"...the American right is, as I write this, adopting every single nasty little tactic that had been normalized and justified by the progressive left over the past five years"
Well of course they are, because these actions have been - as you say - normalized and justified.
You just don't like it when THESE guys do it.
This is going to be a very popular column for you Jen, because Canadians by and large are repulsed by Trump and everything associated with him, and your audience is Canadian.
I'm not sure you're doing us any favours as a society by pumping up that repulsion and amplifying the division.
Uh, both main editors here made it very clear that they didn’t like it when the left did it either. What are you talking about?
There is such thing as a genuine principled stand for free speech and an open liberal society. Lots of us have it and are equally disgusted by the actions of the Social Justice mobs in 2020 and what Trump is doing now.
I'm not a Trump fan, and I find quite a few things he has done or said since being re-elected to be way over the top. He is a blusterer, he says a lot of outrageous things, no question.
...but I am (like you, from the sounds of it) a free speech absolutist, eager to defend the right of people to say things I personally find offensive. Trump doesn't seem to get that defence much from his opponents, does he?
In fact, what I see happening in the public square is his opponents screaming "unprecedented" at everything he does, even when they are things which we have clearly seen other governments - even Democrat governments - do.
Both sides are guilty of amped up rhetoric, and my default position at this point is "a pox on both their houses"
...but that wasn't the gist of this article, was it?
This is truly fantastical thinking David. The Democrats are guilty of naked offense against both. Offense against the 1st amendment. See Google’s latest disclosure on the censorship tactics that were applied during COVID. Speech = violence? Democrat adopted language. Weaponization of the judiciary? Have you reviewed all the “charges” that were levied against Trump? The payoff to a porn star take somehow got convoluted into a RICO charge? The Russia collusion spectacle (don’t believe the MSM spin- it wasn’t interfere, the accusation was collusion). The NY “fraud” charge that somehow ended up in 100’s of millions in penalties over loans that were repaid with full interest (because ostensively he “over inflated” the disclosed value of his other real estate assets in procuring the loans- have you ever had a bank give you a loan without doing their own appraisal?). All charges brought to bear by registered democrats, fancy that? Are you aware the “de-banking” that went on of wealthy critics the Democrats didn’t like? Sorry - but until both sides come to terms with reality it’s more ideologically mushy tribalism and a tit for tat revenge spiral into hell.
None of the above should be construed as a defense of Trump or his current disgusting offensives against the same. It’s to point out the reality.
The only silver lining is there is a large enough hardcore classical liberal vote in both Canada and the USA that is needed to form a coalition to govern. Unfortunately though (or maybe fortunately?)- that coalition skews more to the right than the left right now. The only “Liberal” that spoke out against cancel culture was Bill Maher. At least there were numerous right wing public figures (included elected republicans) that spoke out in defense of Jimmy Kimmel.
I can't help you with these delusions. COVID was a pandemic. Everything wasn't normal. Misinformation is the reason Republicans died at a significantly higher rate than Democrats.
Was he found guilty by a jury of his peers? Why did he spend millions to keep his two "treason" charges out of court?
The US appears to be finished as a functioning democracy. Victors write the history, so the whole truth will likely never be known. But the end of the US Constitution as a guiding document makes it pretty clear who the villains are.
My agrument is it’s both sides. The Dems used the courts the same way Trump is. The deck is stacked. We’ll see if his political enemies are convicted by a “jury of their peers.”
How much you want to bet those trails will be in a deep red state?
As to the pandemic? Government Censorship is censorship. Those same agrument against “misinformation” were just used against Jimmy Kimmel with the same justifications. Misinformation is causing extremism and death. And if we want to go down that path, obesity and its side effects (likely also a contributing factor to excess republican covid deaths… just sayin’) kills far more than Covid ever did or will, and at younger ages. The justification for censorship on “misinformation” grounds is a road to hell. Both left and right need to get off of it.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the extent to which the things have been manipulated. Look what Mitch McConnell did to the Supreme Court, and the decisions it has rendered since.
There are as many fat republicans as Democrats, I expect. COVID is a catalyst; it attacks your weak spots.
Kimmel didn't fling any misinformation of any kind. Were Republicans not losing their minds trying to prove the kid wasn't one of them? Aren't they still? We still don't know. Then, free speech was, and still is being attacked. There's only one party doing that. There's only one party against Epstein coming out, regardless of the collateral damage. And the Dems never promised to release it.
Regardless, I am still of the opinion that the US is gone and can't be saved. The Military will likely be neutered next week, or a military coup will take place. Until proven otherwise, the dictator is in charge. IMHO, he can't die soon enough of natural causes.
“The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said in his Monday monologue.Sep 18, 2025
I’ll leave this article from the “far right” Vox publication to finish my point.
Meanwhile Journalist Alex Berenson got suspended off of Twitter under direct pressure from Biden admin officials for saying this:
“Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS,” he wrote. “And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
Kimmel guilty of promoting baseless conspiracy. Berenson… not so much. Both sides here bringing, or trying to bring, government power to bear to silence speech they don’t like. Both sides guilty, both sides wrong. Both sides offending the 1st amendment. I’m sharing one example from the Biden admin - but they are many. JG is bang on right when she writes “this is revenge.” But that sediment, and those actions (revenge) are deadly wrong. We, the classical liberals, need to be speaking loudly and unequivocally - both things are unacceptable, dangerous, wrong.
Great Analysis Jen. I eagerly await a similar review of the Canadian situation. Get it in quick before Bill C63 is passed and your home address gets passed on to a federal SWAT team. But be aware for your and Matt’s sake that the bill could be made retroactive.
Christians especially those outside Canada are such low hanging fruit. Maybe it’s the “turn the other cheek” mentality that they supposedly adhere to.
