A shooting in the small town of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, left nine people dead and at least 25 injured on February 10, 2026. The attack is one of the deadliest mass shootings in Canada’s history, and it shocked this remote community in the northeast of the province.
The violence began at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School, where police later found seven people dead, including the person believed to have carried out the attack. That person appeared to have died from a self-inflicted wound, meaning they were not alive when officers arrived.
Two more people were found dead at a nearby home believed to be connected to the shooter. Police say they believe they know exactly who was responsible, but they have not publicly released the full identity of the person. Authorities explained that they do not release detailed information about a suspect’s identity while an investigation is ongoing, and they work to confirm facts before making them public. But is it really the case? Or do they find it hard to believe that the suspect’s description hardly matches their expectations?
At first, emergency alerts described the alleged shooter simply as “a female in a dress with brown hair,” based on early eyewitness information. This type of description is often used by police to help locate an active threat. As the investigation continues, law enforcement decides what identity details are appropriate to release in order to avoid harming the investigation or the privacy of victims and families, but in this case, are they really protecting the privacy of the victims and their families, or are they protecting the identity of the killer?
In tragedies like this, the emphasis in responsible reporting is on facts, official statements, and respect for victims and the community. While full identity details may be released later once authorities complete forensic work and consult with families, they shouldn’t obscure or hide the simple facts, may it be sex, gender, race, and such, since by doing so, they are covering up the truth, it is a journalistic malpractice, and it is unfair to other communities, in this case women, as by doing so, they are being slandered and connected to a crime that their community didn’t commit, to which through statistics, affects and artificially increases women’s homicide rate against children, and all of this happens simply because the authorities chose to call a male a female.
