I know my column is subjective and anecdotal, but I make no claim for it to be otherwise. I know that because I have twice experienced being kicked in the face and bludgeoned to the ground in Dublin’s fair city, on one occasion leaving me with a broken nose, my perception of the level of homophobic violence in Dublin is bound to differ from Donal’s. But that is what research and reports are for – to establish the facts. The sort of homophobic attacks that result in serious damage are not done right outside the gay bars in full view of everyone – the attackers follow the victims until they are alone and vulnerable and out of CCTV range, or try to roll them in a cruising area. I know, from experience, how they work, and the calculated menace that fuels their operations is deeply disturbing to behold. If Donal wishes to challenge the methodology of the research of Conor Coughlan and his team, then he should say so directly, for that is a serious charge, and would call into question Johnny’s integrity as an organization, and its charitable status.
He is right to point out that violence happens all the time in Dublin’s streets at night, and that the majority of victims are not gay. And he’s right to highlight homophobia in education as being a serious issue. (As if the two aren’t connected.) But the curious lack of mainstream media attention around the issue of homophobic violence in Ireland is striking and dangerous. Dangerous because homophobia is the quintessence of male-on-male violence, it tells us more about the malaise of the Irish male and his rampant fucking alcohol-fuelled id than anything else. It needs to be understood, taken seriously, researched; the psychology of those who get their kicks out of beating up queers or other poor buggers in other minority groups needs to be understood. By pissing on this report the way he has, Donal Lynch may think he’s struck a blow against gay victimology. But he’s only succeeding in assaulting the truth, and in so doing is perpetuating the smug complacency in the mainstream Irish media about the nature and level of Irish violence on our streets at night, and the degree to which violent homophobia is entrenched in the Irish male psyche.
{ 23 } Comments
I haven’t seen violence against gays down here in Waterford but I must say I am reminded almost on a daily basis how homophobic Irish men are. Coming from Cape Town I was shocked and saddened to find out how narrow minded the Irish are on this issue.
It is a problem and report or not, ignorant journalist or not, it should be sorted out.
Donal made a lot of assumptions about the report – for example he assumed that all the attacks take place directly outside gay venues, he assumed that because nothing had ever happened him that the problem is non-existant, anyway the report will be available online in the next week or two
very well written (as usual) and thanks for posting this – appreciate the “I’m here too” aspect of your take on Irish news
In fairness to Mr Lynch I do not believe you have represented his position well in your piece.
Firstly you claim that he has not witnessed violence himself in Gay Bars and this is the reason for his questioning of the reports. From Mr Lynch’s article this is not the case. He clearly states that he has witnessed violence at Gay bars “Punches have been thrown (one or two, it has to be said, in my direction)”
Indeed you are correct in stating that he uses anecdotal evidence, however he clearly states this himself and points out it’s weakness as qualitative rather than quantitative data.
However I believe that you are incorrect in your statement that his argument is “backed up solely by anecdotal evidence” To my mind his argument is based on three factors. The comparison of official figures on Homophobic attacks in several areas, A questioning of the methodology used and data gathered of the report in question and finally his own anecdotal evidence.
If I can again quote from your Piece “If Donal wishes to challenge the methodology of the research of Conor Coughlan and his team, then he should say so directly” To that I can only offer some of the article in question
“Some of Johnny’s methodology also seemed flawed: the survey does not ask how or why people were attacked, allowing each person to make their own subjective judgment as to their attacker’s motivation. Some people were questioned in bars and clubs, which presumably means they had drink taken, and were in groups when they answered the survey.”
To my mind that is a quite direct way to question a methodology. Also the questions posed are quite valid and I look forward to Johnny’s response and defence of their methods
I am not saying that I am in complete agreement with Mr Lynch, however it is right and proper that any report or piece of research is held up to examination and scrutiny. If any report is not able to stand up to such examination then it is worthless. At stage all I can say is that I eagerly await the making available of the report online and that I hope that it can easily answer Mr Lynch’s questions satisfactorily.
You make some valid points and I’m happy to stand corrected and concede that, as you say, he has indeed been at the receiving end of a few punches in a gay bar.
There is a big difference, however, between asking two questions about “some” of the methodology, (incidentally without waiting for answers), and then proceeding to turn the results of the research completely on their head.
I wrote my response belatedly and in anger. I was furious at the sub-editor for choosing that headline. It coloured my judgment of the piece and I wonder if Donal Lynch himself could have been happy with it.
