OPINION: The Charlie Kirk Effect in Canada

BY GERRY CHIDIAC

Lessons in Learning

A tragic event happened on September 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 why.

The murders of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and other public figures with far more notoriety than Charlie Kirk did not result in the type of social upheaval we are seeing now. The leaders when those events took place reacted responsibly, and tensions were calmed.

In this case, rather than call for national unity, American 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 has been even more puzzling. He made several statements in  English assuring listeners that Kirk was a beloved friend of Israel. Recent discourses with Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, however, reveal that Kirk’s views on Israel were beginning to shift.

In Canada, the reactions of right-wing politicians also leave many questions unanswered.

Shortly after Kirk’s death, a very insightful independent Canadian journalist, Rachel Gilmore, warned us about exactly what turned out to be true. 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 question was re-posted by a prominent Canadian Member of Parliament, Andrew Scheer, who added the odd comment, “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.”

Shortly thereafter, Gilmore was met with a deluge of posts, claiming to know where she lives and threatening physical violence. She was even “featured” on a far-right website.

To what degree is Andrew Scheer involved with these online thugs? Why is he engaged in trolling a respected Canadian journalist, rather than working for his constituents? Why does he seem to care more about an American influencer than about ordinary Canadians?

Rachel Gilmore is one of the best journalists in Canada today. The fact that she anticipated how the murder of Charlie Kirk was going to be manipulated speaks volumes. Gilmore works independently, and she can make a living because her work is exceptional.

The online harassment of Gilmore needs to be investigated fully by law enforcement, and I anticipate that the police will confirm that Andrew Scheer had no involvement in what happened after his comment was posted. Nonetheless, Scheer does not know why Gilmore does investigative journalism, and to say that she is motivated by “hate” is irresponsible, not to mention completely unfounded. Canadian lawmakers are in a position of trust in our society, and for a senior politician to make such a dangerous and inflammatory comment is simply unacceptable. Hopefully, Scheer has the courage to at least apologize.

Extreme right-wing politicians in the United States are choosing a dangerous path by fuelling tensions rather than calling for calm. Canadians have no influence on what happens south of the border, but we have every right to hold our elected officials to a higher standard of ethical behaviour.

Shame on you, Andrew Scheer.