You watched all of it? Glutton for punishment? Case of vodka to drink off? There's taking one for the team, but that is over the top.
Charlie didn't deserve to get shot, but was strongly in favour of the political structure that made it possible. He was also a bought and paid-for grifter of the Christian Right. He was not a good person. He was openly racist and homophobic, and his history is being whitewashed: pun intended, to make him out to be a saint that he wasn't. He was a tool of a bigger organisation, one that is currently destroying the US.
I am not smart enough to be an atheist and, based on Monty Python's version of what happens to them in the afterlife, will remain agnostic.
The woke are unrepentant. Having their rules turned on them may result in a true awakening. Regardless, we have no control over any of this and can only watch, while experiencing a little bit of schadenfreude.
Ps. Ms. Gerson, you could have experienced the vigil first hand in downtown Calgary (who knew?). The Star Spangled Banner? USA! USA!? That would get your knickers in a twist.
I was going to put this into the piece, but will flag it in the comments section instead.
Matt and I have been vocal and repetitive about our problems with illiberalism on the left, and over the course of years. We have nothing to prove to anybody on that front.
I am profoundly bored by tu quoque fallacies and simply won't be engaging with them today. Whether it's employed by the left or the right, any variation of: "But the other team..." is just a cope. It reduces every single conversation to an endless round of finger pointing about the sins of the other team, and the spiral of blame accelerates and justifies a new round of debasement with every turn.
It's an immature way of avoiding accountability for the bullshit that you and your own fellow travellers are up to. All you're confessing with shit like this is that you're more invested in reacting to and undermining the people you don't like than in defending any real value or principle. JG
I’d even add that it’s not about what someone else did. It’s about whether you have the morals and values to consider the right course of action without the revenge factor and then do what’s right.
I see a whole lot of claimed Christian’s being ok with revenge rather than offering forgiveness and using the moment to focus on what society values most people have in common and how to deal with the hatred expressed by the few. (Regardless of left or right)
I think it’s also a worthy reminder that any power someone gives to themselves will in the future be used by those they disagree with. Most of us will live to watch the pendulum swing back and the bigger the revenge the quicker the swing would be my guess.
I have been a Line reader for quite some time, and I don't remember you two roasting BLM, but I may have missed it and, if you did, I apologize.
The more serious question is how we decide whether the other side are friends, for whom gentle remonstrance and turning the other cheek is appropriate, or enemies, for whom retaliation is appropriate.
Had the liberal reaction to the assassination been one of near universal condemnation, a more conciliatory reaction might have made sense. With the actual reaction of widescale shrugging, dodging responsibility, and all too frequent "he had it coming", the case that liberals are enemies is pretty compelling.
When one describes people as "fascists", "Nazis", "dictators", and "tyrants", one is signing up for the role of enemy.
And I'm not complaining about BLM violence. I'm just saying that the last few years have brought the US past the point of differences among friends to the point of truly being divided into enemy camps. The assassinations are a giveaway.
We won't know if Canada has reached the same point until a non-progressive government is elected.
The tribalism and our current political environment is on full display here, as is whataboutism. As Ms. Gerson points out in her response, where does it end? Can we not analyse actions independent of the side that conducted them? Have we as a polity reduced ourselves to a “my side good, the other side bad” level of political discussion?
How many people on the “other side” were actually saying “he had it coming”? It seems to me that this is another instance of being too online.
Twitter isn’t reality. Just because some people there are deranged doesn’t mean you should paint an entire side of the political spectrum as “heathens”
"Twitter isn't reality" is true, but when you read a Laura Babcock or Rachel Gilmore post, and see the number of followers they have, you have to admit that they go tit-for-tat with the other side. The Line and other similar platforms in my opinion take the high middle ground and that's where I want to live.
Look - literally the best thing society could do for its political culture is: delete your Facebook and Twitter accounts.
Anyone reading this can be considered Very Informed.
I’m reassured that, given I have no idea who those people are, there can be a difference between that and Very Online. Seek the former. Substack, the line, etc.
I saw nothing but condemnation from any figure on the left that actually has the guts to do politics. I do think that matters, no matter what truecommie69@bluesky.us has to say about it.
I do think the left should go further - and accept that activist rhetoric is too capable of radicalizing its own fringe to violent acts. I hope Jen follows up with something on that at some point.
The false equivalence pushed between speech and violence and safety: that was mainlined, it never should have been so, and I do think it has had a radicalizing impact. The former has been well covered at the line. As we learn more about the killer the connection to the latter merits a greater airing.
It's not just Babcock or Gilmore who are on a side.
"Make the guy a religious martyr to your heart’s content, but stuff like this makes me absolutely leery about regarding him as a holy sacrifice of the free speech kind.
For those of us who have a genuine commitment to free speech, political non-violence, and dialogue, we always run the risk of watching our convictions be hijacked by those who hold deeply illiberal personal agendas. Of course — of course! — that doesn’t mean people who hold those agendas ought to be threatened, harmed, or killed."
This quote makes it perfectly clear that Jen believes (or at least is making the claim) that Kirk's commitment to "free speech, non-violence, and dialogue" is not "genuine", because he "hijacked" those convictions in service of a "deeply illiberal personal agenda".
This despite the fact that it is perfectly possible to reasonably believe that "separation of church and state" as it has lately become is quite different from the actual text "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". To think that anyone who believes that is therefore unable to have a genuine commitment to free speech, non-violence, and and dialogue seems pretty tribal to me.
