Thursday, October 15, 2009

Not again...

The Banjo Killer... are you fucking kidding me? Sorry, but I'm quite angry about this. I honestly can't believe that in 2009 a mainstream newspaper can still treat a brutal murder like it happened in a cartoon.

Hang on, what was the victim's sexual orientation again?

A Hungarian man sentenced to serve at least eight years in jail for bashing a 69-year-old gay man to death in Auckland has appealed his sentence.
Thanks for clearing that up.


  1. Off topic. Anyone else notice the difference in headlines? "Inflation Stays Low" "Inflation Surprises with 1.3pc Rise"

  2. When will the senseless murder of banjos stop? I have to keep my banjo under lock and key. I live in fear.

  3. More bad publicity for banjo's.

    I think there has been a complete miscarriage of justice here, murder dropped to manslaughter because he killed a gay, a logical step in the right direction, but surely this approach has been entered in to precedent undercooked. If anything the Hungry Hungary Hippo killer should have been let off the charge completely because the victim was not only a gay man, but an old gay man, a provocative combination don't you think?

  4. I agree about the 'banjo killer' label - but do you think that in this particular case, it is in fact valid to remind people of the sexuality of the victim, simply because that's pretty much why he was killed?

  5. I hear you Anon, but I think it's the combo of "gay 69 year-old" with "sentence was excessive", qualified by one of society's 'pillars' (ie. Lawyer), that makes this headline about minimising and justifying the crime by shifting blame onto the victim and making excuses for the perpetrator, rather than denigrating it.

    If they'd said "Homophobic Man Convicted of Hate-Motivated Killing Appeals Sentence" or whatevs to that effect, it would have gone further in laying responsibility at the murderer's feet and would not have implied that because the victim was gay and old and the murderer foreign, that his action was somehow valid and worthy of a reduced sentence.

  6. In fact to take it to its logical conclusion the gay 69 year old is lucky not to be charged post-humously with being an accessory to the murder...strike that manslaughter of the said Banjo by being its receptacle. Dr Jekyll

  7. "A gay" only exists in Little Britain. Everywhere else it's an adjective.
    BTW the opposite of gay is sad (i.e. non-gay), not straight (or Hungarian)

  8. Is there proof of this man's homophobia? I haven't seen any. Would I be automatically labelled homophobic if I refused sex from a man or became in any way agitated?

    Is this a hate-motivated killing? It doesn't seem that way to me. I haven't seen any mention of hate crime. In fact, the jury ruled the guilty party was provoked and that's why he was convicted of manslaughter.

    I'm afraid your stab at a headline is as factually incorrect as it is long-winded, and in some countries would land you in court for malicious falsehood or libel.

    Headlines do use shorthand for a reason, you know. The sexual nature of the provocation was the very basis of the verdict. The method of death was worthy of comment.

    Hence 'banjo killer' and the homosexual nature of the advance are featured quite heavily in the story.

    Seriously, what is the problem?


    "qualified by one of society's 'pillars' (ie. Lawyer)"

    ie the guilty party's lawyer, who is filing an appeal against the sentence - not the conviction - and presenting his grounds for doing so. This is not 'qualification' by a 'pillar' of society, it is a procedural matter of court by the appointed professional.

    Seriously, why do you do this to yourself? You just make yourselves sound bigger idiots than the Herald.

  9. I see. He beat him too death BECAUSE he was gay?

    Doesn't seem to sit well with the jury's verdict. He beat the man to death following of a homosexual advance. That's clearly unhinged, but that's absolutely not evidence of general homophobia.

  10. I think we're all missing the point here - it was a really nice banjo until that Hungarian guy killed it by ramming it down somebody's throat. What a way to go. A undignified ending, even for a banjo.

  11. I suppose it depends on whether you think it's OK to kill someone for making a 'homosexual advance'. If he wasn't gay he wouldn't be dead would he? The guy wouldn't have attacked him if he wasn't gay.

  12. And the homosexual wouldn't have made the advance which provoked the nutter if he wasn't a homosexual. That does not make this nutter a homophobe, per se, and as I have said before, the jury found justification for provocation.

    If you'd like to take that to its conclusion by your logic, the jury were all homophobic.

  13. Arguably, the jury were homophobic.

  14. Arguably the only evidence we have to say the victim actually made an advance on the offender is the account of events as described by the offender. Unfortunately the victim was not available to comment...

  15. Given that a jury deemed that to be major factor, are you going to question the very fundamentals of New Zealand's legal process?

    Maybe we should do away with trial by jury, defence cases and fair representation? All because someone said they had more of an idea of a case than the jury. Hey that's a good idea.

  16. ... on the basis, I might add, of positive discrimination. 'He killed a homosexual, so his punishment should be more severe.'