More here.
Hi, I only saw this yesterday so sorry for the late response. I wrote the original piece in the Sunday Indo because I and many other people suspected that the levels of homophobic violence depicted in the johnny report were exagerrated. Yes this suspicion was based on ‘anecdotal evidence’ but I admitted that in the piece and as I have been going out on the scene every week for about ten years there are many anecdotes to draw on. Ally that to the fact that johnny’s methodology is blatantly flawed and I think it becomes clear that there is room for debate on the subject. I never said the problem is ‘non existant’ and I can’t see how Dermod took that from the piece. I also can’t see how he understands my criticism of one report to be undermining of Johnny’s charitable status. Are all charities immune from criticism so?
Thanks for replying Donal.
I never said the problem is ‘non existant’ and I can’t see how Dermod took that from the piece.
The headline, Donal. That gross, insulting, pathetic, twisted headline dreamed up by a sad sub-editor, that basically declared Johnny’s report to be nonsense. The one that went “Beating up gays is no longer a sport in Ireland”.
Now you say that Johnny’s methodology is “blatantly flawed” – which is consistent at least with your rubbishing of the report, but you did not say so in your piece.
On what grounds is the methodology “blatantly flawed” and if you are accusing a registered charity of spending its money on flawed research I think you’d better back it up with more than what you’ve offered so far.
My complaint is not that you criticize a charity’s findings – it is that you had better come up with better criticism than that to warrant the complete dismissal of the report’s findings.
I know that my perception of violence against queers at night is different to yours. That is what independent research is for, to filter out the bias of your perception and my perception, and come up with numbers. And yes, even research itself can be biased. But all good methodologies account for that.
My anger at your piece is heightened by what I perceive is the lack of attention mainstream media is paying to violence against minority groups at night.
As it turns out, sadly, the headline of your piece is, with deep irony, false. Young people are indeed beating up gays for sport. Are you going to mention that in your column? Or will the readers of the Sunday Independent remain in complacent ignorance of this organized, vindictive, violent barbarity?
Just to follow up on a few of the points above:
In the piece I wrote I DID explain where specifically I thought Johnny’s methodology might be flawed: “The survey does not ask how or why people were attacked, allowing each person to make their own subjective judgement as to their attacker’s motivation. Some people were questioned in bars and clubs, which presumably means they had drink taken, and were in groups when they answered the survey. It also claims to show that all reluctance to report a homophobic attack stems from suspicions that the Gardai will not do their job. But there are many other reasons that might be factors. When gay people do report an attack they will often not acknowledge that there was a homophobic element for fear that this will mean their sexuality will be eventually mentioned in court, not because they mistrust the Gardai.” Nowhere in the report are these factors mentioned nor is there any evidence that they were taken into account. I also can’t see why Dermod attaches such significance to Johnny being a registered charity. In this context, so what if it is? Plenty of charities (as well as government departments, private companies etc) conduct reports that are flawed. To criticise the report is not to question the integrity of the people in the organisation (and in fact in the piece I did mention the good work Johnny does).
I’d also like to point out that while my piece was the subject of this thread it was not the sum total of coverage that the Johnny report received. Its findings were reported in most of the national dailies in the week before my piece appeared. Included in these pieces were quotes from some of the people who put the report together. So people heard both sides of the debate, not just mine.
I don’t know what Dermod means by underreporting in the media of attacks against minorities at night. Violent attacks are notoriously over represented in media crime reports, especially when compared to reports on other types of crime. And the homophobic attacks last summer were the subject of huge and largely hysterical media coverage. This is precisely the type of story that sells papers. The tabs were practically falling over themselves to find someone with a black eye.
Anyway I think between the piece and what I’ve written above, I’ve very much said my piece on this subject for the moment. So, as I can see you’re all baying for an encore I open the floor to Dermod for one last show-stopping rebuttal. Maestro…
I’m far more interested in the truth than drama, Donal. I’ve asked the author of the report, and the current PR officer of Johnny.ie, to respond to your criticisms.
I also can’t see why Dermod attaches such significance to Johnny being a registered charity. In this context, so what if it is? Plenty of charities (as well as government departments, private companies etc) conduct reports that are flawed.
“So what if it is?” If the charity lets the community it serves down by producing flawed reports, then the truth loses out, and the community should demand that it is better served by people who run that charity. I’m not impugning anyone’s integrity – I’m saying that they have a serious duty of care to the community they are researching to produce reports that are impartial and thorough.
