Editor, The News:
Re: “Woman assaulted”, (The News, Jan. 8)
The suspect in an incident where a woman was pushed to the ground and her purse stolen is said to be “a Persian male with dark skin. He is 30 to 35 years …”
My comment is that Persia is not a country now. It used to be some time ago, but now it is called Iran.
So my question is twofold: What is the reason that the writer of the article did not call the person Iranian but rather Persian, which is not the correct way to refer to a person from Iran?
Might it be because Iran is a state which now shows some hostility towards the West and the writer wanted to protect this robber from the potential backlash of the readers? Might it also be because he was Iranian and therefore most likely Muslim, so the politically correct way would be not to refer to the suspect’s country of origin in a proper manner recognizable by most of the readers due to the Muslim connection?
This robber was not caught, so how was it determined, and by whom, that the robber was a Persian (or Iranian)? The choice of words in the article leaves me wondering about the purpose and the intention of the usage of the words.
Steve Fekete
Maple Ridge
Editor’s note: The article was based on a Ridge Meadows RCMP news release which said the suspect was “described as a Persian male with dark skin.”