Disgusting homophobic attack in Portlaoise

Mam of 4

Dtp1979 wrote: »

What part of Portlaoise?

The bottom of Harpurs Lane , near entrance to Knockmay Estate .

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Why?

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Why?

Because from the evidence provided, it seems to me that this was a random beating with insults thrown in for good measure, not an instance of "gay bashing".

The targets just happened to be gay, they weren't targeted because they were gay.

One eyed Jack

Dtp1979 wrote: »

What part of Portlaoise?

Harpurs Lane.

Portlaoise gardai have confirmed they are investigating an incident involving a number of people that happened at Harpur's Lane on June 10 at 2:40am. 

Gardai have taken four statements from witnesses and injured parties. Two people who were part of a group walking home on the night were injured with Collie suffering serious facial injuries. 

No arrests have been made and no statements have been taken from those suspected of carrying out the attack. Gardai are following a definite line of enquiry. 

The incident is not being investigated as a homophobic attack at this time but gardai are keeping an open mind on the matter.

Source: Leinster Express


I gotta be honest, when I first heard about the attack, and having grown up in the town myself, lads used meet up outside Supermacs and beat 7 colours out of each other with hurls. One particularly memorable occasion was a member of the minor football team who was launched in front of an oncoming Garda car!

Portlaoise used have it's rough spots, but there was no such thing as a "no go" area until all these new estates popped up during the boom and where there wasn't a drug problem before, there sure as hell is one now.

The national media appears to have made out this story as though it was just these two guys on their own who were attacked, but they were actually part of a group, and I'm just surprised that the group were hardly mentioned.

Mam of 4

I didn't know there was a group of people until your post OEJ , I thought it was just the two men on their own .

10pennymixup

Deleted User wrote: »

Because from the evidence provided, it seems to me that this was a random beating with insults thrown in for good measure, not an instance of "gay bashing".

The targets just happened to be gay, they weren't targeted because they were gay.

Yep, just as likely to have been set upon for being foreign, or for being male, or for being human. These skangers need no reason.

They guys did not deserve it for any reason, no one would.

But what the hell were they doing down Harpur's lane at night. They were familiar enough with the area as they had left a BBQ in a house (said by someone earlier). One look at the area during the day and anyone with a pinch of sense would turn around and get the fcuk out asap.

Blacktie.

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Why?

Round and round we go.

harr

So now looking further into it ...it seems it was a group of men attacked by a group of scum bags. Words were exchanged and a vicious assault took place.
The guards are not treating this as a homophobic attack..
So now it does seem these two individuals were not the sole Target of the attack and they were not beaten because they were gay.
The fact it was two groups was left out of a lot of news reports and in fact the individuals themselves failed to mention that in interviews.
The go fund me page is now very nearly at €20,000 ...

Annasopra

Blacktie. wrote: »

Round and round we go.

Indeed.

I wont ever apologise for highlighting the sinister attempts to minimise homophobia and claim it is irrelevant.

I feel like Panti

.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.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

I feel like Panti

Oh dear. Such a ridiculous statement.

Here lies some of the problem. You seem to feel that anyone who is not gay has no right to determine or define what is homophobic. It must be left to gay people

That is absolutely wrong.

Although yes, I don't know what it is like to be gay or face the struggles that a gay person faces on a day to day basis, in the same way that you have no idea what it is like to be straight. So therefore, by your rationale, you shouldn't get a say in decisions or get to define anything that doesn't involve gay people. Why don't the gays stick to their side, the straight people stick to their side?

No, we don't because that's inherently wrong. Homophobia is a defined word with a definite meaning. Just because you think something is homophobic, doesn't mean it is.

Nobody is trying to justify homophobia on this thread, but for you to say that people are belittling homophobia because we think that being smashed about with a hurl while being called a silly billy is just as bad as being smashed with a hurl when being called gay, means that i think you might need to reassess what the worse aspect of the attack was.

dr.fuzzenstein

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont think anyone said they were.

Yes, you, every second post for this entire thread have posted nothing except "they said fag, so this is about nothing else but 100% homophobia and no other factors come into play and if you disagree you are a homophobe" to paraphrase.

You have a one dimensional agenda about this that would be too simplistic for a six year old and it's so black and white as can be dismissed entirely as irrelevant drivel, because you cannot comprehend more than a single fact about any one situation and then dismiss everything else.

AllForIt

If 2 black lads were attacked one night, in an area which is predominately white, where the perpetrators were out to attack someone in any case, would it not be more likely than not that their victim selection criteria was based on racism...therefore it was a racist motivated attack? Or no because they would have attacked white ppl if the blacks weren't around?

gmisk

B0jangles wrote: »

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.

So well put.

As someone who has been a victim of a homophobic attack this thread is a pretty tough read, BTW the Gardaí who attended my incident insisted that it wasnt a homophobic attack i was just in the wrong place at the wrong time (literally round the corner from my apartment.. Which is beside a Gardai station) ... They didn't ask for a wallet etc... He later had to apologise and admit he was incorrect.
Repeatedly being called a f#ggot and then having your face slashed with a Stanley knife was... He finally agreed a homophobic attack... Cheers i had guessed...

BrianBoru00

I've been intrigued by this discussion and reading the reports my gut feeling is - no its not a hate crime, its a crime which is motivated by being a scumbag basically.

At the end of the day whether or not a crime is a homophobic IS DECIDED BY THE GARDAI and or Director of Public Prosecutions. . . .

and with that off I went to look for my "evidence" on www.garda.ie - very conveniently I found their definition "It is any incident which is perceived to be racially motivated by the victim, a member of the Gardaí (police), a witness to the incident, or a person acting on behalf of the victim."

https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Hate-crime/What-is-hate-crime-.html

Now I'm also of the opinion that that is not a very sound basis to define it but that is the status in this country therefore it actually seems clear-cut that IT IS a homophobic attack. i.e. NOTHING to do per se with what was said but what, in this case, the victims perceived.

JackTaylorFan

lots of homophobic scum on the streets, and also on Boards... the direction of this thread does not surprise me.

JupiterKid

There is a disgusting amount of thinly veiled homophobia here on boards. It’s the general narrative that goes: gays - you’ve got more than enough now. Stop your moaning and know your place.:mad:

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote:

There is a disgusting amount of thinly veiled homophobia here on boards. It’s the general narrative that goes: gays - you’ve got more than enough now. Stop your moaning and know your place.

JackTaylorFan wrote:

lots of homophobic scum on the streets, and also on Boards... the direction of this thread does not surprise me.

Are there examples on this thread?

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are there examples on this thread?

There were plenty on the gay pride at work thread but a lot seem to have been deleted or banned. They included slurring gay men as all being paedophiles, gay people dying 20 years younger than straight people due to their unnatural lifestyle choices(linking to 1990s 'study' which looked at aids obituaries) , stating that pride here had NAMBLA (don't ask) marching as a group, gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt as they are statistically far more likely to abuse children (they aren't), gay people having bizarre illnesses due to their 'lifestyle' (it was some bizarre cancer which has been debunked as a myth) . They are just the ones of the top of my head....there were more believe me.

gmisk

gmisk wrote:

There were plenty on the gay pride at work thread but a lot seem to have been deleted or banned. They included slurring gay men as all being paedophiles, gay people dying 20 years younger than straight people due to their unnatural lifestyle choices(linking to 1990s 'study' which looked at aids obituaries) , stating that pride here had NAMBLA (don't ask) marching as a group, gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt as they are statistically far more likely to abuse children (they aren't), gay people having bizarre illnesses due to their 'lifestyle' (it was some bizarre cancer which has been debunked as a myth) . They are just the ones of the top of my head....there were more believe me.

Absolutely disgusting. I wasn't aware of those. I thought people were referring to this thread which, apart from a few frayed temper posts, was relatively cordial.

No excuse for the **** that you spoke about.

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting. I wasn't aware of those. I thought people were referring to this thread which, apart from a few frayed temper posts, was relatively cordial.

No excuse for the **** that you spoke about.

Yep pretty horrendous and tbh upsetting to read... there were more... They are just the ones that stood out for me.
This thread seems alright in general to me from what I have read, a fairly measured discussion.

JackTaylorFan

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there examples on this thread?

I refuse to engage with you on this or any other subject pertaining, as every time I encounter you on the LGBT forum you are denying homophobia/transphobia exists - i.e. being homophobic, transphobic, et al.

But cheers

LLMMLL

[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.

It would be a fat shaming attack. But overweight people aren’t considered a minority group that have certain legal protections such as the groups mentioned in equality legislation.

There is no history of fat people being targeted for violence.

It wasn’t illegal to be overweight 26 years ago.

Overweight people have been free to get married forever

I could go on.

I wouldn’t say a homophobic attack (which an attack that uses homophobic language most definitely is) is worse than a random attack. But it has societal implications that a random attack does not have. And these should be highlighted and dealt with.

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote:

I refuse to engage with you on this or any other subject pertaining, as every time I encounter you on the LGBT forum you are denying homophobia/transphobia exists - i.e. being homophobic, transphobic, et al.

Not true but fair enough.

I have never said homophobia doesn't exist and I believe I pulled you up on when you were slating travellers as transphobic due to the fact that you were pre judging a group of people for pre judging a group of people.

I am aware that these things exist (and am against them) but I am opposed to labeling any wrong act against a gay person as homophobia where it's not applicable. It only lessens the severity in the public domain when true homophobia is on display.

I respectfully disagree. I think it would be just an unprovoked attack unless they had beaten me purely because I was fat.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here lies some of the problem. You seem to feel that anyone who is not gay has no right to determine or define what is homophobic. It must be left to gay people

That is absolutely wrong.

Although yes, I don't know what it is like to be gay or face the struggles that a gay person faces on a day to day basis, in the same way that you have no idea what it is like to be straight. So therefore, by your rationale, you shouldn't get a say in decisions or get to define anything that doesn't involve gay people. Why don't the gays stick to their side, the straight people stick to their side?

No, we don't because that's inherently wrong. Homophobia is a defined word with a definite meaning. Just because you think something is homophobic, doesn't mean it is.

Nobody is trying to justify homophobia on this thread, but for you to say that people are belittling homophobia because we think that being smashed about with a hurl while being called a silly billy is just as bad as being smashed with a hurl when being called gay, means that i think you might need to reassess what the worse aspect of the attack was.

Your description of our “rationale” is completely false. Gay people understand homophobia because we experience it. We also experience “non-gay” situations as well because we experience a lot of the things that straight people do.

Now there are things I’m not going to experience. A crisis pregnancy for example. I can imagine what that might be like. I can imagine how I might feel. But to actually understand it I should listen to people who experience it and not assume that because I can guess at how I’d feel then I understand what it’s like. It’d be pretty **** of me to tell a couple that have experienced it that actually no sorry I know more about this.

And homophobia isn’t really a defined word with a defined meaning as there are pretty much two competing definitions.

For some people you have to have a virulent hatred of gay people to be homophobic.

For others you just have to have a discriminatory attitude to be homophobic.

Some people might say “I don’t have gay people but I don’t think they should raise children. It makes me uncomfortable. But I’ve plenty of gay friends”.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote:

Your description of our “rationale†is completely false. Gay people understand homophobia because we experience it. We also experience “non-gay†situations as well because we experience a lot of the things that straight people do.

This bit sticks out to me.

I was talking about one persons rationale. Not all gay people's. I don't assume that every gay person thinks alike.

In work now but I'll respond in full later

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. I think it would be just an unprovoked attack unless they had beaten me purely because I was fat.

You’ve no way to know why they attacked. You’ve no way to know that they would have attacked just anyone. Maybe they would have left a straight slim couple alone, but attacked a fat straight guy or a gay couple. Then the gay attack would have been a homophobic attack. And the attack on the overweight person would have been because they’re fat.

I actually don’t know how you’d ever know if there was a homophoboc or racist attack by the standards of some people on this thread. You’d have to prove they had an intent to attack a gay person. How would you do that? Do gay bashers email each other beforehand saying “let’s go find a gay to bash”? By the standards of people on this thread gay bashing and racist bashing’s never really existed because theoretically the attackers may have been set off by anything.

By the way I don’t know if the actual attack under discussion was homophobic as I’ve seen no mention of whether homophobic language was actually used. My comments are more general about attacks where that language is used.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This bit sticks out to me.

I was talking about one persons rationale. Not all gay people's. I don't assume that every gay person thinks alike.

In work now but I'll respond in full later

Well you can always truthfully say that everyone’s experience is different. But that goes a bit far. There is a certain equality of experience among groups of people.

Most gay people I know have struggled to some extent with coming out. Even if their families and friends were quite open minded.

However there probably are gay people out there who just had zero issues with coming out and everything was fine for them. I don’t know any but I’m sure some could exist.

JackTaylorFan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not true but fair enough.

I have never said homophobia doesn't exist and I believe I pulled you up on when you were slating travellers as transphobic due to the fact that you were pre judging a group of people for pre judging a group of people.

I am aware that these things exist (and am against them) but I am opposed to labeling any wrong act against a gay person as homophobia where it's not applicable. It only lessens the severity in the public domain when true homophobia is on display.

Translation: I refuse to acknowledge the lived experience you have had as a vulnerable minority and I also deny that there is an inherent issue with homophobia/transphobia in the travelling community.

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote:

Translation: I refuse to acknowledge the lived experience you have had as a vulnerable minority and I also deny that there is an inherent issue with homophobia/transphobia in the travelling community.

No. I do acknowledge the lived experience of people who perceive themselves as a vulnerable minority but I also acknowledge that just because someone experiences something doesn't make it true.

And while there may be an inherent issue of trans/homophobia in the travelling community, I would be loathe to tar them all with the same brush. Much as I'm sure you'd agree that if someone made a derogatory claim against the trans community based on their personal experiences, you would be the first to fight back.

Shouting about prejudice while being openly prejudiced yourself is not a good look.

corks finest

I'm a grumpy, fairly conservative ,young 59,but I find this is unacceptable,and totally wrong, wtf is happening here the last 10/15 yrs?

JackTaylorFan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. I do acknowledge the lived experience of people who perceive themselves as a vulnerable minority.

"perceive"

Yeah, okay... bye now, transphobe.

JackTaylorFan

I would just like to add that tone policing of the LGBTQ community is a huge problem on boards.

Yes, perceive.

Because I sure as hell don't find them beneath me or in any way more delicate as myself or any other people.

It's called treating people as equals while also recognising their life experience.

And transphobe? Nothing I've said is remotely transphobic

JackTaylorFan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, perceive.

Because I sure as hell don't find them beneath me or in any way more delicate as myself or any other people.

It's called treating people as equals and also recognising their life experience.

And transphobe? Nothing I've said is remotely transphobic

Racists deny holocausts. Transphobes deny transphobia. I.e. see use of the word "perceive"

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, perceive.

Because I sure as hell don't find them beneath me or in any way more delicate as myself or any other people.

It's called treating people as equals and also recognising their life experience.

And transphobe? Nothing I've said is remotely transphobic

Ah here am I misinterpreting you? Do you believe that society is no longer transphobic?

I can understand why some people think homophobia was cured by the magic referendum (I think they’re wrong but I get why they think it).

But someone who thinks transphobia is a matter of “perception”?

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote:

Racists deny holocausts. Transphobes deny transphobia. I.e. see use of the word "perceive"

Me treating and seeing transfer people as equals and not some delicate group of people that need my protection (but still being open to learn about an individuals experience) is equal to a Holocaust denier?

Please.

Can we get back on topic please?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote:

Ah here am I misinterpreting you? Do you believe that society is no longer transphobic?

I'm not in any way saying that. I am talking about myself here. Society needs to come a long way but I'm saying that I don't perceive transfer people to be vulnerable. I don't know a whole heap of transgender people but from the few I do know, they range between super confident and afraid to go out as they aren't comfortable.

When I used the word perceive, it's because I don't think of every transfer person as a vulnerable member of society.

I don't think my wording was an issue.

JackTaylorFan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Please.

Can we get back on topic please?

Translation: I am wrong but refuse to admit it, so can we please move on to a topic I can better obfuscate .

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not in any way saying that. I am talking about myself here. Society needs to come a long way but I'm saying that I don't perceive transfer people to be vulnerable. I don't know a whole heap of transgender people but from the few I do know, they range between super confident and afraid to go out as they aren't comfortable.

When I used the word perceive, it's because I don't think of every transfer person as a vulnerable member of society.

I don't think my wording was an issue.

Again I may be misinterpreting but you seem to be defining vulnerability as being to do with inner strength.

Most would describe a group that faces the kinds of issues gay people have faced (and still do face to a degree ) and the issues that trans people currently face as vulnerable.

