Hacker News Reader

Comment by rossdavidh | Hacker News Reader

So, as I understand it, the objectionable policies: 1) are not enforced, or enforeable 2) are not at the national level 3) are not in Gdansk, the proposed location Uh, huh? That seems like an oddly bigoted "all Polish are homophobes because those other Polish are homophobes" kind of response, to register disapproval of bigotry, if that's really the true story. Couldn't you use the same logic to say that it shouldn't be in Europe at all, because some European municipalities passed homophobic resolutions?

View on HN

The national ruling party is apparently anti-LGBT and support these zones. So you can view it as not just isolated municipalities but rather the national government acting through municipalities.

The broader question being asked is, if this is the situation now, what else may be enacted before the conference. Things like, what if there's a foreign gay attendee who's blocked at airport security?

I don't believe this is probable. The ruling party wants to: 1. capitalize on bigotry of voters but 2. not lose business by being perceived as bigoted.

Harassing a gay person at the border would risk 2 while not contributing to 1.

> Things like, what if there's a foreign gay attendee who's blocked at airport security?

You must be kidding, right? Even though Poland is currently ruled by right-wing minority, and some of these are mindless assholes, any kind of real sexual discrimination is illegal and persecuted. If I was discriminated against at work because I'm gay, I'm in for good compensation as my case is pretty strong.

Given that the conference is in the future and they could well enact more of these zones, it feels perfectly reasonable to me that some organisers might feel that's not worth the risk.

"I saw a black guy assault a man once. I better stay clear of black guys then. It's not worth the risk."

Your reasoning isn't too different from the above. Gdańsk is a liberally-governed city.

That's not a reasonable response.

Even if Gdansk is liberally run it sends a signal to legislators that policies effect revenue and gives them a reason to push back that avoids moral arguments. That being said, I think it cedes the moral argument to the opposition, but any fight like this has multiple fronts.

The reasoning is very different from what you wrote. Surely, you see the difference.

There is a big difference between an individual doing something bad and a government (no matter the level) doing something bad.

The distinction whether one entity does something or another entity does that is still valid.

But the national government is pretty bigoted, and seems to be treating the anti-LGBT thing as a crusade right now. Seems like reasonable risk reduction for the organisers, if nothing else.

It still means the government is sending a signal that LGBTQ people are less worthy, attack our values etc., putting that community at risk. They may be in name only so the government may enjoy a degree of plausible deniability when inevitably violence happens against the targeted community.

You're accusing them of bigotry without weighing the clear higher value here, which is: solidarity for the conference goer who might be vulnerable to persecution because of these policies.

A stance against these people does not put the community 'at risk'

Well... no. It actually does, but what's your point then?

That LGBTQ people attending the conference ought to shut up and put up?

That these policies are harmless, and therefore justifiable? (I think we can be certain the only justification for a policy like this is the intent to cause harm, because why make them a thing otherwise.)

You think these policies were intended to cause harm? I think that's quite a stretch. It's obvious that eastern European countries in particular see grave danger in these things and try to keep them out. That's their right to do so.

It’s possibly their right to do so (depending on if these ‘declarations’ survive the Polish and European courts). It’s also the right of conference organisers to go somewhere with a less unpleasant government, though.

Absolutely! I think both sides got what they want and I'm pretty happy with this, as are both of them I imagine.

Sadly anti-polish racism has never really gone out of style.

It may be prejudice (less unwarranted now than 5 years ago, though), but "Polish" is not a race.

Semantics, it's pure bigotry.

The term "race" has been used for a lot of things, and it was definitely commonly used for groups like Polish, Irish, French, etc. long before it was commonly used for just four or so groups in all of humanity. Reading in 18th and 19th century writings I see references to the English race or the Italian race or whatnot, and rarely a reference to whites or blacks as a race.

One of the definitions of race:

"a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com