?

Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
disgust

WHAT the FUCK?

Posted on 2007.10.11 at 01:55
Mood: enragedenraged
from http://www.alternet.org/rights/64336/

On the first day of July, Satender Singh was gay-bashed to death.

The 26-year-old Fijian of Indian descent was enjoying a holiday weekend outing at Lake Natoma with three married Indian couples around his age. Singh was delicate and dateless -- two facts that did not go unnoticed by a party of Russian-speaking immigrants two picnic tables away.

According to multiple witnesses, the men began loudly harassing Singh and his friends, calling them "7-Eleven workers" and "Sodomites." The Slavic men bragged about belonging to a Russian evangelical church and told Singh that he should go to a "good church" like theirs. According to Singh's friends, the harassers sent their wives and children home, then used their cell phones to summon several more Slavic men. The members of Singh's party, which included a woman six months pregnant, became afraid and tried to leave. But the Russian-speaking men blocked them with their bodies.

The pregnant woman said she didn't want to fight them.

"We don't want to fight you either," one of them replied in English. "We just want your faggot friend."

...

A growing and ferocious anti-gay movement in the Sacramento Valley is centered among Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking immigrants. Many of them are members of an international extremist anti-gay movement whose adherents call themselves the Watchmen on the Walls.

...

In the Western U.S., the Watchmen have a following among Russian-speaking evangelicals from the former Soviet Union. Members are increasingly active in several cities long known as gay-friendly enclaves, including Sacramento, Seattle and Portland, Ore.

...

Vlad Kusakin, the host of a Russian-language anti-gay radio show in Sacramento and the publisher of a Russian-language newspaper in Seattle, told The Seattle Times in January that God has "made an injection" of high numbers of anti-gay Slavic evangelicals into traditionally liberal West Coast cities. "In those places where the disease is progressing, God made a divine penicillin," Kusakin said.

...

Dennis Mangers, a gay former California state senator who now lobbies for the cable industry, said that when he met a prominent leader of Sacramento's Slavic community at a 2006 weekend reconciliation retreat, the Slavic leader told him: "You have to understand, we equate homosexuals with thieves, adulterers and murderers. ... You are an abomination."


---

it's unfortunate that i read this at 1am, because i should be asleep and now i'm fucking pissed.

i'd like to know exactly how it's okay that we let these people immigrate into our country, and then they're going to tell our citizens what is and is not an acceptable way to live our lives.

the majority of my friends here in seattle are members of the LGBT community.

let me catch any of them threatening violence upon people close to me, or anyone else i've sworn an oath to protect.
if they live, i'll turn them over to homeland security as hate-crime terrorists.
if being the operative word.

Comments:


betternewthings at 2007-10-11 14:59 (UTC) (Link)
i'd like to know exactly how it's okay that we let these people immigrate into our country, and then they're going to tell our citizens what is and is not an acceptable way to live our lives.

No shit.

Then again, I'm pretty libertarian. I don't think even citizens should be sticking their noses in each other's business.

Bet you a buck that the activist crowd sides with the assholes though, because their hatred of America is greater than their love of gays.
your token straight friend
pushshove at 2007-10-11 15:21 (UTC) (Link)
I don't hate America and I wouldn't consider myself an activist, either

I am an immigrant, and I think the reason Jason reacted to this gay bashing incident in particular (as opposed to this one, this one, or this one in his own backyard) is because of the bashers' status as immigrants.
jinni
jinni_x at 2007-10-11 16:35 (UTC) (Link)
That, and the fact that the guy died.
I'm appalled at the crime but I agree with your reaction. There are plenty of homebrewed wackos eager to tells us how to lead our lives.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2007-10-11 19:54 (UTC) (Link)
i guess you missed the part where the victim was also an immigrant:

The 26-year-old Fijian of Indian descent

if i were a xenophobe, i'd have reclined in my chair with a smug air of self-satisfaction about how one of my problems took care of another, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
betternewthings at 2007-10-11 21:09 (UTC) (Link)
the issue here is not "gay bashing". the issue here is murder. that one party is gay and the other immigrants may be sociologically interesting but morally irrelevant. it would be insulting to gays to imply that violence against them is different in any way from violence against any other person.
your token straight friend
pushshove at 2007-10-11 15:13 (UTC) (Link)
I'll reiterate the point I made at 2am Jason, because this LJ entry has only reinforced my belief in it.

i'd like to know exactly how it's okay that we let these people immigrate into our country, and then they're going to tell our citizens what is and is not an acceptable way to live our lives.

The first point you make in this entry is about their immigration status. It doesn't matter whether these people came here or were born here, killing a person is wrong. I think that's the reason you're so incensed about this killing in particular (when violence towards members of the LGBTQ community across the nation is pretty common) is because IMMIGRANTS had the audacity to kill somebody for their beliefs, and you have some slightly xenophobic tendencies.

