I have seen a lot of comments going around the internet surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk, many of which are… questionable, to say the least. I wanted to use this platform to post my take on the whole thing, too.
Firstly, if you don’t know who Charlie Kirk is, he is (or rather was) an American activist and media personality, and a close ally of US President Donald Trump.
Kirk had, let’s call them ‘radical’ views. Taking a far-right stance, he was against liberalism and wasn’t afraid to tell the world about it. This is how he gained his fame, through debates. This is also how he was killed.
Charlie’s outspokenness gained him praise from some and criticism from others who likened him to a fascist.
In the eyes of his admirers, Charlie Kirk rose to fame because he was willing to challenge norms and broaden the scope of acceptable debate — especially on heated cultural issues.
To his critics, however, Kirk’s rhetoric was inflammatory, passed off as debate that was actually toxic and dangerous.
Kirk was against gay marriage and abortion, argued for Christian nationalism, and was highly critical of Islam. He famously said that gun deaths were “worth it” for the right to own firearms. He was also an opponent of diversity programmes and spread falsehoods about topics such as COVID-19 vaccines and voting fraud. Above all that, though, he was a human.
Political disagreement cannot be, and must never be, a death sentence.
I disagreed with everything that Charlie Kirk was about, but I would never have wished death upon him.
There are countless voices I wish I could silence. Here in the UK, Tommy Robinson comes to mind first, and in the US, Donald Trump, but what is needed is education, not a gun.
The ability to debate ideas freely, whether you agree with them or not, and to speak your mind without fear of violence is what distinguishes democracy from tyranny.
It is impossible to be liberal if you wish death upon people who don’t share your opinion, when the very definition of liberalism is:
A willingness to respect behaviour or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Death as a mirror
The death of Charlie Kirk is not ‘poetic justice’, as I am seeing people argue on social media. It’s not something to celebrate. It’s a mirror. A reminder that fearmongering doesn’t protect you, and prejudice doesn’t save you.
The violence that Kirk justified, excused, and weaponised in words is the same violence that claimed his life.
The moment you reach for a gun instead of a microphone is the moment you lose the debate.
The story ends not with vindication, but with proof of what was true all along: the enemy was never one community. The enemy was always the hate. The gun. The system that keeps both alive.
And so, Charlie Kirk’s killing should serve as a stark warning. Not to people who speak their mind. We fought for freedom of speech, and it is a human right endowed upon us all. But to people who believe that the answer to opposing views is violence.
Like trying to put fire out with petrol, you can’t act with hate and expect to achieve peace. The two can never coexist.
The world needs more love and less hate.
Using a recent protest in the UK as an example (in the image above, counter protestors can be seen dancing, while far right protestors moaning about asylum seekers are chanting racial abuse), the impact that a little bit of light can have in the dark might surprise you.
The only thing that darkness cannot coexist with is light.
Portfolio of Hope 