disability, lynchings, accusations of pedophilia

In the Guardian, 7. November 2013, there was an article pointing to this problem:

There is a long history of false accusations of paedophilia being levelled against disabled people



The article goes through a number of such cases: When I first started investigating murders and killings of disabled people in Britain, back in 2007, I found case after case where disabled men were accused of sexual crimes – always, I stress, wrongly – and then subjected to the violence of the lynch mob.

There have been many more killings, over the years. In just over one year, in fact, I found five such killings related to false sexual offence charges, including paedophilia. These included that of Sean Miles, who was stripped, stabbed and drowned after being accused of being a paedophile. Steven Hoskin was similarly accused, tortured, targeted and murdered by so-called friends, who dragged him around on a dog leash before pulling him to a railway viaduct and pushing him off. Now Bijan Ebrahimi takes his place on that sad list of murders – a grim pattern of disabled men falsely accused of sexual crimes they didn't commit, and then killed with overwhelming cruelty by a lynch mob.

The catalogue of murders that I and others uncovered, and growing pressure to do something about disability hate crime from disabled peoples' organisations, led to an inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission,

Its report, Hidden in Plain Sight, declared that the false allegation of paedophilia against a disabled person was a clear and present danger to their lives.

I found that many disabled people were attacked or murdered by so-called friends – what is colloquially known (somewhat controversially) as "mate crime" – rather than strangers or acquaintances, as is the case with many other forms of hate crime. I also found that, unlike other forms of hate crime, women seemed to be disproportionately involved and to motivate and instigate many attacks. Many offenders were young, poor and unemployed.

Disability hatred has motivated witch-hunts for centuries. The longest witch-hunt in British history, in East Anglia, started with the arrest and eventual hanging of a one-legged woman, Elizabeth Clarke, in the 1644. That, too, started with neighbours turning on disabled neighbours. One sympathetic witness said that the witches were "decrepit and diseased". Things don't seem to have changed much.

I would be interested in hearing if hatred against disabled people also exists where you live, and if you have any idea why.

I also wonder if people think that accusations of paedophilia justifies such or other murders.

Isn't there the same level of violence associated with non disabled pedophiles?

Like I believe the violence in question is directed at them for being pedophiles or falsely labeled as pedophiles (which a jury should decide imho) not for being disabled in and of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Isn't there the same level of violence associated with non disabled pedophiles?

Like I believe the violence in question is directed at them for being pedophiles or falsely labeled as pedophiles (which a jury should decide imho) not for being disabled in and of itself.

---

As I understand it, while a number of people are suspected of being pedophiles and murdered, a disproportionate part of disabled men are accused to the extent that it is a real and present danger for them. The article is posing the question why this is.

I totally agree that lynching -for whatever reason - is despicable.

In so far as a higher percentage of the disabled men are being accused of pedophilia etc....I wonder how many are falsely accused and how many shouldn't have been allowed to be in situations where they may be inclined to act on things unwittingly in that re-guard compared with all pedophiles that are not disabled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

In so far as a higher percentage of the disabled men are being accused of pedophilia etc....I wonder how many are falsely accused

---

According to the article, all of them. I would also assume that it would be rather harder for people in a wheelchair to do harm?

Quote:

---

and how many shouldn't have been allowed to be in situations where they may be inclined to act on things unwittingly in that re-guard compared with all pedophiles that are not disabled?

---

I am sorry, I did not get that?

So every single disabled person who has ever been accused of these types of crimes is automajically innocent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

So every single disabled person who has ever been accused of these types of crimes is automajically innocent?

---

Well, as far as US law goes, yes! They are automatically innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law! Those performing these lynchings are ignoring those laws, and are thereby performing far more heinous criminal acts than the ones they are accusing their victims of doing.

One could see this as going back to archetypes. The stock charge against anyone perceived as scarily different is that they are a threat to the children. There are still a lot of homophobes who rationalise their prejudices by assuming that all gay men are potential paedophiles, even though the vast majority of assaults on children are heterosexual; going back to more brutal times, the threat was expressed as everything from the belief that gypsies steal children, to the many religious groups (not just the Jews) accused of sacrificing babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

So every single disabled person who has ever been accused of these types of crimes is automajically innocent?

---

A straw man inasmuch as nobody, either the original author or thir, have made any such assertion. But you would have to assume that the original author was extremely dishonest if they had failed to note cases where the accusations had been found to be true; and certainly I haven't seen any such case in this country, at a time when there have been an unprecedented number of investigations of child abuse.

In any case, one can expose and decry a pattern of false allegations against a given group without having to make the absurd and indefensible claim that nobody in that group ever really committed an offence. Are you honestly saying that you could read that meaning into the original posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

So every single disabled person who has ever been accused of these types of crimes is automajically innocent?

---

Did anyone say that? The instances in the research showed innocence.

My issue is the author of the article appears to being drawing analogies to suit his own needs without supplying any real data to support his claims outside of where it suited his intended purpose.

The fact is anyone publicly accused of or convicted of these types of crimes becomes a potential target of retribution not just people with disabilities.

The author clearly tries to spin things to seem as if all disabled people are being falsely targeted for accusation/conviction of sex crimes in the article referenced because they are disabled as if that's the root of the issue. This in my mind seems false when anyone regardless of their disability status would be targeted by society.

Was there a trial or not where the individuals were found guilty?

Is their a higher percentage of offenders or accused who suffer exo-judicial reciprocity that are disabled as opposed to not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Is their a higher percentage of offenders or accused who suffer exo-judicial reciprocity that are disabled as opposed to not?

---

The point of the article was to assert this. If you have reason to believe it's untrue, by all means check his sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

The point of the article was to assert this. If you have reason to believe it's untrue, by all means check his sources.

---

Really ....it seems to me as if the article was trying to make it seem as if the disabled were being targeted because of their disability status alone...which naturally one would think should raise the question of how those claims hold up comparative to other non-disabled people accused/convicted of the same crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Really ....it seems to me as if the article was trying to make it seem as if the disabled were being targeted because of their disability status alone...which naturally one would think should raise the question of how those claims hold up comparative to other non-disabled people accused/convicted of the same crimes.

---

That is exactly what the article seems to be claiming. Note that it says many of these incidents involve lynchings by so-called "friends". And the article also implies that these claims do NOT hold up, when they are investigated. The problem is that the disabled victim is already dead or injured before any investigation is done. Like the witch hunts of the past (and even present, in some countries!) just the suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to make some people respond with violence. It's basically the old in-group vs out-group thing. Us against them. And the less "they" are like "us", the more of a threat they appear to be.

Even in a civilized world we are not far from our animal roots.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...on-paedophilia

I managed to forget to send the link again! Sorry about that - here it is, now see what you all think.

Quote:

---

The author clearly tries to spin things to seem as if all disabled people are being falsely targeted for accusation/conviction of sex crimes in the article referenced because they are disabled as if that's the root of the issue. This in my mind seems false when anyone regardless of their disability status would be targeted by society.

Was there a trial or not where the individuals were found guilty?

Is their a higher percentage of offenders or accused who suffer exo-judicial reciprocity that are disabled as opposed to not?

---

Now that the link is (finally) there, I hope things will become clearer.

The header is a question: Did Bijan Ebrahimi's disability incite the 'paedophile'-chasing lynch mob?

There are two issues here: hate crimes towards disabled people (which is a fact) and hate crimes against people suspected of pedophilia (which is also a fact). Are these two entwined here, so that some hate crimes towards disabled people are committed with the excuse of them being child molesters?

No trials Denuseri, we are talking murders of people who never went to trial, and in some cases were never accused either.

As for the last question, it sounds like it, but not proven. Possibly because two hates combine.

Further to this:

"Ebrahimi,s sister, Manizhah Moores, claimed he had long been subjected to abuse because of his race and his disability."

"Ebrahimi was called a paedophile after taking photographs of youngsters he suspected of vandalising hanging baskets at his home in Capgrave Crescent – and images of parents drinking in front of children, a practice he strongly disapproved of."

"Kerry McCarthy, the Bristol East MP, said issues that needed to be addressed included why the police did not make it clear that Ebrahimi was blameless after he was arrested and why he was left on an estate where he appeared not to be welcome."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...bijan-ebrahimi


Seems to me to be two hate crimes for the price of one.

I have never understood why people get upset at disabilities. When I heard of it first time after moving to England, I thought it was some sensationalistic journalist trying to stir up things - did not believe a word of it. But it is true, and I am baffled. Aren't disabled people the least threatening of all - I mean, what can they do to you??

Our dear beloved prime minister is trying a divide and rule policy with his cutting everything (except the rich, which got tax deductions) and he claims that disabled people are just faking it (whether blind or without legs), sick people faking it (even with terminal cancer), unemployed lazy (thought everyone know there are no jobs) and so on..

But apart from such perversity, what do people have against those with an extra problem?

As for pedophiles, or suspected pedophiles, why is there so much mob mentality about it? I mean, we all know it exists. We all know it must be dealt with. We all want children to be protected - against anything that might harm them.

But no problem, whatever it might be, is served by 'moral panic' or hysteria. For some reason this particular problem makes some people think it is ok to murder or harass other people, on the flimsiest of excuse.

Children are not helped if they fall, no one dare touch them. Men have given up working in day care centers, it is too dangerous for them, and I am only waiting for school teachers to get caught up in the same problem. Is this in the children's interest? Children need male role models as well as female.

A man cannot take a picture at the beach without being chased away, and he must be very careful where he sits and where he looks, because if the is a child in front of the bird he is looking at, he might be harassed. In the case we are talking about, Bijan Ebrahimi was taking pictures of children he suspected of vandalizing the plants. Now, if we want to prove who is vandalizing our neighbor's garden and throwing stuff on our windows now and then, it'll better be me doing it, and even that is not safe.

