Category World News

Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday. His suspected killer, identified by law enforcement as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was taken into custody after a substantial manhunt, based on information from people close to Robinson’s family. Utah Governor Spencer Cox said a family member of Robinson had reached out to a friend, who then contacted the authorities, and that friends and relatives interviewed by investigators described Robinson as “full of hate” when speaking about Kirk at a recent gathering. Robinson’s exact motivations for allegedly carrying out the shooting are still being explored.

If past instances of political attacks are any guide, more detailed information about Robinson’s potential motivations may be revealed over time. But we don’t need to read a manifesto or scroll through social media posts to know that any attempt to justify killing Kirk over his words or views is indefensible.

I mostly avoided Kirk’s rhetoric over the years. I found most of the content I heard from him distasteful, both to me and to many other Americans, and offensive to objective facts and discourse. Kirk often cherry-picked and distorted history to push agendas that many of us believe are not only abhorrent but also dangerous to racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other marginalised people.

But I did not want Kirk to be harmed. When I learned that he had been shot, I did not want him to die. On the contrary, I prayed that God’s will be done in the situation – the same God whom Kirk and I both claimed, whatever our political disagreements may have been. I hoped that he would recover, and that his brush with death might help him gain a new, more constructive perspective on politics and life.

Last summer, I had similar hopes (though perhaps not expectations) that Donald Trump would be changed for the better after he survived an assassination attempt while speaking at a campaign event. “Trump has the opportunity to put the peace and security of the country ahead of his personal ambition,” I wrote at the time. “Perhaps coming so close to death will change his perspective on stirring up his supporters.”

That did not happen. Instead, Trump quickly returned to the same sort of demonising rhetoric and selective outrage that has heightened and polarised American politics. He pardoned the January 6 rioters who attacked Capitol police officers, as well as the Proud Boys members who had been convicted of conspiring against the United States government. And even with Kirk dying from a shooting similar to the one that almost took Trump’s life last year, the president and many of his supporters have mainly doubled down on the type of vitriol that has become all too common in American politics.

This is not to say that the MAGA movement or the right has been alone in condoning political violence or dehumanising others. When UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed late last year, his alleged killer, Luigi Mangione, became somewhat of a folk hero. While this killing does not appear to be explicitly partisan, many of the comments that mocked Thompson or celebrated Mangione took on the tone of class warfare. And when unsubstantiated rumours about Trump’s health started to circulate recently, many of his detractors seemed to celebrate the possibility that Trump could be incapacitated or worse, and expressed disappointment when he re-emerged in the public eye.

But toxic online rhetoric is one thing, and nearly any popular topic will elicit offensive or hateful commentary on social media. With the MAGA movement led by Trump, the hateful language of its most trollish followers is often indistinguishable from the rhetoric coming from the movement’s loudest and most prominent voices. After breaking the news of Kirk’s death on social media, President Trump posted a four-minute video honouring Kirk and demonising the political left.

“For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonising those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.”

Now seems like an appropriate time to remind you that, less than a year ago, Trump appeared on Fox News and referred to leftists as “the enemy from within” and “Marxists and communists and fascists,” specifically naming Adam Schiff and “the Pelosis” and calling them “so sick and so evil.”

“From the attack on my life in Butler, Pennsylvania, last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others, radical Left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.”

Noticeably absent from the president’s list were several violent, sometimes lethal, attacks against Democrats or carried out by self-declared MAGA followers. It is a calculated choice to condemn the shooting of a prominent Republican in 2017 but not the murders of two Democrats and the shooting of two others in Minnesota three months ago, or the torching of the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion while Democrat Josh Shapiro and his family slept inside. Condemning “attacks on ICE agents” after pardoning dozens of people who attacked Capitol police officers is a cynical double standard.

Through the discourse surrounding Kirk’s death, I’ve become familiar with the term “selective empathy,” a succinct phrase that covers a concept with which many of us are familiar. At their worst, President Trump and even Kirk engaged in this type of moral relativism, condoning actions against their opponents that they would condemn if done to their allies. And those of us who reject the MAGA ideology are at our worst when we tolerate, excuse, or even celebrate, violence against those who oppose us or who hold us in disdain.

At his best, Charlie Kirk manifested his core religious and political beliefs by appealing to the universal values of love and human dignity rooted in Christianity and the principle of equality on which the United States was founded. While he often failed to conform his rhetoric to these larger principles, Kirk and others in his ideological camp are still deserving of the empathy embedded in those principles. To deny them such consideration based on their views would be to undermine our own opposition to their divisive and even dangerous rhetoric. For all our sakes, we can and must do better.

