Where is the anger over the apocalyptic barbarism visited upon Christians in Sri Lanka?
Where is the fury? Where are the tweets and blog posts and viral videos offering solidarity to Christians and slamming the bombers as a members of a global fascistic movement?
Such wrath has been notable by its absence, or at least its rarity, in the aftermath of the extremist slaughter that killed at least 253 people, the majority of them Christians marking the resurrection of Christ at Easter Sunday services.
Yes, there has been sorrow. And there has been some very strong media coverage. People want to know the stories of those who were killed, and feel the pain of the those they left behind.
But rage? There has been very little.
In disturbing contrast to the aftermath of the mosque massacres in Christchurch last month, the response to the horrors in Sri Lanka has been muted, cagey, sheepish even.
The Christchurch atrocity provoked an angry and distinctly political response. We must stand as a human family against this vile Islamophobia, world leaders and commentators insisted.
The Sri Lanka atrocity has generated no such sense of global resolve. And this shocking disparity needs to be explained.
To get a sense of the depth of the double standard, consider this: US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Twittersphere’s favourite socialist, tweeted about the Christchurch massacre 14 times; she tweeted about the Sri Lanka atrocity not once.
She isn’t alone. Tweeters have compared and contrasted well-known liberals’ and leftists’ response to Christchurch and their response to Sri Lanka.
They found that these people tweeted and posted and condemned far less after Sri Lanka than they did after Christchurch.
Those who have seen fit to comment on the extinguishing of 253 souls have used strikingly different language to the language they used after Christchurch.
British Prime Minister Theresa May correctly described the slaughter in Christchurch as a “horrifying terrorist attack”.
But she couldn’t bring herself to use the T-word in relation to the Sri Lanka bombings. She called them “acts of violence”. She didn’t say “Christian” either, which is perverse, considering this was clearly an act of mass hateful violence against Christians.
This was “violence against churches and hotels”, said May. No it wasn’t. The aim was not to damage buildings.
It was to kill the human beings inside those buildings. Otherwise known as Christians.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/christchurch-sri-lanka-hierarchy-of-vi...After 'we are all Muslims' in March, nobody is saying now, 'we are all Christians', after an Easter Sunday Islamic massacre that dwarfs Christchurch. The hierarchy of victimhood is obvious to everyone.