I read the quoted part differently - as suggesting that the way things have been spun after Kirk’s death are not something he would’ve supported. Granted that was a pre existing belief I’ve had sitting with me from the first article I read about firing. My reaction was something like amusement followed by the immediate realization that Kirk likely would’ve disagreed with that approach and his name and death was being appropriated for political reasons without regard for what he really stood for. But maybe I misunderstood what he stood for - his wife hasn’t loudly objected to the cancel culture (that I’ve heard) so maybe there was more nuance than I’m aware of. I’d only vaguely heard of Charlie Kirk as the free speech debating guy and nothing more before this.
I read the whole passage as a reference to Kirk himself because he is the only one who was killed, and therefore he must be the one who holds those "agendas", and so on back through the passage, back to the part (not quoted by me) about church and state.
That is absolutely untrue. Every major Democrat spoke forcefully against Kirk's assassination. A few left trolls are by no means the liberal reaction, which was one of revulsion.
Is Jimmy Kimmel not a Democrat, not major, or does claiming the assassin was Maga constitute speaking forcefully against it? How about the open letter to ABC about Kimmel, which didn't mention the assassination at all?
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,"
was an intentional lie, meant to excuse the left, having spent years calling Kirk a fascist and Nazi, from any responsibility for this assassination. Do you think that's acceptable?
All of this. And I might add that whether they realize it or not, those who employ the tu quoque fallacy are actually saying either one of two things. If they believe they can justify their side's behaviour by appealing to what their opponents have done in the past, they are either saying that their opponent's past actions were right, or that their side's present actions are wrong.
Of course what is really going on for most people is that they are bothered by what they perceive as rank hypocrisy. But even here, if one uses the charge of hypocrisy to justify their own bad actions, it just makes them a hypocrite too.
For what it’s worth (perhaps nothing to some; perhaps something for all) the biblical phrase “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord” kept echoing in my head while reading this. I had to google Chapter and verse, and found it at…Romans 12, 16-21 (Revised Standard Version):
Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord..” No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not overcome evil by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I for one feel Like politics and religion don’t mix - or shouldn’t anyways. Religion is free will and the political state has power.
Awhile ago you’d asked us all in a podcast to consider where our own personal line was. I had things I knew were clearly past the line, but had difficulty thinking about what does that line crossing moment look like.
I didn’t like cancel culture on the left. And while it took me time to separate out what was an equivalent of cancel culture on the right vs what would genuinely fall into hate speech (I’m still not sure I’m 100% clear on this line as I believe there are only a select class of criminals worthy of that level of hate like pedophiles etc.) But I know the right crossed the line into cancel culture quite quickly. And while I’ll admit I was initially amused at the concept (though not participating,) it made me deeply uneasy that the guy who was killed for encouraging debate and free speech was the very guy being used to justify stopping free speech that someone didn’t like.
Obviously incitement to violence needs to be stopped and criminally handled. Hate crimes likewise. But I believe in free speech and think the most important free speech is the speech I don’t agree with. It’s not truly free speech if everyone is in agreement.
So while I couldn’t clearly articulate what my line would be ahead of time - maybe partly a factor of being in Canada and aware of the news bias coming out of the US, what I can say is it’s been crossed. However, as a Canadian, I’m not sure that my sense of a line being crossed makes one bit of difference to the US. I certainly don’t believe I have influence there, but it saddens me to see the number of people whose own morals can’t tell them that two wrongs don’t make a right.
While I am glad that you provided a counter balancing perspective about the Charlie Kirk Memorial. It was an awesome Evangelical Christian Revival meeting, the largest of its kind ever and provided a global opportunity to spread the gospel story that all Evangelicals are called to do. Yes it was mixed with self promotion of the Turning Point agenda and the MAGA version of the Republican Party. You have only partially understood then the separate messages of these three agendas. You are a self admitted non believer and therefore unable to segregate that multi successes were occurring at the same time. None USA Christians easily separated the US politics from the amazing event and felt blessed by the strong clear presentation of the Biblical Truths from surprising sources like Marco Rubio. This event stood in stark contrast to the global demonstrations of mixed up Woke Infused protestors for Palestine and the reality of Islamic Terrorists who seek to rid the world of Christians and Jews.. You may wish to marvel at Hillary Clinton who wants to rid the world of White Christian Men so that Woke infused DEI radicals can prevail. You may also want to consider that the majority of Christians live in China, India, Africa and not in Europe or the US.
I must admit that if it wasn't for Matt breaking down Carney earlier this week I would have cancelled you but then I calmed down !!
I'm speaking to a fellow Christian, so I feel I can put this in spiritual terms...
You're right that Mr. Kirk's memorial was more than one thing, but it wasn't just the insertion of the political that made it into more than one thing, there was also an explicitly anti-Christian spiritual element.
I don't mean that Donald Trump is the anti-Christ or anything so melodramatic, but what he said at that memorial was overtly anti-Christian... it was an anti-Christ message.
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
This is a hard teaching. It's very difficult to accept. And yet, as hard as it may be, it IS Christ's message and commandment. When we hear "hate your opponents, don't want the best for them", we MUST reject it as anti-Biblical, anti-Christian and anti-Christ and not be afraid to say so, no matter how powerful the speaker or how much we fear someone else in their place.
********
One far less important quibble...
> It was an awesome Evangelical Christian Revival meeting, the largest of its kind ever
It wasn't the largest of its kind if you meant "evangelical Christian revival meeting". Not even close.
I looked it up. Mr. Kirk's memorial had 90,000 people attending including at overflow sites. That's quite a lot, but Billy Graham drew 1.1 MILLION to a single meeting in the 1970s.
And I doubt very much that anyone on stage at that Billy Graham revival delivered an anti-Christian message in open defiance of the actual words of Jesus.
