Archives for category: Politics

After 9/11, there was a massive uptick in hate crimes against Muslims… and Sikhs, too. It was a tough time to be brown, generally. Racism was on open display, as prominent Muslim voices were routinely asked to condemn Islamic terrorism before being allowed to speak on even irrelevant topics. Terrorism was a burden carried by all Muslims in the West, and that was incredibly racist of all of us to allow this generalization to take place.

After October 7th, there has been a significant increase in antisemitic hate crimes as well. It is a tough time to be Jewish. What I see as different between the two rises of hate crimes is that the link between Islam and Jihad as it was expressed by groups like Al-Qaeda is not widely accepted in the Muslim community. Mosques across the world do not hang the flag of ISIS in prominent locations. Muslim summer camps across North America do not teach kids the importance of aggressive Jihad as a fundamental component of their belief system. There is no broad institutional link between Islam and terrorism; hence, it was racist to make that the underlying ideology of American foreign and domestic policy. Zionism as the belief in the necessity of a specifically Jewish ethno-state has no such exculpatory claim. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize religions like Islam (and Christianity, for that matter) for its treatment of women since there is a textual basis for this, and there is an amazing feminist movement within Islam that is attempting to address that. So too should it be reasonable to criticize Judaism for its widely-held belief in a uniquely Jewish state (and there is a great anti-Zionist movement within Judaism as well).

Put ’em together, and you get the American-Israeli war on Iran!

This is obviously a very complex and fraught comparison, but I think it has merit. It is perhaps unfair to single out Israel as The Jewish State when there are many Islamic States and many of them are behaving badly, notably Sudan with its own genocide in the works, that do not elicit the same response as Israel. If there were multiple Jewish states with diverse sets of policies, it’s easy to see that pinning the acts of Israel on Jewish people generally would hold a greater degree of antisemitism. Iran can claim to be the representative of Shia Islam, but there are other countries with high Shia populations and many in the Shia diaspora that vehemently reject Iran as their religious nexus and this is easily recognizable as valid differentiation.

However, the way that Israel as a homeland functions as part of Jewish belief, there can’t be multiple Jewish states. Israel is the Jewish state, and while Islam has political methodologies embedded into its belief system, these can be interpreted in many different ways across a variety of localized cultural perspectives. There can be only one Israel, and maybe that’s unfair to the Jews, but that’s kind of the point of this article. Whether we like it or not, Israel is the sole state representative of Judaism.

Now with parts of Syria, and parts of Lebanon, and all of Palestine!

The difficulty of combatting the rise of antisemitism is thus how to differentiate Jew from Israel when so much of the Jewish religious institution has support for Israel baked into it. If a Jewish representative is giving an impassioned speech against antisemitism in a synagogue with an Israeli flag hanging on the wall, inconspicuously wafting behind them, how can we take that seriously? If a Jewish summer camp teaches children that Israel brought civilization to an untamed wilderness, and this is the legacy of their people and a formative part of a young person’s identity, how do we then cleave that child from the acts of their homeland? The concept of dual-loyalty is a pernicious form of antisemitism, but it is not helped by a socially-accepted establishment that embraces Israel as part of the Jewish faith. How much antisemitism would there be in Canada right now if the Jewish people and communities across this country rejected Israel as much as our Persian neighbours reject Iran?

I was listening to a “debate” between podcasters Daniel Maté and Jesse Brown, two Jewish men of differing views on the threat to Jews in Canada. Brown’s thesis is that antisemites do not need an excuse to hate Jews and that these people have found their home in the pro-Palestinian movement. If we bring up subjects like a Jewish embrace of Israel as a reason for antisemitism, then we are blaming Jews for their own victimization. To an extent this is true; a random Hasidic man who is assaulted walking down the street is a victim regardless of his beliefs. We can’t lock up Japanese immigrants in internment camps because of the actions of a government they walked away from. However, if there was broad and vocal support for Japan and its actions during World War II among Japanese-American communities, I still wouldn’t suggest locking them all up, but it would make sense that there would be consequences to that.

Was the Nanjing Massacre justified? We’re just asking questions!

To be clear, this does not excuse violence against Jewish people, their places of worship, or their businesses. To understand the reasons behind bad behaviour is not to condone it. I can understand the reasons behind both terrorism and even the Palestinian genocide, so I don’t think it’s taboo to explore why antisemitism is on the rise. But people have a hard time with nuance, so I’ll repeat myself: this stuff is all bad. Beyond the fundamental inhumanity of antisemitism, it is also antithetical to getting the Jewish community to separate itself from Israel since groups that are attacked tend to close ranks rather agree that the position of violence is offering reasonable points.

