h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But then...it is all part of a devious liberal conspiracy to to turn us all into homosexual Muslims and must be Resisted At All Costs.

SoRB, are you seriously suggesting that a homophobic nazi who throws a bomb into a GAY BAR isn't trying to kill gay people?

Really? I mean, because some innocent bystanders get killed that means he's not trying to kill gays? His incompetence excuses his homophobia?

Your logic amazes me. I suspect if you hadn't said that people don't get killed for being gay you wouldn't have posted such a pile of crap here. Musta been a slow day at work, huh?

Och, come on. I was kinder than that. I just called him 'disingenuous'.

Ok then, maybe he's on the wind up.

To be fair, he's no fool. Just a complete eejit.

>Yes, this isolated nutbar bombed a pub. It's a reasonable assumption that he hated/hates gays. But he rather makes my point for me by killing a married woman. You CANNOT target someone simply for being gay, because YOU CAN'T TELL.

>It would be like trying to kill only Tory voters (now there's a thought...). How would you do it? Ask them first? It just isn't possible, as evidenced by the straight people who are bashed, even as you point out for me, even KILLED, "for being gay". The people perpetrating this violence neither know nor care what sexuality the person they're beating or killing is. THAT is the crime - not discrimination, but its very opposite, indiscriminate violence. The Soho pub bomb is, as you perhaps inadvertently demonstrate, a perfect example of INdiscriminate killing.

Even in the context of internet debate, this is the worst argument I think I've ever seen. Seriously. A neo-nazi planting a nail bomb in a gay bar to kill homosexuals (something he admitted, I seem to recall) is magically turned into "indescriminate" killing and not an attempt to kill gay people so you can justify a completely untrue statement you won't retract? What utter, utter rubbish.

The elephant in the room I referred to earlier is the distaste for flagrant gay sex in public places.

Now, as it happens, I'm a natural libertarian on sexual matters. One can always avert one's gaze if offended. Even so - I recognise people do feel uneasy about sleazier side of gay sex (possibly turning a blind eye to sleazy straight sex). So let me try and put it in perspective.

In our culture, there is still undeniably a stigma surrounding homosexuality. So imagine, if you will, that you are growing up and coming to terms with being attracted to other boys. You know full well that this is regarded as a dirty little secret - something that risks punishment. You have to be furtive about it. Is it not possible that you might come to associate your sexuality with the chance of accidental discovery and punishment? Might these not become part of the package?

Now, I'm far from saying that gay men can be characterised as engaging in cottaging or chance sexual encounters (the gay men I know regard it as icky). In fact...there is ample evidence that such activities are equally common amongst men who define themselves as straight (see http://www.slate.com/id/2173112/fr/flyout). All I'm saying is - if you regard Bristol common-type activity as distasteful, think for a moment about the cultural conditions in which it exists.

I read about this kind of thing a few years ago.

Outdoor cruising sites attract predominately bisexual or repressed gay men, a high proportion of whom are married. These men cannot risk the stigma of being seen in more openly gay surroundings such as gay bars, clubs etc. Being married, taking partners home is not an easy uption. Certainly prior to the internet, they had very limited opportunity to meet men with similar sexual 'appetites'. Going to a secluded location where anonymous gay sex is available with no strings and no comebacks is an attractive option.

How many men here would find the idea appealing of a place you could go to meet willing women for free sex with little to no chance of being discovered?

Preview man, preview!

>>a place you could go to meet willing women for free sex with little to no chance of being discovered?

You mean Doncaster?

Hmm - I see what you mean. The surroundings might not be conducive to, erm, performance.

You certainly wouldn't want to be discovered there!

SoRB, I asked you to explain exactly what your problem is in this case, but your answer brings me no closer.

"The proper response, the response a reasonable member of the public might expect, when interrupted in the commission of a crime by a member of the emergency services, would be to exhibit embarrassment and contrition. It would not be to complain and to cause those members of the emergency services to be disciplined out of all proportion to *their* non-criminal goofing off in work hours."

Several people have tried to explain why gay men are not just ordinary 'members of the public'. Several people have pointed that the Fire Brigade are not the Police and therefore have no business taking it on themselves to 'detect' crime. Several people have pointed out that al fresco sex is (all other things being equal) a victimless crime if it's a crime at all. Several people have argued that a society in which such snooping is seen as permissible is a pretty sick society. I've pointed out that there's no reason to think that the people who complained wanted publicity or wanted people disciplined. It was a complaint made through a legitimate intermediary, contrary to your earlier assertion that it was a vindictive politically-motivated act. Care to take that back?

