(no subject)

[suspectclass]

European MPs sign ad condemning Vatican anti-condom policy.

What do you think of this?

Comments

[supergoat.livejournal.com]

I agree fully with the condom thing.
The Vatican really creeps me out sometimes.
They need to be "schooled," as it were.

The flag thing?
I have mixed feelings.
I mean, free speech, right?
I have no problem with people burning an American flag - they may as well burn a rainbow flag.
To each his/her/their own.
Hmm...

What do *you* think?

[masscooper.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously they should be charged with theft. They should also get in trouble with the university, and if they don't, I can see suing the *university* for discrimination (like, they don't care that these guys stole our flag cuz we're gay). I think, however, that charging them with a hate crime *is* a bit much. Clearly they did it as an anti-queer thing, but I think that calling it a hate crime minimizes crimes that are actually threatening. I mean, it's destruction of property. Calling it free speech, however, is silly. They didn't hold a demonstration, they took someone's stuff and destroyed it. They also didn't threaten anyone, though. It's vandalism, not free speech, not a hate crime.

Re:

[supergoat.livejournal.com]

I meant "free speech" in and of the fact that our constitution says that they *can* burn the flag (granted it is a rainbow flag, not an American flag - perhaps it was a bit of a demonstration, though). The article doesn't say whether or not the flag was burned in public, etc).
I agree that it was theft/vandalism.
I think it's silly to call it a hate crime.

[masscooper.livejournal.com]

I took the bit about being "found in the dumpster after attempts had been made to burn it" to imply that they stole it, tried to burn it and threw it out, all as an attempt to destroy it, not protest what it stands for. I mean, it all depends. And really...if they did hold a protest, what kind of burning of a pride flag could you do without it seeming like a direct threat to gay people? ::sigh::

Re:

[supergoat.livejournal.com]

It's true, but the same could be said for burning an American flag - although -
eh.
Semantics. :)

[masscooper.livejournal.com]

Except that American citizens burning an American flag in protest of war, fiscal policy, whatever, is a statement of objection to the way *their* country is doing things. That is, having a say in their own community. Straight people burning a pride flag isn't about objection to a problematic statement by someone in GLAD, it's about whether queer people should be able to be visible and live their lives without interference based on the fact of their queerness. As in, those people (burning a pride flag) don't think we should. That's the difference.

Now, people in other countries burning an American flag is a little more comprable in the unadultered hatred factor, but if we're bombing them (or threatening to), it's a bit understandable. Also, they're not covered under the first amendment, so it's still not really the same.

[masscooper.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to say is that the American Flag represents not just American people, but also the government. A pride flag *only* represents a community, therefore destruction of said flag is only about hatred and prejudice towards those people, not objection to policy.

Understood

[supergoat.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying.