Lesbians jailed for self-defence against brutal attack

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jul 1 2007 22:21

Neither do you yet you're calling it "self-defence" (a misused term if I ever heard one). The hypothetical nature of this discussion is accepted by most people and it's led onto a discussion about the remit of responses to homophobia. Get with the programme you tankette.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 1 2007 22:39

a lynching, alan, is an execution. noone has been executed for homophobic abuse. noone has suggested that execution is an appropriate response to homophobic abuse.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 2 2007 08:49
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
...And herein lies the confusion. Did three men join the four women, one of whom (we're unsure of their gender) stabbed the perpetrator? If so, seven on one justifies most hyperbolic terms.

No, three men joined seven women. 3 more women plead out and got 6 months. Not giving an opinion either way here, just clearing up the numbers.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Jul 2 2007 20:44

I would love to see a few more fucks who harass women and queers on the street get stabbed.

welshboy's picture
welshboy
Offline
Joined: 11-05-06
Jul 2 2007 22:28

That's charming. I've been jumped and hospitalised before. And I fought back but I've never stabbed anyone nor would I want to. From what I've read this sounds really fucked. I've seen situations like this happen many times on a friday/saturday night. It normally goes along the lines of one person getting into a scrap for whatever reason then all of one or the other persons mates getting involved and battering someone. Why the fuck does it take that many people to give one person a (maybe) deserved slap? They were as out of order as he was. 11 years is out of order true but so were they.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 3 2007 04:54
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
j.rogue wrote:
3. Of course the police and the judicial system were biased. When are they not? It is their whole purpose.

Yeah but in favour of whom? The whole "self-defense" thing's a little ambiguous if you ask me. A case that caught the attention of the British press a few years ago and is now used as an example by the right of pro-criminalism in our justice system is that of Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer who shot (dead?) a burglar in his house and was consequently imprisoned. Do you think that's unfair too?

Um, I am going to say that the system is biased against poor queer youth of color that are single parents. Or maybe I'm just too P.C.
regarding the farmer sitch, I would say, I don't believe in prisons, so no, he should not have gone to prison. But he should have paid restitution to the burglar's family. Transformative justice and all that.

Quote:
The guy is fine. Now, putting aside the fact that the prison system is fucked, do you really think that 11 years in prison is "fair" sentance?

Why are you even asking this question?

Because for some reason folks can seem to understand if the system was biased. A guy was barely hurt with a small steak knife. 11 years is totally fair, stupid question. Moving on.

Quote:
This whole thing has kept my attention quite closely, as I have been jumped for being queer before, and you better fucking believe I fought back.

Yeah but did you stab the person concerned? I have little sympathy for homophobic abuse, but I don't think we should lynch everyone who may or may not indulge in it. We'd be bigger murderers than most world leaders if so.

You need to fucking think about the history of the word lynch before you throw it around. Seriously, using it in this context means you do not understand it's meaning.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Jul 3 2007 09:07
welshboy wrote:
That's charming. I've been jumped and hospitalised before. And I fought back but I've never stabbed anyone nor would I want to. From what I've read this sounds really fucked. I've seen situations like this happen many times on a friday/saturday night. It normally goes along the lines of one person getting into a scrap for whatever reason then all of one or the other persons mates getting involved and battering someone. Why the fuck does it take that many people to give one person a (maybe) deserved slap? They were as out of order as he was. 11 years is out of order true but so were they.

Sort of agree with you mate, sometimes retaliations can be over the top but to be honest, if he did just give some random women shit in the street and flick a cigarette at them or whatever, then he's in no position to complain. In my opinion, as soon as your abuse becomes physical, the kicking you get is at your attackers discretion (to an extent, a lynching - an actual lynching, not an 'Alan lynching' wink - is a bit on the grim side). If you don't want want ten women to kick the shit out of you, don't give random women shit in the street. Simple.

I mean, I've not got a clue what went on so can't really have an opinion on this instance, but if even half that shit is true then fuck him, he lost forfeited his right to safety. Anyway, gotta shoot off now and join the rest of my mob. We're burning out a paedo today, toodles! tongue

baker
Offline
Joined: 3-02-07
Jul 3 2007 21:52
yoshomon wrote:
I would love to see a few more fucks who harass women and queers on the street get stabbed.

Thanks for having some common sense on this one yoshomon.

