Why did MPs give a standing ovation to racist Charlie Kirk in the House of Commons?

Death doesn’t make one a hero if they lived a life promoting hate and Canada’s MPs must understand this, and apologize their lack of judgment.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack. 

In the halls of Canada’s House of Commons, where the nation's leaders are supposed to embody values that represent Canada—inclusivity, equality, and common decency—something profoundly disturbing unfolded on September 15, 2025. On that day Conservative Member of Parliament Rachel Thomas rose during the Member's Statements segment to deliver a tribute to recently assassinated American right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk. Thomas described Kirk as an "advocate for freedom," urging her colleagues to "join our hearts with Charlie’s family" and stand against political violence while championing "faith, family, and freedom."

What followed was a standing ovation—not just from the Conservatives, but from Liberal MPs as well. This wasn't a mere moment of bipartisan unity against violence. It was a collective endorsement of a man whose life was defined by the propagation of fascist, racist, bigoted, and misogynistic ideologies. Kirk was the founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), an organization that promoted a far right agenda, and he was no hero of free speech. He was a purveyor of hate who built a multi million-dollar empire by stoking division, aligning with white supremacists, and cheering on the authoritarian agenda of Donald Trump. 

The Conservatives' affinity and applause for Kirk might be expected, given their party's recent history of cozying up to far-right extremists—from supporting Canadians who spoke positively about the January 6 insurrection in Washington DC to embracing conspiracy theorists. But why on earth would the Liberals, the self-proclaimed guardians of progressive values in Canada, join in? What was Mark Carney thinking? Did they not know the hate fuelled history of Charlie Kirk?

This incident reveals a dangerous erosion of judgment, where the Liberals appear to have lost their common sense in how to deal with racists and bigots. To understand the outrage in response to the standing ovation, one must first grasp who Charlie Kirk really was. Far from the sanitized portrait painted by Thomas and his Republican fans in the US, Kirk was a loathsome human being whose words incited harm and division. His assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, was without doubt a tragic act of political violence and a capital crime that no one should condone. Yet, as one critic aptly put it, "the murder of Charlie Kirk doesn't make him a hero in death when he contributed to so much evil with his words in life." Kirk's legacy is one of toxicity, and honouring him in Canada's Parliament only serves to normalize the very hate he peddled.

Kirk's hateful messaging was relentless and multifaceted, often cloaked in the guise of conservatism but veering deep into white supremacist territory. He repeatedly espoused the "Great Replacement" theory, a conspiracy narrative popular among far-right extremists that claims non-white immigrants are deliberately displacing white populations. On the Charlie Kirk Show on March 1, 2024, he said, “The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day at our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”

In August 2025, during one of his podcasts, Kirk commenting on immigration, declared that, "America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that." This wasn't abstract policy talk. It was a dog whistle to racists, implying that America's "greatness" depended on racial homogeneity dominated by people who are white.

He went further on Indian immigrants, stating on his podcast, "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." Such rhetoric directly fuelled hate against South Asians, echoing the historic scapegoating of Jews, which led to violence against that community in the past and South Asian communities now.

Not surprisingly Kirk's racism also extended to Black Americans, whom he demeaned in profoundly offensive ways. He claimed that Black people were "better" in the 1940s—before the Civil Rights Act—because they "committed less crimes," conveniently ignoring the era's rampant racism, segregation, lynchings, and systemic oppression. This wasn't a slip of the tongue. It was a deliberate interpretation of American history to undermine the civil rights gains that Black Americans had fought and died for. In fact, Kirk openly called the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act "a huge mistake."

Speaking at TPUSA’s Americafest in December 2023, he said, "I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s." He even labelled the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as "awful" and "not a good person." These statements weren't fringe opinions, they were broadcast to millions through his podcast, social media, and TPUSA events, directly challenging the foundational principles of equality that Canada and the US claim to uphold. 

His bigotry didn't stop at race. Kirk was a virulent misogynist who opposed women's autonomy in the harshest terms. Responding to a hypothetical question about a 10-year-old rape victim and abortion, he infamously responded by insisting, "The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered . . . Wouldn't it be a better story to say something evil happened and we do something good in the face of evil?" This callous dismissal of trauma reduced women to mere vessels for his ideological agenda, ignoring the devastating impacts on survivors of sexual violence. Kirk's TPUSA actively discouraged women from pursuing education or careers, promoting instead their "natural" role as wives and mothers—a regressive, patriarchal view that aligns with fascist notions of gender hierarchy. In a society already grappling with gender-based violence, Kirk's words normalized misogyny, making it harder for women to demand equality. 

He also rejected empathy outright. In a 2022 episode of his podcast, he declared, “I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that—it does a lot of damage.” He argued that true empathy—feeling others' pain—weakens resolve against political foes. This rejection of basic human connection was no slip up. It permeated his worldview and the politics he promoted. 

Members of the LGBTQ+ community were also painted with a target by Kirk through his homophobic and transphobic messaging. He spread baseless propaganda about transgender people, claiming an "epidemic of trans shooters" in the wake of events like the 2023 Nashville school shooting. Kirk opposed same-sex marriage and transgender rights, praising Trump's revocation of policies allowing trans people to serve openly in the military. His rhetoric framed LGBTQ+ individuals as threats to "Judeo-Christian civilization," a phrase he frequently used to justify discrimination. 

At TPUSA events, speakers and attendees often spewed homophobic and transphobic slurs, with Kirk providing the platform. This wasn't harmless debate. It contributed to a climate where LGBTQ+ youth face higher rates of suicide and violence, all while Kirk benefited financially from the fear he sowed.

Kirk's fascist leanings were evident in his admiration for Trump’s authoritarianism and his associations with white supremacists. As a key ally of the president, he played a "critical role" in mobilizing young voters for the 2024 election through his "You're Being Brainwashed" campus tour, which garnered millions of views on social media. He was deeply involved in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump term that advocates dismantling democratic institutions, imposing Christian nationalism, and expanding executive power—all hallmarks of fascism, and echoing actions taken by the Nazis in 1930s Germany.

Kirk endorsed Trump's dehumanizing language, calling Democrats "everything that God hates" and blaming Jews for funding "anti-whiteness" and "Cultural Marxism." He even claimed, "Jews control . . . the colleges, the nonprofits, the movies, Hollywood, all of it," a classic antisemitic narrative. Additionally, TPUSA events attracted neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, including members of the Rise Above Movement and Blood Tribe. Kirk also platformed conspiracy theorists and alt-right figures on his platforms, creating a "vast platform for extremists." Even after a public backlash, he refused to fully disavow them, once tweeting, "Whiteness is great," in a nod to white nationalists.

Islamophobia was another hateful ideology that Kirk seemed to promote with gusto, as he repeatedly demonized Muslims, inciting fear among Muslim Americans. In a June 2025 podcast, and on social media he claimed, “Islam is not compatible with Western civilization,” asserting that Muslim immigrants threaten American values. At a TPUSA event in 2023, he falsely linked Islam to terrorism, stating, “You can’t ignore the data—most terrorist attacks come from radical Islam.” In a social media post days before he was assassinated he said, “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” These remarks fuelled anti-Muslim hate and echoed far-right narratives that painted all Muslims as inherently dangerous.

And while extremist groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys viewed Kirk as an enemy for not being sufficiently racist, they have exploited his death to call for "civil war" in response to his murder. Kirk's organization made it a practice of sowing fear of immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, Muslims, Jews, racial justice advocates, etc. as threats to "white Christian America," directly aligning with the narratives of white supremacist ideology.

Perhaps most galling for Canadians was Kirk's hostility towards this country. He praised Trump's stated desire to annex Canada, cheering the idea of absorbing our country into the US as a way to “help” us escape the direction that the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was taking this country. In one viral clip, Kirk mocked Canadian life, saying, "I would deport Justin Trudeau. That guy sucks," and suggested annexation would save Canadians from socialism. This wasn't humourous banter or kidding around. This was a clear threat to Canadian sovereignty, and yet MPs gave Kirk a standing ovation anyway.

