This week’s political assassination in the United States was not the year’s first, and the difference in reaction among right wing leaders is terrifyingly stark.
If someone is asked: "What do you think about the assassination of Charlie Kirk?" - I think there are a number of appropriate optional replies, such as: 1) What do you think of the murder in July of 20-year-old U.S. citizen Sayfollah Musallet? 2) What makes you believe that the killing of Charlie Kirk was an "assassination"? 3) Hasn't the news cycle turned yet? 4) Charlie who? And there are others. I'm just not convinced that an individual killing, for (maybe) individual motives, is the right trigger (sorry) for a discussion about whether "political violence" is good or bad. To conclude on that point: Was the murder of Sayfollah Musallet an act of "political violence"?
It isn't about whether political violence is bad, it's about exposing the blatant hypocrisy of a right wing movement happy to celebrate the death and suffering of everyone else, but losing their minds when it happens to one of their own.
I guess I was reacting to these statements: "Ultimately, Pierre Poilievre is right this time: political violence is never justified." ... "When there is violence, it should be universally condemned — regardless of who committed it against who or why." But I see your point and agree about the hypocrisy.
If someone is asked: "What do you think about the assassination of Charlie Kirk?" - I think there are a number of appropriate optional replies, such as: 1) What do you think of the murder in July of 20-year-old U.S. citizen Sayfollah Musallet? 2) What makes you believe that the killing of Charlie Kirk was an "assassination"? 3) Hasn't the news cycle turned yet? 4) Charlie who? And there are others. I'm just not convinced that an individual killing, for (maybe) individual motives, is the right trigger (sorry) for a discussion about whether "political violence" is good or bad. To conclude on that point: Was the murder of Sayfollah Musallet an act of "political violence"?
It isn't about whether political violence is bad, it's about exposing the blatant hypocrisy of a right wing movement happy to celebrate the death and suffering of everyone else, but losing their minds when it happens to one of their own.
I guess I was reacting to these statements: "Ultimately, Pierre Poilievre is right this time: political violence is never justified." ... "When there is violence, it should be universally condemned — regardless of who committed it against who or why." But I see your point and agree about the hypocrisy.