It is critical we address the rise of antisemitism. I agree with Brown on that point. We cannot have a repeat of Japanese internment camps – not that we’re anywhere close to that in Canada, but the general idea remains. I disagree that the blame lies with the pro-Palestinian movement because this violence does not exist in a vacuum. It would be like blaming the Allies for the negative attitudes toward the Axis. It is right and good to fight against fascism and genocide, today as it was back then. It is also right and good to distinguish the individual from the institutions, even as some individuals may support that institution. We’re all still human.

The one true religion!

I am not Jewish, so I can’t contribute very much to the internal dialogue that needs to happen within that community. Much like the feminist movement within Islam, the voices of outsiders are not worth very much in which direction the current will end up shifting. However, I am Canadian, so I do get a say in the direction of this country. I don’t like seeing a rise in hate crimes, and I don’t see the current siloed approach to addressing it as effective.

In the same way that I don’t think a meaningful conversation about jihadi terrorism can exist without addressing Western intervention in the Middle East, so too I don’t think a meaningful conversation about the rise of antisemitism can exist without addressing the genocide of Palestinians. Saying the terrorists simply “hate our freedoms” is the equivalent of saying that antisemites “don’t need an excuse.” Arguably, the violence against Jews today is a continuation of the terrorism that came to our attention on 9/11 as it is an on-going response to the Western intervention and imperialism in that region. There is a vacuum of accountability in the West manufactured by ignoring and denying our own role in perpetuating violence and repression, and the compounding progression of that global gaslighting campaign has led us to where we are today. Even more than a conversation, action is required on both antisemitism and the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine, and I think they need to happen in tandem so we don’t make the same mistakes we made in the past.

Canada recently joined a baby-step of an international boycott on goods coming out of the illegally occupied West Bank (despite our lengthy history of condemning the Boycott, Divest & Sanction movement because it “demonizes Israel”, but I suppose one day everyone will always have been against this). This could be done in cooperation with the pro-Palestinian movement as well as one or more of the many Jewish groups that are vocal and active in condemning the actions of Israel. It could be done in repudiation of the antisemitism at home, reinforcing the distinction between the Jewish population and the state of Israel. Politics is not separate from communities. The personal is political. I wish we had politicians that could address that bridge, but we do not. I hope that we as citizens can try our best to do so on our own in the interim.

I’ve been watching the latest season of Daredevil: Born Again, and it’s forced me to contemplate the philosophy of superheroes once more. By dint of their title, superheroes are modern paragons of virtue. More than just heroes, these creatures of myth follow the long tradition of moral idols from Beowulf to Achilles to our boy Jesus Christ, guiding us using story toward redemption. Even the Iron Giant looked to Superman to determine what kind of robot he wanted to be.

Arguably one of the best Superman movies ever made.

Yet the moral standards that many (though not all) heroes represent are actually quite simplistic in their deontology: do not kill. However broken the system might be, it must be upheld and upheld in such a way that the villains live to antagonize another day. Batman has sacrificed every Aristotelian virtue in his crusade for justice, Batman routinely tortures people, but Batman will never kill. In further abandonment of the Greeks, the meaning of that justice is never questioned, particularly in the turnstile carceral system of Gotham City, but there is one moral rule that supersedes all others. The ends of justice would never justify the means of obtaining it if those means involve killing in any way. All other means are seemingly totally fine.

The problem with our cultural heroes throughout time is that their stories are understood to be aspirational. A Greek warrior will never be Achilles but can strive to his bravery. A Christian will always be a sinner but can do their best to live in grace. We can fight for justice, and if one or two people get killed, well, we’re no Batman. If our moral theory is at a baseline low bar, then us mere mortals are justified in not living up to that standard, and all of a sudden literally everything is on the table. Christ had so many rules that a good Christian is forgiven for fudging a few, but the superhero has only one. Characters like the Punisher are revered in vicious applications of the law because there is a perceived authenticity in his approach in comparison to the other heroes who constantly have to dwell and gnash their teeth on the singular moral rule they are obligated to follow.

Literal fascism cosplaying as action heroes.

