So I thought I should write a post about the recent murder in London. I really decided to write a post because the story is becoming extremely racialised i.e. the story is becoming centered firmly around that the perpetrators race/religion was main factor in the incident. I basically write this regarding how the media will cover this;
- Firstly, race/religion was not a factor in this killing (I say it like I know this, but it’s quite plainly obvious), rather factors like socio-economic status, mindsets and upbringing are a much more deciding factor. The media however, will indicate very strongly that it was, via such techniques but not limited to; mentioning their quotes, in a religious context, “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.” If such crime took place by someone of Catholic background, the media wouldn’t draw attention to the use of the word “god”.
- Secondly, the language used by the media will attempt to separate them from moral humans, using such words as (but again not limited too); animals, savage, brutal, butcher(ed). While using the opposite for the victim, such as the presumption that he was a soldier (instilling patriotism, giving the idea that they attacked Britain, when they attacked the victim). There has been no evidence to support that he was a soldier apart from 1. He was (reportedly) wearing a shirt supporting a campaign by the British army and 2. he was “near” an army barracks, although no distance was given to how far away from the barracks he was.
- Thirdly, religious leaders will make public announcements condemning these attacks. They may think they’re helping the Muslim community, when in actual fact, they’re harming it. By condemning these attacks, they’re accepting that there is a correlation between race and attack, of which there is none at all. They will also attempt to distance themselves and the Muslim community from these people.
- Fourth and lastly, they call these attacks, “Acts of terrorism”. This can’t be disproved, and why? Because the words “terrorism, terrorist” have to definite meaning, basically constructs of the media, being used as they please. The only requirements to be labelled a terrorist are; a cause that the crime is being committed for (typically political). The label “Terrorist” is typically only ever used by the media in conjunction with people of middle eastern appearance. I do note how the Prime Minister was the first person to mention this; a prime example of how media affects peoples judgement.
All this was, were two people, very possibly mentally ill that decided killing a person in public would make a political statement. Their race had nothing to do with it, although the media will make you think so.