OP-ED: The Victoria Machete Attack and the Cost of Official Silence
"Police have charged 20-year-old Hussein Saadedeen with aggravated assault and two counts of assault with a weapon, while a second accused, a youth, faces similar charges."
By: Dotan Rousso
Dotan Rousso is an academic and legal scholar specializing in criminal law, privacy, and the intersection of technology and legal ethics.
The violent attack near Victoria’s Beacon Hill Park has left Canadians with more questions than answers. Police have charged 20-year-old Hussein Saadedeen with aggravated assault and two counts of assault with a weapon, while a second accused, a youth, faces similar charges. Three people were injured, and the investigation remains ongoing. At this stage, police have not publicly identified a motive.
That is understandable. Investigators should follow the evidence wherever it leads, not rush to conclusions because the public demands immediate answers. But while police investigate, something else happens just as quickly: millions of Canadians begin conducting an investigation of their own.
Within minutes, social media fills with theories. Was this a random act of violence? A gang-related incident? A hate crime? An ideological attack? Every publicly known detail is examined, debated, and often interpreted as evidence supporting one narrative or another. By the time investigators establish the facts, many people have already reached conclusions.
This reality presents a challenge that modern policing has not fully adapted to. Police communication is still largely designed for an era in which official statements were the primary source of information. Today, they compete with thousands of online commentators, anonymous accounts, influencers, and partisan media outlets. Silence no longer leaves an empty space. It leaves a space that someone else will immediately fill.
None of this suggests that police should speculate or release evidence before it has been verified. Canadian investigators have legal and ethical obligations to protect the integrity of their investigations and the fairness of future court proceedings. Those responsibilities must remain paramount.
But protecting an investigation and communicating effectively are not mutually exclusive. There is a significant difference between withholding evidence and explaining uncertainty. When investigators know that key questions remain unanswered, they should say so plainly. When they cannot disclose certain information, they should explain why. When they are actively investigating multiple possible motives, they should consider saying that instead of allowing the public to assume that no work is being done.
Most importantly, police should recognize that some cases are more likely than others to generate intense public speculation. The objective should not be to shape public opinion but to reduce the spread of misinformation by providing as much verified context as responsibly possible. Communication should become a tool for preserving confidence in the investigative process, not merely a means of announcing charges.
Consistency matters just as much. Canadians are far more likely to trust law enforcement when they believe the same communication principles apply regardless of the identities of the people involved or the public attention surrounding a case. Whether a crime ultimately proves to be ideologically motivated, entirely personal, or something else altogether, the standard for communicating with the public should remain the same.
Good policing is about more than solving crimes. It is also about maintaining public confidence while those crimes are being solved. In the digital age, that requires a simple but important shift in thinking: communication is no longer separate from the investigation. It is part of the investigation itself.