Killing of divisive conservative Charlie Kirk triggers fears of a cycle of violence.

Even in a city known for staging some of boxing’s greatest fights, the Canelo Alvarez-Terence Crawford match stands nearly alone.

It will be the first fight at 5-year-old Allegiant Stadium, the Saturday night showdown underscoring the magnitude of an event that will have implications for both boxers trying to further strengthen their Hall of Fame-worthy careers.

Alvarez (63-2-2, 39 knockouts), as is typically the case when the Mexican great fights in his boxing home of Las Vegas, will have the vast majority of the crowd behind him as he defends his unified super middleweight championship. The 35-year-old is a -175 favourite at BetMGM Sportsbook.

“This fight for me is big,” Alvarez said. “It’s one of the biggest fights of my career for sure.”

Crawford (41-0, 31 KOs) is moving up two weight classes, and the 37-year-old from Omaha, Nebraska, already has captured two unified division titles. No male fighter has accomplished that feat in three classes.

“This is a massive fight,” Crawford said. “It’s talked about all over the world right now.”

Alvarez and Crawford talk of the town in Las Vegas

The city known as the “Fight Capital of the World” is used to hosting big-time matches, but there was no stadium like Allegiant to house some of the great bouts of the past.

Resorts such as Caesars Palace’s outdoor arena, The Mirage and Las Vegas Hilton hosted some of the more notable fights in 1980s and 1990s, before giving way to MGM Grand Garden Arena and then T-Mobile Arena.

Top Rank matchmaker Bruce Trampler, who was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 2010, has booked many of those matches, but he’s not involved with this one. UFC CEO and President Dana White and Riyadh Season are promoting this card.

“I think it’s right up there with the great fights in Las Vegas history,” Trampler said. “You’ve got two champions fighting. There’s a lot of storylines – Crawford moving up in weight, Canelo hoping to cement his legacy. But beyond all that, on paper it’s a tremendous matchup. It’s two contrasting styles, two contrasting fan bases. It’s got all the ingredients.”

Kevin Iole, who covered combat sports for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Yahoo! Sports, noted many other major fights in this city included star power in both corners.

Muhammad Ali fought Larry Holmes in 1980, Marvelous Marvin Hagler took on Thomas Hearns in 1985, Sugar Ray Leonard met Roberto Duran in 1989, and Mike Tyson faced Evander Holyfield in 1996 and 1997. More recently, Floyd Mayweather Jr faced Manny Pacquiao in 2015.

“Crawford doesn’t reach the level of stardom,” Iole said. “He will if he wins, but going into this fight, he’s not as big as a Sugar Ray Leonard was. Tyson, Sugar Ray Leonard, even an Oscar De La Hoya, those guys were just bigger names. So when they had their biggest fights here, those guys were bigger because of their names.”

Alvarez is unquestionably the bigger draw, a point Crawford has conceded.

But even Alvarez finds himself fighting in a different era and in a different atmosphere than many previous champions.

“Yes, Canelo is the biggest star in boxing today, but boxing isn’t the same sport that it was in the 1980s,” Iole said. “So I think that mitigates it a little bit, but I would say without question, that this is one of the biggest fights in Las Vegas history.”

Will Alvarez-Crawford be a fight for the ages?

The ultimate test is what happens in the ring. It could be a night that will be forgotten quickly or it could go down in history.

“There’s a reason there’s going to be 50,000 or 60,000 people there,” Trampler said. “That’s because everyone wants to see it. It’s going to be quite the event, the biggest one of the year in Las Vegas for sure.”

Alvarez has been asked many times in recent years whether he would fight WBC interim light heavyweight champion David Benavidez.

He was asked again at Thursday’s news conference.

“I never say no to anything,” Alvarez said. “We’ll see later, but I’m 100% focused on this fight.”

Those with a Netflix subscription can watch this fight rather than shell out $90 or $100 on pay-per-view, which could be more of the norm going forward.

This is White’s first foray into boxing, and he doesn’t plan to make it his last. The UFC reached a seven-year deal with Paramount last month, going away from the PPV model and making its numbered cards available to those who subscribe to Paramount+.

Callum Walsh (14-0, 11 KOs) of Ireland meets Fernando Vargas Jr. (17-0, 15 KOs) of Las Vegas in the co-main event. Vargas Senior was an IBF, IBA and WBC super welterweight champion.