36 hours after beheading in Canada bus, no new information

(In this entry, I theorize that the Canadian authorities are covering up the killer’s Muslim background, and I speculate as to why they are doing this.)

As I pointed out last night, every news report yesterday about the stabbing, gutting, and beheading of a young man on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba Wednesday evening at 8:30 p.m. relied primarily on the same interview with the same passenger. There was virtually no information from other passengers, and there was zero information from Canadian police, not even the name of the suspect, because, the Mounties spokesman said, giving out any information would “compromise” the investigation! Most of the stories were published/posted yesterday afternoon. And here we are, a day later, a full 36 hours after the murder, and Google reveals no further stories on the incident, except for one from the BBC and another from the Belfast Telegraph, both of which merely repeat what was already in yesterday’s stories.

I can think of only one explanation for this news blackout. It is that the killer is indeed a Muslim, and that the news is so shocking, its implications so frightening,—Canadians might be slaughtered and beheaded, anywhere, any time—that the ultra-PC Canadian authorities, than whom only the Brits are PC-er, can’t handle it. Because, if the killer is a Muslim, as seems very likely, it would mean that Canada (and every Western country with a Musulman population) has now become like Israel, where death-by-Islam can occur to anyone, any time, any place. The Israelis, surrounded by and filled with Arabs, seem to have no choice in the matter. But will the citizens of Canada and other Western countries accept living under permanent threat of random beheadings from their resident Muslims (as the authorities would, of course, prefer)? Or will they start to demand the removal of Muslims? You know, the way extremists like me have been urging for the last several years? My guess is that the Canadian authorities simply cannot bear to release the identity of the killer/beheader, because they sense that the information could give birth to popular resistance to Canada’s liberal inclusive order. So they are delaying giving out the facts as long as possible. It’s basically the tried and true Bill Clinton approach of managing damaging revelations. The more time that passes between the initial release of devastating news (e.g., the news about Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, in January 1998), and the release of the full truth about that news (e.g. the blue dress, about seven months later), the more time the public has to get used to the news and the more muted is their response to it. The Western countries today are not self-governing democracies; they are technocratically managed populations of passive Eloi.

By the way, even though scores of blogs covered the story yesterday, Jihad Watch has not mentioned it. The Corner has not mentioned it. And, speaking of Monica Lewinsky, the Drudge Report, which generally loves shocking news, has not mentioned it.

- end of initial entry -

EK writes:

On the two percent or so chance that you are wrong (more likely zero percent) you are still covered by claiming that you smoked ‘em out by claiming that a Muslim did it .This in turn made the authorities either belatedly fess up or deny it.Another brilliant coup for you.

Another heads I win tails you lose situation. The Cads will have to feed into their PC computers that if they delay in going public in future attacks it will come out worse for them and for PC in general.As we say in Yiddish, “All strength to you.” In short “Bulls eye.”

RK writes:

Don’t be so quick to conclude this. Yes, it could be a Mohammedan, but I was also thinking maybe a crazed or drugged-up Indian (i.e., feathers-not-dot, or “first nation”) or perhaps an African or Asian immigrant. But unless it’s the child of some VIP, it’s clear Derbyshire’s Law (one of them, anyway) is in play here—“if he was white, they’d have told us.”

Remember, Aznar in Spain accused the wrong minority, and it didn’t help his reelection bid, did it?

LA replies:

I wasn’t quick to conclude it. Apart from asking in the headline of the post last night whether this might be jihad, in the entry I said nothing further about the possibility of his being a Muslim. I just gave the available facts and the sources where I had found them.

But when I got up this morning, and there was no new news at all, not even the name of the suspect, 36 hours after the event, and given the cold methodical way he proceeded with the murder and beheading, it was a reasonable guess (I was thinking 95 percent) that he is Muslim, and I laid out my thoughts on that.

Tim W. writes:

What’s happening in Canada sounds like when you read crime reports in the L.A. Times and the perpetrator has an hispanic name but there is a conspicuous omission of his background, residence, or nationality. You just automatically KNOW what the Times knows but doesn’t want to tell you: He’s an illegal alien from Mexico. You can bet on it and you’ll never lose.

(Not, by the way, if he’s an illegal alien from anywhere *else.* A few years ago when a terrible murder was committed by a Brit who overstayed his visa, the phrase “British illegal alien” was appended to his name so frequently in every Times article that you would think it was on his birth certificate.)

LA replies:

What they do is, they release the Hispanic name of the suspect (who later turns out to be an illegal alien), with no other information than that he’s an “Iowa” man, or a “Rhode Island” man, or a “Houston” man. He may have been residing in Houston for a month, but he’s already a “Houston man,” as though he had been living there his whole life.

E. writes from Florida:

Are we sure the guy was not a Muslim? We’ll know more in a few more days. I’m sure the Canadian authorities are VERY reluctant to release info on the guy’s background. This is all very embarrassing to Canada. Are the Canadian media carrying the story? I know it’s getting amazingly little press in the U.S. Strange, given that it’s the most bizarre story of the year. Ride the intercity bus—get beheaded while sleeping.

Starra writes:

You are ignorant in your understanding of the Canadian law and order process.

Names of a suspect cannot and should not be revealed until charges have been sworn, and a first appearance scheduled.

To fail to do so could compromise the investigation and the safety of someone who is innocent. Even though this case seems quite obvious, they do it in all cases so that there can be no specter of bias, either real or perceived.

That’s why there are less cases of “getting off on a technicality” here.

LA replies:

So you’re saying that it’s routine, even after a major crime, for the authorities, even thought they have the suspect’s name, to wait at least a couple of days before releasing his name and other information. I guess that’s just too slow for us impatient Americans.

What does avoiding “bias” have to do with this? In the U.S. the police arrest someone. The arrest process consists of “booking.” At that point they have his name, address, age, etc., and release that to the press. How is that more “biased” than keeping the public waiting for two days or more for the same information? Your phrase, “so that there can be no specter of bias, either real or perceived,” reeks of PC.

Also, concerning “compromising the investigation,” you are just repeating the same meaningless, bureaucratic boilerplate used by the CRMP spokesman. What would be compromised? How was the case not compromised by the release of his name today, that would have been compromised if the name had been released, say, 24 hours earlier?

Finally, what does getting off on a technicality have to do with a name being released?. There are many ways in the U.S. that defendants get off on a technicality. To my knowledge, no one in the U.S. has ever gotten off on a technicality simply on the basis of police giving his name to the press after he’s been booked. Maybe you need to learn something about U.S. procedures.

Julie S. writes:

Regarding your August 1 entry about the beheading suspect, could you please elaborate on why his country of origin and his religion matter in trying to understand the motivation for his crime.

Thank you. no worries if you aren’t able to respond. I will assume you were unable to support your original comments.

LA replies:

Leaving aside your cheeky comment about my being unable to answer your question, how can I possibly address your liberal assumption that there are no group differences that matter?

Do you know that Muslims are commanded by their religion to wage jihad, either peaceful or violent means, whichever works best, until the whole world has come under the power of Islam?

But I doubt you will acknowledge that, and therefore you will not be able to understand why the religion of the killer mattered. Given that Muslim jihadists all over the world use the preferred Islamic form of execution, beheading, and that the killer picked out the victim at random, not for any personal reason, it seemed highly likely that the killer here was Muslim. And if he was, this signaled a new and terrifying form of jihad in the West.

But of course you probably deny that the growing Muslim populations in the West pose any danger to us. To think that, is to think that religion, race, nationality matters. But only bigoted people believe that. Rational people, like yourself, know that everyone is the same. Rational people reject the very possibility that there is such a thing as real enemies or culturally incompatible peoples whom we cannot safely let into our country. Rational people believe all people are basically alike and that we should be open to everyone.

So, have I confirmed your rational understanding that I am an irrational bigot?

James P. writes:

This clip is from the police radio, they say the killer was chopping the victim up and EATING him.

This may be the most senseless and barbaric crime I’ve ever heard about.

The killer is obviously Chinese and very unlikely to be a Muslim. The victim, judging by his looks and hometown of Winnipeg, may be a Metis, of mixed white and native descent. Why this happened is anybody’s guess at this point.

LA replies:

IN the one half-decent photo I saw of him, he doesn’t look Chinese at all, but dark skinned, with bullet-shaped head, cropped hair, and powerful build.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2008 08:41 AM | Send