To think Owen Jones is childish

[sandrabedminster]

Owen Jones storms off sky news

I don't even get what his issue is, he's invited on to discuss the headlines and then runs off as he doesn't like how much attention the biggest story is getting.

So anyone who isn't gay doesn't understand homophobia?

They will never, ever understand it the way gay people do. The same way a man will never understand sexism in the way I, as a woman, do

"That's an absurd statement, and pretty shitty considering there are people who are both Muslim and LGBT. "

I mean non-Muslim man. If you have been brainwashed into religious belief, and you happen to be gay, then that's perfectly understandable.

But Owen Jones is not a Muslim.

Parts of the USA are actually on the UK's list of places where, if you are LGBT, you should be wary of going because it is not safe. When they were put on that list, there was some outcry from people who felt they were being compared to Islamic countries.

This wasn't an open discussion about the attack. They were supposed to be discussing the newspapers' front pages and that coverage included all aspects of the debate: the LGBT attack; ISIL's view of Western values; previous attacks and US gun laws.

There was a definite reluctance on Owen's part to address those other views; to actually discuss the newspaper coverage.

mama - I know Owen Jones isn't Muslim. Which is why it is admirable he can say what he said - he has no skin in that game, but he obviously does recognise that being Muslim is not in itself what leads people to do this sort of thing.

but they were dismissive: they kept saying "this lunatic" as if it were an unmotivated crime - but if you go and shoot people in a gay club (and contact another in advance it seems too, except it was closed), it seems pretty bloody motivated if you ask me!

And suppose a gunman had gone into a place full of women, and men had said 'oh this is an attack on humans' rather than acknowledging that the gunman had particularly sought out women. It would completely minimise the terror that women would feel about meeting in public places after the event.

I do agree that Owen was probably too upset to go onto a programme like Skynews to talk about this - he would have been better off giving a statement rather than putting himself into an arena where he was likely to be goaded. But I don't think that makes him childish, I feel very sympathetic.

Wasnt it a homophobic attack motivated by religious ideology? Does the religious aspect some how take away from the homophobic element? I'm not sure of the back story here in relation to Owen's views but I think everyone can agree it appears to be a homophobic attack and it seems the perpetrator had links to radical Islam or was at least a follower?

He was right, totally. Fair play to him.

Ego: why do you keep going on about the religious right in America? Do you live in Alabama?

I'm sorry, but there's no way I'd be worrying about Christians if I was LGBT & living in Europe, or even the U.S for that matter.

The U.K. government have issued a travel warning for LBGT people in going to some parts of America but sure this is an Islam thing.

I don't see how it's motivated by a religious ideology if it's true that - as his ex-wife argues - he wasn't very religious.

I can totally believe it was a handy source of rhetoric and inspiration for him, but it sounds as if the homophobia came first and the religious reasoning later.

Christians in the UK can be a worry, I think?

YABU. He was right - the attack was a specifically homophobic attack directed at the LGBT community. His upset and anger is totally understandable.

teafuelledradical "They didn't seem to acknowledge this as a hate crime against LGBT people, thus negating OJ's pain and kind of gaslighting. It was like inviting a rabbi on to discuss a synagogue shooting then downplaying antisemitism (the parallel that OJ used, I think justifiably)."

I'm Jewish and I agree 100% with OJ on this.

This has actually happened in the past when attacks have targeted Jewish people (schools/businesses/kosher shops etc.) and the media have downplayed it.

In this case it was gay people who were targeted and of course that matters and is significant.

Out of interest, what are the sexualities of the other 2 presenters?

Wow just watched this and what kind of erasing, minimalising bullshit was that? Three cheers to him for walking out. Love how the OP of this thread spectacularly missed the point of why he was upset.