The Conservatives’ embrace of Charlie Kirk and his ideology aligns with their troubling pattern of tolerating far-right extremism, from downplaying the antisemitic and Islamophobic elements of the “Freedom Convoy” to platforming controversial figures. Pierre Poilievre calling Kirk a “martyr for simply expressing his views” is unsurprising given this, despite Kirk’s hateful and dangerous rhetoric.

Yet, the Liberals’ decision to join the standing ovation for Kirk, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has positioned his party as a bulwark against Trumpism, is shocking. By applauding him they signalled that honouring purveyors of hate is now a bipartisan matter, implying racists deserve praise in death despite the harm they did in life. As journalist Rachel Gilmore aptly stated, “You can oppose political violence without doing all this.”

Condemning political violence is essential, but using Kirk as a symbol of this message is a grave misstep. He energized hateful elements in society, incited division, and profited from it to the tune of millions of dollars. So why should he be honoured in any way, let alone in Canada’s House of Commons. If the Conservatives and Liberals wanted an example of an incident that they could use to highlight political violence in Canada then all they had to do was look to the École Polytechnique massacre or the convoy protests in 2022, where Ottawa residents were subjected to violence, and the Alberta border blockade, which occurred at the same time, where a plan to violently attack the RCMP was foiled. Both of those events offered stark lessons.

By honouring Kirk MPs have emboldened Canadian far-right groups to target critics. The Liberals’ failure to reject Kirk’s legacy suggests a dangerous willingness to appease extremist elements, which could result in political violence in Canada. 

Reverend Howard-John Wesley, a Baptist minister at a church in Virginia captured Kirk’s life best in his viral sermon when he said, “Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be assassinated. But I'm overwhelmed seeing the flags of the United States of America at half-staff, calling this nation to honour and venerate a man who was an unapologetic racist and spent all of his life sowing seeds of division and hate into this land." 

Death doesn’t make one a hero if they lived a life promoting hate and Canada’s MPs must understand this and apologize for their lack of judgment. Canadians deserve leaders who unequivocally reject such figures, not ones who betray our values of pluralism and diversity by applauding them. Members of Parliament, especially Liberals, must reflect deeply on their recent actions to avoid eroding our democracy further by honouring the wrong person to make the right point.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Charlie Kirk's assassination: A tragic crime, but a predictable result of toxic political rhetoric

Kirk was a key voice in America’s toxic political ecosystem.  Far from being a bold and courageous figure he was a divisive force whose rhetoric often veered into fascist territory,

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack. 

In the early afternoon of September 10, 2025, during the kickoff of a speaking event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, conservative political commentator Charlie Kirk was fatally shot in the neck by a sniper from a nearby rooftop.  The 31-year-old Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and a prominent voice in Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, collapsed in front of a crowd of about 3,000 attendees, dying shortly after from his wounds. 

The suspected shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was arrested two days later after a manhunt involving the FBI, which offered a $100,000 reward for tips leading to his capture.  Robinson, described by family members as increasingly political and vocal about Kirk's “hate,” left bullet casings engraved with messages like “Hey, fascist! Catch!”  Authorities have labeled it a targeted political assassination, the latest in a string of violent incidents plaguing American politics.

This murder is unequivocally a crime and the perpetrator needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, because political violence has no place in a democracy.  The crime has been roundly condemned by American politicians of all political persuasions and has resulted in people asking how American politics arrived at this point.  Robinson's actions, whatever his grievances, cross an unforgivable and very dangerous line, because assassination of political voices silences discourse and endangers everyone, regardless of ideology.

Kirk leaves behind a wife and two young children, who deserve our condolences and sympathy for the tragedy that has engulfed their lives.  Yet, as we condemn this criminal act—and we must—it's impossible to ignore the broader context.  Given his very controversial political statements and, at times, implicit support for political violence, Kirk's death at the hands of an assassination is not entirely surprising.  It is a grim symptom of the poisonous tone that has infected US politics under Donald Trump's influence, where vilifying opponents and stoking rage in one's base has normalized threats and, increasingly, actual violence.