If the report is flawed, it means sensible constructive debate about what needs to happen is delayed – probably by years. That is extremely serious – because we are dealing with violent crime here.
Violent attacks are notoriously over represented in media crime reports, especially when compared to reports on other types of crime.
“Notorious”????? “Over-represented”??? We come from very different perspectives, obviously. Violence is a symptom of a sick society, requiring some deep thinking and reflection, in order to effect change. And for anything to happen at all, there has to be some decent research, not hysterical headlines and tabloid sensationalism. On that we are agreed.
Well Dermod, firstly I haven’t had any response from Johnny and they did not take the opportunity to respond to the piece in the letters to the editor the following week. Nor did you. Perhaps now that you’ve requested them to respond they will. Although it will seem a little strange they waited this long.
Secondly I can’t see how it follows that if the report is flawed then ’sensible constructive debate about what needs to happen is delayed by years’. Why would this be the case? And if the report is flawed would it in you mind be better that people not point this out?
Let’s take another example: Supposing a report is commissioning which ‘proves’ that 90% of children in Ireland have been abused. This seems an unlikely statistic so we examine the methodology behind the survey. We then suggest this is flawed is various ways. By your logic in this scenario we would by our criticism be setting progress on child welfare back by years.
Lastly if you have read ANY of the numerous criminological studies on reportage of crime in the media you would see how overreported violent crime is when compared to other crimes. Compared to the type of attacks described in the johnny survey crimes such as fraud barely get a mention in the press.
Incidentally all of these reports are subject to analysis and criticism in academic journals, as Johnny’s report never was. So basically the only filter between johnny’s report and the public was the media, which, for my sins, I am a part of.
Conor Coughlan; Author LGBT Hate Crime Report 2006,
Former JOHNNY Chairman 1999 – 2006, Former diversity awareness project manager, Graduate of the Marketing Institute, marketing and
communications consultant for 8 years.
I have read with great interest the statements expressed on this blog.
I shall not make any assumptions on why people choose to write what they do, variety is the spice of life and people are fully entitled,
to take from the report what they wish, as author it was my primary desire that people would find the facts of the matter presented in a clear
and easy to follow manner – something that I strongly believe we have done.
You would be very surprised to know the actual level of attention, detail, that has gone into the publishing of this work and the amount of time
what was spent on the surveys methodology alone; examining best practice and ensuring quality control measures were followed at all times. We spent at
least 12 months prior to survey commencement liaising with other organisations, examining other hate crime surveys and as an individual I have been
actively involved in hate Crime research, building up knowledge base, attending seminars, networking with other informed contacts
, developing my understanding of hate crimes (across the board and LGBT hate crime specifically) in addition to other aspects of LGBT health and well being
for over six years (more then many policy makers in this field) now.
For many who know me, I virtually dedicated my entire chairmanship of JOHNNY directly/indirectly to creating awareness on this issue,
it still saddens me that if it was not for JOHNNY this vital piece of work would not have conducted. The ‘Stop Hate Crimes in Ireland’ campaign has been
running for a number of years now and has lead to JOHNNY undertaking representative and advocacy work on behalf of LGBT victims and the community. With
members such as myself directly intervening between victims and statutory service providers to ensure that people who were unable to seek assistance directly
due to myriad of reasons, accessed the services and resources they badly needed.
I would like to point out that the campaign has been conducted for a number of years; many people still remembering our first 10 steps guide to safety in the LGBT
community relating to hate crimes that we issued in 2001. This piece of research has been but one part of this campaign (a vital part, important part) but just
one, the other areas focusing on providing community support, resources, information and a key priority for me has been ensuring that we maintained media
awareness about this horrific issue (i think we have done a good job so far).
In relation to Donal statements and previous reporting it is evident he has not that actually read the report.
I hate to assume (so please clarify Donal) however I must speculate (apologies to all) that You have read the executive summary or worse other media
summations of this some which are also inaccurate or perhaps just our press release? however I am surprised from my own media background that you have
chosen to debate on this topic with out being fully informed, even more surprised that you have called the surveys methodology into question in light of the above
lack of data.
