all 3 comments

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, now people are starting to say "there was only one suspect".

4 people were arrested, now the news are saying 3 of them were let go because they weren't suspects.

But this article in OP says:

Two others arrested at the scene with guns are being investigated. A fourth person arrested may have had nothing to do with the attack, according to New Zealand’s police commission Mike Bush.

Several guns have been recovered from both mosques. Two explosive devices were found on two vehicles at the scene. One has been disabled.

Two vehicles already at the mosque had bombs in them. They also arrested two others with guns at the scene, probably the two who owned those cars. So there were 3 people who were armed and had bombs...

But now it's being talked about like there was only one shooter, and there was only ever one suspect.

The narrative is being changed? Why?

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for this. And thanks for the neutral and informational title, it's much needed for stories like this imo

[–]iufewal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Am I the only one who thinks that the backlash against Fraser Anning's (Queensland Senator) statement is going to lead to more divisiveness than ever?

He has quite rightfully if tactlessly pointed out that had concerns over mass immigration been addressed by the government more adequately - whether through real policy changes, cosmetic policy changes, or simply giving the anti-migration people a platform on which their concerns could be heard and fairly dismissed - then none of this would have happened.

Why am I not surprised that the Guardian and so many other outlets are ignoring the real point he has made, and instead go for the simple "he blamed Muslims for the shooting" angle? The backlash against the senator, both from mass media and social media, will only serve to further convince opponents of mass immigration that the public as well as the government has no intention of addressing their concerns and in fact seeks to demonize them.