Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.

This article submitted by Levi Kump

It is news to exactly no one, that Sunday night, Will Smith responded to a contentious, and arguably tasteless joke, by walking on stage at the Acadamy Awards and slapping the the offending party, one Chris Rock, across the face. Much has been made already about whether or not the incident was staged, though the ensuing furor has rendered that debate largely moot. Many people have chimed in on the issue, some saying the Smith was unequivocally wrong, and some, including no less than The National Post’s Barbara Kay, coming down on the the side of a face slap being fair play.

Let it be known, I believe Smith and Kay, are both wrong. First and foremost, because one of the tenets of civilization in general, is the old adage that, “ones right to get angry, stops at the next fellow’s nose”. Nothing new here. Setting aside for a moment that the slap was to the cheek/jaw area, I believe that notion still holds water. Genuine or not, this incident implies that there are some statements for which the only possible rebuttal, is the fist. The challenges with this way of thinking are legion, and until only a few years ago, seemed to have already been worked out in western society. Not the least of said problems is this: if words are violence itself, and answerable as such, then we no longer have any reason to use words. When one equates the verbal with the somatic, it is a very quick descent indeed, to using violence in any given situation. Why struggle for the ‘mot juste’, when one can move stright to a head kick?

Following this line of reasoning, we end up back, hundreds of years, to the time of, “might makes right”; which again, our civilization had once worked out, but now seems to be forgetting. One of the more common lines of reasoning for the “speech as violence” crowd, is that disparities in power give far more weight to some people’s words, than others. In the Smith/Rock debacle, this is hardly worth a mention, as both men are of the same demographic, read: multi-millionaires of the same skin tone. Though there are those who will point out, as did Barbera Kay, that the target of Rock’s joke, was not Will Smith himself, but rather his wife, Jada, who does in fact suffer from an auto immune disease, and whose hair loss is by no means her own fault. A powerful comedian making jokes about a/an (equally powerful?) woman’s physical condition should be off limits, or so goes the argument. The easy reply here is that there are
those, myself among them, who do not believe that anything should be off limits in speech.

Noting here that, not unlike our separation of words and action, society did away with the idea of ‘lese majest’ some time back. There are yet some who do not believe in this, and who think that the relative power of two parties (and exactly how do we quantify this?) matter to a verbal exchange. That the words of the more powerful party are in fact so weighty, that again, the only fair response, is a physical one. This begs the question, that if the words of the powerful are
unfairly weighted, how much more so are thier blows? It is to me, an untenable position. Slapping a man for speech only ends badly for everyone. Until very recently, we all seem to have understood this.

There was once a common convention, that words, for all their power, are clearly not violence. The fact that this is now somehow considered up for debate, does not bode well for society writ large. Any reasonable person will admit that words can be incredibly hurtful, damaging, and cruel. To deny this is foolish. Physical violence however, has all those dangers, along with a side order of split lips, contusions, and concussions. Indeed, whatever “damage” one suffers from words, one is still left with the ability to speak in rebuttal. A solid blow of any kind can not only dissuade retort, but neuter it completely. Perhaps this is what the proponents of violent response are after in the first place? If so, its disappointing. As I said, i thought we had worked this out.

Levi Kump is a former competitive international Muay Thai champion.

He is a trainer and owner of One Martial Arts, a fitness facility in Edmonton.

Related Topics:#LeviKump #WillSmithVSChrisRock #WordsAreNotViolence feature

Up Next

It would be great if the proposed Gondola did not costs the taxpayers more money

Don't Miss

Refugee crisis or opportunity?

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Ontario Leads the G7 by Building First Small Modular Reactor

espionage / 9 hours ago

Hong Kong Police Detain Relatives of Canadian Candidate Targeted by Beijing Election Interference

Business / 11 hours ago

Trump announces UK will fast-track American products under new deal

espionage

Hong Kong Police Detain Relatives of Canadian Candidate Targeted by Beijing Election Interference

Published on May 8, 2025

Todayville

Sam Cooper

Move follows aggressive PRC disinformation against Joe Tay, RCMP security warnings, and raises pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney after White House meeting

In a striking escalation of Beijing’s interference in Canada’s Parliament and its global campaign to silence dissent, Hong Kong police have reportedly detained and questioned relatives of former Conservative election candidate Joe Tay—who was targeted by aggressive Chinese cyber and ground operations during the recent federal campaign, according to The Bureau’s intelligence sources.

The move to detain and question Tay’s cousin and the man’s wife in Hong Kong—reported by multiple sources, including Hong Kong Free Press—appears aimed at ramping up pressure on Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose campaign plausibly benefited from Beijing’s interference and the Liberal pledge to fight President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime.

Tay, who lost by roughly 5,000 votes to his Liberal opponent in Don Valley North, has yet to comment on the detentions. As The Bureau previously reported, the RCMP advised Tay to suspend in-person campaigning during the final week of the election due to credible threats tied to foreign interference.

The reported detentions occurred Thursday morning in the Fo Tan district of Hong Kong, where Tay’s relatives were taken to a police station for questioning. While Hong Kong police have not publicly confirmed the operation, the tactic aligns with the Chinese Communist Party’s growing use of family-based intimidation to suppress overseas dissent—a strategy documented across multiple countries by rights monitors and Western intelligence agencies.