Briefly, I didn’t mean to imply any common ground with the US President. He recognized he does not meet the forgive and love standard. In fact Mr Trump was fully exposed as someone fully condemned by Christs teaching.
Billy Graham was the GOAT of evangelical preachers. I’ve served at his rallies. But in the current US culture war , over 100000 attendees on 10 days notice and over 120Million via broadcast and internet ongoing interest is very encouraging!
You're right, it is encouraging when people are listening to the gospel.
And yet.. that evangelical event included an explicitly anti-Christian message within it and (as far as I know), it wasn't identified as wrong and corrected by anyone speaking later. I would be very happy to be wrong about that, so if it was, please let me know.
I'm not (quite) old enough to have listened to Billy Graham, but I can't imagine he would have ignored something like that without correcting it.
What should have been said? "Mr. Trump, what you said about forgiveness is wrong and it is against what Jesus taught us. You must forgive your enemies when they sin against you...if you don't, Jesus said that God will not forgive your sins".
I don't mean to imply you agreed with Mr. Trump on this... but we can't have anti-Christian messages preached at an evangelical revival because if we do... it's not an evangelical revival.
Thank you Jen. I would not say that what Kirk was doing was a sacrafice of his time in persuit of his convictions. He was making millions of dollars doing it. That's not sacrafice, that's busines in persuit of personal wealth. That fits the Trump admin totally. That is what they consider him a martyr to -- making money is their holy grail.
This summer my uncle died and I attended his funeral in a Cathedral parish in a very small town in Northern Alberta. I'll count it as a great good fortune that despite being Catholic I had not been to a Catholic funeral in quite a while. I was awestruck, though in a mundane way, by the beauty of that service, despite the fact that it was pretty plain.
What struck me most was that every main of my uncle was in the context of his relationship to Christ. For example "Almighty God and Father, it is our certain faith
that your Son, who died on the Cross, was raised from the dead,
the first-fruits of all who have fallen asleep.
Grant that through this mystery
your servant Richard., who has gone to his rest in Christ,
may share in the joy of his resurrection.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and
the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."
That was it. Over and over. From what I saw of the Kirk funeral there was some of this, but it uncomfortably (for me) blended political rally with Christian faith. I can't quite make that feel ok.
Mostly my uncle's funeral felt like it was all about Christ and Kirk's funeral felt like it was all about him. I think one of the hardest things to learn as a Christian is that your life is not really about you. As St John Paul II said "We are not the sum of our weaknesses and failures; we are the sum of the Father's love for us and our real capacity to become the image of his Son." That comes with a ton of responsibility to serve other, and to see in every person that same image. Becoming like Jesus means becoming less like yoy. There was some of that in Kirk's funeral, but also too much political spectacle.
I feel great sympathy for Kirk and his family. I don't know how one should mourn a political figure of his magnitude cut down so young, while engaged in free speech. I doubt I'll ever have them impact Charlie Kirk did (please God don't ever make me a star). But even if I did, I would much rather have the simple funeral mass my uncle had than the mad spectacle of the Kirk funeral.
Good column even though I don't know if revenge is the right term. Exploitation is probably better.
Good, empirical coverage and emphasis that the current "we" can't claim their cause is being persecuted and turn around and persecute the current "them".
Democracy only works when we realize that all voices, regardless of perspective, when absent of hate, should be accepted and discussion encouraged.
BTW Jen the Fire Code no longer deals with fireworks in Canada, they are regulated under the federal Explosives Act and often through municipal bylaws regarding sales and discharge 😊
I believe you are judging it correctly. This version of evangelical Christianity as politics is for the birds —as if god was picking a winning team.
Canadians seem slightly less enthralled with navigating the swirling waters of these merging currents than Americans, but the very fact that we see such a physical spectacle, with no room for interpretation or nuance or doubt makes me dismiss almost all of it as theatre.
I wonder if the lord was tracking the engagement on the QR code?
What a barn-burner of a piece! Many of the comments here, likewise, have attained a high degree of integrity and maturity. I have kept my distance from Kirk and was only vaguely aware of him prior to the assassination. The rage of the culture wars makes me fear. I have a dread of theocracy: both for what it does to society and its impact on true aspiration to the holy.
As for Kirk himself, I don't think it's fair to characterize him as either a holy martyr or a Nazi. There's a lot of space between those categories in which to fall. While biological sex may be binary, this sort of thing definitely isn't. Perhaps an analogous historical figure that comes to mind is Savonarola.
In any case, the whole thing is tragic. I think a big part of the problem is that we have lost our sense of tragedy (I mean this in the literary sense going back to the Greeks; I think tragedy actually had some kind of cathartic, mourning, peacemaking function).
I’ve been reading about early Christianity lately and one author made the case that religion and politics can’t really be separated since your political beliefs are based on your worldview. If your worldview is based in Christianity, then your political beliefs are based on those values. The same way the progressive left worldview informs their political beliefs, we just don’t call it religion. Doing it for God or doing it for equity is two sides of the same coin.
"...the American right is, as I write this, adopting every single nasty little tactic that had been normalized and justified by the progressive left over the past five years"
Well of course they are, because these actions have been - as you say - normalized and justified.
You just don't like it when THESE guys do it.
This is going to be a very popular column for you Jen, because Canadians by and large are repulsed by Trump and everything associated with him, and your audience is Canadian.
I'm not sure you're doing us any favours as a society by pumping up that repulsion and amplifying the division.
Uh, both main editors here made it very clear that they didn’t like it when the left did it either. What are you talking about?
There is such thing as a genuine principled stand for free speech and an open liberal society. Lots of us have it and are equally disgusted by the actions of the Social Justice mobs in 2020 and what Trump is doing now.
