Charlie Kirk is dead but the rhetoric isn’t
By Lethbridge Herald on October 1, 2025.
Gerry Chidiac
Troy Media
A tragic event happened on Sept. 10. A young father engaged in discussions with American university students was shot dead. The alleged killer is in custody, and the criminal investigation is ongoing.
While many in Canada knew little about Charlie Kirk before his shooting, we all know him now. Acts of senseless violence result in fear and outrage, and normally, government officials tell citizens that they are safe while assuring them that the case will be handled properly. When politicians react differently, however, we need to ask what that says about their leadership.
The murders of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and other public figures with far more notoriety than Kirk did not result in the type of social upheaval we are seeing now. Leaders at those times reacted responsibly, and tensions were calmed.
In this case, rather than call for national unity, U.S. President Donald Trump said, “The radicals on the left are the problem … the worst thing that happened to this country.” His Vice-President J.D. Vance promised to crack down on “radical left lunatics.” These statements were made even though data consistently reveal that right-wing extremist violence is far more frequent and deadly than left-wing violence.
The reaction of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also drew attention. He described Kirk as a beloved friend of Israel, though recent interviews suggested Kirk’s views on Israel were beginning to shift.
In Canada, the reaction of some right-wing politicians has also raised concerns. Shortly after Kirk’s death, independent journalist Rachel Gilmore warned that the tragedy could be used as a rallying point for further radicalization. She posted on social media: “Terrified to think of how far-right fans of Kirk, aching for more violence, could very well turn this into an even more radicalizing moment. Will they now believe their fears have been proven right and feel they have the right to ‘retaliate,’ regardless of who actually was behind the initial shooting?”
Her post was shared by Member of Parliament Andrew Scheer, who added, “Imagine how twisted she has to be that this is her first thought after a man was shot in the neck for expressing his views. So much hate in her.” Gilmore was subsequently flooded with threatening online abuse, including doxxing attempts and violent threats. While Scheer cannot be held responsible for the actions of anonymous individuals online, his words highlight the potential consequences when senior politicians criticize journalists directly.
Rachel Gilmore is one of Canada’s most widely recognized independent journalists, and she has earned a reputation for sharp analysis and fearless reporting. That does not mean everyone will agree with her views. But to characterize her work as “hate” is unfair and damaging in a country where journalists already face growing harassment for doing their jobs.
Canadian lawmakers hold positions of public trust. With that trust comes responsibility—and that includes being cautious in how they speak about members of the press. At times of crisis, extreme rhetoric is the easy path. But it is not leadership.
Extreme right-wing politicians in the United States are choosing a dangerous path by fuelling tensions rather than calling for calm. Canadians may have no influence on what happens south of the border, but we do have every right to demand higher standards of ethical behaviour from our own leaders.
Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He received an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.
© Troy Media
14-13
Grifting the gullible religious zealots is too profitable to just go away because one of the best at it is gone. As long as there is an audience to suck money out of there will be plenty of charlatans with their greedy hands out. Kirk’s death will only increase the number of people ready to hand over their cash and the number of those willing to take it.
Charlie Kirk said what he did and did what he said, and it was not for money but for his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
The magnitude of Charlie Kirk and “Turning Point USA” is phenomenal and in his tragic death, thousands have arisen to carry on his (Charlie’s) mission and out reach. The the point that a “Turning Point USA” chapter has been established right here in Lethbridge. Inter Varcity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) at the university of Lethbridge has revitalized as well.
Our Members of Parliament, Rachael Thomas in her tribute to Charlie Kirk in our Parliament was received with a standing ovation and thunderous applause and cheers from the House.
Dare say, that which Charlie Kirk began and believed in has become ignited by his death and may result in a revival across the land like never before.
I’ll just leave this here
charliequotes.com
It nicely shows what kind of person he was, in his own words
Bible thumping and pulpit pounding resounding across the nation? Loud yes, but in a minority. And that is a good thing! (Kirk at least did engage, but his rhetoric spews hate and intolerance against those people deemed different . Images of him with Christ are completely unfathomable and rather sad! )
… and why did this man even get a mention in the Commons? He was one of many evangelicals , statesmen and others achieving fame . Jane Goodall , a person who devoted her life to saving a species and educating the world about conservation generally , was omitted from any recognition in the same institution. As a person to be admired for multiple reasons , she is, in my opinion far more deserving of parliamentary recognition. I would stand for her, Kirk not so much!
hmm, maybe if goodall could have found something to discriminate against and hate some chimps for and not others she would have been ‘great’ enough in the eyes of our woeful sickos that pretend to practice christ and be eulogised in our h of c.
at every opportunity you seem to espouse hate in the name of your lord. are you sure you are not beguiled by the one called satan?
Hi, author of the original Kirk article here – I agree with most of your points, but I’d also add, this is why I’m alarmed. The things Andrew Scheer said.
Canadian politicians who call themselves Conservatives (while wasting taxpayer money and stripping public services, I might add) are realizing that the American identity politics grift is an effective way to get elected.
If you’re a conservative voter reading this, I would ask you to set aside our differences for just a moment. Please consider: isn’t it terribly convenient that the UCP and the federal Conservative party wants you to be angry at people like me, rather than, I dunno, having oversight into their spending? You’re being scammed, and you deserve so much better, Conservative voter. I believe in you. I believe you can demand fairness and look beyond the rabble-rousing these scam artists are trying to perpetuate.
They want you to hate people like me – queers who seem to live strange, decadent lives, probably different from yours. But I’m still your neighbour. I still pick grapes from the vine in the back of my house, with my toddler son helping. I still make apple pie from our tree’s harvest of Gravensteins. I promise you, I’m so much more boring and normal than you have been told, and I’m not here to destroy your life or make you act like me or whatever. All I want is for us to peacefully coexist.
People like Charlie Kirk wanted people like me dead.
The first step to wanting people dead, and getting them to die, is teaching others to hate them.
And it’s awfully convenient to make people hate you when, say, you’re squirrelling away money to your other wealthy friends, stripping down social services, and doing things like increasing public taxpayer funding of private schools while reducing funding of public schools.
You’re being robbed. You deserve better. We all do.
So I ask you – who should you really be angry at? Some queer like me, or the people actually stealing your money while smiling in your face?
To the two negative contributors: Hiding behind the cloak of anonymity , easy for you to punch in the “-“. Don’t even have the balls to write a comment do you? Pathetic.
thanks for a spot on, telling it like it is entry.
it is said the “opposite” of love is not hate, but fear. however, hate is a byproduct of fear, and, when fear is stoked the flames of hatred are stoked. perhaps the dubbya bush regime understood how to use fear to gain and remain in power more than any prior usa whitehouse. that approach is now commonplace in very many “democracies”. it is a massive reason why hater groups are thriving.
meanwhile, it is confounding how still so many gravitate to demagogues, thieves, scoundrels, and buy into destruction as being development; and, how many of those identify as “conservative” and “christian”; ironic it is that freedom to those types extends only as far their particular tastes and preferences.