Thursday’s detentions came just 48 hours after Carney’s closed-door meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in Washington. Carney has not publicly commented on the content of the meeting, but according to a U.S. intelligence community source, the agenda likely included PRC political interference, trade, espionage, fentanyl trafficking, money laundering, and Chinese national security threats across North America.

Tay, 62, became a top target of Chinese interference networks during the 2025 campaign. Federal intelligence officials and The Bureau identified a coordinated foreign interference operation that promoted disinformation against Tay and other Conservative candidates across PRC-linked channels, particularly on WeChat, with the goal of depressing Chinese-Canadian voter turnout for the Conservative Party.

The SITE Task Force assessed that Tay was subject to a broader transnational repression campaign. PRC-linked accounts circulated narratives portraying Canada as a refuge for fugitives if Tay were elected—rhetoric that was echoed publicly by Liberal MP Paul Chiang, who was supported by Prime Minister Carney after those comments were publicized. Chiang’s campaign collapsed under international pressure after the RCMP announced it would review the matter.

That Beijing appears resolved to continue persecuting Tay and his family—even after his electoral defeat—points to a broader and deeper strategic objective behind this singular, confirmed case of interference. It also presents an early and consequential test for Prime Minister Carney, who campaigned on defending Canadian sovereignty while opposing Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. The timing of the escalation—detaining relatives of a defeated Canadian dissident just days after Carney’s May 6 White House meeting—suggests the PRC may be actively probing Ottawa’s resolve under new leadership.

The Bureau has extensively documented this repressive strategy. On April 10, 2025, The Bureau confirmed that Hong Kong activist Frances Hui’s parents were detained by Hong Kong national security police, following Hui’s testimony before Canada’s Parliament. Hui, now based in Washington, had previously revealed she was allegedly stalked and threatened by a suspected PRC agent.

Tay’s case fits an increasingly global pattern. The Bureau has learned that a report reviewed by Toronto police during the campaign involved a suspected stalking threat against members of Tay’s team. And now, even after democratic outcomes, the Chinese state appears determined to punish political critics through surveillance, coercion, and intimidation directed at family members—sending a clear message to diaspora communities and foreign governments alike.

The formal charges against Tay were issued by Hong Kong police in December 2024. According to official documents reviewed by The Bureau, Tay—born 12 December 1962—was charged with:

Incitement to secession
Collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security

Authorities allege that between July 2020 and June 2024, Tay operated a platform called HongKonger Station, through which he published “numerous videos inciting secession” and “repeatedly urged foreign countries to impose sanctions” on officials in Beijing and Hong Kong.

The SITE Task Force confirmed that these charges were disseminated and amplified by Chinese intelligence-linked networks during Canada’s 2025 campaign, as part of a broader information warfare effort to delegitimize Tay and portray his candidacy as a national security threat to China.

At the time the charges were announced, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly condemned them, warning that Beijing’s extraterritorial use of its National Security Law undermined international norms and democratic principles. Since Tay’s defeat—and her party’s electoral victory—Joly has not made any further public comment.

The Bureau will seek comment from Carney and his government today and update this story.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Business

Global trade reorder begins in Trump deal with United Kingdom

Published on May 8, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Seeking to reorder global trade with America at the center, President Donald Trump announced the framework of a trade deal with the United Kingdom on Thursday.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, since 2024 leader of a nation that maintains a special relationship with the U.S. including a more even trade balance than with other countries, spoke with the president by phone during an Oval Office meeting Thursday morning.

“This is turning out to be a great deal for both countries,” Trump said.

The 78-year-old second-term Republican president said the deal would improve market access for U.S. products in the United Kingdom, and improve the relationship between the two countries. Trump said it was the first of many deals from his trade team.

The 62-year-old leader of the Labour Party said the deal would create new jobs in both nations.

“We can finishing ironing out some of the details, but there’s a fantastic platform here,” Starmer said, calling the deal “historic.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the U.S. has balanced trade with the United Kingdom. Lutnick said it would add $5 billion in market access to the U.S. Lutnick said the United Kingdom would get a 10% tariff on 100,000 automobile imports to the U.S., lower than the 25% tariff on foreign autos for other nations.

Lutnick said the lower tariff would protect jobs in the UK.

On social media, Trump wrote, “Today is an incredible day for America as we deliver our first Fair, Open, and Reciprocal Trade Deal – Something our past Presidents never cared about. Together with our strong Ally, the United Kingdom, we have reached the first, historic Trade Deal since Liberation Day. As part of this Deal, America will raise $6 BILLION DOLLARS in External Revenue from 10% Tariffs, $5 BILLION DOLLARS in new Export Opportunities for our Great Ranchers, Farmers, and Producers, and enhance the National Security of both the U.S. and the UK through the creation of an Aluminum and Steel Trading Zone, and a secure Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. This Deal shows that if you respect America, and bring serious proposals to the table, America is OPEN FOR BUSINESS. Many more to come — STAY TUNED!”

Trump announced a slate of higher tariffs on foreign nations on April 2, which he dubbed “Liberation Day” for American trade. On April 9, Trump paused those higher rates for 90 days to give his trade team time to make deals with other countries.

When Trump temporarily suspended the higher tariffs on April 9, he kept a 10% baseline tariff in place along with a 25% import duty on foreign autos and auto parts. He also kept 25% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum.

Trump also imposed 145% tariffs on China, which retaliated with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. Those tariffs remain in place, although the two nations are set to begin talks this weekend.

Economists, businesses and many publicly-traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from American families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods. The importer pays the tax and can either absorb the loss or pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices