When I saw the article in the Daily Mail about Muslim women showing solidarity on Westminster bridge, I eagerly opened it to see what messages of hope I would read.
I desperately want some sort of sign from the Muslim community in London and the UK that says to me that when the chips fall (as they will) that they will be on the side of their country not on the side of the extremists.
I am hoping for a sign from them that they feel unified with the UK in its fight against terrorism
I want to see something that tells me that they are not manipulating the stupid left liberals with lies about who they are and what they stand for.
Alas I was to be sorely disappointed – of the four quotes only the last one shows connection and empathy to the event.
Statement analysis is a scientific process by which we analyse the words that a person uses to communicate. It is the most effective deception detection method available and used by law enforcement and blue chip companies. I am in training for this skill, so I may not pick up on all the information.
The quotes following are from different women who were standing on the bridge at the time:
The feeling of what happened here on Wednesday was really strong.
We thought of the ordinary people who were here and were mown down, standing here like this, it was very overwhelming.
- the feeling – distancing language, it is not her feeling
- on Wednesday – sensitivity to timing
- was – past tense (this is unexpected as she is there in that moment)
- really strong – sensitivity to the word strong – need to persuade – when we see emphasis like this we question if the reverse may be true
- We thought – we is a sign of shared responsibility. Thought is in the past tense.
- ordinary people – distancing language which may be understandable as they did not know any of them personally
- standing here – there is a missing pronoun here – who was standing here? we can’t specify it for her. this is a sign of sensitivity. Sensitivity is increased by given body position ‘standing’. Present tense
- like this – un-necessary words = sensitivity
- was – past tense again
- very – indicates sensitivity towards ‘overwhelming’ – deception
Conclusion: They thought and it was overwhelming – past tense so they no longer thinking about it as they stand there – distancing. There is high sensitivity in this statement and a need to persuade – information is missing, but not necessarily nefarious in any way.
It is an attack on all of us. Islam totally condemns violence of any sort. This is abhorrent to us.
- It – distancing from ‘an attack’ – what attack? it is not specified so we can’t specify it for her
- totally – un-necessary word for emphasis, need to persuade, high sensitivity
- any – passive word, vague – followed by further vagueness in word ‘sort’ = high sensitivity – this sentence is deceptive.
- abhorrent – emotion that is close defined by ‘this’ but what is abhorrent? again we can’t define what ‘this’ is for her.
Conclusion: There is distancing language in relation to an attack – we don’t know what attack is being referred to, she doesn’t make it clear and we can’t do it for her. It is a lie to say Islam condemns violence and this is shown in the high sensitivity for that sentence. Something is abhorrent, but again we do not know what because she does not specify and we can’t specify it for her.
As a visible Muslim I think it was important to show solidarity with the principles that we all hold dear, the principles of plurality, diversity and so on.
- As a visible Muslim – she is stating what she identifies as a visible Muslim – there is also distancing language here. Not just a Muslim, but a visible Muslim. Being visible is important to her. It is the first thing she mentions – it is of highest importance to her that you see her ‘as a visible Muslim’
- I think – a sign of uncertainty regarding what follows
- was – past tense however the moment the quote was taken it should be the present tense = distancing – we saw this language in a previous in a previous quote.
- show – this is connected to visibility – it is important to her.
- the principles… – this is a unecessary phrase at the end = sensitivity and need to persuade, deception
- plurality, diversity – the demonstration was about a terrorist attack, where do plurality and diversity come into terror attacks? this indicates what was important to her.
- and so on – this is passive language = increasing sensitivity
Conclusion: This woman is a social justice warrior, wearing her symbol of religion is important to her as is ‘showing’ solidarity, however, her reason to be on the bridge is not about the terrorist attack but about ‘plurality’ and ‘diversity’.
I am here to show that in a quiet way we continue to go where we like and do what we like in London.
‘This is my city. It’s a very small gesture but life is made up of small gestures.
It is not clear if this final statement was from a Muslim woman – I can tell you that she has an English name (Mary Bennett)
- I am here – This is a nice clear statement of presence
- in a quiet way – passive language = sensitivity. she is conscious of sound/volume.
- we continue – shared responsibility of continuing, present tense
- we – shared responsibility
- London – she identifies location
- my city – she is taking ownership of the city.
- very small – she is sensitive to the word small.
- but – what follows is more important than what precedes
Conclusion – This is an open, clear and truthful statement. This woman is present and connecting to the location and the event, she is respectful (a quiet way) she feels empathy to the event (small gesture), she has been impacted by it. There is no emotion which is what we would expect in a truthful statement with nothing to hide.
If you enjoyed this article, please support us by liking, sharing or leaving a comment below.
Please become a patron on Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/thehungryrabbit
NOTE: My previous analysis, Statement Truth Analysis: Muslim woman on the bridge in #LondonAttack, drew comments that I was biased and seeking to attack the subject – I would like to clarify that when I do an analysis, it is not from a basis of attack, it is a basis of wanting to know the truth of what someone is actually saying, and the results are made public as they are of interest to others. If you don’t like the results, that is really not something that is my concern – they are not private statements, they are in the public domain. My only concern is the accuracy of my analysis and to not misrepresent the information that is revealed.