Listen to this article
6 min
Charlie Kirk continues to generate heated media debate. Pictures: Getty/Supplied
Gift this article
54 Comments
3 hours ago
Suppose I am one of the many so-called progressive commentators who dominate the mainstream media and that I write regarding the assassination of conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk.
My mistake. What I should have said is I write regarding the shooting of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk (I am still adjusting to progressive terminology, so bear with me).
Anyway, my progressive take goes like this. I start by stressing that in no way do I condone violence. I want you to know I disassociate myself from this killing. My heart goes out to his widow and two young children.
Let’s be clear, though. Kirk stood in the way of social justice. If you oppose social justice, you are a disrupter and an outlier. As ABC journalist Ben Knight observed, he was a “provocateur for the Christian right”.
But in agreeing with that, I want to assure you that in no way do I have anything against Christians. I recognise their right to freedom of religion. That said, we need to have a conversation about whether it is proper for churches to have a say in matters outside their domain, especially that relating to legislation and public policy.
Charlie Kirk speaks at Texas A&M University as part of Turning Point USA’s American Comeback Tour on April 22, 2025, in Texas. He was shot dead as he addressed university students in Utah on September 10. Picture: AP
We also need to talk about the consequences of giving provocateurs like Kirk a platform. In saying that, I want to put on record that I absolutely and 100 per cent support free speech. But I want to make clear the distinction between free speech and the speech of provocateurs, as outlined by Guardian US columnist Moira Donegan.
A fellow progressive columnist, Donegan also condemns political violence. “To me, to say that Kirk should not have been murdered is the easiest thing in the world,” she insisted. But she will not let his tragic death blind us to the harm he caused under the guise of free speech.
“Charlie Kirk’s ‘debates’ were aggressive, unequal, trolling affairs, in which he sought to provoke his interlocutors to distress, shouted them down and belittled them, spewed hateful rhetoric about queer and trans people, women, black people, immigrants and Muslims,” she wrote.
He edited footage to ensure his support base could “witness him humiliating the liberals and leftists they perceived to be their enemies”, she said. “This was not ‘debate’; it was not reasoned, good-faith discourse; it was not the kind of fair deliberation that democracy relies on.”
Donegan is right. If only Kirk’s many supporters had adopted the left’s example of debating in which universal truths, particularly those relating to gender and race, must not be questioned.
Given universal truths are already settled, there is no debate to be had. I support the free and robust exchange of ideas, particularly on college campuses, but a person who questions a universal truth does not do so with the intention of advancing knowledge. They are a provocateur, in which case they must be shouted down, belittled and subjected to hateful rhetoric.
Tyler Robinson has appeared in court charged with the murder of Charlie Kirk. Pictures: AFP
It was not just hate speech that Kirk promulgated but also disinformation. He rejected the “entire premise of transgenderism”, claiming there were only two sexes. And as The New York Times reported in 2020, he “remained insistent that the measures taken to stop the spread of the (Covid-19) pandemic are more damaging than the virus itself”. This claim was outrageous. To undermine the diktats of government health officials is to undermine science itself.
He was contemptuous of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying it stood for “burn, loot and murder”. Unlike progressive journalists who reminded us (while buildings behind them burned) that BLM was “not unruly” and “mostly about protest”, Kirk refused to acknowledge the peaceful nuances of this movement.
Mourning continues across the US in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Picture: Getty Images via AFP
The damage does not end with Kirk’s death.
Turning Point USA, which has caused many young people to reject social justice, will continue to promote the incredibly dangerous ideals he espoused, such as fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government.
It also serves as a rallying point for the right wing to agitate. If left unchecked, it will increasingly lobby governments to abandon measures designed to improve social cohesion, whether it be DEI in the workplace, critical race theory in the classroom, or transgender ideology in hospitals. While I support the right of like-minded individuals to associate, I stress organisations such as Kirk’s are an unacceptable threat to society.
Contrast their hateful and hysterical accusations with the balanced and measured appraisals of progressive commentators. As Cory Alpert, a former White House staffer in the Biden-Harris administration, wrote in The Age last week, Kirk’s social media posts represented the “worst thoughts known to man”.
He “dedicated much of his relatively short career to making the world a crueller, more stupid, and more violent place”, noted Alpert. Worse, Kirk “weaponised identity politics” and displayed a “willingness to make life worse for anyone whose ideology did not align with his own”. Tut-tut.
Erika Kirk, the widow of Turning Point USA founder and CEO Charlie Kirk. Picture: Turning Point USA
It was “difficult to find empathy” for Kirk, wrote Alpert, who nonetheless stressed that “no one deserves to be the victim of political violence”.
Worryingly, even progressive types are susceptible to Kirk’s facade. Following his death, the BBCfeatured a range of Cambridge students who had stood opposite him in his so-called debates, yet expressed their respect for him. One even claimed Kirk did not “incite violence”.
The enthusiasm for Kirk’s canonisation is matched only by the disparaging of those on the left who criticised him. Witness, for example, Democratic campaign strategist Kevin Walling, who wrote that “there have been many on the left posting videos or quotes from Charlie about his views on a whole host of issues as if there’s some kind of justification for what happened”.
That inference is both risible and defamatory.
How many more times do those on the left have to insist they do not condone violence?
