Oh Kez!!!

[pandarilla]

You are missing the point here. No one is saying that it's a crime so the criminal definition is irrelevant.
A good example is Boris Johnson isn't being prosecuted for his Letterboxes comments but it's clearly 100% Islamophobic.

No but from a position of power and influence it can be very damaging.

[welshbairn]

31 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

It really doesn't. It asserts that the comment is homophobic but doesn't explain why. It's not homophobic just because a gay person doesn't like it.

Tbh, I can see the case going either way. I don't think what he said was homophobic. It was clearly meant to offend. I don't see how that makes it homophobic though. Willing to listen to any argument on why it is and change my mind however.

His defence of his tweet said that Mundell's father coming out had traumatized his wife and family and he should, for his sake and his family's, never have married Mundell's mother in the first place. Kez calling his tweet homophobic is nothing in comparison to that personal cruelty, whether or not Wings used to have a gay mate at college. And his twitter feed is jam packed with Banana style RT's about daft Trans people or gender and sexuality issues for the purposes of mockery. It's fairly clear where he's coming from.

Edited September 30, 2018 by welshbairn

[Detournement]

Just now, Scary Bear said:

 

The comment doesn’t strike me as homophobic in the slightest. My reading of it was he dislikes the son as much as the dad. Folk say similar or worse things on here on a regular basis.

I dislike Mundell senior. In my opinion he’s a snake. Whether he’s gay or not has nothing to do with him being detestable.

It cannae be homophobic because people on P&B say worse is the best argument yet!

I don't like Mundell either.

[Gordon EF]

17 minutes ago, Detournement said:

You are missing the point here. No one is saying that it's a crime so the criminal definition is irrelevant.

A good example is Boris Johnson isn't being prosecuted for his Letterboxes comments but it's clearly 100% Islamophobic.

Well yes, that's because homophobia isn't a crime. A homophobic hate crime is a crime in it's own right motivated by homophobia and a homophobic hate incident is something less than a crime, motivated by homophobia. What I'm getting at is their definition of what makes something homophobic, not whether it's a crime.

[Gordon EF]

13 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

His defence of his tweet said that Mundell's father coming out had traumatized his wife and family and he should, for his sake and his family's, never have married Mundell's mother in the first place. Kez calling his tweet homophobic is nothing in comparison to that personal cruelty, whether or not Wings used to have a gay mate at college. 

I agree. That's a much worse tweet. I'm not defending the man, I'm talking about the specific point of whether the original tweet was homophobic.

Everything I've seen from Campbell regarding the tweet since has been moronic.

[Scary Bear]

It cannae be homophobic because people on P&B say worse is the best argument yet!
I don't like Mundell either.

Will the court case be decided before your head goes?

To me it seems like Kez doing the unsubtle faux outrage thing to try and get at someone she dislikes.

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

Well yes, that's because homophobia isn't a crime. A homophobic hate crime is a crime in it's own right motivated by homophobia and a homophobic hate incident is something less than a crime, motivated by homophobia. What I'm getting at is their definition of what makes something homophobic, not whether it's a crime.

 

Quote

Something is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity.

This means that if you believe something is a hate incident, it should be recorded as this by the person you are reporting it to.

 

From your link.

Mundell said it was homophobic so under those definitions then it is

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, Detournement said:

 

From your link.

Mundell said it was homophobic so under those definitions then it is

You really can't be this stupid?

Can you?

[Detournement]

Just now, Scary Bear said:

 

Will the court case be decided before your head goes?

To me it seems like Kez doing the unsubtle faux outrage thing to try and get at someone she dislikes.

Campbell is the one bringing the case. If he had just left it or responded in his usual manner it would have been completely forgotten about by now.

My head is fine. I'm actually amused by this, the arguments in favour of Campbell are on the level of a pub bore who drones on about it not being racist to say P*ki shop or chinky.

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

You really can't be this stupid?

Can you?

Mundell believes that the hostility in that tweet was based on his sexual orientation.

It obviously was.

[John Lambies Doos]

Mundell believes that the hostility in that tweet was based on his sexual orientation.
It obviously was.

You need to stick to the Rugby threads m9. Couldn't really give a f**k what Mundell thinks. In no way was the wings statement homophobic.

