Mainstream media ignores religious extremism in O’Shae Sibley’s fatal stabbing.

On ⁢July 29 in Brooklyn, New York, 28-year-old O’Shae Sibley was ​stabbed to ⁢death‌ after an altercation at a gas station. The press ​has made two things abundantly clear: Sibley was a gay black man, and the stabbing is being​ investigated‌ as a hate crime. One glaring omission has been consistent across most ​of the media’s coverage. The⁤ men who attacked‍ Sibley were Muslim ⁢and, according to one witness, shouted, ‍“We Muslim and we don’t‍ like gays!”

The Media’s Omission

The media are twisting themselves⁣ in knots ⁢to avoid‌ mentioning this. This piece ⁤from NBC describes‌ his attackers only as “a group ⁣of⁤ men.” An article at CNN uses similarly vague language ‌and includes a handpicked quote from the assistant‍ chief of NYPD’s detective bureau: “The suspect is being charged with a hate crime based on statements from the group in general. You have a lot of‍ anti-gay statements, and a lot of derogatory statements‍ being made — anti-black‍ — from⁢ the group ​and from the defendant himself.”

CNN could not be less⁤ descriptive and ‌more⁤ obtuse if it tried. The vagueness is intended to let readers’ minds ⁢wander, using their own ⁢biases to draw⁣ conclusions about who might stab a black gay man.

A tweet from The New York Times describes⁢ Sibley’s attackers only as “men” who used‌ “slurs.” An article at MSNBC covered the incident ⁤in a typical dishonest fashion by ⁣excluding the motivation of the ⁣attackers, but MSNBC‍ did not miss ⁣the‍ opportunity to conflate this stabbing with​ people who‍ oppose lewd sexual performances in the‍ presence of children. “Because across this country, what we are seeing is‌ a coordinated attack on queer people ⁢being free in public.”‌

In other words,​ if you are the type of person who opposes drag⁣ shows​ in front of kids, ⁣you might be capable of stabbing a dancing gay man to death ⁢outside⁤ a gas station.

Despite referring to a ‌section of the⁢ article⁢ as ‍“key facts,” ⁢ Forbes ‌ went⁣ out of its way to avoid ​any mention‍ of the⁣ religious motivation, but made sure to include, ‍“the men began yelling homophobic and racist slurs at Sibley.” Once again, the‍ omission of the religious motivation ‍combined‌ with the inclusion of⁤ this sentence is ⁤intended to mislead readers.

The journalistic giants⁤ over at Teen Vogue described the incident by including a cherrypicked statement⁢ from Otis​ Pena, ​a witness and ‌friend⁤ of Sibley who was present at the time of the stabbing: “They murdered him because he’s gay,⁣ because he stood up for his friends.⁢ … His name was ⁤O’Shae‌ and you all killed him.​ You all murdered him right in front‍ of me.” Teen⁣ Vogue did ​not bother to mention​ that Pena offered a more relevant and descriptive statement about the incident. Pena’s first Facebook post after the​ fatal stabbing said, “They hated us because we are ⁢gay! Screaming we‍ Muslim and we⁢ don’t ⁢like gays!!!”

Not to worry, the intellectually curious readers of Teen Vogue will ‌surely ⁢track down the⁤ truth on their own. These generic ⁤descriptions are used ⁣for the express purpose of either misleading⁣ readers or‌ avoiding⁤ uncomfortable facts. If ⁤religion is the motivation for a crime, but the specific religion is not mentioned, you‍ can be‌ sure it is Islam.

In a ⁣shocking display of quasi-journalism, ‍ USA Today mentioned⁣ that Sibley’s attackers were motivated by their Muslim⁢ faith, but​ failed to do so until the ‌second-to-last paragraph — an ordering⁢ of facts not based on relevancy but on the correct assumption ​that ⁤most readers will not digest the entire article and therefore miss this piece ⁤of inconvenient ‌information.

There are too ⁣many examples‍ to list⁣ them all, but because it is politically ⁢damaging and⁣ makes ‍them extremely uncomfortable, the media are ⁤for the ⁣most part ⁢omitting the ⁣fact⁣ that the attacker cited his Muslim faith just prior⁤ to stabbing Sibley. This omission is outrageous for several reasons, not ⁤least among them is the ​stark contrast to the‍ coverage this incident would have received if the attacker had⁣ not been Muslim.

If the suspect were a white Christian, this ⁢story would be the banner headline on every major news publication in America with​ the suspect’s⁤ race and⁢ religion mentioned in the headline itself — even if the suspect ⁢made no statement that indicated his race or religion played ‌a role in the crime (it is worth acknowledging that ‍since Islam is a ⁤religion and not a race, the suspect ​could have been a white Muslim, but you get⁤ the point).

The dishonest coverage of ⁤Sibley’s ‍stabbing ⁢comes⁢ as no surprise. Leftists have put themselves in this‌ position by trying to form a coalition comprised of various groups whose beliefs are often at ⁤odds with one another, hoping​ that none of those groups notice that without their consent they are​ being lumped in with people they⁢ have nothing in common⁢ with.

The idea is that, despite their ​differences, a relentless‌ message of oppression ⁢would bind these groups ⁤together and convince⁤ them to‌ hate America, specifically straight white men to which all their woes are attributed.‍ As the ‌left rapidly devolves into a morally depraved and perverted cult​ increasingly obsessed with ‍the sexualization of children while insisting ‌on absurdities including the claim that men can get pregnant, ​things are not going as planned. Various minority⁤ groups are starting to push back against this agenda.​

The religiously motivated stabbing of Sibley by a Muslim could have easily occurred ⁤years ago, evidenced ‍by the deadly 2016 Islamic terrorist attack at a gay​ nightclub in Orlando, but perhaps something else is going⁢ on. As recently noted by Douglas Murray, ⁢support for gay marriage⁤ among the public⁢ is on the decline ⁢in ‍the U.S. Murray, who incidentally happens ​to⁢ be ⁣gay, correctly explained that the gender ideology‍ movement is the source⁣ of the decline in support for gay marriage, pointing out that the ⁢movement‌ is “losing control ‌of itself” and declaring that ⁤children are “the trip wire for the ​general public” when ​it comes to drawing a line in⁣ the sand.

In addition to ‍children ‍whose innocence and physical well-being are under attack via macabre surgeries and​ the use of puberty blockers, the left’s gender ‌ideology‌ is ⁤unintentionally creating another⁢ group of victims: gay Americans.‌ It would be ‌dishonest‌ to claim ​without evidence that Sibley was stabbed because‌ the Muslim man who attacked him was fed up with the trajectory of gender⁢ ideology, but it is reasonable to⁣ assume that the nonsense spouted by its adherents is fostering the very climate the⁢ left claims to fear.

Groups such as Gays Against Groomers have seen‌ the writing on the wall⁢ and recognize the threat ‍posed by this bizarre gender ideology.⁢ I have ⁢met members of⁣ Gays Against Groomers at a ⁢protest (they were there ‌to oppose the ⁢sexualization of children), ​and what they​ will tell you is ⁤that after ‌having worked to achieve a level of acceptance among the public, their progress is being eroded by the very ⁣people​ who ‌claim to champion them.

What we are witnessing⁣ is a mathematical⁤ certainty when a⁤ belief system has ⁢no limiting ⁤principles. It will eat its own. If‌ the left truly fears an environment that⁤ is hostile to gay Americans like ​O’Shae Sibley, perhaps⁣ they should‌ examine their behavior and consider⁤ the ⁤consequences ‍of ‍their⁣ insatiable desire ⁣to ‍take things too ⁢far.

Don’t ⁣hold your breath. This tendency to accept virtually any behavior is foundational to leftism. In ⁤ The Long March, Roger Kimball eloquently summarizes by saying, ​“critics of liberalism will⁣ note ⁢that liberalism’s tendency to let tolerance and openness ‍trump every other virtue renders it peculiarly impotent when faced with substantive moral dilemmas: absolutized,⁢ tolerance and​ openness become indistinguishable from moral paralysis.”