Skip to content

Fuck Politeness

This is a revolution, not a public relations movement

Trigger warnings

Ok. I saw this article earlier, and I was wondering when they headlined it “Baring the scars of her sister’s racist friend”, whether they’d misspelled rapist, unfamiliar as they are with using the term rapist with any regularity even when reporting rape.

It turns out that as well as being a rapist, he was indeed a racist – there was some suggestion that his racism was a part of the attack (the deceased sister had been dating a man of colour). I do not want in any way to downplay the significance and violence of racism…I just find it intensely curious that the headline referred to the guy’s racism rather than the fact he’d attempted to rape, and had in fact killed one woman, and had raped and attempted to kill her fourteen year old sister.

While it is true that the guy is a racist, he is also (quite clearly) a rapist and a murderer. A rapist and murderer who continues, apparently to taunt his victim from jail. Lovely. It’s curious when the SMH steers so clear of calling racism racism in any other context, that in this one case they’d still rather label him a racist than a rapist, even though the crimes he’s charged with are rape and murder.

Trigger warnings

He had tried to rape the older sister of the woman pictured below, and when she fought him he stabbed her through the heart. He then apparently had a cigarette break with an iced tea, then raped the deceased woman’s fourteen year old sister (the woman pictured below), and tried to kill her. He slit her throat during the attack.

I thought about that a bit, and didn’t post. I didn’t know what to say about it.

I’d seen the following picture with the story:

reed-420-420x0

Those are some pretty damned nasty scars.

But apparently this woman’s horrendous experienc, the real scars visible some ten years on weren’t ‘dramatic’ enough for the SMH to feel they would get enough click-throughs for their buck, because now, the picture you have to click on to get to the article has the following photo:

172-scars-172x115

Far be it from me to suggest some cold blooded sensationalist photoshopping, but it looks to me as though there’s been some cold blooded sensationalist photoshopping here.

I’m sorry SMH, the real scars are not enough for you? The real story of the fact that (I gather from the tag on this picture) that this woman has 172 scars from this bastard after he raped her AFTER he’d killed her sister was not sensational enough for you on its own? You had to come along and colour in to make the scars stand out more luridly? Get people fascinated by what had happened? Drawn in by the colour of the scars?

I’m actually so appalled by this I have no ability to form a concluding sentence.

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: