We condemned the ideology behind Christchurch. Why didn’t we do the same after Sri Lanka?
Look at what happened in Sri Lanka, and how we reported it. Of 20 world leaders, ex-leaders (Obama) and hideously useless also-rans (Hillary) who took time to condemn the atrocity, only one - Xavier Bettel of Luxembourg - mentioned that the victims of the attack were Christians. None of the 20 - none - mentioned the word Islam. So, in one attack we were rightly enjoined to stand in solidarity with the victim group, who were not merely identified but lionized, and also enjoined to condemn the ideology behind the attack, which was very clearly explained in every broadcast. In the other, the victim group was not named and nor was the ideology. Why should that be?