As someone who is actually trained, qualified in this area of survey conducting and has undertaken many other pieces of work in professional career. I would
not question another organisations methodology with out reviewing their work properly , requesting more data and examining their stance in relation to
the work itself etc (in fact there is a lot more i would do). It may interest you to note that this work was done in conjunction with Queens University Belfast –
who actually gave us some great advice on clearly listing the surveys methodology within the report in the first few pages – did you read this
detailed section? outlining some very interesting facts regarding how we conducted our work – as we thought someone might want to know this.
Personally I would like to convey that the issue that annoys me most in relation to the inaccurate coverage I have seen is that a journalist who happens
to be gay, stated on the basis of their sexual orientation and the periods of time that they frequented LGBT venues, some how based on this knowledge meant
that they were an expert on this issue. I have not seen a girl raped in Dublin before my eyes, yet I am aware that this horrific act occurs- as experts have informed me,
I hate to bring this up in relation to an LGBT issue – but I have not seen a child molested by a paedophile, (I hope not to) I am informed that this
happens too often in Ireland, I have not seen a husband beat his wife in front of me, yet I am told it occurs. I have not seen other hate crimes based on
race, colour, creed take place in front my own eyes – but I know these happen as I am informed. So am I to assume Donal that what you have not personally seen in your life,
some how means the actual levels of hate crimes that we have reported are wrong? that the victims we met were lying? that this is not such a serious issue?
Is this correct? is this what you are conveying or have I miss construed your stance? Professionally if I was to make assume such a response to the work I undertake
I would be dismissed quite quickly.
I consider myself to be informed on this issue, not an expert (it is not my professional area- I just have an established knowledge base despite having in
fact presented on this issue at Europe’s largest LGBT health and wellbeing conference) so I would like you to be informed by experts and it may interest you
to know (perhaps you have read the report reviews from Gay Men’s Scotland, Metropolitan policing service??) they are included in the first few pages of the report?
data contained in our report mirrors the data they have acquired also! Surprisingly this fact was highlighted so clearly when, Graham Alldus, LGBT
Liaison Officer, Lambeth, Metropolitan Police Service, presented their detailed analysis of their hate crime data at the aforementioned conference, just after I did.
We were very surprised at the commonalities that are listed in the reports findings, it may interest you to know that our findings also mirror work conducted
on the area of ‘Hate Crimes’ as a whole.
Now I shall waste more of my Saturday day going point by point through your inaccurate statements (did I mention it is a Sunny Saturday in London –
they are very rare!) however seeing as you spent so much time and effort with your article and these statements I shall pay your the courtesy of spending
some time in commenting on your informed methodological position and the other inaccurate factual assumptions.
Ok here we go – this is so exciting:
You said: In the piece I wrote I DID explain where specifically I thought Johnny’s methodology might be flawed:
“The survey does not ask how or why people were attacked
I say: Your wrong! We did ask people how they were attacked – please read the report. We asked a lot of information
on type of attack, where it occurred, when it occurred. Now please tell me how a victim would know the trigger factors that lead
to their attacker – attacking them? Please outline how anyway this information would be useful? I want you to elaborate on this!
You said: allowing each person to make their own subjective judgement as to their attacker’s motivation.
I say: 1. see last response 2. We clearly outlined what a hate crime was so that respondents would not get confused between other forms of crimes, our
trained surveyors made a point of telling people again.
You said: Some people were questioned in bars and clubs, which presumably means they had drink taken
I say:
1. The majority of surveys were not conducted in bars and clubs, please make reference to our aforementioned methodology section
in the report.
2. We specifically took an approach that we wanted the largest sample base possible and that would be most representative of the entire LGBT populace,
- we gave this thought – we chose not to focus on LGBT pubs and clubs – as these are not representative and we looked at many other places. Unlike so
many other LGBT surveys. Are you aware that 1000 people is a huge sample base? – that very often Mori don’t do surveys that size any more as it is considered
to no longer be necessary as 500 is ok these days. However I literally argued for such a large sample base.
3. Of the surveys that were conducted in the pubs and clubs, we chose not to frequent those venues after 10pm
(Oddly enough – venue providers did not want us there when it gets busy and people get drunk – bad business sense on their part alone), we chose not to speak to
drunk people – however one must assume that they had consumed alcohol – however so many people at any one time do, in any survey- this is known
fact, others also have consumed prescription drugs, have physical and psychological illnesses, may or may not have had sufficient sleep, or have eaten that day,
all of which have an effect on responses – that’s why we seek large sample bases.
You said: and were in groups when they answered the survey.