I love how rape and hate crimes and assaults against queers and women and trans people go on every day (at least in the US) and the one public time when the folks being attacked defend themselves and give the fucker a little lashing there's a whole thread of people lining up to blame feminism, dismiss trans people (not even on right information), give the attacker the benefit of the doubt, defend the judgement and story of the court system, align the people who believe the women's story more with the liberal PC view, and criticize the use of a weapon for self defense. Fucking apologist bullshit. Sure it sucks when anyone has to get stabbed, but if me and my friends were being followed, harrassed, spit on, attacked, had our hair pulled, etc. then I'd be fucking pissed and do whatever I had to do to defend me and my friends (and then some) to teach the fucker a lesson.

And yes I believe their story more than I do the court system's... especially someone living in and knowing the social climate in the northeast US a lot better than most of the people posting this thread.

baker
Offline
Joined: 3-02-07
Jul 3 2007 22:00
Ed wrote:
If you don't want want ten women to kick the shit out of you, don't give random women shit in the street. Simple....if even half that shit is true then fuck him, he lost forfeited his right to safety.

And cheers to that Ed!

welshboy's picture
welshboy
Offline
Joined: 11-05-06
Jul 3 2007 22:52

Look, I agree that the guy probably deserved a slapping but that many people battering one person is hardly self-defence, and as for stabbing him that is bang out of fucking order. If you stick a blade in someone you are trying to kill them. I'm not defending the bloke or attacking gay/trans people but how the fuck is this many people battering one person self defence? I admit that I have no knowledge really of the situation in that part of the world but I do know a thing or two about drunken violence and this reeks of it.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 3 2007 23:08

Homophone! wink
Devrim

baker
Offline
Joined: 3-02-07
Jul 3 2007 23:23
welshboy wrote:
that many people battering one person is hardly self-defence, and as for stabbing him that is bang out of fucking order.

Maybe he should have thought about their numbers in comparison to his before he started harassing, following and assaulting them. (and oh shit... the fact that women are actually capable of kicking his ass and won't just put up with his bullshit).

It sucks for him that he got stabbed. But it's his fault for being a dumb fuck...

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 3 2007 23:51
revol68 wrote:
one last time you hysterical cunt, daniels post was clearly fucking ironic!

how's that?

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 01:05
daniel wrote:
These articles reinforced my belief that equal opportunities, affirmative action and all that racially-slanted stuff divide and weaken the working class. As Jim Joad argues in Red Neck Manifesto (a book I'd love to get my hands on), the white working class is used as a scapegoat for all problems.
daniel wrote:
The media blames white working class racism for a host of social problems. It is totally acceptable to talk about "white trash", wealthy black comedians can poke fun at "inbred, dirty, redneck crackers", but the reaction against the slightest percieved anti-blac racism is treated hysterically!
daniel wrote:
I've never read a book on race before, couldn't be bothered. So much of it looks like a load of whingy guilt-ridden bollocks.
daniel wrote:
Liberals set the stage for fascism - but multiculturalism is the bottom line.
daniel wrote:
As my dad always said - trust an ex-fascist before an "ex"-trot.
daniel wrote:
Now I very much respect those involved in antifascist work and all, but I have to wonder why fascists are given preferential treatment over leninists and such "red fascist" scum.
daniel wrote:
where I'm coming from is that i consider leninists potentially life-threatening and not at all good for my health. I think the idea that 'we should leave it until the revolution, see what they do, and then deal with them' is a little shortsighted. Deal with a small threat now so as to avoid a very very very big threat later. i don't think we should repeat the mistakes of the past.
daniel wrote:
The reason I brought this up is that anarchists seem to bang on enthusiastically about bashing the fash and all that, but I don't see a difference really between fascists and leninists.
daniel wrote:
Similarly in the US - if "black power" is good, what's wrong with "white power"? Following that logic, it's just racist against whites. If black nationalism is okay then why isn't white nationalism? I mean, sure, many blacks came over as slaves. Well, funny that, cos most whites first came over as indentured servants and they weren't in no luxury cruisers! Black nationalism DOES divide the working class - liberals blame everything on evil white working class males.
daniel wrote:
Familial dynasties. If you haven't already, have a look at this:

http://www.point-of-departure.org/Lust-For-Life/TheRockefellerFiles/RockefellerFiles.htm

The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen. Gary Allen is a right-wing "conspiracy theorist" who also wrote a book about the international socialist plot. Goes on about how the Bolsheviks were bankrolled by the Rothschilds and so on. Interesting stuff.