I'm not a Trump fan, and I find quite a few things he has done or said since being re-elected to be way over the top. He is a blusterer, he says a lot of outrageous things, no question.
...but I am (like you, from the sounds of it) a free speech absolutist, eager to defend the right of people to say things I personally find offensive. Trump doesn't seem to get that defence much from his opponents, does he?
In fact, what I see happening in the public square is his opponents screaming "unprecedented" at everything he does, even when they are things which we have clearly seen other governments - even Democrat governments - do.
Both sides are guilty of amped up rhetoric, and my default position at this point is "a pox on both their houses"
...but that wasn't the gist of this article, was it?
There is no real comparison between the actions of the left and the right in today's USA. One still believes in the Constitution and rule of law.
...when it suits them.
This is truly fantastical thinking David. The Democrats are guilty of naked offense against both. Offense against the 1st amendment. See Google’s latest disclosure on the censorship tactics that were applied during COVID. Speech = violence? Democrat adopted language. Weaponization of the judiciary? Have you reviewed all the “charges” that were levied against Trump? The payoff to a porn star take somehow got convoluted into a RICO charge? The Russia collusion spectacle (don’t believe the MSM spin- it wasn’t interfere, the accusation was collusion). The NY “fraud” charge that somehow ended up in 100’s of millions in penalties over loans that were repaid with full interest (because ostensively he “over inflated” the disclosed value of his other real estate assets in procuring the loans- have you ever had a bank give you a loan without doing their own appraisal?). All charges brought to bear by registered democrats, fancy that? Are you aware the “de-banking” that went on of wealthy critics the Democrats didn’t like? Sorry - but until both sides come to terms with reality it’s more ideologically mushy tribalism and a tit for tat revenge spiral into hell.
None of the above should be construed as a defense of Trump or his current disgusting offensives against the same. It’s to point out the reality.
The only silver lining is there is a large enough hardcore classical liberal vote in both Canada and the USA that is needed to form a coalition to govern. Unfortunately though (or maybe fortunately?)- that coalition skews more to the right than the left right now. The only “Liberal” that spoke out against cancel culture was Bill Maher. At least there were numerous right wing public figures (included elected republicans) that spoke out in defense of Jimmy Kimmel.
I can't help you with these delusions. COVID was a pandemic. Everything wasn't normal. Misinformation is the reason Republicans died at a significantly higher rate than Democrats.
Was he found guilty by a jury of his peers? Why did he spend millions to keep his two "treason" charges out of court?
The US appears to be finished as a functioning democracy. Victors write the history, so the whole truth will likely never be known. But the end of the US Constitution as a guiding document makes it pretty clear who the villains are.
My agrument is it’s both sides. The Dems used the courts the same way Trump is. The deck is stacked. We’ll see if his political enemies are convicted by a “jury of their peers.”
How much you want to bet those trails will be in a deep red state?
As to the pandemic? Government Censorship is censorship. Those same agrument against “misinformation” were just used against Jimmy Kimmel with the same justifications. Misinformation is causing extremism and death. And if we want to go down that path, obesity and its side effects (likely also a contributing factor to excess republican covid deaths… just sayin’) kills far more than Covid ever did or will, and at younger ages. The justification for censorship on “misinformation” grounds is a road to hell. Both left and right need to get off of it.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the extent to which the things have been manipulated. Look what Mitch McConnell did to the Supreme Court, and the decisions it has rendered since.
There are as many fat republicans as Democrats, I expect. COVID is a catalyst; it attacks your weak spots.
Kimmel didn't fling any misinformation of any kind. Were Republicans not losing their minds trying to prove the kid wasn't one of them? Aren't they still? We still don't know. Then, free speech was, and still is being attacked. There's only one party doing that. There's only one party against Epstein coming out, regardless of the collateral damage. And the Dems never promised to release it.
Regardless, I am still of the opinion that the US is gone and can't be saved. The Military will likely be neutered next week, or a military coup will take place. Until proven otherwise, the dictator is in charge. IMHO, he can't die soon enough of natural causes.
“The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said in his Monday monologue.Sep 18, 2025
I’ll leave this article from the “far right” Vox publication to finish my point.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/comforting-fiction-charlie-kirk-killer-110000416.html
Meanwhile Journalist Alex Berenson got suspended off of Twitter under direct pressure from Biden admin officials for saying this:
“Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS,” he wrote. “And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
Kimmel guilty of promoting baseless conspiracy. Berenson… not so much. Both sides here bringing, or trying to bring, government power to bear to silence speech they don’t like. Both sides guilty, both sides wrong. Both sides offending the 1st amendment. I’m sharing one example from the Biden admin - but they are many. JG is bang on right when she writes “this is revenge.” But that sediment, and those actions (revenge) are deadly wrong. We, the classical liberals, need to be speaking loudly and unequivocally - both things are unacceptable, dangerous, wrong.
Pointing out the obvious is not “pumping up repulision (revulsion?). It is free speech. Thanks for proving her point.
Great Analysis Jen. I eagerly await a similar review of the Canadian situation. Get it in quick before Bill C63 is passed and your home address gets passed on to a federal SWAT team. But be aware for your and Matt’s sake that the bill could be made retroactive.
Christians especially those outside Canada are such low hanging fruit. Maybe it’s the “turn the other cheek” mentality that they supposedly adhere to.
You watched all of it? Glutton for punishment? Case of vodka to drink off? There's taking one for the team, but that is over the top.
Charlie didn't deserve to get shot, but was strongly in favour of the political structure that made it possible. He was also a bought and paid-for grifter of the Christian Right. He was not a good person. He was openly racist and homophobic, and his history is being whitewashed: pun intended, to make him out to be a saint that he wasn't. He was a tool of a bigger organisation, one that is currently destroying the US.