If these people immigrate to the US legally, then they should be able to say and believe whatever they want (within the limits surrounding the First Amendment as set forth by the US Supreme Court and Congress). They can "tell our citizens" that being gay is an abomination if they want -- so long as it never crosses the line into physical violence.
Damon Amyx
damyx at 2007-10-11 16:06 (UTC) (Link)
my feeling is that people of this short should be screened out by the moral fitness examinations that are a part of the naturalization process; that they actually made it in the door suggests that these examinations need some reworking.

people from anywhere are welcome if they're not assholes. assholes from anywhere are never welcome.
jinni
jinni_x at 2007-10-11 16:27 (UTC) (Link)
And who, precisely, will be writing that moral fitness exam? Because there are plenty of people born in same Sacramento who have the same beliefs.
Damon Amyx
damyx at 2007-10-11 18:20 (UTC) (Link)
well, the easy answer is that the exam should be written by some morally upstanding individual or group.

but the real worry is not whether you love or hate gays or any other thing. beliefs are not so much a concern as proclivity to act violently.
(Deleted comment)
Damon Amyx
damyx at 2007-10-11 21:21 (UTC) (Link)
I reiterate: the problem is not so much beliefs - there is widespread support for the notion of a "marketplace of ideas," see, e.g., O.W. Holmes - as the tendency to commit acts of violence.

The purpose of a moral fitness exam is to keep criminals out of the country.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2007-10-11 19:55 (UTC) (Link)
They can "tell our citizens" that being gay is an abomination if they want -- so long as it never crosses the line into physical violence.

i've never made an entry like this about StormFront exactly because their speech is first-amendment protected.

my issue with the latvian fundamentalists is that they're "telling people" how to live with closed fists.

that aside, i don't think it is xenophobic to say: this is how we operate here. if you don't like the idea of cultural tolerance, feel free to use the same door you came in.

and for the record, i opened the post with this sentence: "On the first day of July, Satender Singh was gay-bashed to death."

which, i should think, is indicative of the part i have a problem with.
Lynn
alceria at 2007-10-11 15:21 (UTC) (Link)
Fuck, with the nationalities involved, I didn't get that it happened in the US until the end of the article. That is so fucked up.
shaebot at 2007-10-11 21:01 (UTC) (Link)
there are just as many american born bigots are there are foreign born. it is an epidemic without nationality, a hatred with no face. the important message to get across is that this behavior will not be tolerated from *anyone*.

but i really think that if we keep perpetrating political wars we're sanctioning violence anyway. how can the government say killing others because of strategic positioning is ok, but killing others because of personal beliefs is not? i think the human race needs to collectively realize that war on any level, whether it be the kind fought with armies or the kind fought on street corners, is not ok. and until then, there will always be a violent undercurrent in our society that will manifest itself based on the power level of the person who acts on it.
betternewthings at 2007-10-12 03:21 (UTC) (Link)
there are just as many american born bigots are there are foreign born

Bullshit.

Have you ever spent any time in a poor country?
shaebot at 2007-10-17 07:22 (UTC) (Link)
oh jesus fuck.

i meant in the US. there are just as many american bigots as there are foreign bigots in the US. it just depends on who's getting the most press at the time.
betternewthings at 2007-10-17 21:35 (UTC) (Link)
I doubt it. Foreign-born people are significantly more bigoted.

In this case, in most of the world people wonder if gays should be hanged or stoned.

In America the debate is if they should get civil unions or marriage.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2007-10-17 06:42 (UTC) (Link)
i think the human race needs to collectively realize that war on any level, whether it be the kind fought with armies or the kind fought on street corners, is not ok.

i'm sorry S, but this actually made me laugh out loud, no abbreviation necessary.

whether we're talking about russian fundamentalists, or al queda, or whatever, there are always going to be those who feel that their beliefs are so correct, SO RIGHT, that violence is an acceptable means to their particular end. always. so it is; so it's been for thousands of years.

you and i can both wish that the human race is about to undergo some kind of hundredth-monkey realization that There Is A Better Way any day now, but it's not gonna happen.
shaebot at 2007-10-17 07:16 (UTC) (Link)
i didn't say it would happen.

i'm not idealistic enough to think that it will.

but if we accept one, we must understand that the other will occur as well. it's just the way it fucking works.
shaebot at 2007-10-17 07:21 (UTC) (Link)
and i think it's BULLSHIT with a capital SHIT to think that one kind of violence will end another, or really do anything other than cost your cause more in the end with the backlash that it creates.

and if you want to paint me as the pie in the sky girl thats fine, but personally i'm being choked by all the testosterone laden I'M GOING TO BEAT YOU UP COZ I'M BIGGER AND BADDER AND MORE ENTITLED that's going around.