daniel wrote:
Anyway, altruism is lefty and leftism is christian to its core.
daniel wrote:
but as far as I've seen little girls like playing with dolls and stuff and little boys like playing with toy guns - not always, but generally speaking. maybe that's sexist or something, but I'm just saying what I see and hear. Just because the instincts of little kids of different genders are different doesn't make some "better" than others. I think it's a load of bollocks trying to deny the differences between the genders.
daniel wrote:
I wouldn't by my little girl a toy gun cos most likely she wouldn't enjoy it. I'd buy her a doll. If she hated her doll and wanted to play with guns like the little boys - great. But most of the time that's not what's going to happen. "Patriarchy" "gender ideology" - I don't know anything about that. Tell it to Maggy Thatcher and Condaleesa Rice.
daniel wrote:
realise that there are genetic differences between males and females and that there is nothing wrong with that as difference does not imply better or worse. as is bleedingly obvious.
daniel wrote:
The differences between the genders are biological and social, I'd say. The fact is, women are the one's who bare children and have many genetic mothering instincts. Men are more agressive and without as many child-rearing instincts. Of course, that's just general, and the fact that we are humans means we can modify our behavior.
daniel wrote:
i'm saying that there are certain biological trends which can tend towards passivity in females and agressiveness in males. males have more adrenaline, etc. the fact remains that humans evolved in circumstances where females stayed back at the cave looking after the kids and men risked life and limb to hunt wooly mammoths and what have you.
daniel wrote:
People try to suppress gender differences but fail. Why is it that boys have more adrenaline than females, huh? Does the fact that tribes can survive when a majority of males are killed but not a majority of females play into evolution? Does the fact that women bare children and have historically been responsible for raising and protecting them not play into the way we've evolved?

Again, difference does not imply better-or-worse judgment. Just because I'm white and my friend is black doesn't mean one of us is "better" does it? Just because I'm male and my friend is female doesn't mean one of us is "better" either.

daniel wrote:
Nobody should be thinking that ideas and such shouldn't be discussed, but if when Joe off the street decides to come to the local anarcho meeting, makes a comment about how his wife stays home with the kids, and is jumped upon by every feminist or "gender radical" or what have you - thats a problem. When guys are getting called evil and rapists and stuff by every stupid feminist with a big mouth or a pen.
daniel wrote:
Its shit like this that makes me think "the struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against feminism." I just got a new issue of Z Magazine yesterday on the way home from work. I almost got hit by a car cos I was laughing so hard reading what antics feminists are getting up to now. according to feminists in the US who're trying to be receptive to "trans womyn" a "womyn" is anybody who wants to be a "womyn." If I walked up to them and claimed I was a "womyn", they'd just have to except me as a "sister". Fuck I hate em.

Anybody that spells woman "womyn" is the enemy.

Some poor sod probably looked at them like "a disgusting male pig" and they went into combat feminazi mode.

Which ones are ironic?

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 02:10
revol68 wrote:
hmmm i haven't been following his posts on gender and there's certainly alot of shit there but I still don't think that post (well the start bit about single, welfare mothers atleast) could be anything but ironic, or atleast i'd really really hope so.

The single, welfare-mothers thing isn't "ironic," it's sarcasm about them "pretending" to be victims.

revol68 wrote:
his point about trans woymn and feminist seperatism has an element of truth to it though.

except god knows what the article actually said. and:

revol68 wrote:
also the trans womyn stuff is ridiculous, on one level it represents a strike against biological essentialism ie you don't have to be born a women, but on the on the other had it just relocates the essentialism in socially mediated biologicism, ie once your cock is whapped off and you get your hormones you're part of the Club Womyn.

Either you're completely talking out of your ass or there's a cultural difference here; a lot of the time in the US these days "trans" would mean transgendered rather than "transexual" i.e. no whapping and/or hormone therapy necessarily, plenty of women keep their cocks. hence it is breaking away from "biologicism" which by the way most call biologism. jesus.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 02:21

Hairstyle, dress and stance are biological now? confused

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 03:43
revol68 wrote:
MJ wrote:
Hairstyle, dress and stance are biological now? confused

no but are aesthetic signifiers well capable of being reified into gender differences ie is my camp gay friend or his tdrag queen friends more welcome in a 'womens group' than my androgynous (if not boyish) lesbian friend? I mean if I start acting 'female', wear a dress etc etc can i join a 'womens only' group, what if I take hormones, what about my lesbian friend would she be kicked out for her male performitivity attributes?

Right, so, it's all mostly cultural.

Look I'm not really sure where you're going with this buuuuut I'm pretty sure what our boy Daniel meant.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 4 2007 04:13
revol68 wrote:
my point is that if I went along to a group and asked if I could join i'd be laughed at,

Fixed.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 4 2007 04:24
revol68 wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
revol68 wrote:
my point is that if I went along to a group and asked if I could join i'd be laughed at,

Fixed.

I'm thinking of quitting my job, if I got hired by a union could I join your P-CRAC grouping?