I am not smart enough to be an atheist and, based on Monty Python's version of what happens to them in the afterlife, will remain agnostic.
The woke are unrepentant. Having their rules turned on them may result in a true awakening. Regardless, we have no control over any of this and can only watch, while experiencing a little bit of schadenfreude.
Ps. Ms. Gerson, you could have experienced the vigil first hand in downtown Calgary (who knew?). The Star Spangled Banner? USA! USA!? That would get your knickers in a twist.
You’re … just supporting the thesis of the article. That this is about revenge, not any kind of principled stand.
It was the salmon!
Did the BLM riots feel like revenge?
I was going to put this into the piece, but will flag it in the comments section instead.
Matt and I have been vocal and repetitive about our problems with illiberalism on the left, and over the course of years. We have nothing to prove to anybody on that front.
I am profoundly bored by tu quoque fallacies and simply won't be engaging with them today. Whether it's employed by the left or the right, any variation of: "But the other team..." is just a cope. It reduces every single conversation to an endless round of finger pointing about the sins of the other team, and the spiral of blame accelerates and justifies a new round of debasement with every turn.
It's an immature way of avoiding accountability for the bullshit that you and your own fellow travellers are up to. All you're confessing with shit like this is that you're more invested in reacting to and undermining the people you don't like than in defending any real value or principle. JG
I’m Matt Gurney, and I approve this message.
I’d even add that it’s not about what someone else did. It’s about whether you have the morals and values to consider the right course of action without the revenge factor and then do what’s right.
I see a whole lot of claimed Christian’s being ok with revenge rather than offering forgiveness and using the moment to focus on what society values most people have in common and how to deal with the hatred expressed by the few. (Regardless of left or right)
I think it’s also a worthy reminder that any power someone gives to themselves will in the future be used by those they disagree with. Most of us will live to watch the pendulum swing back and the bigger the revenge the quicker the swing would be my guess.
I have been a Line reader for quite some time, and I don't remember you two roasting BLM, but I may have missed it and, if you did, I apologize.
The more serious question is how we decide whether the other side are friends, for whom gentle remonstrance and turning the other cheek is appropriate, or enemies, for whom retaliation is appropriate.
Had the liberal reaction to the assassination been one of near universal condemnation, a more conciliatory reaction might have made sense. With the actual reaction of widescale shrugging, dodging responsibility, and all too frequent "he had it coming", the case that liberals are enemies is pretty compelling.
When one describes people as "fascists", "Nazis", "dictators", and "tyrants", one is signing up for the role of enemy.
*whispers* Most of the violent riots in the U.S. were over before The Line began publishing in late summer of 2020
And I'm not complaining about BLM violence. I'm just saying that the last few years have brought the US past the point of differences among friends to the point of truly being divided into enemy camps. The assassinations are a giveaway.
We won't know if Canada has reached the same point until a non-progressive government is elected.
The tribalism and our current political environment is on full display here, as is whataboutism. As Ms. Gerson points out in her response, where does it end? Can we not analyse actions independent of the side that conducted them? Have we as a polity reduced ourselves to a “my side good, the other side bad” level of political discussion?
How many people on the “other side” were actually saying “he had it coming”? It seems to me that this is another instance of being too online.
Twitter isn’t reality. Just because some people there are deranged doesn’t mean you should paint an entire side of the political spectrum as “heathens”
"Twitter isn't reality" is true, but when you read a Laura Babcock or Rachel Gilmore post, and see the number of followers they have, you have to admit that they go tit-for-tat with the other side. The Line and other similar platforms in my opinion take the high middle ground and that's where I want to live.
Laura and Rachel who?
Look - literally the best thing society could do for its political culture is: delete your Facebook and Twitter accounts.
Anyone reading this can be considered Very Informed.
I’m reassured that, given I have no idea who those people are, there can be a difference between that and Very Online. Seek the former. Substack, the line, etc.
I saw nothing but condemnation from any figure on the left that actually has the guts to do politics. I do think that matters, no matter what truecommie69@bluesky.us has to say about it.
I do think the left should go further - and accept that activist rhetoric is too capable of radicalizing its own fringe to violent acts. I hope Jen follows up with something on that at some point.
The false equivalence pushed between speech and violence and safety: that was mainlined, it never should have been so, and I do think it has had a radicalizing impact. The former has been well covered at the line. As we learn more about the killer the connection to the latter merits a greater airing.
It's not just Babcock or Gilmore who are on a side.
"Make the guy a religious martyr to your heart’s content, but stuff like this makes me absolutely leery about regarding him as a holy sacrifice of the free speech kind.
For those of us who have a genuine commitment to free speech, political non-violence, and dialogue, we always run the risk of watching our convictions be hijacked by those who hold deeply illiberal personal agendas. Of course — of course! — that doesn’t mean people who hold those agendas ought to be threatened, harmed, or killed."
This quote makes it perfectly clear that Jen believes (or at least is making the claim) that Kirk's commitment to "free speech, non-violence, and dialogue" is not "genuine", because he "hijacked" those convictions in service of a "deeply illiberal personal agenda".
This despite the fact that it is perfectly possible to reasonably believe that "separation of church and state" as it has lately become is quite different from the actual text "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". To think that anyone who believes that is therefore unable to have a genuine commitment to free speech, non-violence, and and dialogue seems pretty tribal to me.
I read the quoted part differently - as suggesting that the way things have been spun after Kirk’s death are not something he would’ve supported. Granted that was a pre existing belief I’ve had sitting with me from the first article I read about firing. My reaction was something like amusement followed by the immediate realization that Kirk likely would’ve disagreed with that approach and his name and death was being appropriated for political reasons without regard for what he really stood for. But maybe I misunderstood what he stood for - his wife hasn’t loudly objected to the cancel culture (that I’ve heard) so maybe there was more nuance than I’m aware of. I’d only vaguely heard of Charlie Kirk as the free speech debating guy and nothing more before this.