Trump's rhetoric has long blurred the line between heated debate and calls for harm.  From his 2015 campaign rallies, where he encouraged supporters to “knock the crap out of” hecklers, to his 2020 tweet during George Floyd protests—”when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—Trump has repeatedly used dangerous language that experts describe as inciting aggression and violence.  In a 2023 Veterans Day speech, he vowed to “root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,” portraying political opponents as subhuman enemies to be eradicated.  Such dehumanizing words don't exist in a vacuum.  They embolden extremists and lead to tragedy.

A 2023 analysis by extremism researchers found that Trump's inflammatory speech correlated with a spike in threats against public officials, with over 150 politically motivated attacks in the first half of 2025 alone.  When leaders like Trump legitimize violence—praising January 6 rioters as “patriots” or suggesting protesters be shot—it's no shock that someone like Robinson, radicalized by the very hate Kirk amplified, takes it to its deadly conclusion.

Kirk himself was a key voice in this toxic ecosystem.  Far from the bold and courageous figure eulogized by Trump and allies like Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who called him a “lion-hearted friend of Israel” fighting for “Judeo-Christian civilization”—Kirk was a divisive force whose rhetoric often veered into fascist territory, targeting vulnerable groups and stoking fear.  He built Turning Point USA into a machine for mobilizing young conservatives to support Trump, but it was fueled by hate speech that demonized immigrants, progressives, and left-wing voices.

Kirk's involvement in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for a second Trump term, underscored his authoritarian leanings.  The plan advocates consolidating executive power, dismantling federal agencies meant to protect Americans, and enacting Christian nationalist policies like criminalizing abortion and birth control—hallmarks of illiberal governance that critics label fascist.  Kirk not only endorsed the plan, but also used his platform to promote its goals, urging followers to “fight” against a supposed “deep state” and “woke” threats to America.

Consider Kirk's own words, which reveal his disdain for empathy and humanity that borders on the sociopathic.  In a 2022 episode of his podcast, “The Charlie Kirk Show,” he declared, “I can't stand the word empathy, actually.  I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that—it does a lot of damage.”  He argued that true empathy—feeling others' pain—weakens resolve against political foes.  This rejection of basic human connection was no slip up.  It permeated his worldview and the politics he promoted.

Kirk also frequently invoked the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, a racist white nationalist trope alleging that immigrants are deliberately supplanting white Americans.  In a 2023 Turning Point USA event, he ranted, “America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever.  We should be unafraid to do that.” 

He targeted Indians specifically, claiming in a podcast, “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.”  Such statements weren't abstract.  They fueled real-world harm, echoing the manifestos of mass shooters like the 2019 El Paso gunman who cited similar anti-immigrant fears.

Kirk's attacks on progressive and left-wing voices were equally vicious, often laced with fascist messaging of cultural purity and suppression.  He accused the Democratic Party of supporting “everything that God hates,” urging pastors to deliver sermons framing Democrats as divine enemies.  In discussions of race, he claimed Black Americans were “better” in the 1940s—before civil rights—because they “committed less crimes,” ignoring the era's rampant segregation and lynchings of Black people. 

On gender and LGBTQ+ issues, Kirk was unrelenting, dismissing transgender rights and feminism as societal poisons.  He once stated, in response to a question about what he would do if a 10-year-old was raped, that the girl should carry the pregnancy to term, saying, “The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered . . . Wouldn't it be a better story to say something evil happened and we do something good in the face of evil?”  These weren't fringe opinions.  They were broadcast to millions where they radicalized youth and normalized hate.

