Last Saturday, Khairi Saadallah fatally stabbed three homosexual men in the English town of Reading. Douglas Murray comments on the British media’s strange response:
It has since emerged that the twenty-five-year-old suspect, who is now in police custody, came to the UK from Libya in 2012. He is reported to have come to the attention of MI5 last year as an individual who had the potential to travel overseas for terrorism purposes. . . . So far, [however], there has been almost no interest expressed in the possible motives of the attacker. Quite possibly there is a mental-health component. . . . But anything else to see here? Any other reason why a migrant from Libya who was given asylum in the UK might want to go around stabbing gay men? Well who would even ask such questions? What do you want to find? Bigot.
But if the attacker from Saturday night had been a white skinhead, or a neo-Nazi, or had been wearing a big red MAGA hat, I am fairly confident that the gay press and all of the mainstream media would be crawling over every angle of this story by now with an unparalleled fury, hurling allegations of “adjacency” against all of their favorite enemies. As it is I am reminded of nothing so much as story after story over recent years. Stories like when Omar Mateen walked into the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida four years ago and gunned down 49 people.
People know after a story like this that it isn’t good. . . . But they have made a very basic calculation. The calculation is that dead gays aren’t good. But they aren’t as bad—indeed they are a price worth paying—compared to asking any of the questions that sane people would ask after an attack like this. . . . The fear [is] that talking about Islamic homophobia as a potential motive in this case might increase prejudice of some other kind. It’s a calculation of a very cynical and inept kind.