A white supremacist strikes again.

This time in Sweden. A masked, knife-wielding attacker stormed a school in the town of Trollhättan.

The Police believe that the 21 year-old extremist, Anton Lundin-Pettersson, chose his victims “on the basis of their ethnicity”.

The two people killed have been identified as Lavin Eskandar (teaching assistant) and Ahmed Hassan (student). They were both Muslims.

Two others – another teacher and a student – are being treated for their wounds.

Further investigation has shown that Anton Lundin-Pettersson:

• Hated Islam
• Was critical of immigration
• Glorified Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany

All the signs show that this man was clearly an extremist and that this was a terrorist attack.

But the mainstream media isn’t calling him a “terrorist”.

Why?

This seems to be a recurring theme whenever a white supremacist commits a heinous crime.

He could openly say that he hates Muslims, write a detailed manifesto explaining his hate and STILL he would not be called a terrorist by the mainstream media outlets.

Case in point – the white supremacist Dylan Roof who was behind the Charleston Church shooting in South Carolina in June, 2015.

MPACUK’s Raza Nadim recently made a video analysing the Charleston Shooting and media coverage:

[youtube height=”315″ width=”560″]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN4qog7Yj9s[/youtube]

Dylan Roof even said that he wanted to start a “race war” and STILL he wasn’t branded a terrorist for what he did.

If a Muslim committed such a crime then we all know that the word ‘terrorist’ would have been plastered everywhere.

Now, if you think it’s not right to label someone a ‘terrorist’ without knowing all the facts – well, I agree with you!

It is vital to understand who the criminal was, why this happened, whether or not they have mental health issues etc.

But if it’s right to wait for facts before passing judgement on a crime committed by a white supremacist, why aren’t Muslims treated in the same manner?

Two examples spring to mind which highlight my points:

One, when Anders Behring Breivik – a white, Christian terrorist – killed over 70 people in Norway, he was not instantly branded a terrorist. Even though he had strong connections to the EDL and had written a detailed manifesto outlining his extremist aims.

Furthermore, many people thought it was a Muslim extremist – the infamous Quilliam Foundation going as far as to giving a detailed “analysis” about why it was a Muslim committing those terror attacks – before any facts had even been established!

Another is that of the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, where a Muslim held people at a café hostage in Australia. This case was quickly termed a ‘terrorist’ attack but it was later revealed that the man had severe mental health issues.

In both cases, without all the facts at hand, assumptions were made about the religion and motives of the criminals – and a dark image of Muslims was further being embedded into society’s mind.

We are quick to be painted as terrorists – but when a crime is committed by a white supremacist there is almost a reluctance to comment until more information is known (even if they clearly state they did it because of their political ideology!)

But there’s something even more sinister – when white supremacists commit terror attacks, each case is treated as an individual, isolated case. As if though it has no links to others around the world, as if it is separate from the political ideology that they subscribe to.

However, if a Muslim commits a crime ANYWHERE it is linked to a wider narrative about “Islamism” (a made-up word) and extremism in the Muslim community. It is used as “evidence” as to why Muslims are barbaric and violent, and why draconian “counter-extremism” policies are needed.

Think about it – Charlie Hebdo, Woolwich, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid bombings – heck, even grooming gangs are treated as being part of a wider Muslim extremism problem but even though we have evidence that shows that there have been more terror attacks by white supremacists, they are never linked back to the driving factor of their extremist, political ideology.

We don’t discuss their faith (or hatred of faith – as illustrated by the Chapel Hill shootings), or what radicalised them, or who they associated with etc.

Their families are even afforded time to explain how they were good people – yet when CAGE tried to explain that Mohammed Emwazi (aka Jihadi John) USED to be a “beautiful, young man” it led to David Cameron labelling them “non-violent extremists” and led to the Charity Commission pressuring charities to not fund CAGE’s work about the ‘War on Terror’,

All these examples, and more, highlight one simple thing – Muslims are not treated equally when it comes to media coverage about terrorism.

People have become so accustomed to the mainstream media not calling white supremacists “terrorists” that often all you see on social media is just masses of commentary about the clear double-standards in media reporting.

And so here we are, again, where we see a clear example of white supremacists being given the benefit of the doubt by the mainstream media – and undoubtedly (and sadly) this same question, of why Muslims are treated worse in media coverage, will be posed in other future cases.

It does make you wonder though…imagine if this Swedish terrorist had been Muslim – how would the story have played out in the mainstream media?