On Sept. 10, political commentator Charlie Kirk was assassinated. He did not just die, he did not euphemistically “pass away.” He was murdered in cold blood. Even worse, he was viciously gunned down as he participated in the very thing he advocated for: Free and civil debate.
As a society, we have a duty to condemn this violence as barbaric, unjust and anti-human. Not only has some of the Canadian media failed at this basic task, but their response has revealed a pathogen that has infected our culture and politics: The coercive spirit of censorship.
The CBC, for example, was quick to let us know that Kirk had some “controversial” views—only hours after his confirmed death. While the published list makes no explicit conclusion, the subtle framing from political analysts assumes the shape of an unspoken argument: Charlie Kirk was murdered, but the fact that he held allegedly “taboo” social and political views made the crime more acceptable.
This is an obviously nonsensical—not to mention completely narcissistic—way to interpret Kirk’s assassination. Yet it is what some in the mainstream media have been peddling, and it needs to stop.
>>> The U.S. Media’s Big Lie About Charlie Kirk Is Chillingly Predictable
The real answer to this sort of tragedy is not to victim-blame, but to incessantly pursue truth. The answer is to create spaces in civil society in which free discourse can flourish. The answer is to allow for ideas to be tested in the court of public debate, through reasoned argument.
Despite this, the public spaces required for this sort of civil and human approach to disagreement are vapourizing before our very eyes. We need only take a short stroll down memory lane for examples.
- A proposed bill from 2024 would have introduced “hate speech” violations in the criminal code, with a maximum penalty of up to life in prison. Unfortunately, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government would take a “fresh” look at the bill, potentially leading to its reintroduction.
- A “human rights” tribunal has fined a woman $10,000 for voicing disagreement and concern over her friend’s plan to surgically remove her breasts on account of her gender identity.
- A grandmother in Toronto was arrested for protesting outside of an abortion clinic.
- A bill was passed in Manitoba forbidding not just protest, but any attempt to persuade a person not to acquire an abortion. In other words, reasoned argument is now banned by law—even if the woman willingly changes her mind.
The ultimate irony is this: Censorship is the very opposite of the spirit that prevents these tragedies. In fact, it leads to the kind of dehumanization that is a precursor to political violence.
When you encounter a person in the arena of debate, you are not engaging with an abstract entity. You’re not speaking to a wall of text or a static profile picture. You’re engaging with a person who has reasoned his or her own way—for better or for worse—to a conclusion. Using your intellect to interact with that—to push, challenge or refine ideas—is perhaps one of the best examples of our humanity on poetic display.
Rather than seeing free discourse as the antidote to bad ideas, censorship addresses them with the use of force—which is exactly what Kirk’s killer seemed to think he was doing. The bullet that took Kirk’s life is the physical embodiment of the coercive spirit that animates the Canadian political class.
They force us to prop up outlets like CBC with our dollars. They force us not to speak in “protected” areas for fear one might—in an unfathomable and horrific turn of events—peacefully change a woman’s mind about abortion. They force us to pay fines for voicing a difference of opinion on gender identity, even if rooted in concern. Force, force, force.
>>> What Would Charlie Kirk Do?
Words are not violent. Coercion is. The culture our political and media class is creating is what will truly lead to more unrest. If this continues, we will inevitably build a society in which the truth is not sought after in the realm of public debate but defined by the physically stronger.
We are faced with the decision to be a Thrasymachus or a Socrates. Thrasymachus famously maintained that justice is the “benefit of the stronger,” something that Socrates—history’s most famous martyr for truth—rightfully questioned.
Like Kirk, Socrates was executed for his pursuit of truth, regardless of the consequences. Like Kirk, he lived a far more fulfilling life—though cut short—than the hedonists who only pursued material gain, for he lived in pursuit of truth.
Kirk might have been American, but he represented the values Western societies are built upon, including Canada. Our response to his murder has the potential to change things around here for the better. It has the potential to be our turning point.
Which way, Northern man?
This piece originally appeared in the Toronto Sun