"The U.K. government have issued a travel warning for LBGT people in going to some parts of America but sure this is an Islam thing. hmm
"

Not because they were at risk of being shot by homophobes, but rather "LGBT travelers may be affected by legislation passed recently in the states of North Carolina and Mississippi"

Do you seriously want to compare mass murder by ISIS, to a law made in response to the US government's attempt (without legislation, vote or court decision) to redefine sex as something arbitrary and a matter of individual whim? Basically a law stating that you can't go in the ladies if you boast a 'seven-inch surprise'?

Oh so shocking, yes that's just the same as pushing gays off buildings and shooting up nightclubs.

For fuck's sake. Talk about useful idiots.

Heres Owen Jones on terrorism:

"I militarily support the IRA against the British State,"

mama, you're over-simplifying.

No one is suggesting ISIS is the same thing as US law.

But no one is suggesting (even you, I think?) that the man who did this is ISIS personified.

You might as well pick any other comparison out of thin air and start getting aerated about it.

" but when DS says 'Can we go to America' and I tell him 'Sorry, but people like me aren't welcome in parts of it' it has an effect on me. "

What kind of argument is that? You wouldn't be welcome in parts of the UK either. www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/can-we-finally-talk-about_b_828037.html

The US is every bit as tolerant in the UK, but not all areas in the UK, or the US, are equally tolerant.

How much of the interview are people watching? Did you are the beginning where everyone respectfully sat back and gave OJ a huge uninterrupted period of time to have a monologue?

If it wasn't such a serious and devastating issue, you could almost argue he was getting a taste of his own medicine

I agree with this. He was correct they were minimising the homophobic element of the attack.

But he has form for doing this himself...especially to female groups

I often disagree with what OJ writes, but in this instance he has my sincere sympathies. I think he was quite right to walk out.

As has been pointed out upthread, clearly antisemitic attacks in the past have been brushed off as "not really antisemitic at all", as have (contrary to what Grumpy said a few posts back) - attacks on women (I remember the blogosphere tying itself in knots trying to argue that the Virginia Tech shootings weren't driven by misogyny despite the perpetrator's website saying how much he hated women, all women...)

The thing is, these attacks do tend to be carried out by people who are clearly batshit crazy. I genuinely think that the craziness comes first, and the ideology they then subscribe to is merely an excuse to act out on the craziness. But the choice of target and the ideology the perpetrator latches onto is not random - they don't go and shoot at groups of trainspotters or flower arrangers. The groups they pick on as the targets for their craziness are ones which wide sections of society at large villify at worst or marginalise at best - gay people, people from ethnic minorities, people of particular religious beliefs, women... So the attitudes of society are deeply relevant, and it is utterly wrong to try to downplay the culture of hate within which these attacks take place.

(Which isn't to say we shouldn't ask questions about gun control as well - but not in place of talking about homophobia as a motivation.)

he was particularly keen to present a view that it was a homophobic hate crime ...that just happened to be committed by a Muslim.

And this was incorrect. It wasn't a homophobic attack for the sake of being a homophobic attack.

It was a TERRORIST attack in the name of Islam -which prohibits anal sex and depending on your point of view is either a homophobic religion or a non-accepting religion.

The Quran deals explicitly with Sodomy (Liwat, named after Lot and his people). The holy book recounts the story of Sodom several times, condemning its people’s overall immorality, and specifically criticizing its men for “going to men out of desire instead of to women.” Sodomy, understood as anal sex, was thus prohibited by the consensus of Muslim scholars (Muhammad’s condemnation of anal sex with wives added hetero anal sex to this as well). Muslim scholars set the punishment for anal sex between men as anywhere from a relatively light one at the judge’s discretion (since Sodomy could not result in illegitimate children), to the same punishment as fornication (based on analogy to hetero-sex), to execution (based on a command from Muhammad of disputed authenticity).

variety.com/2015/voices/opinion/islam-gay-marriage-beliefs-muslim-religion-1201531047/

For him to be all "this is just about LGBT" was wrong and missed the point. The big point is that it was an attack on gay people carried out in the name of ISIS and Islam.

He lost credibility by walking out. It is very toys out the pram.