Misleading title. Yes, Charlie Kirk’s assassination sparked a conversation about the importance of free speech and disavowing political violence. The standing ovation was not for Charlie, but for the outcome of that speech.
Still, you’d think they’d at least TRY to be reasonable with the optics of the conversation.
But isn’t what Kirk did constitute as hate speech here in Canada. We don’t have freedom of speech, we have freedom of expression.
He didn’t deserve to die but he was toxic in every sense of the word.
They don’t seem interested in optics given their other clown behaviour of inviting PJ2025 galaxy brains to speak behind closrd doors.
Canada didn’t cancel on them from backlash. The garbage people they invited did.
Our country is governed by chronic losers and fucking idiots.
deleted by creator
Conservative MP for Lethbridge Rachel Thomas pays tribute to Charlie Kirk in the House of Commons, calls for the defence of free speech and against political violence. She gets a standing ovation from the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Emphasis mine.
Thank you. Thst makes more sense but the optics still aren’t good.
That’s right. If they had not mentioned him or mentioned a few examples, him among them, that would have made the optics very different.
Problem with that though is their intention was specifically him. You’re removing their motive from this by saying they could have not talked about him. Their motive was him. Honoring him. Lionizing him. Making a
murdermartyr of him. You can’t take away the motive.I think someone already made a murder of him. Maybe the word you meant was martyr?
Damn voice to text, thanks.
… in relation to the death of a fascist
So a Canadian talks about defence of free speech when we don’t even have free speech as a right. We have limits on what we can say.
can we stop applauding nazis in parliment for gods sake.
Me when I read the headline: DAFUQ
Me when I read the article: oh, ok.
Me when I realized it was yahoo: God damn me for falling for click bait.
Thr moment I saw thr link I thought “This has GOT to be really shitty bait.”
My queer, female co-worker was mourning him and binge watching his content recently. I mentioned i was surprised she would listen to him given his views and she basically rebuttaled “uhm actually he does respect women, see he interviewed some porn stars and only fans girls.”
She’s a special kinda stupid.
She’s welcome to listen to what she wants, i was just surprised the respect she had for him given he wants a world where she wouldn’t have rights.
Wouldn’t have rights because she’s a woman? Or queer?
Both.
So she’s stupid just like the minorities who cited for Trump. I’ll never understand them.
Propaganda works, y’all. It’s serious.
What the fuck is that
Why the F does anyone in Canada think they need to capitulate to the absolute worst of America? This is beyond pathetic.
I hope somebody is keeping a list of all these people because it’s straight up a list of fascists.
WTF
It’s all so performative
There was two mentions of Charlie Kirk, in a speech that I’d say was focused on condemning political violence, in a mostly non-partisan way. I’d like to think that in Canada we’re above using weapons to prove a point. If we need to beat back the intolerant we’ll do it in an enormous show of non-violent force like Torontonians just did at Christie Pits.
Anyway the speech is what I’d expect from a Conservative, but it’s nuanced enough that I get behind the primary message being conveyed.
That all said, those celebrating Kirk’s death are as much simply expressing themselves as Charlie Kirk was, when he was denigrating immigrants and those that didn’t fit the ideal Aryan description
And we should also publicly denounce people threatening journalists and professionals like Rachel Gilmore, who had been simply lamenting the appetite for escalation that would come from those seeking retribution, but this was wildly interpreted as a celebration and now is facing a constant barrage of death threats. Which only proved her point btw.
What the fuck
The liberals did not give a standing ovation to charlie kirk. It was performative political theatre from the cons. A conservative MP made a statement praising kirk, framing kirk as a beacon of family values. The liberals could rise to support those values or remain sitting and be accused of supporting political violence. It was a no win situation set up by the cons. The next day the libs had a “standing ovation”. If you are outraged by the story ask yourself who wins from your outrage.
If I hear anyone ranting about family/traditional values Im just going to cut to the chase and assume you consume Russian origin propaganda by the barrel-load. Nobody pushes that stuff harder than them. No one stands to gain from the chaos it creates in the west, more than them.
Canadian politicians have never heard of this thing called “optics” before. It’s a very isolated and fart-sniffing group of people
