Why do lefties say London Bridge attack was an ‘incident’… but Finsbury Park Mosque attack was ‘terrorism’?
In the two days since Darren Osborne allegedly crashed a van into Muslim worshippers, we have seen some startling double standards
THIS week, leftists finally got animated and angry about an act of terrorism.
They did not just say “Keep calm and carry on”, as they did after the Manchester and London Bridge attacks.
They did not just invite us to lay some flowers and teddy bears and tweet a sad emoji.
They did not try to shush debate or discourage national soul-searching, as they do after Islamist atrocities, always fearing that heated debate might “cause offence”.
No, they said it’s time to get serious about terrorism.
They finally said we Brits need to ask ourselves why our nation is afflicted by ideological violence.
What made them change their tune?
The horrific Finsbury Park Mosque attack. That disgusting assault on innocent Muslims by a suspected adherent of far-right thinking.
This act seems to have agitated some leftists more than any other recent assault on civilians.
It enraged them, prised open their eyes, made them realise there are some serious tensions slicing through 21st-century Britain.
Which raises a really serious question: Why did it take this attack to make them see there’s a problem?
Over the 48 hours since Darren Osborne allegedly crashed a van into Muslim worshippers in Finsbury, we have seen some startling double standards from the Left.
The very people who tell us we must not extrapolate from terror attacks have now done precisely that.
The same people who insist we treat Islamist attacks as acts of individual violence, which tell us nothing about society more broadly, are citing Finsbury as proof that Britain is in the grip of hatred.
After Islamist attacks, leftists always balk from naming the ideological problem. Sometimes they even refuse to use the T-word.
Labour MP Diane Abbott referred to last month’s Manchester Arena bombing, in which 22 souls were wiped out by Salman Abedi, as a “horrific incident” — making it sound like a traffic accident.
But she swiftly applied the T-word to the Finsbury assault. This was a “shocking terror attack”, she said on Twitter, even before all the facts were known.
Her party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, did not refer to the Westminster Bridge attack as terrorism for five days.
In his first comment on this Islamist attack in March — in which Khalid Masood killed four civilians and a police officer — Corbyn described it as a “serious incident”.
In his second, the day after the attack, he said it was an “atrocity” but warned us not to “rush to judgement”.
He had no problem “rushing to judgement” on the Finsbury attack, however.
“This is terror on our streets,” he said just hours after it happened. The double standards are extraordinary.
After acts of Islamist violence, many leftists flat-out refuse to talk about the ideological cause. They refuse to say “Islamist”.
Indeed, when then Ukip leader Paul Nuttall used that word during a BBC General Election debate, he was raged against by the right-on.
It is “outrageous” to use that word, said Green Party leader Caroline Lucas — even though the dictionary definition is an “advocate or supporter of Islamist militancy”, making it an apt term for the Manchester and London Bridge murderers.
Following the Finsbury attack, however, leftists have felt no qualms about naming the ideology allegedly at play.
They have fallen over themselves to brand this “Islamophobic terrorism”.
Suddenly it is OK to talk about the warped intellectual underpinnings of terrorism.
After Islamist assaults, leftists lecture us about how important it is not to hold whole communities responsible.
They patronise us with sermons about how acts of terrorism are the work of one individual, not a community or any culture of hatred.
But after Finsbury, they point the finger at a wide-spread communal hate.
Labour MP Yvette Cooper claimed the Finsbury attack speaks to “an increase in Islamophobia all over the country”.
To get a sense of the double standards at play here, just imagine if a politician went on TV after Manchester and said: “There has been an increase in Islamist prejudice all over the country.” They would be shamed, ridiculed and possibly sacked.
Left-leaning publications which insist Islamist attacks are isolated acts by individuals hypocritically claim the Finsbury attack is the product of a bigger hatred.
This attack confirms that we have “allowed Islamophobia to flourish”, says the New Statesman. It shows how “normalised” anti-Islam prejudice has become, says the Guardian.
The Finsbury attack chimes with the Guardian’s leftist prejudice, especially its prejudice against ordinary, non Guardian-reading people.
Perhaps the most striking double standard post-Finsbury has been the swift indictment of tabloid newspapers and right-wing “hate preachers”.
After Islamist attacks, leftists ring-fence the Koran from criticism and rage against any suggestion imams’ sermons should be monitored.
After Finsbury they have charged certain newspapers with fomenting violence.
The Independent slams sections of the press for “stirring up the hatred that lies in some people’s souls”.
One left-wing writer says the press is “whipping up” the “vulnerable” into “hysteria”.
By “vulnerable”, he means everyday, working-class Brits, who are viewed by many leftists as imbeciles easily coaxed into violent behaviour.
These double standards leave us with only one conclusion: Leftists care more about Muslims than non-Muslims. They find terrorism more repulsive when it is aimed at the Muslim community.
Those of us who genuinely care about democracy and solidarity should reject these double standards and argue that all forms of ideological violence are equally obnoxious.
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Finsbury attack
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Christians, Jews, Atheists, et al don't BELIEVE in death for homosexuality, apostasy, etc in the rates that Muslims do IN GENERAL.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks