Sounds like the Times had decided on what stand to take on this and didn't want to dig deeper for fear of offsetting their predetermined 'victim' [the man].
I will say that while violence is certainly not the answer, the climate that President Bush [oh, yes I am] and his croanies have created in recent years is one in which gay people feel very exploited and vulnerable. So add to this the felings of vulnerability that all women experience, and one can see from what place the extreme emotions were coming that led to the act. Having said this, it will be interesting to see how the lesbian aspect to this gets played out on all sides as the story develops.

A disturbing number of these incidents is chronicled on a regular basis at Holla Back NYC (http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com).

Indeed! I submitted a photo to them back in April.

Paul you are very correct about the environment created by Bush and his cronies. In addition to your comments, they have created an environment that is more conducive to violence, since that is they way they handle things. (Seems that violence is their idea of 'diplomacy')

Finding oneself in an opressive social environment, regardless of the cause (popular opinion, outdated social mores, George Bush and his cronies), is Never an excuse for violence. Unless the man physically threatened the women, (which, from both reports, I can only glean that he may have spit in their direction and thrown out his cigarette according to the accused women), there was no cause to stab the guy. Frustration about larger social ills does not justify base, violent behavior. Shame on anyone who defends that position.

Shame on you, Sean, for doing such a miserable job of reading the comments I made. Understanding the influences in violent behavior is important to helping to prevent further violence. Your morality blanket can't put out this fire, so unless you can understand that issues are complex and that there is no shame in analyzing the macro picture of an event, perhaps you should refrain from making such one dimensional entries.

Paul,
I respect your position that social factors can influence a person's capacity for violence--moreso, your assertion that, regardless, violence is never a proper response. I only mean to emphasize that a physically violent response to verbalizations is terribly misguided, and does not deserve to be justified in this blog or in the collective opinion of those who work to dismantle oppresive social structures that can lead to violence. If a person is physically assaulted, then a response in kind with the aim of protecting oneself is a justifiable action. But reacting to alleged hate speech with mob violence--so severe that a person was stabbed in the process--is, at best, counterproductive. Historically, violence has never worked in movements to create equity, acceptance and understanding among disparate groups, and unless something changed in the past few days, it never will. It only serves to further incite those who people perpetuate hateful ideas and spew hateful words. Ask yourself: what was accomplished by stabbing a person for making ignorant and malignant comments? It can only serve to propogate even greater fear and ignorance in the wider community.

Sean,
I respect what you've said here. The question of whether or not there is a productive outcome obviously almost answers itself. Unfortunately, what you and I can agree upon in a safe environment for these considerations, may not have seemed so obvious to the woman whose actions are spurring our discussion, at the time that she was being verbally accosted. Hopefully, with reflection, she voluntarily sees what you and I do, with the remove necessary to act humanely instead of from an animal place of fear and surprise. It goes without saying that this cannot undo the damage already done.