« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/28/2007
Hey Pete: Lots of folks store weapons in their closets!
So here's a quick rundown of what we know about an alleged anti-gay hate crime that is playing out in Cicero, IL:
-The victim, a gay man, was raped, attacked, and "sodomized" with a broomstick after leaving a party Friday night
-The attacker, Felipe Rivera, had also been at the party. However, he was asked to leave because he had punched the victim in the face after, according to Rivera, the victim winked at him.
-After being booted from the party, the attacker waited outside for the vicim to leave. The attacker claims the victim propositioned him for sex, but the victim denies this. In fact, the Chicago Tribune reports that "the victim alleged he had refused an offer from Rivera to pay him $50 for sex later in the evening." But regardless of who truly wanted sex from whom, the attacker proceeded to punch, rape, and stick the broom up the victim's rectum.
-When asked why he did it, the attacker is alleged to have said, "because he hates 'faggots,' and this is what they get." The attacker is also said to have shouted anti-gay epithets at the victim while he was attacking.
Okay, so what we have here, based on all the facts we have available, is a situation wherein a man's distaste for gay people led him to violence. It doesn't matter if Rivera is secretly into dudes himself. The fact remains that he has committed violence and cited a distaste for gay people as the reason.
Yet always eager to find a way to discredit the anti-gay reality that his own work propagates, Peter LaBarbera is now trying to discredit the "hate crime" nature of this case because of the allegations that the attacker was himself a closeted gay man. Peter says in a new post (**Ed. note: Pete's original post has since been deleted; see update below):
Technorati Tags: Chicago Tribune, Felipe Rivera, hate crimes, Peter LaBarbera, puppy
Our question: what percentage of “anti-gay hate crimes” are actually committed by people who themselves are involved in homosexual behavior? If this Chicago Tribune report is accurate, then this is no typical ”gay panic defense” – whereby a man blames his assault on a homosexual by claiming that the victim first made an unwanted sexual advance toward him — because the alleged perpetrator here offers to pay his victim for homosexual sex and then sexually assaults him.
We also know that some men may secretly (or even not so secretly) engage (or desire) homosexual perversions yet eschew the “gay” label for themselves – so the fact that Rivera told police that he “hates homosexuals” tells us little. He may hate that part of himself drawn to deviant homosexual acts.
Behavior, not self-labels, is what counts: we wonder how many cases like this end up on the FBI’s list as an “anti-gay” “hate-crime” statistic — to be exploited later, ironically, by “gay” activists lobbying for dubious pro-homosexual “hate crimes” laws … We’ll follow this story closely. — Peter LaBarbera
But here's the thing: In terms of whether or not this is a crime of bias, it matters not whether the attacker has himself bedded dudes! And it is deplorable that Peter is using the facts that we have at hand to call this situation into question. It is extremely offensive to the victim, who was, BY THE ATTACKER'S OWN ADMISSION, assaulted because of his sexual orientation! And it is extremely offensive to gay activists, who are painted as "exploitative" when they seek and end to such heinous acts!!
Look, if this country's conservative lawmakers have taught us anything, it's that the closet of shame can lead folks to act in ways far different than their true desires. Some people are self-hating. Some can't accept their reality. And oftentimes that self-loathing can lead to assault, as a way for the perpetrator to cathartically unleash the demons that have prevented him or her from self-acceptance. But should that negate the biased nature of the crime?! NO!!!! If a self-hating Jew stands outside Rosh Hashanah services waiting to pounce on random attendees, then they are still selecting victims on the basis of a characteristic. If a self-hating African-American bombs an NAACP rally and admits it's because he detests black people, then he is still work from a place of targeted bias. And if a self-loathing closet case (which Mr. Rivera may or may not be -- we don't know) attacks a gay man and fully admits he did it because he hates gay people, then it is still a selective act of hate meant to strike terror in a certain population sect!
Now, Pete would surely deny linking this situation to the others, as he and his ilk consider homosexuality "chosen behavior" (as opposed to religion, which they seem to think is in-born). However, it doesn't even matter what they believe in terms of nature vs. nurture when it comes to situations like this! Pete asserts that "Behavior, not self-labels, is what counts.", and he's right in a way. For you see, it's the behavior of committing horrible acts of violence against a man on the basis of his identity that truly matters here, regardless of whether attacker identifies as gay, straight, bi, or as one who likes to f*** toasters!!
We'll be interested to see if Pete will respond the same way the next time a Christian pastor is attacked in a clear act of targeted violence, despite the fact that the victim has been known to attend a Baptist church on a couple of occasions.
*Peter's take: When Homosexual-on-Homosexual Rape Is Called a ‘Hate Crime’: the Felipe Rivera Case [AFT]
*Mainstream media's take: Alleged gay advance cited in rape [Chicago Sun-Times]
Cicero man accused of rape is charged with hate crime [Chicago Tribune]
**UPDATE: As of 3 PM, Peter has deleted his post. Interesting.
**UPDATE2: Late this evening, Pete posted a revised edition of his earlier thoughts. In many ways, it's even more offensive. Check it out here:
When Homosexual-on-Homosexual Rape Is Called a ‘Hate Crime’: the Felipe Rivera Case [AFT]
If we remember on Monday, we might go back and examine his newer words. At this point, however, we feel that we've already dedicated enough time to his nonsense. And sine Pete doesn't retract his earlier insinuations regarding gays and their ability to commit anti-gay crimes of bias (despite learning new information about the case), we stand by everything we've already said about his gay-demonizing outlook.
**UPDATE3: One interesting note about Pete's new post: He reprints his old post with a line stricken through the part that he nw considers erroneous. However, in a curious move, he added a passage to his original post, as if it had been there all along. The new paragraph reads:
"One more question: if same-sex sexual assaults are classified as “hate crimes,” what about men who rape women (or vice versa)? Shouldn’t these sex crimes also be labeled “hate crimes” against women, as they are typically motivated by contempt and misogyny (hatred of women)? We’ll follow this story closely."
And as you can see from both our quoted text as well as the Google Cache of his original post, this paragraph was never in the original article. Why the duplicity, Peter?
Your thoughts
"When asked why he did it, the attackers is alleged to have said, "because he hates 'faggots,' and this is what they get." The attacker is also said to have shouted anti-gay epithets at the victim while he was attacking."
That sounds like a hate crime to me. really it just amazes me how peter and folks like him create their own reality when the truth does not suit them. also, peter's account of the situation omitted something else. The perpetrator's mother called the police because apparently she had an order of protection against him. so we are dealing with a twisted individuals. but it doesn't matter with peter because all he wants to do is milk the anti-gay angle.
Posted by: a. mcewen | Dec 28, 2007 11:54:36 AM
Pete loves this case. He gets to hate everyone involved, both the perpetrator and the victim.
Posted by: Timothy | Dec 28, 2007 2:34:10 PM
It seems that peter has deleted the post.
Posted by: adam kautz | Dec 28, 2007 3:02:44 PM
Hmm...wonder why.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 28, 2007 3:07:30 PM
Several teen suspects are facing hate crime charges in an violent anti-semetic attack on a Brooklyn subway train during Chanukah.
Two of the suspects are Jewish.
I wonder what Mr. LaBarbera would have to say about this?
Posted by: ZenithNYC | Dec 28, 2007 7:10:53 PM
Everyone: Please note that Pete has now revised and reposted his story. See "UPDATE2" in the above post for the link to his new words.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 28, 2007 7:23:19 PM
comments powered by Disqus