I read the whole passage as a reference to Kirk himself because he is the only one who was killed, and therefore he must be the one who holds those "agendas", and so on back through the passage, back to the part (not quoted by me) about church and state.
That is absolutely untrue. Every major Democrat spoke forcefully against Kirk's assassination. A few left trolls are by no means the liberal reaction, which was one of revulsion.
Is Jimmy Kimmel not a Democrat, not major, or does claiming the assassin was Maga constitute speaking forcefully against it? How about the open letter to ABC about Kimmel, which didn't mention the assassination at all?
> Is Jimmy Kimmel not a Democrat,
What precisely did Jimmy Kimmel say that you think is him "not speaking against the assassination?
Seriously.
1. He called it murder.
2. He also mocked Trump and Maga and also said they were exploiting Mr. Kirk's death for political gain.
The transcript I read doesn't have anything else. I don't see him saying anything else.
What were his words that cause you to imply that he did not "speak against the assassination"?
I'm not a late night TV fan, although I did go through a Conan O'Brian phase. So I may have missed something.
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,"
was an intentional lie, meant to excuse the left, having spent years calling Kirk a fascist and Nazi, from any responsibility for this assassination. Do you think that's acceptable?
All of this. And I might add that whether they realize it or not, those who employ the tu quoque fallacy are actually saying either one of two things. If they believe they can justify their side's behaviour by appealing to what their opponents have done in the past, they are either saying that their opponent's past actions were right, or that their side's present actions are wrong.
Of course what is really going on for most people is that they are bothered by what they perceive as rank hypocrisy. But even here, if one uses the charge of hypocrisy to justify their own bad actions, it just makes them a hypocrite too.
Amen.
Spot on, Jen. Too many folks are quick to give up their convictions and ethics when the potential result favours them.
The religious right supporting Trump is a perfect example, as he is not an example of Christian values in any way whatsoever.
Or
“We need our guns to fight the tyranny of the government” while at the same time supporting the National Guard entering DC or Chicago.
For what it’s worth (perhaps nothing to some; perhaps something for all) the biblical phrase “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord” kept echoing in my head while reading this. I had to google Chapter and verse, and found it at…Romans 12, 16-21 (Revised Standard Version):
Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord..” No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not overcome evil by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I for one feel Like politics and religion don’t mix - or shouldn’t anyways. Religion is free will and the political state has power.
Awhile ago you’d asked us all in a podcast to consider where our own personal line was. I had things I knew were clearly past the line, but had difficulty thinking about what does that line crossing moment look like.
I didn’t like cancel culture on the left. And while it took me time to separate out what was an equivalent of cancel culture on the right vs what would genuinely fall into hate speech (I’m still not sure I’m 100% clear on this line as I believe there are only a select class of criminals worthy of that level of hate like pedophiles etc.) But I know the right crossed the line into cancel culture quite quickly. And while I’ll admit I was initially amused at the concept (though not participating,) it made me deeply uneasy that the guy who was killed for encouraging debate and free speech was the very guy being used to justify stopping free speech that someone didn’t like.
Obviously incitement to violence needs to be stopped and criminally handled. Hate crimes likewise. But I believe in free speech and think the most important free speech is the speech I don’t agree with. It’s not truly free speech if everyone is in agreement.
So while I couldn’t clearly articulate what my line would be ahead of time - maybe partly a factor of being in Canada and aware of the news bias coming out of the US, what I can say is it’s been crossed. However, as a Canadian, I’m not sure that my sense of a line being crossed makes one bit of difference to the US. I certainly don’t believe I have influence there, but it saddens me to see the number of people whose own morals can’t tell them that two wrongs don’t make a right.
While I am glad that you provided a counter balancing perspective about the Charlie Kirk Memorial. It was an awesome Evangelical Christian Revival meeting, the largest of its kind ever and provided a global opportunity to spread the gospel story that all Evangelicals are called to do. Yes it was mixed with self promotion of the Turning Point agenda and the MAGA version of the Republican Party. You have only partially understood then the separate messages of these three agendas. You are a self admitted non believer and therefore unable to segregate that multi successes were occurring at the same time. None USA Christians easily separated the US politics from the amazing event and felt blessed by the strong clear presentation of the Biblical Truths from surprising sources like Marco Rubio. This event stood in stark contrast to the global demonstrations of mixed up Woke Infused protestors for Palestine and the reality of Islamic Terrorists who seek to rid the world of Christians and Jews.. You may wish to marvel at Hillary Clinton who wants to rid the world of White Christian Men so that Woke infused DEI radicals can prevail. You may also want to consider that the majority of Christians live in China, India, Africa and not in Europe or the US.
I must admit that if it wasn't for Matt breaking down Carney earlier this week I would have cancelled you but then I calmed down !!
I'm speaking to a fellow Christian, so I feel I can put this in spiritual terms...
You're right that Mr. Kirk's memorial was more than one thing, but it wasn't just the insertion of the political that made it into more than one thing, there was also an explicitly anti-Christian spiritual element.
I don't mean that Donald Trump is the anti-Christ or anything so melodramatic, but what he said at that memorial was overtly anti-Christian... it was an anti-Christ message.
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
This is a hard teaching. It's very difficult to accept. And yet, as hard as it may be, it IS Christ's message and commandment. When we hear "hate your opponents, don't want the best for them", we MUST reject it as anti-Biblical, anti-Christian and anti-Christ and not be afraid to say so, no matter how powerful the speaker or how much we fear someone else in their place.