Depends on how good you are subjugating workers. We don't let just anyone in you know.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 04:29
revol68 wrote:
my point is that if I went along to a 'womens only' group and asked if I could join i'd be laughed at, if I went along in a skirt to prove my 'womanlyness' I'd probably be thrown out for taking the piss, but what happens if I go along and say i'm pre op and on hormones? Do they say piss off and be accused of anti trans bigotry, not to mention a biological determinism, say yes and be accused of a social mediated essentialism whereby actual castration equals womenhood (what would Kristeva say eh?) or would our sisters be hipster enough to embrace all gender perfomitivity and so allow me and my male mates to join in our polka dot dresses with a knowing nod to the stoning scene from the 'Life of Brian'? Perhaps the more technocratic sisters would set one of those gender trait personality exams, though that might see some long term sisters fucked out for too keen an interest in muscle cars.

Do 'women only groups' have to accept a certain degree of essentialism? Or maybe even dump the idea of 'womens groups' and allign themselves along concrete struggles, ie abortion rights, anti discriminatory laws, anti rape and domestic violence issues, whereby all those affected by or wishing to do something about such issues could get involved.

I really dunno in terms of practical organisation but it's certainly interesting what happens when 'transgender' comes into, and precisely why many old school radical feminists resent the 'transgendered' for fucking (sorry 'queering') about with their 'class' line.

Sure... but something tells me Daniel isn't thinking about it this way.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 04:40
revol68 wrote:
MJ wrote:
revol68 wrote:
my point is that if I went along to a 'womens only' group and asked if I could join i'd be laughed at, if I went along in a skirt to prove my 'womanlyness' I'd probably be thrown out for taking the piss, but what happens if I go along and say i'm pre op and on hormones? Do they say piss off and be accused of anti trans bigotry, not to mention a biological determinism, say yes and be accused of a social mediated essentialism whereby actual castration equals womenhood (what would Kristeva say eh?) or would our sisters be hipster enough to embrace all gender perfomitivity and so allow me and my male mates to join in our polka dot dresses with a knowing nod to the stoning scene from the 'Life of Brian'? Perhaps the more technocratic sisters would set one of those gender trait personality exams, though that might see some long term sisters fucked out for too keen an interest in muscle cars.

Do 'women only groups' have to accept a certain degree of essentialism? Or maybe even dump the idea of 'womens groups' and allign themselves along concrete struggles, ie abortion rights, anti discriminatory laws, anti rape and domestic violence issues, whereby all those affected by or wishing to do something about such issues could get involved.

I really dunno in terms of practical organisation but it's certainly interesting what happens when 'transgender' comes into, and precisely why many old school radical feminists resent the 'transgendered' for fucking (sorry 'queering') about with their 'class' line.

Sure... but something tells me Daniel isn't thinking about it this way.

why what way do you think he's thinking about it?

Um he seems to endorse biological determinism, for starters? Are you fucking kidding?

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 04:54
revol68 wrote:
MJ wrote:
revol68 wrote:
MJ wrote:
revol68 wrote:
my point is that if I went along to a 'womens only' group and asked if I could join i'd be laughed at, if I went along in a skirt to prove my 'womanlyness' I'd probably be thrown out for taking the piss, but what happens if I go along and say i'm pre op and on hormones? Do they say piss off and be accused of anti trans bigotry, not to mention a biological determinism, say yes and be accused of a social mediated essentialism whereby actual castration equals womenhood (what would Kristeva say eh?) or would our sisters be hipster enough to embrace all gender perfomitivity and so allow me and my male mates to join in our polka dot dresses with a knowing nod to the stoning scene from the 'Life of Brian'? Perhaps the more technocratic sisters would set one of those gender trait personality exams, though that might see some long term sisters fucked out for too keen an interest in muscle cars.

Do 'women only groups' have to accept a certain degree of essentialism? Or maybe even dump the idea of 'womens groups' and allign themselves along concrete struggles, ie abortion rights, anti discriminatory laws, anti rape and domestic violence issues, whereby all those affected by or wishing to do something about such issues could get involved.

I really dunno in terms of practical organisation but it's certainly interesting what happens when 'transgender' comes into, and precisely why many old school radical feminists resent the 'transgendered' for fucking (sorry 'queering') about with their 'class' line.

Sure... but something tells me Daniel isn't thinking about it this way.

why what way do you think he's thinking about it?

Um he seems to endorse biological determinism, for starters? Are you fucking kidding?

only so much as a 'womens only' group who wouldn't let me or my polka dot rocking mates in.

roll eyes

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 05:05
revol68 wrote:
good argument.

roll eyes

baker
Offline
Joined: 3-02-07
Jul 4 2007 05:08
revol68 wrote:
one last time you hysterical cunt, daniels post was clearly fucking ironic!