The whole thing has gotten over board. People think all pedophiles are potential or actual murderers, and the p's who are trying to keep themselves in check by support groups are often arrested by the police, but not everyone can afford a psychologist.

No one, but NO ONE, wants anything to happen to children. But the present climate is not protecting them, and is causing a whole range of problems, and even then the real cases are not found..

I'm from a place where it's fairly normal to have pictures of sons/dauthers bathing(age 1-2), It's funny because when a family from here moved to the USA their kids were taken for about half a year, while they were on rigorous trial for having those photos, aside from nationalism, they now had added social stigma. It's a slippery slope on it's own without adding race/disabilities etc.
The hatred for disables stems from disgust,more than fear, which in my opinion is worse(and more dangerous).
People are, excuse my language, prejudice pieces of shit. It's as simple as that.
Denuseri defensive stance was reasonable, it's discriminating if you give someone a job just because he's black and, in my opinion, insulting, as is saying disables are probably not pedophiles.
Then again... true equality is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MirkoSM

I'm from a place where it's fairly normal to have pictures of sons/dauthers bathing(age 1-2), It's funny because when a family from here moved to the USA their kids were taken for about half a year, while they were on rigorous trial for having those photos, aside from nationalism, they now had added social stigma. It's a slippery slope on it's own without adding race/disabilities etc.

---

Too true. What was originally concern has gone into a sick mentality.

Quote:

---

The hatred for disables stems from disgust,more than fear, which in my opinion is worse(and more dangerous).
People are, excuse my language, prejudice pieces of shit. It's as simple as that.
[/quote

Disgust??I do not follow.

[quote}
Denuseri defensive stance was reasonable, it's discriminating if you give someone a job just because he's black and, in my opinion, insulting, as is saying disables are probably not pedophiles.
Then again... true equality is impossible.

---

I do not agree with your definition of discrimination. There are many 'glass -ceilings' - where talent does not matter - and the only way to break them is by law.

The articles said that the idea was that disabled were probably pedophiles - one idea is as crazy as the other, IMO.

Imagine if a shop owner gave an African-American a job and felt like a great person for giving black people jobs, like it was a charity.
We can't really speak because only when found in such a situation can you judge it as racism or not!
Imagine if the same person gave a white man a job instead, now people could argue he's a white elitist, i just gave an example of things that DO happen.
Just meant to say that her view point was reasonable, not correct.

Disgust....

When you acknowledge someones right to choose but still hate him for doing this in a certain manner - hate

When you think someone doesn't deserve to have rights and "its" presence fills you with disgust and hate, because in your opinion it does not, and should not have any. - disgust

Imagine seeing a guy in a wheelchair, pfft, he isn't even a human being.. can't even move... I couldn't live like that, I would kill myself... I... I think he should kill himself, just using up resources, and making us(the people around him) sick to the stomach.

It might be argued like that, because it's an example of human weakness not a man who was unlucky(or even lucky in some cases).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MirkoSM

Imagine if a shop owner gave an African-American a job and felt like a great person for giving black people jobs, like it was a charity.

---

It doesn't have to be considered charity. Maybe it's just him trying to atone for the sins of his ancestors? And basically, that's what affirmative action was supposed to be about, making sure that people, black, white, red, yellow, were chosen for jobs based on their abilities, not their color.

Quote:

---

Imagine if the same person gave a white man a job instead, now people could argue he's a white elitist.

---

I'm sure there are those that would say that. But what if that white man, or woman, was the only qualified applicant? I experienced something like this, indirectly, a long time ago. A job opening came up in the company I worked for. There were many qualified applicants, both black and white, both male and female. There were, however, no qualified black female applicants. The company wound up hiring an UNqualified black female in order to fill the quota prescribed by law. While I wouldn't consider that racist, it most certainly was discrimination.

Quote:

---

It might be argued like that, because it's an example of human weakness not a man who was unlucky(or even lucky in some cases).

---

I contend that only ignorant bigots would argue in that way. But when the ignorant bigots are in the majority everyone else suffers.

I'm aware of that, I was just giving an example of how people could/do look at it.
That's why I said that it's something that needs to be experienced in order to jude correctly, and even then, you might get it wrong.

If that shop owner was racist and was proud for giving lower, "good for nothings" a chance, it would be discriminating to the max.
Now if some other shop owner was trying to atone for the sins of his ancestors, or even his fellow colleagues, that would be an example of humankinds progress.
I'm fairly sure both of these scenarios have, are, and will happen.

We can't really judge who is who without experiencing it or a decent amount of evidence.

My personal stance is, that it is horrid how some people look at it, but they are humans nonetheless, beauitful and ugly in their imperfection.
And I personally think, that it is important to know from where their perspectives, ideas, and hate originates from, no matter how stupid it is.