LeeToRainesToRoach said:
It's been noted that after Christchurch, Di Natale spoke of standing with Muslims against Islamaphobia, while today's attacks merely targeted "people gathering in peace".
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/compare-di-natales-sri-lanka-tweet-with-his-christchurch-one/news-story/1b71fc2b8f4fc34f00460c4f9a03112b
Fraser Anning was rightfully condemned for trying to score political points off the tragic deaths of the terrorist victims in Christchurch. The double standards you point out from those at the opposite end of the political spectrum, shows that much of their grandstanding after Christchurch, essentially had some of the same motivations. That is, scoring political points off the backs of those poor unfortunate souls who were killed.
Of course Anning was using the Christchurch attack to push his political agenda, that Muslim &/or Middle Eastern immigration is the root of many woes in western society. The left end of the political spectrum used it to justify their self flagellating political view, that western culture of Western European, Christian heritage is the root of all evil in the world.
Now, where Anning lost the plot, is that his stance basically implied some culpability on the victim’s part - or at least, was interpreted this way. The self flagellators on the left were able to intertwine their quest for scoring political points, with a position of solidarity. However, by not taking the same stand of righteousness on the Sri Lanka attacks, they show how hollow their principles are.
At the heart of this all though. Despairingly sad. Sri Lanka is such a beautiful country with just a beautiful people.