Although there was no need for further proof, the death of Charlie Kirk by shooting and the extreme reactions to this tragedy have spotlighted a growing social concern: the lost art of civil disagreement.
During the early hours of ‘R U OK? Day’ I was awoken by the vibration of a news alert, Charlie Kirk had been shot while at a university campus, and again within minutes no less, the news that he had died. Shocked, I followed the breaking news across a range of networks.
The social media footage of Charlie Kirk is graphic and shocking. Some reactions to the assassination have been deeply disturbing. Social media has been used as a vehicle of hate to mock Kirk’s death and justify his murder as “deserved.”
Falsehoods have been spread against the social influencer, prayer vigils disrupted, and memorials defaced. Hate has metastasised, and sadly for many, life is neither precious nor sacred.
The egregious behaviour points to a disturbing social trend – a hateful contempt for the ideas of others. This presents a serious threat to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which Kirk himself championed, and ultimately gave his life for.
Charlie Kirk was aware that the culture within many Western liberal democracies had been compromised, and our commitment to freedom of speech and robust debate was being threatened by a pervasive ‘cancel culture’. The tragic irony of his death is that he was assassinated while debating under the banner – ‘Prove me Wrong’, and wearing a T-shirt emblazoned ‘FREEDOM’.
Sadly, as evidenced by his death, there is little tolerance for divergent views. Instead, there is an aggressive push for cultural conformity, and those who contest this are stigmatised and marginalised.
Typically, they are branded with or grouped under pejorative labels – bigot, misogynist and transphobe common among them. This use of labels is used to divide the world, the people in it, and the way people see the world.
For many, all too many, a rigid dichotomy exists between friends and enemies, and they treat each group accordingly. All in all, such divisions and labels are unhelpful and are typically misleading. They merely foster a suspicion of others and contempt for their ideas and ideals. Labels spread hate.
Charlie Kirk was aware that many people didn’t just disagree with his views, but they hated his views and hated him because of his views. The rise of intolerance has been rapid, motivated in part by ‘identity politics’ and fuelled by both social and mainstream media. Intolerance has also been fuelled by various political and social issues which have deeply divided public opinion.
Many of these have related to religious concerns, the intersection between faith and culture, and the place of religion in the public square.
A great paradox of our age is that many of those who promote an ideology of ‘diversity’ demand uniformity. Many simply have an aversion to contested ideas, preferring instead to impose their worldview and censor that of others.
Charlie Kirk championed the contestation of ideas, and he died doing what he loved. His assassination was tragic, and it points to a deeply rooted and malignant social problem – an intolerance of difference. Yes, he will have had some views that are different to our own, but does that ever justify unhinged hatred?
Rather than accepting the insidious falsehoods propagated on social media, we should look to the life he lived. He was a devout Christian who spoke openly about his faith and his relationship with Jesus. He advocated that a nation’s laws should be informed by Judeo-Christian teachings and that young people should never tire of pursuing a relationship with God. He was a young husband and father, and even as his public prominence grew, his family remained at the heart of his life and work.
We pray for the repose of Charlie Kirk’s soul and the consolation of his loved ones, and those inspired by him.
Anthony Cleary is the Director, Mission & Identity Directorate, at Sydney Catholic Schools.