You can have all the inner strength in the world but if an employer doesn’t want to hire you then inner strength doesn’t really come into it.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote:

Again I may be misinterpreting but you seem to be defining vulnerability as being to do with inner strength.

No. Not at all. I'm not saying that there isnt a section of society that has not fully embraced trans people but I'm saying that I won't label each person as vulnerable when some don't see it that way.

I am obviously aware that in certain aspects they are much maligned but it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they are vulnerable. I may not agree in some circumstances but all I can offer is an ear. I won't wholesale agree but I will always listen.

But I do reject any claims of homophobic or transphobic tendencies when they are directed towards me

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote:

Translation: I am wrong but refuse to admit it, so can we please move on to a topic I can better obfuscate .

No. Again you are putting words in my mouth. I am aware that the original post has nothing to do with the conversation we are having and don't want to divert it further.

If you wish to continue this conversation (which you've already indicated that you dont) then I'd happily discuss it on a separate thread.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. Not at all. I'm not saying that there isnt a section of society that has not fully embraced trans people but I'm saying that I won't label each person as vulnerable when some don't see it that way.

I am obviously aware that in certain aspects they are much maligned but it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they are vulnerable. I may not agree in some circumstances but all I can offer is an ear. I won't wholesale agree but I will always listen.

But I do reject any claims of homophobic or transphobic tendencies when they are directed towards me

A section? It’s a pretty large section.

So vulnerability is defined by the individual but homophobia is not? When are subjective definitions allowed and when are they not allowed?

B0jangles

the dunne, what are your qualifications that entitle you to lecture posters here in the Lesbian. Gay, Bisexual and Transgender subforum here on what qualifies as homophobia or transphobia?

You say you're willing to offer an ear, but given that you have the second highest number of posts in the thread (after the OP), it seems like you are very much readier to offer your opinion than to sit back and actually listen.

How Soon Is Now

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. Again you are putting words in my mouth. I am aware that the original post has nothing to do with the conversation we are having and don't want to divert it further.

If you wish to continue this conversation (which you've already indicated that you dont) then I'd happily discuss it on a separate thread.

Your wasting your time in here.

Clearly people weren't happy that this thread wasn't being discussed the way they intended it to be so it's been directed into something much more there style now accusing people!

JackTaylorFan

If we want to talk about "perceptions"

I am perceived by mang as being outwardly confident... truth is you need a lot of confidence to live your life as a trans person. And the result of living your life and being confident brings about a torrent of transphobic abuse... being confident does not make you immune it makes you a target.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote:

So vulnerability is defined by the individual but homophobia is not? When are subjective definitions allowed and when are they not allowed?

Put it this way, if I treated every gay person as a victim and someone who needed protection, I would be treating them not as an equal.

If a gay person perceived themselves as a victim of homophobia, as in this story, I would take it on a case by case basis and come to a conclusion as to whether or not it was in fact homophobia due to evidence given.

Starting at the point where you assume someone to be a victim in all cases rather than starting at a point of equality is discriminatory.

Vulnerability is the way a person feels, homophobia is an act of discrimination.

It's not comparing like for like.

It's comparing a feeling to an act of hatred/bigotry

One is subjective, one is not

JackTaylorFan

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Your wasting your time in here.

Clearly people weren't happy that this thread wasn't being discussed the way they intended it to be so it's been directed into something much more there style now accusing people!

Firstly, It's their not there...

Secondly, what people are unhappy with is non LGBTQ people trying to dictate what is and isn't homophobic to people who actually experience homophobia.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote:

the dunne, what are your qualifications that entitle you to lecture posters here in the Lesbian. Gay, Bisexual and Transgender subforum here on what qualifies as homophobia or transphobia?

My qualifications? I am a person. A person who wants to discuss the horrific matter of the attack.

I was unaware that because I am not gay or tran that I am not entitled to discuss what I think qualifies as homophobia or transphobia.

But now that I have put my head above the parapet and had the audacity to give a privileged opinion, I have now been labeled transphobic and homophobic despite not saying one thing to that effect.

I did not lecture anyone here. I simply gave my opinion. An opinion that still stands.

And yes, I do have quite a high post count on this thread. Mostly because I do feel the need to defend myself when my words are misrepresented and when I am accused of things that aren't true.

I am willing to listen to anyone and attempt to understanding. D their views on any subject. Some people aren't.