Compare and contrast.

[Workingman]

A supremacist nutter live streams his slaughter of 50 Moslems and the wounding of as many more. NZ, and especially PM Jacinda Ardern, handled it brilliantly, though the media coverage was maudlin and there was plenty of virtue signalling going on.

We now have the slaughter of nearly 300 Christians and the wounding of 500 others, not all Christians, in Sri Lanka by Islamic jihadists.

It will be interesting to see how the media, politicians and the Moslem world plays this one out.

[cromwell]

Our politicians have been pretty muted in their response. To no one's surprise.

[cromwell]

Alison Pearson in the Telegraph has pointed out that Theresa May referred to an attack on "Churches and hotels" whilst Hilary Clinton talked of attacks on "Easter worshippers!.
No mention of Christians, which is in big contrast to the Christchurch attack, when Clinton said she wept for the "worldwide Muslim community" after the Christchurch attack.
I honestly think that if a newspaper printed the headline "350 Christians murdered by Muslim suicide bombers" they would be done for "hate crime". At the very least there would be absolute uproar from politicians, with much talk of Islamaphobia, racism, etc etc.

But the headline would be true. So we are living in a country where inconvenient truths will be silenced if possible, and debate around them discouraged and people intimidated. Not a happy thought.

[Workingman]

It only happened to 359 "churchgoers" on one of if not the the most important days in the Christian calender... Imagine if the mosque attack had been on Eid ul-Fitr or during Ramadan or Hajj.

And let us not forget that it just happened to be in Sri Lanka, that poor little developing country somewhere off the coast of India.

The contrast between the coverage of it and other attacks in first world countries is sickening.