LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Political violence should be condemned

The comments made by NDP MLA. and Minister of Families Nahanni Fontaine concerning the assassination of Charlie Kirk should cause all Canadians concern.

When targeted political violence takes place, it is our elected representatives’ job to unequivocally condemn it regardless of party lines or opinions concerning the victim. However, not only did Minister Fontaine fail to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk, she shared a post containing slanderous accusations against Mr. Kirk which went as far as to say, “I extend absolutely no empathy for people like that.”

This is a grievous failure in Minister Fontaine’s duty to her voters, to her constituents, and to Canada as a whole. To say otherwise is to downplay what can very easily be understood as a justification of political violence.

As for the post, the accusations therein are largely false and generally misleading statements:

1) that Charlie Kirk was a racist.

Saying who is and is not racist is a tricky endeavour these days because of the radical left’s insistence on redefining the term into oblivion. However, using the traditional definition of ‘racism,’ (1. a belief in the superiority of a particular race 2. prejudice based on this 3. antagonism towards other races, esp. as a result of this prejudice 4. the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.) we can see quite clearly from Mr. Kirk himself that he was not racist. Many comments he made concerning DEI policies have been branded as such, and, ripped from their context, they may seem as such. However, taking into account his opinions on DEI policies, which were far from positive, it is uncharitable to interpret his statements as racist instead of critiques of policies that prefer certain races over others (which is what DEI policies do). Followers and critics of Mr. Kirk might care to note he secured invites to the White House for ‘hundreds of young black people,’ in 2019 and was close friends with Brandon Tatum, Candace Owens, both African Americans, and Christina Lorey, a left leaning journalist who often criticizes Donald Trump; all of whom posted how much they appreciated Mr. Kirk after his assassination.

2) that Charlie Kirk was xenophobic.

The term xenophobia means fear of the stranger in Greek. Considering how openly Mr. Kirk discussed his views with strangers, this accusation seems rather silly. However, the term is often used when someone is anti-immigration or anti-immigrant. However, Charlie Kirk was not anti-immigration or anti-immigrant. He was unashamedly anti-illegal immigration, like I’m sure many Canadians would be if Trump supporters were entering our country illegally, but to call him anti-immigration is, at very least, hasty. To be accurate, Mr. Kirk did advocate for cuts to legal immigration in the United States, but he justified this stance with the lack of social integration seen in places like the United Kingdom and Sweden and consequential rising crime rates. One may remember him saying “America does not need more visas for people from India.” However, again, this quote has been taken out of context. The full quote, posted on X reads, “America does not need more visas for people from India. Perhaps no form of legal immigration has so displaced American workers as those from India. Enough already. We’re full. Let’s finally put our own people first.” Again, when taken in context, this quote isn’t racist and it isn’t xenophobic. Rather, it’s a result of an ‘America First’ ideology, of which Mr. Kirk was a part. Again, to interpret this statement of xenophobic is, at least, uncharitable.

3) that Charlie Kirk was transphobic.

Transphobia refers to the hatred or fear of trans people. Though Mr. Kirk disagreed with the trans ideology, this does not mean he was hateful or fearful of transpeople. I recall a debate he had with a transperson recently during which he was courteous, polite, and kind. He used the person’s chosen name. He avoided using pronouns altogether to steer clear of using the wrong ones thereby causing offense. Maia Poet, a detransitioner herself, claims that Mr. Kirk “(…) treated every single young trans identifying person you debated with the utmost respect— even as wokists in the audience harassed you.” According to Maia, it seems Mr. Kirk was anything but hateful or fearful of transpeople. Rather, he spoke what he believed to be true to them, and did so in a kind and caring way. Again, this accusation seems uncharitable.

4) that Charlie Kirk was islamophobic.

Islamophobia refers to the irrational hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims. This is probably the accusation that is the most true. Unfortunately, it’s still false. While Mr. Kirk may have made some controversial comments about Islam, including but not limited to, “Islam is incompatible with western civilization,” to call him Islamophobic is, again, uncharitable. The core of Mr. Kirk’s argument against Islam’s compatibility with western civilization is found in the basic principles of freedom enshrined in virtually every bill of rights in the world. There are a mass of contradictions between Islam and the west, and Mr. Kirk simply pointed them out.

5) that Charlie Kirk was a misogynist.

Misogyny is the dislike, contempt, or ingrained hatred for women. Charlie Kirk was a Biblical complementarian, much like many readers of The Carillon. Though complementarian values might be unpopular in the culture at the moment, to characterize them as hateful or contemptuous is illiberal and intolerant. In a free society, we tolerate other cultures and perspectives on how we are to live. Moreover, it isn’t merely traditional Christians who believe this; many Muslims hold to complementarian beliefs as well, and many do so more extensively and more stringently than Christians like Mr. Kirk. This is a smear that paints traditional family values as abusive and perverted. If Minister Fontaine really believes this, she might as well come out and call a good portion of the Provencher riding misogynists along with the majority of Muslim immigrants to Canada.

Since her reposting, Minister Fontaine has removed the post from her social media pages and has apologized. Her apology reads thusly: “I apologize for sharing a post yesterday on the murder of Charlie Kirk. Violence has no place in our democracy. Political debate is achieved with words and discussion. In a world too often divided, we should strive to show empathy to everyone even those we don’t agree with.”

Nowhere in Minister Fontaine’s apology did she recant the accusations the post made, nor did she apologize for implying Mr. Kirk and people like him did not deserve empathy. Premier Kinew’s comment on the scandal also rings hollow, as he stated he did not believe in “cancel culture,” and “it would be too easy to show her the door.”

For a person of the standing of Minister for Families to make these comments, fail to apologize or recant, and to escape without consequences should be appalling to every Manitoban and every Canadian. Her rhetoric remains intact, and there has been no address from the provincial government, apart from, ‘she’s staying.’

This kind of rhetoric and lack of accountability bred the political division that currently ravages Canada and the United States, and it feeds the fire of political violence, no matter how many times politicians issue statements of regret that read, ‘I state my regret.’ Now that we know Mr. Kirk was assassinated by a man who believed Mr. Kirk was “full of hate” and “spreading hate” according to a family member, Minister Fontaine’s post should give us pause. They sound awfully similar, don’t they?