A fifteen-year-old girl is murdered. A child.
And what does the Globe and Mail do?
Write a victim-shaming headline.
I do not care about toxicology reports. I care that a little girl was killed.
Tortured, terrorized, and discarded like a piece of garbage.
She had value as a human being, and she was in clutches of someone who didn't see it.
Instead of feeling sorrow for a child whose last moments of her short life were horrifying, the Globe focusses on her state -- not the state of the fifty-five-year-old adult male who is on trial for her needless death.
The public was upset because there are people who have not just morals, but logic and common sense.
But the public editor gave this vile response instead:
The story and headline on the testimony read harshly to some when written about a young woman who died tragically and especially to those family members and those in the community still mourning her death. At the same time, it showed her as a vulnerable person. Part of a criminal trial involves a defense and questions raised that may seem unfair to the victim and that is part of an open court system.
No, Ms Stead, it didn't read harshly: it was a psychopathic headline. That headline was not about her vulnerability. It was about finding mud to throw at the memory of a dead child.
And considering the pages of the Globe are not doing the same to the man accused of harming her, we know the Globe has a serious problem with comprehending reality.
And most reporters covering trials leave a lot of information out. There was nothing in that headline that was newsworthy. A girl was murdered.
A child was confined, brutalized, and killed.
What she happened to wear on that day is irrelevant. What she said that day is irrelevant. What she consumed was irrelevant.
No one has the right to murder another human being. The end.
She was a child. That the paper's first instinct was to gossip about her and imply all sorts of things with a sick headline is mystifying to me.
Funny that the headline did not mention things that would be unflattering to the man on trial.
You owe the family an apology.
You owe all children who have been harmed, but survived, an apology.
Your apology to the victim you maligned is meaningless because she can no longer hear it.
Shame on you.
Shame on you for keeping the URL of that article intact.
You are keeping it as is because deep down, you do not see how more like her killer you are than you are to her.
My instinct is to mourn her passing, and wish that by some miracle, I could have protected a child.
Because no child should have to see her killer with her final stare. He had her final moment, her final breath, and her final thought.
The Globe is run by unfeeling and unteachable boors who still do not see how horrifically they failed their own nation.
Shame on you. Shame on you for being so cruel to a child who never did anything to harm you.