Rundle: Sheehan wrong on Toulouse killer.
"Progressives views on the Toulouse killer have set new lows in rationalising bigotry" screamed the standfirst on Paul Sheehan's column
in The Sydney Morning Herald
. Writing on the three sets of killings in the city by Mohammed Merah, whom, the column alleged, had been turned into a victim, Sheehan advances as evidence one New York Times
story (which he did not quote or cite in a checkable way) speculating that anti-immigrant sentiment may have been at the root of the killings ... and that's it.
Oh, there was also an argument that Merah was a victim of French social exclusion by Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan, a professor at Oxford, is what one might call a semi-Islamist, arguing that Western Islam should develop its own distinctive identity, congruent with liberal societies. But for Ramadan that would include a strong disapproval of full gender equality, pre-marital s-x, a strong line against no-fault divorce, homos-xuality, gender mixing (ie: at public swimming pools), contraception, etc.
He's also a strong proponent of religious schools over the secular state ones. In other words, he's a down-the-line social-religious conservative, with far more in common with George Pell -- or Paul Sheehan for that matter -- than with the dreaded (and uncited) progressives. Writers don't do their own standfirsts, but the sub pretty accurately captured the blatantly wrong tenor of Sheehan's article. Sloppy work from Sheehan, inadvertently or otherwise -- Guy Rundle
Front page of the day
. This could go down as a New York Post
No show for SMH mag for 'technical issues'