Batman is frequently accused of being a murderer by allowing the Joker to live – as if it were up to him. The Joker is an irredeemable killing machine that will continue to produce murders until the off-switch is flicked. This is a canonical truism. This isn’t a reflection of reality; real-life monsters have more nuance than this one-dimensional murderous madness, but with the in-universe laws of human psychology, it is an undeniable fact. Superman kills Zod in the Zach Snyder movie because there is no other possible solution to the problem of a deranged Kryptonian. Theoretically, Zod could have been written to be convinced of the error of his ways and apologized to the people of Earth, spending the denouement of the film trying to redeem himself. Stories are malleable. But that is not the moral lessons superheroes teach – villains are a constant, and the philosophy of letting them live is allowed to be an actual debate. This blurring of the singular moral rule, even within the universes where it’s held to be paramount, pushes the boundary beyond any justifiable moral rationale into outright advocacy for murder. A real-life Punisher is a school shooter, killing perceived bad guys driven by a hazy sense of permanent justice.

A little while ago, I watched the John Wayne film The Seachers. In the film, Indians (it feels inappropriate to use a politically correct term) murder a nice, white family and abduct their two young, white daughters. John Wayne must track down these Indians, but while searching, one of the daughters is killed (with more than that being implied), and the other “goes native” and John Wayne must now kill her himself for losing her whiteness – this is the literal plot of the film. In the end, John Wayne meets up with her, and in the moment of truth where the question of whether or not John Wayne will murder a young woman in cold blood for the sin of being accepted into an Indigenous band, John Wayne uses his stoic machismo to convert her back into a proper white woman. This film is considered a cinema classic, and reflecting on it, were the Indians to be replaced by vampires or aliens or some other such non-human group, it likely would have stood the test of time.

I mean, who wouldn’t turn into a white woman looking into those baby blues??

What does this say about our current fictional monsters who are morally irredeemable? Would Batman or Daredevil be considered incredibly progressive if their rogues gallery were replaced by black gangsters, and all the world demanded their deaths, but these heroes refused to succumb to the social pressures of meting out an extrajudicial death penalty to the Central Park Five? Critically, without providing justification that the Central Park Five should not have been framed this way in the first place? The grotesque moral framing of these stories is much more obvious when the cartoon villains are replaced by the very real human beings typically at the root of these kinds of life-and-death deliberations – and very much on the wrong side of that debate. Who is Zod if not the Supreme Leader of Iran, his death a necessity for the sake of the world? The official narrative tells us we had no other choice. Who are the Venezuelan fishermen if not replicants of the Joker, and all of us but men, resigned to the fallibility of having to dole out deaths that perhaps only a Bruce Wayne could have otherwise avoided?

Returning to the Greeks, Socrates casts doubt on traditional understandings of justice, but through his trademark condescending dialogue, is able to narrow the definition to the foundational structure of how a society is organized. Justice is a Just world. In Daredevil: Born Again, there is an obvious condemnation of Trump-style politics with paper-thin parallels to ICE abductions and unrepentant criminals being elected into public office. Of note, the overt racism of real-life Trump politics does not carry over into the show because Disney is a massive corporation that sees no financial benefit in chasing that allegory. Daredevil: Born Again follows the well-trodden path of Democratic lawmakers where they will be highly critical of the most obvious flaws of Trumpism (of note, while still ignoring much of the racism underlying American politics that brought us all to this point), but refusing to point to an alternative society that would be better than the one much of the world sees both Trump and Fisk as the answer to. In a binary choice between no option and a bad option to an unjust society, it turns out many people will turn to the bad option. As much as the narrative tries to frame it this way, Daredevil does not offer hope to New York City, he offers only negation.

Also Catholicism.

I’m not saying that superheroes need to add utilitarian calculus to their cinematic feats of bravery and prowess; that would be incredibly boring. However, to not offer a vision of the just society they’re fighting for is moral myopia. Every single instance of democracy in this world was born in slaughter. America had a war with the British. The British had a civil war. Germany and Japan lost a world war. The French killed literally everyone. I’m not saying that superheroes need to start killing folks (nor that utilitarianism is a viable ethical framework – it ain’t), but the singular focus on killing as the only moral rule worth elevating is harmful on so many levels.

I’ve seen around the internet a “joke” that says that the left’s vision of a utopia is a world where everyone has enough to live well and take care of themselves; the right’s utopia is a world where white people work 80 hours a week and everyone else is dead. This is perhaps reductive on both sides, but useful to ask where along this spectrum the “justice” that all these superheroes are fighting for sits. If our moral paragons had real ideals, not living up to their standard would be less important than believing in the world that we all should be fighting for.

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he decided to travel to Kenosha, Wisconsin with the intention of using a weapon to “protect businesses” against Black Lives Matter protesters in the most cursed year of our Lord, 2020. Whether or not any businesses were protected by his actions, Rittenhouse did end up using his weapon and killed three people on his quixotic quest to protect the capital of the ownership class. While he was infamously found Not Guilty due to self-defense, those three human beings would still be alive today if Rittenhouse prioritized lives over property and decided to stay home – or even just to travel unarmed. He made the choice to create the opportunity for death to happen, and it did.

For his ethical crimes, if not his legal ones, Rittenhouse was feted by the Republican party with house representatives stumbling over each other to offer him internships, including Matt Gaetz who did so even before the verdict had been established. He received a standing ovation at a Turning Point USA conference. He met with President Trump. He was embraced by the Right for a single act of extreme violence – not in spite of it, because of it.

Escaping legal ramifications for being a terrible person? No wonder they got along!

Daniel Penny was 24 years old when he decided to use a chokehold on a homeless man in distress on a New York City subway train in the still pretty cursed year of our Lord, 2023. Jordan Neely was unarmed, and is quoted as saying, “I don’t have food, I don’t have a drink, I’m fed up. I don’t mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I’m ready to die.” He threw garbage at people, but did not touch anyone. He had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. While intervention was literally being begged for, the kind provided was that of a marine who only had one kind of training. Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely.

Similar to Rittenhouse, Penny’s acquittal by the courts was widely celebrated by the Republican party. Penny had protected a train full of citizens, after all! He was invited to a football game by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance for his troubles, his accomplishment identical to that of Rittenhouse – he had killed someone.

Quick! Someone give him the Crippler Crossface!

Luigi Mangione was 26 years old when he allegedly decided to murder UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in the now-tired-repetition-of-this-bit, 2024. He wrote “delay, deny, depose” on the bullet casings used in the killing in likely reference to how insurance companies obfuscate claims to avoid paying them. More than 26,000 Americans die from not having health insurance each year, and Mangione acted in direct response to this as, per his manifesto, “the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”

Mangione is loved by the internet in ways that appear to transcend partisanship. Yet, in terms of established politicians, Donald Trump has called for the death penalty. Murder is back to being bad again. Bernie Sanders, the leftest of the left in terms of establishment politicians, condemned the killing and said that the way to make change is through mass movements, not murder. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the Robin to Sanders’s Batman, said the killing wasn’t justified, but that she understands people’s unsympathetic response to it given how health insurance works in America. There has been a broad attempt to connect the Democratic party to this kind of retributive violence, but the connection simply does not exist. No one is going to invite Luigi Mangione to anything.

Can you even imagine Luigi getting a beer with like, Barack Obama or George Soros or something? Fuck off!

What’s the difference? It’s not like if Mangione is found Not Guilty that it’s going to change anything. Remember that Matt Gaetz asked Rittenhouse to be an intern before the trial was even over, and that the President is a convicted felon. Trump pardoned all of the January 6th insurrectionists and calls them heroes and patriots. Legal responsibility has nothing to do with it. The difference is ideology.

I think it’s important to acknowledge here that all killings are political. If a gangster kills another gangster over a drug deal gone wrong, that’s political. Society has made the choice to criminalize drugs, therefore drug dealers have no civil recourse to resolve their business disputes. Politics also withheld other opportunities from these young gangsters, and incentivized alternative methods of income due to the meagre offerings of the state. We’ve collectively decided that we prefer to have dead gangsters and their collateral damage in order to make a statement on the morality of drugs: they’re bad (except alcohol, sugar, gambling, etc.). Of course, dead gangsters are political killings in the way that American health insurance kills tens of thousands of people a year; the politics is hidden behind the veil of the status quo. People don’t think about the politics because these deaths have been normalized and neutralized. What’s fascinating is that Republicans brought politics into the limelight in these instances. The difference between Rittenhouse, Penny, and Mangione is that Republicans have openly welcomed murder into their fold, and Democrats have not.

Gandalf the White!? Gandalf the Woke!

Republicans could have looked at Rittenhouse and Penny and said that, while it’s important to recognize the value of property and the comfort of (*cough* white) citizens, it’s a tragedy what happened, and we deeply regret how these encounters unfolded. Much in the same way that progressive Democrats talked about Mangione, Republicans could have talked about Rittenhouse and Penny. They chose not to. These killings could have remained relatively neutral and normalized, but by dint of actually embracing these killers, Republicans brought overt capital-p Politics into the discussion. Through the way they’ve responded, Republicans have shown that this is their preference. They are building a politics wherein murder is not just acceptable, but actively encouraged. These killers were rewarded for their deeds.

To be completely upfront, this was the extent of what I wanted to write about this topic. As the length of time between my posts suggests, I tend to procrastinate quite heavily when it comes to putting my blog ideas online. In and of themselves, these killers represent rather well the radical extremity of the Republican party in comparison to the milquetoast Democrats when it comes to how far they’re willing to go in implementing their respective social ideologies. However, as I’m sure you’re aware, there has been a bit of a development in this topic since I began mulling it over.

What could it be??

Charlie Kirk was killed in the back-to-being-funny-again year of our Lord, 2025. Who did it and their motives is irrelevant. Everyone unanimously agreed immediately that this was done because of Kirk’s political views; the killer has been mapped on to what society already wanted to talk about by default. For the Right, the killer is “them.” They’re explicit about this, “They killed Charlie Kirk.” I’ve seen it personally on social media, and you can just trawl through any given Republican’s Twitter feed or speech that they’ve given and see the blame being placed on “the Left” or even Democrats. Representative Nancy Mace said that Democrats “own” what happened to Kirk. Representative Bob Onder said that the “Left” is “pure evil” and that there is no longer any middle ground. Conservative influencer with the ear of Donald Trump Laura Loomer said that the government needs to start prosecuting “leftist” organizations. Trump of course never strays from blaming the “Left” for everything, and refuses to even attempt to unify the country after this polarizing killing.

Compare this to the liberal responses, symbolized in the Ezra Klein article in the New York Times that talks about the tragedy of the killing, as politics should be about debate, free speech, and not killing people you disagree with. Don’t celebrate this, you nerds! It’s the exact same response as with Luigi Mangione; this isn’t the way to move politics forward; if you disagree with someone, build a movement – like Charlie Kirk did! He did politics the right way! Like I said, people are just mapping this event on to the beliefs that they already have. The Right blames the “Left” and continues on their merry way cracking down on groups of people they don’t like. Liberals talk about how the progressive wing just doesn’t understand how politics *really* works. This isn’t marking a turning point (pun intended) in American politics, but a continuation of how each party was going to act anyway. Republicans will keep being fascists, and Democrats will keep not understanding how fascism works, preferring instead to be Voltaire, defending to the death the rights of Charlie Kirk to say whatever he wants! Of course, Voltaire never actually said that, and his most famous work is actually about how everything is terrible.

“You’re a bitter man,” said Candide.
That’s because I’ve lived,” said Martin.”

The perseveration on the celebration of Kirk’s death is frustrating. Op-eds keep emphasizing the importance of dialogue and deliberation in response to disagreement, and that celebrating Kirk’s death defiles that sacred tenet of Free Speech. The problem is that this is awfully convenient for the politics of murder that is already in charge and dominating in the United States. Suggesting that sitting around talking while people are having their rights taken away, while a genocide is being enabled, while marginalized groups are being violently persecuted simply for existing, is the height of naive privilege. It’s nice to talk about an ideal society where problems are resolved diplomatically and to philosophize about a marketplace of ideas creating rousing debates that bring us closer to an ultimate truth. This utopia is not our reality. While you certainly can try to talk your way out of someone holding a gun to your head, it’s not that uncontroversial to try to defend yourself through other means. What Charlie Kirk stood for isn’t something that you ‘disagree’ with, it’s something that you fight. Words can be used in that fight, certainly, but the very institutions of deliberation, the American judicial system for one, are being sorely tested in whether or not words will be of any use combating the roaring fascism in control of the country right now. We shall see how effective they are.

Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA which, as noted above, hosted Kyle Rittenhouse after he killed those three people. Kirk was against civil rights and thought Martin Luther King, Jr. was awful and bad for America. He thought that immigrants of colour are “replacing” white Americans and should be treated accordingly. He built a movement on these principles, and helped Donald Trump win the 2024 election. The ethnic cleansing of mass deportations that is on-going is a part of Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Charlie Kirk is a significant contributor to the politics of murder that has become part and parcel of the American Right. His death is being used as an excuse to amplify that kind of politics; the tragedy of Kirk’s death isn’t that he died, it’s whatever comes next.

Was Charlie Kirk being killed a good thing? I don’t care. It happened, and it’ll probably spark a vicious, oppressive backlash that defines the success of any terrorist attack. I’ll finish by quoting Malcolm X on the assassination of John F. Kennedy:

“The chickens have come home to roost.”