in the end, everyone loses.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2007-10-17 07:39 (UTC) (Link)
and i think it's BULLSHIT with a capital SHIT to think that one kind of violence will end another

i won't argue that-

but at the same time,

"you shouldn't kill gay people because they're humans just like you"

doesn't have the same striking tone as

"you shouldn't kill gay people because i'll fuck you up"

maybe i'm being idealistic in the face of my own deployment, but i do still hold to the idea that i signed up to defend the people i live with; and collorary to that, the mere threat of violence-in-return does a lot to deter violence in the first place.
swallowing shadows to give birth to myself
eamajyn at 2007-10-27 04:05 (UTC) (Link)
you know... even in sacred land where non-violence is practiced and advocated... (where i just came from), it was discussed that sometimes war happens. and sometimes violence happens for the greater good. this is a very hard concept for me to stomach as a person who practices non-violence, but when i went deeper with it and really considered it, i understood what they said.

the example was of Lord Krishna, who was enlightened, and known for occasional violence when necessary. in one case, there was an act of violence on one group that would ultimately preserve the safety of a much larger populous. more specifically, Krishna killed a family of warring tyrants who's values were destructive, and who would have brought death and destruction to a great number of people. (he did this even though those tyrants were his cousins.)

they told us this story at length to demonstrate that enlightenment may not be what those of us who are not enlightened might think. one still has to take responsibility, and in some cases for the fully awakened person, that responsibility goes far beyond the individual.

this is almost impossible for many of us to conceptualize, because we live in a culture where we are continuously conditioned to feel separate and isolated. even our good natured ideas and good intentions are clouded by this. really, we can make proclamations in the name of ethics til the cows come home, but we don't really know what is "right" in the grand scheme of things. we can only do what we feel is best.

as far as i am concerned, if someone comes and threatens or acts to harm you or a loved one, you have a choice. you can surrender to a fate only god knows, or you can defend. either one has it's moral ground... pros and cons. and really, whatever choice you make in the face of it, if you believe in it, and it feels right to you in your heart, then you cannot be judged wrongly for it.

oft' we know not the hearts of men until the very hearts are challenged. and we know not our own hearts the same.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2007-10-27 04:34 (UTC) (Link)
as far as i am concerned, if someone comes and threatens or acts to harm you or a loved one, you have a choice. you can surrender to a fate only god knows, or you can defend. either one has it's moral ground... pros and cons. and really, whatever choice you make in the face of it, if you believe in it, and it feels right to you in your heart, then you cannot be judged wrongly for it.

this is a well-stated argument for part of my point.

having been trained to defend my fellow citizens, i think it would be wrong for me to stand aside and allow harm to come to them, when i am capable of preventing it.

the other part of my point is; when a group of people feels that the appropriate way to respond to cultural differences is with physical harm, that's indicative of a deficiency in rational thought. you could, at least, try to talk it through first.

if violence is their only solution to their percieved "problem" that they can come up with, it's likely that the threat of violence is the only effective deterrent that they're going to listen to.
swallowing shadows to give birth to myself
eamajyn at 2007-10-27 17:56 (UTC) (Link)
actually, it was intended to support your original point... as i saw an argument posed and your presentation change.

but if you are sticking by that, i highly doubt that a group of people set on violence will give two shits about a threat, especially in the case of a "deficiency in rational thought". think about the pathology of the people you are talking about. if they do care at all, it could easily just escalate the issue. since their threat would simply be a statement of intention, so to would yours be perceived. i am pretty sure they would not have the acuity of perception to imagine you somehow had different intentions than they.

also, threats can be considered violence too. pretty much anything that is an act of force, be it verbal or physical, can be considered violent. it is even in quite a few dictionaries this way. i think it is perceived as such many times, even if we are not consciously aware of it. use the example of defensive speech, which often times encourages more offense, or defense on the other end. not to mention actually telling someone you plan to do bodily harm to them... even in an "if, then" scenario. the point here is that i'm really not so sure how much threatening violence on others is actually "talking it through first".

none of this is to say that i do not support your theorized actions. my first response still stands on that. i just think it's important to be realistic and honest about your intentions and the situation.

and we can postulate all day, but i stand by my original message to the larger point at hand... that in the end, in the face of the actual reality, what matters most is acting with integrity with the condition of your heart. this can warrant no meaningful judgment on the part of bystanders. that's just my two cents.
Kristi
quotamour at 2007-10-12 00:04 (UTC) (Link)
Agreed. This is an outrage. I'm having a hard time finding words, so that'll have to do. =(
swallowing shadows to give birth to myself
eamajyn at 2007-10-27 03:41 (UTC) (Link)
i feel sick to my stomach after reading that.

and pacifist as i am... i'm glad you're the body guard on this one... because of that operative word.

that is painfully sad. talk about abomination. amazing that some people with hearts like that are still considered human. this shit has got to change.
Previous Entry  Next Entry