Viewers are confronting a difficult question after influencer Jonatan Medart shared footage of a homophobic street encounter in Ghent. The incident has renewed debate about public safety, silence and the role of families, schools and communities in challenging anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice before it becomes abuse.

Essential Takeaways

  • A public confrontation: Jonatan Medart shared footage after being targeted with homophobic remarks while walking through Ghent with his boyfriend.
  • Police investigation: Belgian police opened an investigation after the video circulated online.
  • A wider problem: Journalist Riadh Bahri said prejudice can exist across communities, rather than belonging to one group alone.
  • Early education matters: Research links children’s attitudes to family language, social surroundings and wider cultural influences.
  • Street harassment has consequences: Even when no physical attack occurs, repeated abuse can make ordinary public spaces feel unsafe.

The footage made a familiar fear visible

A night that should have ended with celebration instead turned sour on the streets of Ghent. Medart filmed part of the encounter, then posted it online, where the faces of those involved could reportedly be seen.

According to Nieuwskoppen, the police opened an investigation into the incident. The footage has since pushed a usually private experience into public view: the sudden calculation of whether to respond, keep walking or reach for a phone.

That detail matters. Homophobic abuse isn't only about the words shouted in the moment. It's also about the message afterwards, when someone wonders whether the same thing might happen again on the next walk home.

Riadh Bahri says silence protects nobody

Riadh Bahri knows that unease personally. VRT reported in 2021 that the broadcaster had also been attacked in the street, an experience that helps explain why he responded so strongly to Medart's story.

Speaking on the current debate, Bahri acknowledged that some people within migrant communities hold hostile views towards gay men. But he also warned against using that truth to avoid examining prejudice elsewhere. Anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes aren't owned by one background, religion or neighbourhood.

His central point was less comfortable and more useful: if a community refuses to name a problem, it can't begin to change it. That applies in families, schools, workplaces and online spaces, where casual insults can become normalised surprisingly quickly.

Why children are central to the conversation

Bahri argued that intolerance is learned rather than innate, pointing to parenting, culture and social media as influences. Research on prejudice supports the broader idea that attitudes develop through social learning and repeated exposure, rather than appearing from nowhere.

A Dutch youth research review on conversations with fathers from migrant backgrounds also highlights how family discussions can shape children’s values and behaviour. That doesn't mean parents are solely responsible for every harmful belief, but it does show why everyday conversations matter.

The practical lesson is simple. Children need clear, age-appropriate messages that difference isn't a threat, jokes about sexuality aren't harmless by default and respect applies even when nobody in the room is openly discussing identity.

The danger of treating one community as the whole story

It would be easy to turn this incident into a story about a single group. That might produce a sharper headline, but it would offer a poor explanation of how prejudice actually works.

A Brussels-focused analysis of violence against LGBTI people notes that hostility can appear in different settings, including public spaces and social environments where victims are expected to feel safe. Meanwhile, research indexed by PubMed has examined how social attitudes and intergroup prejudice are formed, reinforcing the need to look beyond simplistic labels.

That wider view isn't an excuse for avoiding accountability. It does the opposite. It makes responsibility harder to outsource, because every community has to ask what it tolerates, laughs at or leaves unchallenged.

What should happen next?

The police investigation will determine what can be established about the Ghent incident. For the wider public, the response shouldn't stop at identifying suspects or sharing angry comments online.

Schools can discuss sexuality and respect without waiting for a crisis. Parents can challenge slurs when they hear them. Friends can intervene safely, support the person targeted and avoid turning the victim into the one expected to explain everything.

Medart's video has made one encounter visible, but the quieter issue is what happens after the cameras disappear. A society becomes safer not simply when abuse is punished, but when ordinary people make it unmistakably unwelcome.

It's a small act of courage to speak up, but it can make a public space feel human again.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: