Nobody deserves to die for their beliefs

The murder of Charlie Kirk on a university campus in Utah is not just about America and its gun culture but also about free speech and political violence. 

Many people outside the US who pertain to Gen X, hardly knew, if at all, who Kirk was before his assassination. This is a generation largely oblivious to the world of social media influencers, whose innovative approach to communication has millions of followers among the younger generations. 

Kirk was a darling of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. He enjoyed celebrity status among young conservatives and has been credited with mobilising young voters for Trump. A political activist and highly successful podcast host, he disseminated conservative values, many times in a provocative and offensive way. Kirk advocated gun rights, spread anti-transgender views, championed the traditional family made up of a man and a woman, belittled minorities, targeted political enemies with digital campaigns that fomented antagonism, he spread scepticism over the COVID-19 pandemic and publicly promoted the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. 

Ironically, Kirk was killed by the very same sword he so vehemently defended and justified. Gun control was among the numerous political and social issues he discussed at events and on podcasts. A few months ago, Kirk said: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” 

The Second Amendment in the US constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence, protection of property and safeguarding their rights. People like Kirk would oppose any attempts to introduce gun control rules, arguing they would infringe the Second Amendment, despite the many school shootings made possible by the ease of access to firearms. Kirk ended up being ‘a cost’ of his very own cause. 

For Europeans, Kirk’s assassination may be easily dismissed as another American tragedy—an episode that combines extreme political polarisation and a fixation with guns. This assessment is only partially true. 

Kirk’s reach, it transpires, went far beyond American youth. And in a Europe where the values espoused by people like Kirk are already reflected to some degree in the governments of Viktor Orban, Robert Fico and Giorgia Meloni in Hungary, Slovakia and Italy respectively, it would be a mistake to simply dismiss the assassination as an American tragedy. 

Whether we like it or not, Kirk’s murder has implications in Europe, not least among that large youthful audience that listened to his rants in silence. This makes it imperative to have a conversation about free speech and its limits, political violence and the tragedy of murder. 

Some voices have publicly argued that Kirk had it coming. They argued that he deserved the violent death after having embraced violence with his uncompromising stand in favour of the Second Amendment and his demeaning language towards transgender people and other vulnerable individuals.  

Admittedly, death should not whitewash Kirk’s sins. Neither should his death be instrumentalised by his supporters to stifle the right to free speech of his critics and opponents. 

But while it may be possible for some not feel any sympathy towards him because of his polarising views, arguing that he deserved to be killed is a complete negation of the democratic values that underpin human rights. 

In Kirk’s world, MaltaToday would be labelled ‘woke’—that funny word appropriated by conservatives in an attempt to belittle liberals and progressives—for championing equality for the LGBTIQ community, or for standing up for a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. We would be at the receiving end of vitriolic criticism coming from Kirk’s Christian-traditionalist view of the family as being a man and a woman bound by marriage. 

Nonetheless, despite the hostility, we would still defend the right of our critics to express their views, offensive as they may be, or stupid as we may believe them to be. The red line is crossed when those views turn into incitement for violence, racism and ostracization of ordinary individuals; or where those views are based on outright lies. 

Kirk may have transgressed those red lines at times but there is one truth that should not be up for debate: Nobody deserves to die for their beliefs. 

An act of violence may be understandable in circumstances where the only way out of oppression is armed resistance. Nelson Mandela, the great black South African leader, who oversaw the transition from apartheid to democracy, was once a freedom fighter, who believed in violence as a means to an end. 

But the circumstances of Kirk’s murder have absolutely nothing to do with armed resistance. There is nothing excusable in his assassination. 

If you disagreed with his ideas, the meaningful response would be to continue engaging with those ideas, refuting them in debate, challenging them in an open dialogue, ridiculing them even, but not to excuse or diminish the action that took his life. 

In a democracy that believes in free speech, violence is never the answer.