Rio 2016: US Muslim fencer 'doesn't feel safe' due to anti-Muslim sentiment in America
An American Muslim fencer, who is the country’s first Olympian to wear a hijab, says she does not feel safe in the US due to the country’s increased anti-Muslim rhetoric.One of the events she cites for why she doesn't feel safe is "the shooting in North Carolina." Now, I assume she means this story, where a nutjob murdered three people in cold blood. Those three people happened to be muslim, yes, but the reason he killed them--aside from being bats**t crazy--is that they had repeatedly parked in his (assigned) parking spot.
Ibtihaj Muhammad, 30, is currently in Rio de Janeiro preparing to represent the US in sabre fencing. She is ranked eighth in the world and is gearing up for her first Olympics after missing the 2012 London games because of a hand injury.
Now, a couple asides. 1. No, parking on someone else's parking spot shouldn't get you killed. I refer to the "bats**t crazy" comment; 2. I hope this dude fries. Shouldn't have to say that, yes, killing someone over a gorram parking spot is crazy, wrong and deserves the fullest punishment allowed by law, but yeah, there it is...
With that said, though, there is absolutely nothing in this story - or any other - that points to the victims' religion as the reason. The guy was an unstable loon, period. It's sad, it's tragic, but to try and twist this into some sort of horrible case of muslims being targeted? That, it's not. He mentioned, once, about the women's headdress; apparently this is enough to convict him of a hate crime (forgetting, of course, that the Dallas shooter's admission that he wanted to kill white cops was "murky"...)
It's what I think we ought to call the "Columbinization" of a news story. Even today, you run into people that still think the two killers in Columbine were poor outcasts, picked on by the beautiful people in the school until they just couldn't take it any more and snapped. Except that never happened. That was a handy narrative and it made for a compelling story, and only suffered from one small problem: it was completely fictitious.
Fast-forward to the whole Michael Brown fiasco. There are still plenty of places, today, where they fully and honestly believe that "hands up, don't shoot" is absolute gospel truth, that poor, unarmed youth Brown was just walking down the street, minding his own business, when some evil racist cop walked up and shot him in the head for the sole crime of being black. Even Harvard Law School bought into it. Again, completely fictitious. Three separate investigations backed Officer Wilson's version of the day's events, where Brown attacked Wilson in an attempt to gain the officer's handgun.
In the immediate aftermath of one of these events, it is understandable that certain elements - often nearly all - will be incorrect. In the rush to be first to report, fact-checking and vetting of sources goes out the window. However, for events to be misreported a decade later (in the case of Columbine)? That's clinging to a false narrative. Just like they're trying to do now with this "muslims aren't safe in America" crap.
But then again, we're talking about her, aren't we?
That is all.