The 'right' response

The conduct of Charlie Kirk before his assassination, and the likes of Israel and Maria Folau, give us a good idea of how we should respond to the increasing challenges in society.

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the recent release of an exclusive interview with Israel and Maria Folau, I’ve been asking myself - what is the right response to having your views challenged so aggressively and dramatically by opponents?

The question of course is a double entrendre or pun - what is the right or correct response, but also the response from those on the right of politics?

As I wrote last week in ‘Violence is the resort for those without reason’, I see a continuum of violence developing in our society. This is not to conflate words and opinions with physical violence, but instead I suggested that there is a progressive link between cancel culture, the harassment of conservatives, intimidation, and finally assaults and killings.

Violence is the resort for those without reason

Which brings me firstly, to the story of Israel and Maria Folau. They recently sat down with Bob McCoskrie from Family First in their first and exclusive interview on what happened to them when they choose to put their beliefs ahead of their careers. It is quite a moving interview and if you have time, I encourage you to watch and listen.

I’m not going to delve into their story here. The interview explains how Australia’s best rugby player and New Zealand’s best netball player were cancelled and abused for their views. The only part I will highlight here is how Rugby Australia botched the contract terms which meant that Israel, sharing his views, was never breaking any agreement.

Listening to them both speak, what struck me was how relaxed and happy they were. I think you can tell a lot about people from how they compose and present themselves. Despite all they have been through - from abuse, ridicule, and careers undermined - Maria and Israel remain calm, content, and convinced. They simply and humbling share what they think and why. In the face of hostility from progressives, they just re-stated their views and then got on with their lives - and I might add, very successfully so.

Turning to Charlie Kirk before his assassination. I was often struck how he kept his composure when people turned up at his events and abused him. The irony currently, is most of those criticising Charlie’s legacy are the same types who would appear at his rallies and hurl names, invective, and nonsense.

One charge leveled at Charlie was that he was provocative. Of course he was - he was a provocateur! It was part of his style and branding, but the provocations were in the nature of the topics he choose and the arguments he used. His style was always calm, controlled, and composed. That Charlie was willing to discuss everything from faith to transgenderism, college education to abortion clearly annoyed the progressive left. They prefer docility and deference.

Speaking for myself, and as someone who has had to face vitriol, abuse, death threats and more - I can tell you, it takes a lot of grace to maintain one’s composure. It also takes conviction and - importantly - a deep belief in the humanity and good of every person. Speaking personally, no matter how vile and nasty someone was to me, I would always remind myself that I don’t know what they have been through in life; what is happening in their life right now to make them so triggered; and that they are just as human, and worthy of dignity, as me.

Be it Charlie, Israel and Maria, the key takeaways from each of them is their composure, calm, control, and conviction. This for me is the right response to current events.

For example, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, nearly 60,000 young people have already sought to join Turning Point USA. Many more are posting their opinions and thoughts to social media. This is positive because it is constructive unlike the far-left which responds with violence, riots, and ‘mainly peaceful protests’.

Conservatives however, risk mimicking the behaviour of the progressive left and this must be avoided. A good illustration of this risk is the recent statement by US Attorney General Pam Bondi:

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."

This is not the right response.

If conservatives or those who lean right find themselves appropriating the actions of the left, then they are in the wrong place.

I am still considering how we rightly respond to the awful reactions to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Similarly, the response to those who abuse people like Israel and Maria Folau for simply expressing what they believe.

I do not see value in the doxing, but I also see a moral difference between sharing an opinion and celebrating the death or abuse of someone. As I write, I don’t have any clever answers but one thing we can do immediately is push against the mad idea that ‘words are violence’. This is a corrosive concept and one that has now directly led to an assassination. Words are words, and violence is violence. The old adage must be held and promoted - '“sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”

Perhaps too, our right response can be informed by one of my favourite quotes:

“Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses upon men the most.”