His stance on Israel further highlighted his selective sympathy, blending fervent support with genocidal undertones.  Kirk was a vocal defender of Israel's actions in Gaza, denying reports of famine and starvation as “pure visual warfare” by Hamas, despite UN documentation of over tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths.  He visited Israel multiple times, interviewed Netanyahu, and positioned himself as a bulwark against “anti-Semitism,” yet his rhetoric often veered into anti-Semitic territory.  In 2023, he claimed “Jews control... the colleges, the nonprofits, the movies, Hollywood, all of it,” and blamed “Jewish donors” for funding “anti-whiteness” and “Cultural Marxism.”  This wasn't pro-Israel advocacy but instead a fascist fusion of Christian nationalism and conspiracy theories, where support for one nation's violence justified hatred toward others.

The hypocrisy in reactions to Kirk's death versus similar violence against Democrats is stark.  When Minnesota Democratic Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were assassinated in their Brooklyn Park home on June 14, 2025—along with an attempt on Senator John Hoffman and his wife—the MAGA base, including Kirk, revelled in it.  Kirk himself used the incident to rail against “radical left” policies and boost his following, much like he did after the 2022 hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Kirk called for a “patriot” to bail out the attacker, David DePape, saying, “If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out.”  Right-wing influencers, echoing Kirk, mocked Pelosi's injuries and blamed “San Francisco elites.”

Contrast that with the outpouring for Kirk.  Trump ordered flags lowered to half-staff, awarded him a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom, and blamed the “radical left” without evidence.  Netanyahu mourned him as a “warrior for truth,” ignoring Kirk's own anti-Jewish bigotries.  This double standard—glee for left-wing victims, praise and martyrdom for right-wing ones—exposes how Trump's era has weaponized tragedy to deepen social and political divides.

Kirk's murder must be condemned universally, as should all political violence.  The Hortman assassination, the Pelosi attack, the arson at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's residence in April 2025—these are all abhorrent, and the perpetrators deserve significant prison time for their crimes. 

But violence solves nothing, and it begets more violence, turning political disagreements into blood feuds.  If we accept assassination as a response to ugly political voices we oppose, as some online reactions to Kirk's death suggest, we'll soon see targets on all sides—progressives, conservatives, moderates alike.  Tens of millions may breathe a sigh of relief at the silencing of Kirk's brand of hate, but that's a dangerous path. 

As former Congressional Representative Gabby Giffords, a survivor of political gun violence, said after the shooting, “Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence."  Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, targeted in a right-wing kidnapping plot, echoed this, saying, “We should all come together to stand up against any and all forms of political violence."  Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro added, “The attack on Charlie Kirk is horrifying and this growing type of unconscionable violence cannot be allowed in our society.”   These voices, all from the Democratic Party, are voices that advocate empathy— the very quality Kirk scorned—noting that it is essential for healing.

To pretend Kirk was a benevolent commentator is disingenuous.  He was a vile architect of division and hate, whose fascist-leaning rhetoric tore at America's fabric.  His support for Project 2025's authoritarian blueprint, his dehumanization of immigrants as “invaders,” his denial of empathy as “damage”—these weren't bold truths.  They were a cancer that should be excised from America’s body politic.  And all of this thrives under Trump's political umbrella, where rage is currency and opponents should be seen “vermin” to be eradicated. 

Kirk didn't deserve to die the way he did, but his legacy demands a reckoning with truth.  The political culture he spoke to, one dominated by far-right wing elements, Republicans, and the MAGA cult, must use this tragedy to tone down political hate and division.  Whether they will or not remains to be seen.  But given how they thrive on political rage it is unlikely.

What is clear is that Trump's incitement— from shooting looters to rooting out the enemy within—has legitimized political violence in the US, leading directly to tragedies like this.  If he and his followers choose to reject prudence and an elimination of extreme political rhetoric, things will only escalate.  More assassinations, more martyrs, more division. 

The American people deserve better—dialogue over death, unity over us-versus-them.  Only by rejecting the fascist ideologies embodied in Kirk’s messaging can the next assassination of a political voice—on the left or the right—be prevented.  Whether those pushing extreme political ideologies come to realize that they are as much to blame for Kirk’s assassination as are their opponents on the far left is something we are all waiting to find out.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.