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.