I’m genuinely trying to understand what Andrew Bolt is getting at here. Let’s assume that the fragment of a necklace we can see and the fact that she is photographed without a hijab would be sufficient evidence to establish that Neda Soltani was a Christian – never mind that the source Bolt linked to for his “Neda the Christian martyr” post pointed out that:
To me, this does not look like the cross has been inserted through digital editing. At the same time, I am not sure that a picture of her wearing a cross, with her head uncovered, is definitive proof that she was a Christian.
I mention this latest example of Internet rumor for a simple reason: The Iran story clearly isn’t over. I also wonder if there is, in fact, any reportable, journalistic information that supports this claim that “the voice” of this new Iranian revolution was, in fact, a member of a religious minority.
Assume that it was a Christian rather than a Muslim woman who was killed while protesting for fair and open democracy in Iran. In what sense would that make her “an even more profound symbol”? In what sense would her “martyrdom” carry more value under those circumstances? The suppression of minority religions in Iran (including not just Christianity and Judaism, but other religions such as Baha’i) is in itself a cause for outrage and protest, but there is no credible evidence that it had anything to do with the death of Neda Soltani during the political protests. In short, in a country where freedom of expression and democracy itself are being suppressed through violence, how does the religion of the victim affect the wrongness of her death?