodgy area and during the beating they called me a fat ****? That wouldn't be a fat shaming attack. It would be a random act of violence where they insulted me during the attack.

You would assume, from posters saying that random attacks are commonplace in that area, that this was a random beating in which some homophobic insults were thrown., not a homophobic attack.

But look, you have already said you cant/won't differentiate so we are going around in circles. I'm not downplaying anything I just have a difference of opinion.

But this is exactly the point. I feel differentiating is almost excusing the homophobia and saying its irrelevant. Even some posters here have said that.

skallywag

seachto7 wrote: »

I was called a “******” loads of times in my youth when getting picked on or hassled by scumbags. I’m straight. That’s what scumbags do. What would you expect from a pig but a grunt.

Agree strongly.

It was a horrible assault, but from what I have read so far it does not seem to me that these poor chaps were attacked for the sole reason that they were gay.

Annasopra

splinter65 wrote: »

Can’t see how I am but if that’s how you feel then it can’t be helped. That’s how your coming across to me.

You have a view that homophobia is irrelevant and doesnt matter. You are trying to suggest I view this as an issue only because the victims are gay. I am saying I view it as an issue because of the homophobia. So you are twisting my words completely.

Hesh's Umpire

Haven't read the whole thread but while the attack may well have been homophobically motivated, there is no way I would walk around that part of Portlaoise at that time of night. Or day either.

Annasopra

skallywag wrote: »

Agree strongly.

It was a horrible assault, but from what I have read so far it does not seem to me that these poor chaps were attacked for the sole reason that they were gay.

I dont think anyone said they were.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

But this is exactly the point. I feel differentiating is almost excusing the homophobia and saying its irrelevant. Even some posters here have said that.

But that's just it. ANYONE could have been walking past those scumbags and got battered with sticks. If I was in that terrible position, I can tell you now, the names I was called would certainly be irrelevant. My main concern that was I was being attacked for no reason, with no provocation and with no motive from the bastards, not that while they were bashing my head in with a stick, they added (literally) insult to injury.

Nobody is excusing homophobic slurs (well I certainly am not), but it seems in this case that they are not as pertinent as the horrific beating

Danzy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We dont know what happened. If homophobic language was used then its a homophobic attack. Not really sure why there is a huge effort to deny homophobia here. Whats that about?

Jaysus, talk about trying to run with it.

How do you get the denial part, this should be interesting.

Dtp1979

Hesh's Umpire wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread but while the attack may well have been homophobically motivated, there is no way I would walk around that part of Portlaoise at that time of night. Or day either.

What part of Portlaoise?

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

But that's just it. ANYONE could have been walking past those scumbags and got battered with sticks. If I was in that terrible position, I can tell you now, the names I was called would certainly be irrelevant. My main concern that was I was being attacked for no reason, with no provocation and with no motive from the bastards, not that while they were bashing my head in with a stick, they added (literally) insult to injury.

Nobody is excusing homophobic slurs (well I certainly am not), but it seems in this case that they are not as pertinent as the horrific beating

The abusive language was part of the beating. Its not about the homophobia being irrelevant or impertinent. It was part of the attack. Therefore it can't be irrelevant or impertinent.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

The abusive language was part of the beating. Its not about the homophobia being irrelevant or impertinent. It was part of the attack. Therefore it can't be irrelevant or impertinent.

I wholeheartedly disagree.