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Mundell believes that the hostility in that tweet was based on his sexual orientation.

It obviously was.

1. Whether Mundell thinks the tweet was homphobic or not doesn't matter in terms of deciding whether it actually was.

2. Something being based on sexuality doesn't automatically make it homophobic.

If this was as obvious a case as you seem to be claiming, we should have probably have had at least one decent argument by now. Disappointing.

[Detournement]

The link that you provided literally the says the opposite of those two points.

[Crossbill]

I hope Dugdale's lawyer has a better defence than 'It's homophobic because we think it it is' or it's going to be a very short hearing.   Actually, no I don't - that would be hilarious.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Crossbill

[Gordon EF]

Just now, Detournement said:

The link that you provided literally the says the opposite of those two points.

No it literally doesn't.

If it does, maybe you can quote the exact passages?

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

No it literally doesn't.

If it does, maybe you can quote the exact passages?

Something is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity.

[Gordon EF]

16 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Something is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity.

Yep. And we're not talking about whether it's a "homophobic hate incident", as defined on that website, we're talking about whether it's homophobic, with the relevant part of the sentence above being "hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity".

Let's get the idea of 'I think it is therefore it is' out the way first. It's so clearly absurd that we shouldn't even need to discuss it. I could claim your previous post was homophobic, or that Kezia Dugdale's original Record pieces was homophobic. Just because I could say it wouldn't make either true. We need a common understanding of what homophobia is so that we can actually decide if what I'm claiming is true.

I think "hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity" is a decent enough definition to work with, so let's go with it.

There's no doubt Campbell's tweet was hostile and there's no doubt it referenced the sexual orientation of Mundell's father. But was the hostility based on the sexual orientation of either Mundell jnr or snr. Nope, I don't see how it is. I don't think the tweet is hostile towards Mundell snr at all actually. I'm sure he didn't like it seeing as it criticised his son but the hostility in the tweet wasn't aimed at Mundell snr. The hostility in the tweet was aimed at Mundell jnr but it was based on his ability at public speaking. I think the reason it sails fairly close to the wind and i still think the case could go either way is that it references his father's homosexuality. But for me, it's not the basis of the hostility so it's not homophobic.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Gordon EF

[Crossbill]

12 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Something is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity.

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of that paragraph.   All incidents that someone believes are homophobic need to be recorded as such so they can be investigated appropriately, and if deemed to be homophobic they can be treated as a hate crime.  Just because an incident is recorded does not mean that there has been any actual homophobia - that is for the investigators and potentially the courts to determine.

In Dugdale's case though she has an even greater challenge - she need's to prove that WOS is actually homophobic or she is guilty of defamation.  

[Detournement]

13 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

There's no doubt Campbell's tweet was hostile and there's no doubt it referenced the sexual orientation of Mundell's father. But was the hostility based on the sexual orientation of either Mundell jnr or snr. Nope, I don't see how it is. I don't think the tweet is hostile towards Mundell snr at all actually. I'm sure he didn't like it seeing as it criticised his son but the hostility in the tweet wasn't aimed at Mundell snr. The hostility in the tweet was aimed at Mundell jnr but it was based on his ability at public speaking. I think the reason it sails fairly close to the wind and i still think the case could go either way is that it references his father's homosexuality. But for me, it's not the basis of the hostility so it's not homophobic.

If you insult someone by referencing their sexuality it's homophobic.

Clearly it is hostile towards to Mundell snr it's nuts to say otherwise. I'm sure Campbell has made thousands of tweets that are hostile to Mundell that aren't homophobic but the content of this one is.

Edit - she doesn't even have to prove the tweet is homophobic just that it's fair comment to describe it as such.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Detournement

[Detournement]

4 minutes ago, Crossbill said:

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of that paragraph.   All incidents that someone believes are homophobic need to be recorded as such so they can be investigated appropriately, and if deemed to be homophobic they can be treated as a hate crime.  Just because an incident is recorded does not mean that there has been any actual homophobia - that is for the investigators and potentially the courts to determine.

In Dugdale's case though she has an even greater challenge - she need's to prove that WOS is actually homophobic or she is guilty of defamation.  

Things can be homophobic without being a hate crime.

Dugdale only has to prove that tweet was homophobic.