What was that....

daniel wrote:
]Some poor sod probably looked at them like "a disgusting male pig" and they went into combat feminazi mode.

Daniel clearly gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and assumed they were just rampaging "feminazis". MJ made it pretty clear from his past posts.

revol68 wrote:
and who exactly has defended homophobic abuse,

I didn't say that anyone defended homophobic abuse I said that there were people:

baker wrote:
...lining up to blame feminism, dismiss trans people (not even on right information), give the attacker the benefit of the doubt, defend the judgement and story of the court system, align the people who believe the women's story more with the liberal PC view, and criticize the use of a weapon for self defense.
revol68 wrote:
the only doubt is whether or not he did attack them, as the defendents claim, and i'm sorry but i'd have to see the video of the event for that, afterall i'm not in the habit of believing folk just because they are gay, lesbian, black, white, asian, working class, middle class, men or women.

nice job pulling this one out of your ass. On the flipside, I'm not in the habit of not believing, or doubting, people because they're gay, lesbian, black, white, asian, working class, middle class, men or women. But I am in the habit of not trusting the state, the courts or the police. And I am in the habit of giving more trust to decent community groups like FIERCE, even if I don't agree with them on everything. But more importantly, I am in the habit of hearing different accounts of a situation and using my best judgment to think about what makes sense and what seems like bullshit. What makes sense is the guy harassing them with sexist and homophobic shit, getting pissed because he was rejected or because the women gave it right back to him, him getting in an argument with them, the argument escalating and it getting violent, the guy having one of them on the ground and the woman pulling out a knife at that point to get the fucker off her friend... and it especially seems like self-defense when the other two guys came over to help the women out. I doubt they'd join in if it looked like the women were the aggressors. The women ended up winning out and he got real hurt. Tough shit for him.

It doesn't seem real likely that the women unprovoked started attacking him, or that they just got harassed a little and kicked the shit out of him (although I wouldn't be opposed to them doing that) and so two other random guys joined in on the beating for fun, or that they would have pulled out the knife if they didn't seem like they needed to for self defense (the fact that the other guys joined in shows that it had to have gotten pretty serious).

Of course, we don't know the exact story, but their point of view of self defense seems to make a lot more sense.

revol68 wrote:
I mean a couple of months ago some little attention seeking tosser started accusing me of being homophobic, if that had ended in a fight and he came on Indymedia spouting about some hate crime or whatever, should everyone line up behind him because of the ongoing homophobic harassment and violence gay people suffer?

There's really not much of a parallel hear to what we're talking about; but I would support him stabbing you anyway and would think that it's bullshit if they put him away for 11 years, if that's what you're asking.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 4 2007 06:10
Quote:
And thanks for the endorsement of stabbing me, you've warmed my cockles.

oh I see you're a NEFACer, that would explain that stabbing comment, what lovely folks youse are, not so much the 'leadership of ideas' but more 'leaders of rather pathetic online threats of violence'.

I would say a second rate group by US standards. A member of NEFAC 'supports' stabbing you. The Communist League member threatens John to a sword fight.

Devrim

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 4 2007 08:49
Devrim wrote:
Quote:
And thanks for the endorsement of stabbing me, you've warmed my cockles.

oh I see you're a NEFACer, that would explain that stabbing comment, what lovely folks youse are, not so much the 'leadership of ideas' but more 'leaders of rather pathetic online threats of violence'.

I would say a second rate group by US standards. A member of NEFAC 'supports' stabbing you. The Communist League member threatens John to a sword fight.

Devrim

With a "big fuck-off sword" no less. But he was English. We have way more flair.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jul 4 2007 08:57

tbh a katana isn't all that in the 'big fuck-off' stakes:

compared to say a good old broadsword:

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jul 4 2007 11:59

Or indeed this one:

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 4 2007 13:03
revol68 wrote:
oh I see you're a NEFACer, that would explain that stabbing comment, what lovely folks youse are, not so much the 'leadership of ideas' but more 'leaders of rather pathetic online threats of violence'.

Nah Baker supports stabbing everybody and besides it was clearly "ironic."

baker
Offline
Joined: 3-02-07
Jul 4 2007 13:29
revol68 wrote:
And thanks for the endorsement of stabbing me, you've warmed my cockles.

oh I see you're a NEFACer, that would explain that stabbing comment, what lovely folks youse are, not so much the 'leadership of ideas' but more 'leaders of rather pathetic online threats of violence'.

Aw come on, it's not like I'd want you to die or anything. Just a comradely stabbing or two.... wink