Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The Prime Minister and key Australian institutions are yet to distance themselves from Hannah Ferguson, despite a 20,000-signature petition calling them to repudiate her pro-violence rhetoric.

Two weeks on from Charlie Kirk’s assassination, abortion activist and media mogul Hannah Ferguson is yet to apologise for her tacit endorsement of the violence that took his life.

In a disturbing Instagram carousel posted the day after Kirk’s public execution, Ms Ferguson wrote that she is “glad Charlie Kirk will no longer spread his extremist messaging”. She also claimed that “he caused more harm than good”, that he “empowered the violence” that led to his death, and that “violence [is] sometimes necessary”.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who appeared as a guest on Ms Ferguson’s podcast the day after the 2025 federal budget, has yet to disavow her support for political violence.

AFL Women’s, which supports Hannah Ferguson’s Cheek Media brand and whose logo features prominently on her website, has ignored calls to sever ties with her over her radical views.

(Keep in mind the AFL just crushed the finals hopes of Adelaide Crows star forward Izak Rankine for using a single gay slur).

The National Press Club, which has lent its coveted platform to Ms Ferguson, is likewise yet to distance itself from her remarks.

Meanwhile, the taxpayer-funded ABC, which can’t get enough of Ferguson, has been completely silent on her horrific remarks.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Dr Joanna Howe (@drjoannahowe)

Hannah Ferguson Doubles Down

Now that a petition denouncing her has collected almost 20,000 signatures — and outlets like Sky News, the Australian Financial Review and The Daily Telegraph are holding her feet to the fire — Ms Ferguson has gone public, not to apologise for her comments, but to defend them.

“I’ve been called a dangerous leftist and I’ve been accused of inciting violence,” she said in a recent selfie video, before pleading “I shouldn’t have to clarify this, but that’s not true.”

Ferguson claimed that her remarks about Charlie Kirk merely offered a middle ground between extremes. In her words:

The entire point of my piece was to offer the nuance and the language that social media algorithms and much of the mainstream media are failing to provide to us. That it’s not a choice between two baskets of happiness or sadness. That we can talk about these things with layered opinions and explore the grey area.

To be fair, Ferguson did acknowledge in that infamous post that she wasn’t “happy that someone shot [Charlie Kirk] in the neck in broad daylight” and that his assassination was not an “act of progress”.

But she did endorse political violence — and she did so using a rhetorical sleight of hand to hide it.

How Ferguson Hid Her Radical Agenda

Here’s how.

Offering “nuance” and exploring the “grey area” sounds reasonable enough — but not when the topic is political violence.

Hannah Ferguson’s fatal error was to suggest there’s a meaningful middle ground between condemning political violence and excusing it. Make no mistake — that’s exactly what she argued in her post.

In Ferguson’s twisted logic:

• Murder is something to be debated rather than condemned
• Nuance is needed to discern whether people deserve to be shot for their beliefs
• People who condemn political violence take an extreme position, when what we really need is Hannah Ferguson’s middle-ground approach

This is how a “journalist” endorses political violence while pretending not to.

As pro-life advocate Dr Joanna Howe has noted, Ms Ferguson’s support for violence is not entirely unsurprising given her strident pro-abortion activism which has been readily amplified by media outlets like The Guardian, News.Com.Au and the taxpayer-funded SBS.

Sign This Petition

Worst of all are the blatant contradictions at the heart of Hannah Ferguson’s article.

She blames social media for forcing us into “friend/enemy” binaries — and in the next breath, accuses Charlie Kirk of wielding “pure hate” and causing “immeasurable harm”, leaving no doubts that she views him as her enemy, even after his murder.

She upholds empathy as a vital moral safeguard, even quoting others who grieved Kirk as a way to preserve their own humanity — and then refuses to extend any empathy to him or his grieving family.

She says she hasn’t “finished forming” her view on Charlie Kirk’s assassination and may not for weeks — while at the same time calling him an “extremist” and claiming that he “permitted and justified the cause of his own death”.

She argues for nuance instead of simplistic portrayals — and then quotes Kirk three times to frame him as racist, sexist and heartless while stripping away the context of those quotes that make it clear he was nothing of the sort.

To see how Ferguson twists Charlie Kirk’s quotes, watch the video below.

Hannah Ferguson’s influence in Australia is not miniscule. She has over 200,000 followers across her online platforms. She’s a darling of the legacy media. She’s been platformed by the Prime Minister and Canberra’s premier press forum. Indeed, she’s announced her intention to run as a senator for NSW at the 2028 Federal election.

And she’s openly legitimised the use of political violence against conservatives for the crime of being conservative.

If you oppose Ms Ferguson’s support for political violence and want to see Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, AFL Women’s and the ABC denounce her dangerous rhetoric, sign this petition.

___

Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.