********
One far less important quibble...
> It was an awesome Evangelical Christian Revival meeting, the largest of its kind ever
It wasn't the largest of its kind if you meant "evangelical Christian revival meeting". Not even close.
I looked it up. Mr. Kirk's memorial had 90,000 people attending including at overflow sites. That's quite a lot, but Billy Graham drew 1.1 MILLION to a single meeting in the 1970s.
And I doubt very much that anyone on stage at that Billy Graham revival delivered an anti-Christian message in open defiance of the actual words of Jesus.
Briefly, I didn’t mean to imply any common ground with the US President. He recognized he does not meet the forgive and love standard. In fact Mr Trump was fully exposed as someone fully condemned by Christs teaching.
Billy Graham was the GOAT of evangelical preachers. I’ve served at his rallies. But in the current US culture war , over 100000 attendees on 10 days notice and over 120Million via broadcast and internet ongoing interest is very encouraging!
You're right, it is encouraging when people are listening to the gospel.
And yet.. that evangelical event included an explicitly anti-Christian message within it and (as far as I know), it wasn't identified as wrong and corrected by anyone speaking later. I would be very happy to be wrong about that, so if it was, please let me know.
I'm not (quite) old enough to have listened to Billy Graham, but I can't imagine he would have ignored something like that without correcting it.
What should have been said? "Mr. Trump, what you said about forgiveness is wrong and it is against what Jesus taught us. You must forgive your enemies when they sin against you...if you don't, Jesus said that God will not forgive your sins".
I don't mean to imply you agreed with Mr. Trump on this... but we can't have anti-Christian messages preached at an evangelical revival because if we do... it's not an evangelical revival.
Thank you Jen. I would not say that what Kirk was doing was a sacrafice of his time in persuit of his convictions. He was making millions of dollars doing it. That's not sacrafice, that's busines in persuit of personal wealth. That fits the Trump admin totally. That is what they consider him a martyr to -- making money is their holy grail.
This summer my uncle died and I attended his funeral in a Cathedral parish in a very small town in Northern Alberta. I'll count it as a great good fortune that despite being Catholic I had not been to a Catholic funeral in quite a while. I was awestruck, though in a mundane way, by the beauty of that service, despite the fact that it was pretty plain.
What struck me most was that every main of my uncle was in the context of his relationship to Christ. For example "Almighty God and Father, it is our certain faith
that your Son, who died on the Cross, was raised from the dead,
the first-fruits of all who have fallen asleep.
Grant that through this mystery
your servant Richard., who has gone to his rest in Christ,
may share in the joy of his resurrection.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and
the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."
That was it. Over and over. From what I saw of the Kirk funeral there was some of this, but it uncomfortably (for me) blended political rally with Christian faith. I can't quite make that feel ok.
Mostly my uncle's funeral felt like it was all about Christ and Kirk's funeral felt like it was all about him. I think one of the hardest things to learn as a Christian is that your life is not really about you. As St John Paul II said "We are not the sum of our weaknesses and failures; we are the sum of the Father's love for us and our real capacity to become the image of his Son." That comes with a ton of responsibility to serve other, and to see in every person that same image. Becoming like Jesus means becoming less like yoy. There was some of that in Kirk's funeral, but also too much political spectacle.
I feel great sympathy for Kirk and his family. I don't know how one should mourn a political figure of his magnitude cut down so young, while engaged in free speech. I doubt I'll ever have them impact Charlie Kirk did (please God don't ever make me a star). But even if I did, I would much rather have the simple funeral mass my uncle had than the mad spectacle of the Kirk funeral.
Good column even though I don't know if revenge is the right term. Exploitation is probably better.
Good, empirical coverage and emphasis that the current "we" can't claim their cause is being persecuted and turn around and persecute the current "them".
Democracy only works when we realize that all voices, regardless of perspective, when absent of hate, should be accepted and discussion encouraged.
BTW Jen the Fire Code no longer deals with fireworks in Canada, they are regulated under the federal Explosives Act and often through municipal bylaws regarding sales and discharge 😊
Manichean…..well done Gerson. Right out of the churches’ Patristic age. This show reminds me of the state funeral for Erwin Rommel.
I believe you are judging it correctly. This version of evangelical Christianity as politics is for the birds —as if god was picking a winning team.
Canadians seem slightly less enthralled with navigating the swirling waters of these merging currents than Americans, but the very fact that we see such a physical spectacle, with no room for interpretation or nuance or doubt makes me dismiss almost all of it as theatre.
I wonder if the lord was tracking the engagement on the QR code?
What a barn-burner of a piece! Many of the comments here, likewise, have attained a high degree of integrity and maturity. I have kept my distance from Kirk and was only vaguely aware of him prior to the assassination. The rage of the culture wars makes me fear. I have a dread of theocracy: both for what it does to society and its impact on true aspiration to the holy.
As for Kirk himself, I don't think it's fair to characterize him as either a holy martyr or a Nazi. There's a lot of space between those categories in which to fall. While biological sex may be binary, this sort of thing definitely isn't. Perhaps an analogous historical figure that comes to mind is Savonarola.
In any case, the whole thing is tragic. I think a big part of the problem is that we have lost our sense of tragedy (I mean this in the literary sense going back to the Greeks; I think tragedy actually had some kind of cathartic, mourning, peacemaking function).
I’ve been reading about early Christianity lately and one author made the case that religion and politics can’t really be separated since your political beliefs are based on your worldview. If your worldview is based in Christianity, then your political beliefs are based on those values. The same way the progressive left worldview informs their political beliefs, we just don’t call it religion. Doing it for God or doing it for equity is two sides of the same coin.