Following the recent attacks in Sri Lanka and New Zealand, three common things have been blatantly apparent to me.
1) These attacks have not been condemned widely enough in my opinion. Sure, countries have sent their condolences but what does that get you? All religion-based attacks should have much harsher penalties (preferably death) for those that perpetrate them. An attack on any religion, is an attack on all nations that have religious freedoms.
2) It is further proof that gun control measures don't work. Over five times more people died in Sri Lanka than New Zealand, all without a single bullet being fired. In fact, a majority of religious attacks don't involve guns at all. According to a study done by researchers at the University of Washington in 2017, only 9% of all terrorist attacks in Western countries since 2002 involved a firearm. Which also leads me to my third point..
3) Why the imbalance in media coverage? The New Zealand attack received far more mainstream media coverage, and in my opinion it is due to the fact that the victims were Muslim and the attacker used a gun. This fits the narrative often deployed by these media outlets. When the victims were Christian however, and the attackers Muslims using bombs then suddenly the media changes their tone. We saw this with dozens of Democrat leaders in the US, referring to the victims as Easter Worshippers instead of Christians, and diverting all attention away from the motives behind the attacks (which was been confirmed that it was retaliation for New Zealand).
If we value all lives and religions equally, why treat the loss of life differently and change the narrative?
1) These attacks have not been condemned widely enough in my opinion. Sure, countries have sent their condolences but what does that get you? All religion-based attacks should have much harsher penalties (preferably death) for those that perpetrate them. An attack on any religion, is an attack on all nations that have religious freedoms.
2) It is further proof that gun control measures don't work. Over five times more people died in Sri Lanka than New Zealand, all without a single bullet being fired. In fact, a majority of religious attacks don't involve guns at all. According to a study done by researchers at the University of Washington in 2017, only 9% of all terrorist attacks in Western countries since 2002 involved a firearm. Which also leads me to my third point..
3) Why the imbalance in media coverage? The New Zealand attack received far more mainstream media coverage, and in my opinion it is due to the fact that the victims were Muslim and the attacker used a gun. This fits the narrative often deployed by these media outlets. When the victims were Christian however, and the attackers Muslims using bombs then suddenly the media changes their tone. We saw this with dozens of Democrat leaders in the US, referring to the victims as Easter Worshippers instead of Christians, and diverting all attention away from the motives behind the attacks (which was been confirmed that it was retaliation for New Zealand).
If we value all lives and religions equally, why treat the loss of life differently and change the narrative?
