Agence France Presse and News Limited go one further in a report on a rape and subsequent circumstances in the United States:
ONE of four boys charged with raping an eight-year-old girl in the US state of Arizona last week will be prosecuted as an adult. The details of the case have shocked local officials and provoked outrage across the United States after the parents of the young victim disowned her on grounds she had "shamed" her family.It's a matter of disgraceful shame too - on the part of AFP and News - that they did not extend the 'details of the case' to mentioning pertinent facts.
For throughout the remainder of the story, there is no mention of the fact that both the victim and her attackers were Liberian refugees, something which was easy to find in under 60 seconds by Googling the case and reading US reports.
It's quite plain that the agency and/or the news outlet edited out this information so that readers' prejudices against Americans could freely have their head, clearing the way for a picture to form of dastardly rednecks disowning a child raped by equally ignorant and typically thuggish white American boys.
I made three or four attempts early in the piece yesterday to set the record straight in comments but none were published by News' information gatekeepers, though, late in the day, an American reader was able to get it past them.
However, by then the damage was done, and not just in furthering the vile anti-American prejudices of AFP and many journalists generally.
Lost is a vitally important opportunity to consider the implications of Western nations accepting refugees who are psychologically damaged from years of civil war in their homelands.
This story is a stark and shocking example of how Americans are paying for their kindness. In Australia and Britain too, there are like events relating to refugees from similarly war-torn African countries.
It really is time that Western governments considered the welfare of their existing nationals and undertook to assist in resolving conflicts and fostering extended periods of social stability in troubled overseas countries rather than just importing their damaged goods and imagining this largesse will instantly cure the horrors that ail them.
-- Nick
Footnote: Andrew Bolt asks some of the same questions in his blog today.
4 comments:
I'm glad I wasn't the only person to notice the ommission. I saw the article mentioned at It’s a Matter of Opinion and I pointed out the same thing.
The reason for the ommission is quite simple. The Multicultural and Refugee Industries and those who share their values in Australia don't want the Australian people thinking too much about their policies.
They don't want them thinking that maybe the reason that some countries are hellholes is because the people of that country have made it that way.
They also don't want Australians thinking about what sort of people are being brought as refugees - e.g. child soldiers (who have probably committed numerous war crimes).
MCB & Nick
I am relieved that I am not the only person who wonders at the damaged people who are coming to Australia from war-torn hell-holes as you both mention.
It made me wonder when there was talk of how assylum seekers were being psychologically damaged by their time in detention, having seen what type of background they had, and the murderous happenings in their home countries, whether being safe, sheltered and fed in detention centres could be what was causing the psychological damage.
I'd say that much of the damage had already been done before detention, and any damage done in detention was by their own people.
Esq. is closer to the ticket: it started with "multiculturalism", whatever the hell that turned out to be.
I don't think the problem is confined to anything related to refugees or immigration policies.
It might have started life as multiculturalism, but we moved, with a firm hand, into political correctness, marched straight into big "T" tolerance, and since the Twin Towers fell and the world suddenly figured out what Islam stands for, everyone has re-embraced relativism like a warm cuddly puppy.
Deadly dangerous?
You bet.
But good luck telling that to the appeasing pollies and luvvies.
It won't be long before newspapers cut out all the facts altogether. We'll just get articles like this:
SOMETHING SOMETHING!
Something that was something happened to someone, or several someones, by other someones the other day. This something may or may not mean something else to someone else.
Someone more or less important has said something general about the matter.
However, someone else has disagreed or agreed, saying that something needs something to happen or not happen to it.
We will bring you something else on whatever it is that just happened shortly!
The trouble with the facts is that they keep on implicating specific problems caused by specific events and specific people. What's a newspaper without facts?
Post a Comment