I say: Your wrong – we did not allow this and informed people, to complete independently, however it is possible that some people did look at each others,
we could not literally place them in isolation cubicles , however given the serious nature of this subject – I don’t think people would say there were a victim.
You said: It also claims to show that all reluctance to report a homophobic attack stems from suspicions that the Gardai will not do their job.
I say: Read the report!!! We have a whole section on why people stated why they did not report- of which mistrust with the policing service is but one.
You said: But there are
many other reasons that might be factors. When gay people do report an attack they will often not acknowledge that there was a homophobic element for
fear that this will mean their sexuality will be eventually mentioned in court, not because they mistrust the Gardai.”
I say: I agree totally – should read our report – it says the same
You said:
Nowhere in the report are these
factors mentioned nor is there any evidence that they were taken into account.
I say: I should take you to court for this statement as it is completely inaccurate. I am seriously thinking about it !
You said:
I also can’t see why Dermot attaches such significance to Johnny being a
registered charity.
I say: I think was relating to the fact that this is an independent report, conducted by the LGBT community, it is not from a statutory service provider or commercial entity and
our only premise in doing this is to create awareness of the issue and inform relevant influencers.
You said:
In this context, so what if it is? Plenty of charities (as well as government departments, private companies etc) conduct reports that
are flawed.
I say: that is correct, i agree, so many are skewed to suit, we did a nice honest one – please read it!
You said:
To criticise the report is not to question the integrity of the people in the organisation (and in fact in the piece I did mention the good
work Johnny does).
I say: thank you, I am glad you are not questioning the integrity of our members and we are glad that you like our work.
I would like to conclude now, should anyone be interested in reading our report; you may obtain a copy from
JOHNNY, C/o Outhouse, 105 Capel Street, Dublin 1 – you may also visit http://www.johnny.ie – it is a good read!
Please note that Johnny is reliant entirely on donations
and all of our members are volunteers who give up much needed time to work on behalf of the LGBT community in Dublin and the greater Dublin area.
We are broke, this work has drained us of virtually all our funds – so should come across this posting and want to do one good thing this year – please make a donation,
all the details on how to are located on http://www.johnny.ie
In relation to the report, as stated at the press launch and in our many presentations on this issue, we strongly believe more work is needed in this area,
more analysis is required into why LGBT hate crimes occur, what services are needed by victims.
I would also like to welcome the excellent work by Dublin City University with its study
into homophobic bullying in schools. ‘Straight Talk – Researching Gay and Lesbian Issues in the School Curriculum’ study researched teachers
involved in the ‘SPHE’ post primary (secondary schools) programme and it was conducted over three years. The study has found that Catholic Church’s
teachings are strongly considered when deciding what will be taught about relationships and sexuality and homophobia is rife in secondary
schools in Ireland.
This report highlighted the challenges facing teachers in catholic schools in
addressing homophobic bullying and the level of homophobic bullying that is rife in the secondary school system in Ireland,
now we are seeing young people attacking the gay community. It is clear that negative teaching in schools and negative
pre-conditioning by society have an impact.
Donal you should read this report also – anyone else – it validates our primary recommendation!!
I would lastly like to say how saddened I am to read of the brutal attacks that took place last weekend, Pearse Street station have issued yet another
warning to LGBT people in Dublin of more Hate Crime attacks taking place and a new twist with ‘gangs’ now attacking people.
If you would like to contact me please note that my e-mail is ccoughlan@(deletethispart)gmail.com stops spamming!
Good night one and all I am off to enjoy what is left of this glorious Saturday
Conor,
Just to go through your points in no particular order (I am sort of sick of this topic – surely the time for response was 3 weeks ago when the piece was published. However given the level of vitriol and your mind bogglingly condescending tone I feel I need to at least make a counter argument heard)
Firstly of course I read the report. You sent it to me yourself. Why would I have asked you to send it if I wasn’t going to read it??? Of course I also read the press releases which you fired off to many journalists in the week the report came out.
Secondly please feel free to consult your lawyers as regards legal action against me. I think we both know you are talking out of your arsehole on this score and blowing some hot and smelly air if I may say so! However even the threat really speaks volumes about the lengths you will go to to prevent free speech. I wonder if the wider public is aware that this is how Johnny responds to criticism. Perhaps it should be.
Thirdly, as you make a great play of it, what exactly is your ‘background in the media’? I don’t recall reading your work anywhere but I’m intrigued that you feel so well placed to talk down to me.
Now, to go through my original points:
I noted that people completed the surveys in groups (ie while in the company or presence of other people). This is in fact what happened , as you admit, and you even mention the fact that the respondents may have looked at each others’ answers! You wrote ‘we could not literally place them in isolation cubicles , however given the serious nature of this subject – I don’t think people would say there were a victim.’
Perhaps you need to reread this last point and ask yourself whether you or indeed anyone else understands it.
You say although some of the respondents were surveyed in bars and clubs but this is ok because you asked many other people, took a large sample base and didn’t ask them anything after ten at night. I say: those responses that were taken in groups in pubs even before ten will still contaminate the survey and should have been discounted. They weren’t.
You ask how a victim can know what his attackers motivation is? Obviously this is a very difficult question to answer but it goes to the heart of the matter because the motivation of the attacker is what makes it a hate crime in the first place. You seem to agree that this motivation is a difficult point to prove but have no suggestions as to how it can be proven. The report also does not deal with this, instead assuming it can always be ascertained by the victim what his attacker’s motivation is . You ask what use this information can be put to. Surely for one thing it would help to present a more accurate picture of truly homophobic violence in Ireland. Again I put it to you: Someone can be gay and be attacked. It does NOT follow that the attack is a ‘gay bashing’, even if this is what the victim thinks.
I’d like to point out that one of the Dublin-based professionals mentioned in the report has aleady privately questioned its accuracy to me. The sole researcher I spoke to who worked on the report told me that this was the first report he had ever worked on.
So glad you enjoyed the sunny day. It was glorious here too.
Firstly, I am glad this necessary debate is happening. Secondly, I regret that it’s become so personal, with ad hominem attacks from both sides.
Donal writes:
Well Dermod, firstly I haven’t had any response from Johnny and they did not take the opportunity to respond to the piece in the letters to the editor the following week. Nor did you.
I can’t answer for Johnny, that’s down to the PR officer. As for me, I only came across your piece from a Google news alert for responses to the Johnny Hate Crime report, which arrived in my in-tray 3 weeks after your piece was published. I never buy the Sunday Independent – the paper is steeped in a sort of malice, of which the headline of your article is but one example. (Despite my repeatedly challenging you on it, your silence speaks volumes.)
Secondly I can’t see how it follows that if the report is flawed then ’sensible constructive debate about what needs to happen is delayed by years’. Why would this be the case?
“Sensible constructive debate about what needs to happen” can only happen when the facts of a given problem are established. Then, and only then, government policies can change, on foot of that knowledge. When the facts are unclear or disputed, then that queers the pitch for all concerned. That’s why your challenge is so serious, and why you’d better be very clear you know what you’re talking about. You appear to underestimate the impact of throwing mud at the report.
And if the report is flawed would it in you mind be better that people not point this out?
As I’ve said, I’m more interested in truth than drama. But what you have done is quibble with a few things and then dramatically declare in your piece the opposite of what the findings were: attacks are “no longer” a sport. SPORT????? I hope you never ever have to endure being beaten up by a gang for sport. You would never allow such a headline to appear, and if you had any compassion for people who have been attacked like that you’d hang your head in shame.
Let’s take another example: Supposing a report is commissioning which ‘proves’ that 90% of children in Ireland have been abused. This seems an unlikely statistic so we examine the methodology behind the survey. We then suggest this is flawed is various ways. By your logic in this scenario we would by our criticism be setting progress on child welfare back by years.
Well ordinarily it would, on a non-emotive issue – how could governments proceed in changing the law or taking action on a matter unless they had a reliable report to go on?
But your example highlights one important thing. Taking action against violence against queers is NOT the same as taking action against the abuse of children. The government will rush through legislation in a week to protect a child – but they will need a hell of a lot more persuasion to take the necessary action to protect victims of homophobic violence – who, let’s face it, are often those of us who are the least likely to win public sympathy – men on their own looking for sex at night.
In order for the root of homophobia to be tackled, it has to be talked about in schools, especially in tough all-boys schools, who produce the monsters that get their kicks beating up queers. In order for that to happen, the Catholic Church will have to be directly challenged. In order for any government to want to do that, they’d need reliable evidence and research to establish the extent and nature of the problem.
