On 10–11 September 2025 two widely reported killings in the United States — the fatal stabbing of a young Ukrainian refugee on a Charlotte light-rail train in August and the shooting of a well-known conservative commentator at a public event in Utah — have reignited debate about public security, political rhetoric and the protection of women and free speech.
Iryna Zarutska — a refugee whose life was cut short
Iryna Zarutska, a young woman who had arrived in the United States as a refugee from Ukraine after the Russian invasion, was fatally stabbed on 22 August 2025 while travelling on Charlotte’s Lynx Blue Line. The attack was captured on transit surveillance video that authorities later released. The footage prompted an intensive investigation and the arrest of a suspect; prosecutors have filed charges in state court, and federal authorities announced an additional charge relating to violence on mass transportation.
Zarutska had been pursuing a new life in the United States. Reporting describes her as optimistic and trusting; she boarded public transport believing in the ordinary civility of shared spaces. Her death has prompted questions about transit security, white-women’s safety, mental health, and the adequacy of measures to prevent repeat offenders from reoffending. These are legitimate public-policy issues that merit scrutiny in light of the facts established by the investigation.
Her death has become a symbol in discussions about public safety. While some American media reported the case extensively, international coverage has been less visible. This silence has been criticised by observers who see a reluctance to address the racial aspect of the crime, since the suspect allegedly referred to Zarutska’s skin colour during the attack.
Charlie Kirk — a public figure shot while addressing an audience
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and a prominent conservative activist and commentator, was fatally shot while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University in September 2025. Authorities launched a national manhunt and recovered a weapon and material they said were linked to the attack. The killing produced an outpouring of condolences across the political spectrum and urgent calls for calm while investigators pursue leads.
Kirk had been a polarising figure in American political life, often invited to campuses and media debates to defend conservative positions. His killing triggered condolences from political leaders, yet also — disturbingly — a wave of online celebrations among extremist left-wing groups and individuals opposed to his views. For many observers, this reaction illustrates a growing intolerance in political culture: disagreement is no longer enough, opponents are dehumanised, and even violent death becomes material for mockery. The contrast has been noted between the widespread international mourning for figures such as George Floyd and the relative silence from European institutions after Kirk’s death.
What these cases reveal
Both killings underline pressing questions for democratic societies. First, whether justice systems are strong enough to prevent known offenders from reoffending. Second, whether the climate of public rhetoric has become so toxic that it risks encouraging violence against political or social opponents.
Some observers interpret these tragedies as part of a broader pattern: the rise of ideological extremism on multiple fronts, alongside a growing climate of hostility towards women. Islamist radicalism, identified by numerous security agencies, remains a major threat to Western societies, to women’s rights, and to religious minorities. At the same time, radical left movements in Europe and the United States have adopted increasingly confrontational rhetoric directed at the police, conservative politicians, and state institutions. In European cities, demonstrations against Israel and in favour of Palestine have at times brought together left-wing, communist, anarchist and Islamist groups under shared banners. On several occasions, antisemitic slogans have been recorded at these events, raising concerns about the boundaries between legitimate protest and the spread of hate speech.
This convergence raises legitimate questions about the nature of political alliances in today’s protest culture. While not every demonstrator shares extremist views, the overlap between radical left groups, certain anarchist circles, and Islamist movements is visible. For investigative journalists, this development requires careful documentation and scrutiny. Yet international media — including in Europe — often show little sustained investigative effort when it comes to the failures and threats posed by radical and far-left movements. Mainstream outlets tend to concentrate on the rhetoric of Europe’s right wing, while paying far less attention to the rise of Islamist nationalism or the interaction between these different extremist currents. This is not simply a matter of “forgetting to do the homework.” By filtering coverage in this way, the media risk silencing legitimate criticism and failing to highlight patterns of criminal behaviour which, according to police statistics, are on the rise and increasingly difficult to control even across parts of Europe.
Between vigilance and responsibility
The deaths of Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk are tragedies that go far beyond the private pain of families and friends. They point to systemic weaknesses: failures in justice and security, a public sphere poisoned by hatred, and a dangerous erosion of tolerance for difference of opinion.
In an already fragile global context — with Russia, Iran, North Korea and others openly coordinating against the West, and with NATO itself warning of long-term security threats — internal division weakens democratic societies from within. When citizens attack one another, when public debate becomes a battlefield, and when violence is excused or even applauded, adversaries abroad gain ground. The lesson of these two deaths is simple yet sobering: without peace at home, there can be no resilience against threats from abroad.
Democratic Europe has a choice: either to face these realities soberly, with evidence-based debate, stronger protection of public security, and clear rejection of all forms of extremism; or to allow polarisation to deepen, leaving societies more vulnerable both internally and externally.
A call for security
These killings are tragedies that have deeply affected families, communities and the wider national conversation. They reveal both the immediate human cost of violent crime and the long-term challenge for democratic societies: to uphold the rule of law, to secure public spaces and events, and to preserve a civic culture in which political disagreement or racism does not turn into intimidation or violence.
Calls for stronger security and more effective justice are understandable — but they also require stronger political will. It is not enough to assume that police or federal agencies alone can shoulder the entire burden of public protection. Civil society, political actors — including those at the margins — and the media must all contribute to a clearer, unfiltered observation of the problems at hand. A media landscape that filters or suppresses inconvenient facts cannot claim to be free.
Equally, applauding the death of a political opponent or remaining silent when a young woman is killed on public transport — a killing that raises uncomfortable questions about community responsibility and social indifference — does not protect freedom of speech. On the contrary, it erodes the moral ground of democracy. True security rests not only on strong institutions but also on a public sphere that is honest, unafraid of facts, and committed to defending human dignity without exception.
Image credits: The image from the video of killing of Iryna Zarutska is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information produced by an automated system, such as a fixed CCTV or traffic enforcement camera, without human input; it is common property and contains no original authorship under the laws of its country of origin (US). The image of Charlie Kirk originates from his official public account on X (@charliekirk11) and from material connected to his video podcast program “The Charlie Kirk Show” is used here strictly for editorial and journalistic purposes under fair use, with no commercial intent.
About the Author
Discover more from THE KARDINAL
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
