"Three Britons?" Three what? Leaving aside the headline, nowhere in this story is "Muslim" used as a description of the defendants; the word appears only one time, as "Muslim grievances." Really, one could almost say it's amazing that the Times was not deterred, out of "sensitivity," from printing the defendants' photographs. This is getting ridiculous. "Muslim" is an essential feature of "who" and "what" these men are. By their own standards, they're Muslims MORE than they are "Britons." And they ACTED as self-aware, self-defining Muslims in a cause they themselves define as a "Muslim" cause, and, in their thinking, done on behalf of Muslims. So why is the press reluctant to call them that?2. One of the reasons for the excessive sensitivity of the liberal media about the use of the word “Muslim” here is presumably the lobbying of the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain. The MCB and its fellow travellers are among those who use what David Hirsh calls “the Livingstone Formulation”, that the so-called Israel lobby “cries antisemitism” in order to deflect criticism of Israel. But I find it hard not to conclude that the self-appointed representatives of British Islam (the Muslim lobby?) are rather quick to cry Islamophobia, often apprently to deflect criticism of Islamist violence.
If a man who is white raped a woman who is black -- and if that were all there was to the story -- then I think the the man should not be described in news stories as "white."
But what if the man -- let's just say -- told friends that he was going out that night to "rape a black bitch." And then found a black woman and raped her? And, prior to doing it, had made a video of himself saying the same thing, and justifying it as a deed that served justice?
Don't you think that news articles, somewhere deep in the paragraphs, even one time, should identify him as white?