Oh, by the way, if you were questioning the child-abuse report in the same way that you questioned the Johnny report – let’s see. How sensitive would the Sunday Independent be? How respectful to the victims? I can see the headline on your piece now…
“Pre-teen sex toys no longer on the shelf”
So wait a second Dermod, let me get this straight: you didn’t actually see my piece as it appeared in the paper but instead relied on a ‘Google news alert.’ Fascinating. Maybe you might get hold of a copy at some point. I suppose with you living in Italy and Conor living in London it must be quite hard to catch up with all that’s going on at home. Although of course the Sunday Independent, being by far and away Ireland’s most popular newspaper, is on sale all over Europe.
The facts do indeed need to be established – I agree with you on this. The effects of ‘throwing mud at’ (or ‘reasonably questioning’ as I would prefer to put it) the report should actually STRENGHEN the report if it is seen that none of the questions have any merit. This is what happens when reports are published by universities in academic journals. It’s the accepted and respected way of ensuring that erroneous reports are not accepted as authorititive. Equally this ensures that accurate reports, by virtue of having withstood this process, are accepted and respected. So I think we have both made our points here as what we understand to be the merits and demerits of the report. Let the readers, if indeed there are any, of this blog decide.
I’d also like to say that I agree with you to an extent on the issue of gay education in schools (I don’t agree that the ‘monsters’ that attack gay men’ are necessarily from all boys schools), and I look forward to writing on this at some point in the future. It’s not just the Catholic Church that needs to be challenged but also the mentality that we have inherited from them. It’s not so very long ago since I left school and I can see that progress has been made on this front however.
Lastly Dermod I can assure you I am not ‘hanging my head in shame’ and stand over every word i have written. I have been a victim of violence in Dublin’s city centre, I am constantly out in the city centre and I wrote about this issue with considered sensitivity. the use of the word ’sport’ referred to the laddish bravado and casual cruelty of some of the ‘gay bashers’, not to the fact that I consider attacking gay people a sport. The great Quentin Crisp (who was beaten up for being gay many times) himself used the same word in a very similar context. He was also, incidentally, constantly attacked by gay rights groups for not being onside enough.
Dear Donal,
Thanks for your comments, however barbed. If you are still willing to stand 100% by the headline statement that “Beating up gays is no longer a sport in Ireland” then I can’t see how, with the best will in the world on both our parts, we can move towards some small shared understanding of this matter. I agree with you that the best response to the detail of your argument is a stout defence of the methodology. But given your stance so far, I doubt if you are going to change your mind, no matter what is written, and no matter that the Superintendent of Pearse St issued a warning on 30th May about a gang preying on gay men at night in Dublin. How many do they have to attack before you change your mind? One is too much.
I’ve explained why I don’t buy The Sunday Independent, and when I’m back living in Dublin full-time, which is only a matter of weeks away, I’m still unlikely to. But on the matter of violence in Irish society, I will carry on writing about it, here and in Hot Press, and watch keenly the debate about it, wherever it occurs. It may surprise you that I am against a culture of victimology, and believe that too many gay people fall into it.
I use Google to keep tabs on things when I’m away from home, it’s quite useful really, although it has its flaws. I wouldn’t be so quick to knock it. Looking up “homophobic violence dublin” results in this page coming first on Google. And I wonder what happens when one searches for donal lynch journalist?
Don’t knock blogging, or play “my readership is bigger than yours”. This page will be around for quite some time to come, and many people will get to read it, who want to find out more about this topic. (Or about you.) Including the mistakes I made in my initual blustering post, which I’ve admitted to. That’s the nature of blogging – it’s not perfect. But this debate has to happen somewhere, and if it happens in this imperfect medium then I’m glad.
The day that beating up gays is no longer a sport in Ireland is a day that I’d love to see. I certainly intend spending a lot of my time and energy working towards that day. But it’s certainly not here yet, and for you to declare it so, in the most popular newspaper in Ireland, on the flimsiest of grounds, is simply wrong.
Dermod,
I’m glad that in addition to reading my stuff you’re now also googling me. Thanks for taking such an interest! I look forward to giving you plenty more material for the scrapbook in future.
I’m not playing the ‘my readership is bigger than yours’ card, merely noting that yourself and myself seem to be by far the most prolific contributers to this thread. Oh yeah and conor, although he seems to have cut and pasted a lot of his CV so perhaps we can’t count all of his post!
Again and again you voice annoyance at the word ’sport’ used in this context. I may be repeating myself but what I meant by sport was something that is casually countenanced and viewed as trivial by society and the gardai. This I think is no longer the case (altough progress could still be made – eg. legally defining what a ‘hate crime’ is) We have come a long way from the Palmerstown Park case.
