I’m not sure what the author was expecting Carney to say. The Prime Minister is not exactly likely to be cheering political violence of any sort, and he still has to deal with Trump after this news cycle moves on. “Violence bad, thoughts and prayers to the family” is about as close as he can come to “I really don’t give a shit that that douche nozzle bit it”.
We can still respect that anyone’s death is hard on their family. His children didn’t choose who their father was, and they’re going to grow up without him, now. I can empathize with their pain without supporting any of the (many) hateful things he’s said and done.
Similarly, condemning political violence is a pretty reasonable take, even if only for the chilling effect political violence has on democracy. Democracy only works with open sharing of ideas, including from those we disagree with. For example, identifying that Kirk was a closed-minded, hateful bigot is important when discussing his legacy, and I shouldn’t need to risk being lynched (or fired) for saying so.
It’s also fair that politicians may not want to come out openly “trash talking” someone right after their death, as that will just be used as ammunition by their political opponents to increase political polarization. Saying “our thoughts are with the family in this difficult time” isn’t taking a stance on anything, while also saying something so political opponents don’t spin silence into a manufacturer controversy.
If the boundaries of political violence are drawn at a single bullet, then there is no hope for peace in the US or Canada. Erosion of public health is political violence, protection of commodified housing is political violence, increased police budgets oriented toward profit and property protection at the expense of unsheltered people’s safety is political violence, the continued discrimination and injustices faced by First Nations and indigenous peoples in so-called Canada is political violence, cooperation with Israel is political violence. Canada’s entire history is the maintenance of settler-colonial violence. These people are not opposed to political violence, they depend on it.
The only reason this has gotten the attention it has is because fascists are using it to proceed with their plans of suppression and eradication. Politicians recognize this as violence as they understand this form of violence can be turned on them while they are protected from the systemic violence they perpetrate. A narrative that frames their words as “reasonable” responses ignores that there is no reasoning with these people the same way there was no reasoning with Charlie Kirk. Violence is their way of life and they will only frame violence in a way that protects themselves.
His children are better off without him, he said he’d force his daughter to give birth if she was raped as a child for Christ’s sake. Empathy directed at them is obviously fake because they were victimized by their father who is now unable to cause them more harm; real empathy would be directed toward their recovery, not obfuscating the harm this man did to everyone.
I’m telling you that it is irrelevant whether this is a response he’d find reasonable, he is not a reasonable person. Charlie Kirk thought that going to a university campus to produce soundbites for his nazi audience was a reasonable idea and I’m drawing that parallel very intentionally. Trump’s only “politically viable” options are to use this well-deserved assassination as a tool to proceed with suppression and extermination because of how deeply fascist his supporters and administration is.
You’re missing the point by acting like there’s “two sides” to this, Carney is not your friend and you do not benefit from any sort of conjured empathy for him; he wants the worst for you. This action is not justifiable like all his actions are not justifiable so long as he maintains the inherent brutality of this system.
Also, I took a look at your post history to see if there was some idea of your politics to work with and it’s clear you don’t have a lot of resolve yourself. Multiple times you talked about giving money to another genocidal monster, Joanne Rowling, just because that is the convenient option. I’m sure you wouldn’t talk that way if you were part of a group she has targeted for eradication, so I’m guessing the empathy and understanding extends so far as what you find reasonable yourself.
What “truth”? Do you consider escalating political violence to be a good thing? That may be a valid opinion, but it’s far from a verifiable truth. In the case of a leader of a country, whether or not it’s a “truth” matters even less. Let’s say Carney says exactly whatever it is you want him to say. Great. What does that gain the Canadian people? It will for sure antagonize Trump, so what’s that cost? Do the gains outweigh the costs?
Is it just how things are now that people pull whatever they want from a comment? I’m not talking about praising violence, I’m talking about saying that Kirk was a Nazi and he died because another Nazi adjacent moron didn’t like the particular brand of hate he was spewing. He wasn’t a good husband and father or a man just expressing his opinion freely; he was a hate and fear monger.
Antagonizing Trump should be the point. But I guess you canucks are just as cowardly as most Americans.
Canada doesn’t have the power (or really the responsibility) to deal with Trump. The Americans have to get their shit together and do that themselves. Antagonizing Trump is fine if it gains us something. In this case, it would gain us nothing, and likely cost us in the future. Doing self destructive things just for hollow “victories” that feel good is how Trump got into power in the first place. I have no interest in following that strategy.
Blowing kirk goes beyond not antagonizing, and only emboldens them to go farther in their planned purges.
If you can’t say anything truthful, don’t say anything at all in relation to a fucking Nazis. Because celebrating this guy’s life is about as wrong headed as you can get.
Definitely an option. Best guess is they put out a generic statement like this to short circuit any media questions about it, and to take some wind out of Poillievre’s sails if he decides to go grandstanding about it.
Poilievre can grandstand all he wants. Some yank getting shot is a multiple time per day event. Why care about this one specifically? Should have said some words for those kids who got shot in Colorado the same day if we absolutely had to comment on American gun violence.
I’m not sure what the author was expecting Carney to say. The Prime Minister is not exactly likely to be cheering political violence of any sort, and he still has to deal with Trump after this news cycle moves on. “Violence bad, thoughts and prayers to the family” is about as close as he can come to “I really don’t give a shit that that douche nozzle bit it”.
yeah I think his comment was perfectly fine
Agreed. I think the same Americans that cheer for civil war at ether ones complaining of what’s otherwise a pretty standard diplomatic response.
Like it or not, Kirk was pretty much an unelected member of the USian government.
“No comment.”
We can still respect that anyone’s death is hard on their family. His children didn’t choose who their father was, and they’re going to grow up without him, now. I can empathize with their pain without supporting any of the (many) hateful things he’s said and done.
Similarly, condemning political violence is a pretty reasonable take, even if only for the chilling effect political violence has on democracy. Democracy only works with open sharing of ideas, including from those we disagree with. For example, identifying that Kirk was a closed-minded, hateful bigot is important when discussing his legacy, and I shouldn’t need to risk being lynched (or fired) for saying so.
It’s also fair that politicians may not want to come out openly “trash talking” someone right after their death, as that will just be used as ammunition by their political opponents to increase political polarization. Saying “our thoughts are with the family in this difficult time” isn’t taking a stance on anything, while also saying something so political opponents don’t spin silence into a manufacturer controversy.
If the boundaries of political violence are drawn at a single bullet, then there is no hope for peace in the US or Canada. Erosion of public health is political violence, protection of commodified housing is political violence, increased police budgets oriented toward profit and property protection at the expense of unsheltered people’s safety is political violence, the continued discrimination and injustices faced by First Nations and indigenous peoples in so-called Canada is political violence, cooperation with Israel is political violence. Canada’s entire history is the maintenance of settler-colonial violence. These people are not opposed to political violence, they depend on it.
The only reason this has gotten the attention it has is because fascists are using it to proceed with their plans of suppression and eradication. Politicians recognize this as violence as they understand this form of violence can be turned on them while they are protected from the systemic violence they perpetrate. A narrative that frames their words as “reasonable” responses ignores that there is no reasoning with these people the same way there was no reasoning with Charlie Kirk. Violence is their way of life and they will only frame violence in a way that protects themselves.
His children are better off without him, he said he’d force his daughter to give birth if she was raped as a child for Christ’s sake. Empathy directed at them is obviously fake because they were victimized by their father who is now unable to cause them more harm; real empathy would be directed toward their recovery, not obfuscating the harm this man did to everyone.
I agree with virtually everything you said, and I still stand by my comment, too. This was Carney’s only politically-viable response.
I’m telling you that it is irrelevant whether this is a response he’d find reasonable, he is not a reasonable person. Charlie Kirk thought that going to a university campus to produce soundbites for his nazi audience was a reasonable idea and I’m drawing that parallel very intentionally. Trump’s only “politically viable” options are to use this well-deserved assassination as a tool to proceed with suppression and extermination because of how deeply fascist his supporters and administration is.
You’re missing the point by acting like there’s “two sides” to this, Carney is not your friend and you do not benefit from any sort of conjured empathy for him; he wants the worst for you. This action is not justifiable like all his actions are not justifiable so long as he maintains the inherent brutality of this system.
Also, I took a look at your post history to see if there was some idea of your politics to work with and it’s clear you don’t have a lot of resolve yourself. Multiple times you talked about giving money to another genocidal monster, Joanne Rowling, just because that is the convenient option. I’m sure you wouldn’t talk that way if you were part of a group she has targeted for eradication, so I’m guessing the empathy and understanding extends so far as what you find reasonable yourself.
That’s the rub. No one in a position of power or influence having the stones to say the truth is a big fucking problem.
What “truth”? Do you consider escalating political violence to be a good thing? That may be a valid opinion, but it’s far from a verifiable truth. In the case of a leader of a country, whether or not it’s a “truth” matters even less. Let’s say Carney says exactly whatever it is you want him to say. Great. What does that gain the Canadian people? It will for sure antagonize Trump, so what’s that cost? Do the gains outweigh the costs?
Is it just how things are now that people pull whatever they want from a comment? I’m not talking about praising violence, I’m talking about saying that Kirk was a Nazi and he died because another Nazi adjacent moron didn’t like the particular brand of hate he was spewing. He wasn’t a good husband and father or a man just expressing his opinion freely; he was a hate and fear monger. Antagonizing Trump should be the point. But I guess you canucks are just as cowardly as most Americans.
Canada doesn’t have the power (or really the responsibility) to deal with Trump. The Americans have to get their shit together and do that themselves. Antagonizing Trump is fine if it gains us something. In this case, it would gain us nothing, and likely cost us in the future. Doing self destructive things just for hollow “victories” that feel good is how Trump got into power in the first place. I have no interest in following that strategy.
Blowing kirk goes beyond not antagonizing, and only emboldens them to go farther in their planned purges.
If you can’t say anything truthful, don’t say anything at all in relation to a fucking Nazis. Because celebrating this guy’s life is about as wrong headed as you can get.
Eschewing responsibility sounds about right.
How in the fuck is Canada in any way responsible for Trump’s bullshit? Clean up your own mess.
How about Carney saying nothing at all
Definitely an option. Best guess is they put out a generic statement like this to short circuit any media questions about it, and to take some wind out of Poillievre’s sails if he decides to go grandstanding about it.
Poilievre can grandstand all he wants. Some yank getting shot is a multiple time per day event. Why care about this one specifically? Should have said some words for those kids who got shot in Colorado the same day if we absolutely had to comment on American gun violence.