The assassination of American political commentator Charlie Kirk has sparked a range of reactions, highlighting a stark divide between official responses and sentiments expressed online. Politicians from various parties have condemned the act, emphasizing that no one should be killed for their views. These statements are seen as necessary affirmations of democratic values. However, a different narrative emerges on social media platforms like TikTok and Reddit, where some users have celebrated Kirk's death, expressing sentiments such as claims of him burning in hell and even thanking the bullet that ended his life.

While expressions of sympathy are common, they do not address the deeper issues at play. In Canada, the situation is particularly ironic. Many politicians and commentators who now denounce violence have previously marginalized conservative voices like Kirk's. For years, the political center and left have characterized Kirk and similar figures as too extreme for legitimate debate. Former NDP MP Charlie Angus expressed his horror at Kirk's death but has also spent time demonizing conservative voices, labeling them as illegitimate.

Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal government faces similar scrutiny. Although Carney is a new prime minister, his administration includes individuals who previously attempted to criminalize speech through the online harms bill and have criticized what they term "misinformation," often targeting conservative viewpoints.

Kirk's appeal was multifaceted. He was known for his charisma, quick wit, and humor, and he engaged in debates with those who disagreed with him. His popularity also stemmed from his willingness to address topics that mainstream media often overlooked or framed in a biased manner. He voiced opinions on immigration policy, the use of puberty blockers for youth, and systemic racism, challenging the progressive consensus.

Kirk's approach pushed the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political discourse. He insisted on discussing issues that many in the media and political spheres preferred to avoid. This willingness to confront controversial topics made him a target for vilification.

Critics of political violence today often include those who have worked to exclude and discredit figures like Kirk. They have portrayed conservative viewpoints as too radical, effectively "othering" their advocates and pushing them outside the realm of acceptable discussion. Evidence of this exclusion is visible in how political discussions are framed in media outlets, the voices that are included, and those that are omitted. Coverage of debates on trans issues, drug policy, and safe injection sites often fails to explain the dangers of far-right radicalization, leaving readers to accept the journalist's perspective without question.