The superintendant in pearse st may have issued this warning and gay men have been attacked but i wonder would he be comfortable saying that there is a violent attack on a gay person every night of the week in dublin (as per the johnny survey). The gardai i spoke to who work in the area would not. But then what do they know.
You seem resigned to us not reaching a shared understanding of this problem. Again I think you are painting my picture as more extreme than it actually is. I wrote in the original piece that there is a problem with violence against gay people, that it should be tackled and that it is inexcusable. I merely questioned that the problem was quite so severe or that the attacks happened in the numbers described in the johnny survey. So I’m not quite turning the problem on its head or saying that the problem of violence against gay people does not need to addressed.
Thank you for your counterpoints. This has been my first experience of blogging, or responding to threads online and it’s been interesting if nothing else. If I write about this again in the future I will bear your points in mind.
I’m glad that in addition to reading my stuff you’re now also googling me.
Well, you did find this page in the first place by googling yourself. And as for there not being many others in this thread, it’s not a group blog or a group forum. It’s just a series of comments about my response to your article.
I meant by sport was something that is casually countenanced and viewed as trivial by society and the gardai.
So you’re now claiming your headline should really have gone as follows?
“Beating up gays is no longer viewed as a sport by society in general and the gardai”
I think you must concede that that is not what you said.
We have come a long way from the Palmerstown Park case.
Which one? I’ve been away from Ireland since 1993. My first serious queerbashing was in Palmerston Park, by a gang that piled out of a white van brandishing fake garda ID cards to distract me. I was so ashamed I was there looking for sex I lied to everyone about it, and even moved a garda car along when they stopped to enquire on the street what was wrong with my face covered in blood and a broken nose. That was back in the eighties. I’ve come a long way since then. But it means I have some direct insight into why people don’t report to the guards. Concentrated calculated practised violence is a terrifying thing to experience, it does terrible things to a person.
The gardai i spoke to who work in the area would not. But then what do they know.
They only hear about 20% of the attacks. From my personal experience, I respect the guards and the work they do. But they can only go on what they are told.
You seem resigned to us not reaching a shared understanding of this problem.
In my experience, I trust anyone who admits to making a mistake, or perhaps wishes something might have been put a bit differently, or perhaps saying that a headline wasn’t quite right, etc etc etc. But you have displayed no such attitude, despite having been given many such opportunites, and are now even trying to persuade me that your damning headline really means something else. Such sophistry does not convince.
I’m not going to ‘admit’ to making a mistake I didn’t make! Sorry to hear you had such an awful experience but perhaps it has excessively coloured your viewpoint. Also you have been out of the country for 13 years. (Have you any idea how much things have changed in the last 5 years, not to mind the last 13??) I on the other hand have been walking the very streets and drinking in the very areas we have been writing about. That’s NOT to say that only the things I see take place but that my ‘first-hand’ experience of what its like out at night is more up-to-date than yours. By the way I was told about this blog by a friend of mine who read it last week and noted the levels of shite being spouted so naturally I had to have a look and contribute.
My more recent attack was in Dublin a few years ago, on leaving the George, in 2002. And it was only a few weeks ago I was in Dublin, and I’ll be living not far from Christchurch fairly soon. Lovely.
And yes, I freely acknowledge it colours my viewpoint. As, indeed, your experience colours your viewpoint. Which is why, if you read what I said, independent research is so important and necessary, to take it away from the personal. Which is why, to repeat myself ad nauseam, you need more than a few quibbles (and your criticisms are minor, really) to declare so certainly that “Beating up gays is no longer a sport in Ireland”.
The violence continues, it’s a big problem in Dublin, it’s bigger than the guards are aware of, and it’s certainly bigger than you or me.
” The superintendant in pearse st may have issued this warning and gay men have been attacked but i wonder would he be comfortable saying that there is a violent attack on a gay person every night of the week in dublin (as per the johnny survey)”
Donal I really do have to question this statement – To me it proves that you did not read the report – If you did you would notice a hate crime was described as a “physical or verbal attack”
You also falsely assumed that most of the attacks that were referred took place right outside the Dublin scene venues – again if you read the report you would see a lot of attacks reffered took place in places other than venues
The report is now available online – there was a delay due to technical difficulties
http://www.gayhealthnetwork.ie/folder/web/pdf/hatecrimereport.pdf
In April 2008, I defend Dónal Lynch in this article.
Post a Comment