If you'd like to actually engage with any of these arguments, please do. Or you can carry on resorting to cheap digs. Up to you, really.

He might want to deal with his issues first.

"Several people have tried to explain why gay men are not just ordinary 'members of the public'."

I understand entirely. They're special wikkuw fwowers what must be pwotected fwom the west of us. Poor ikkle finks.

"Several people have pointed that the Fire Brigade are not the Police and therefore have no business taking it on themselves to 'detect' crime."

Oh, I agree. As I've already said, goofing off in this way should be punished. It's the degree of punishment, and its attendant publicity, that I disagree with.

"Several people have pointed out that al fresco sex is (all other things being equal) a victimless crime if it's a crime at all."

Much as I would love to endorse your hopelessly childish worldview, I can't let the phrase "if it's a crime at all" pass. There's no question here of "if it's a crime at all". Whether you like it or not, it IS a crime. Pretending it isn't suggest that it's not me that "has issues".

"Several people have argued that a society in which such snooping is seen as permissible is a pretty sick society."

Again with the twisting of the argument. NOBODY, as far as I remember, has suggested that this snooping was "permissible". It was wrong. I've said that, explicitly, as have others. I've even commented on what I would think of as appropriate punishment. Why would I suggest punishment for something I consider permissible? You're simply lying here to support your side of the argument, and you're failing. WHERE, please, did *anyone* say that it was OK? Just one link, please, or admit you're a liar.

"I've pointed out that there's no reason to think that the people who complained wanted publicity or wanted people disciplined."

I invite you to suggest what outcome they imagined might result from making a complaint, then. Just how stupid are these people?

"It was a complaint made through a legitimate intermediary"

Again, I ask, why? Except of course I know the answer. Even these whiners don't have the brass neck to complain directly to the police that they were interrupted in the commission of a crime. So, not *that* stupid.

"contrary to your earlier assertion that it was a vindictive politically-motivated act. Care to take that back?"

Absolutely not.

SoRB

I'm finding it hard to understand why you're getting so excited about this. Does the a matter of "A Crime Has Been Committed" sway your opinion?

Granted, the firefighters committed no crime, merely a gross breach of conduct. But it seems clear that their behaviour was offensive and bordering on intimidatory.

Do gay men need special protection from such intimidation, even when engaging in unlawful public acts. Well...obviously. The prescribed punishment is not a severe beating - nor even to be placed in fear of a beating.

And should we as a society tolerate vigilantism with respect to crime in general?

Hmmm I think just on the question of "did the punishment fit the crime". I am a "Union Rep" and I represent people all the time who are in trouble. Basically if you do *anything* in work times, with work equipment, particularly if you are in uniform that in any way has negative reprecussions for your employer then you are in trouble. Almost every employer has a charge in their conduct code called "Bringing the Company into Disrepute".

I say to pretty much anyone charged with this (and we have had a few) that they are lucky if they still have a job at the end.

Then there's the issue that these guys were, apparently, engaged in some sort of team building activity designed to entrench a homophobic ethos in direct contravention of their employer's policy.

Incidentally I've just looked up the proposed bill. On here it was portrayed as being something to specifically protect homosexuals, but actually its against inciting hatred based on sexuality - any sexuality.

This certainly seems a lot fairer to me, although SoRB's question about why a hate crime should be considered any worse than any other sort of violent crime still stands IMO.

That's a reasonable question. At first sight it might seem somewhat dubious that we should punish motivations rather than outcomes.

The weaker argument behind making a special case for hate crimes relates to marking them out as a specific societal problem that can/ought to be addressed by a form of social engineering.

A much stronger argument relates to the non-random nature of the offence. We are all more-or-less equally at risk from crimes such as mugging or spousal violence (women are at considerably greater risk of the latter - but the risks are equal across all men and across all women). In the case of a hate crime, you are inherently at greater risk simply by being a member of the group against which the hate is directed. It seems reasonable to give those at most risk special protection.

No?

Extending this...since women are at considerably greater risk than men of spousal violence, it would seem sensible for this to attract harsher penalties. But here we are stymied by tradition. Until very recently it was regarded as a domestic matter.