Violence is the resort for those without reason

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is yet another sad illustration that too many prefer violence to rational debate.

Charlie Kirk was a 31 year old, husband and father of two young children, and someone whose skills were to talk, debate, and discuss. For this, he was assassinated.

In May last year, I wrote of those who hold predominately far-left progressive views being more than happy with an ‘end justifies the means’ approach to political and cultural issues, noting:

This is the belief of zealots, fundamentalists, and of course, terrorists. Such people and groups are so morally certain of their position that they consequently feel enabled to act against all and any who oppose them. Those who disagree with them are so wrong, so in error, that removing them by force is appropriate. Naturally, this is a mindset at odds with a properly functioning democracy.

Woke approved violence ...

The killing of Charlie Kirk exemplifies this and justifications for his death are already on display via social media and mainstream media. Within hours of the assassination, large news outlets like MSNBC and CNN were implicitly suggesting ‘he deserved it’. Some New Zealand media are echoing the same angle, noting he was right-wing, conservative, Christian, and held controversial views. All this to say, his murder is sad but justified.

I’ve only stumbled across Charlie’s work online. I’ve not met or talked with him, but most of his views (and important to say ‘most’) are not controversial. He was proud of his Christian faith, he was Republican, pro-life, and had a traditional view of marriage. Supposedly, according to progressives and others - these are controversial. So much so, that killing him was an appropriate response.

As the title of this Substack suggests, those without reasonable arguments for their causes often resort to violence. So many of the contemporary cultural and political issues are irrational and non-empirical. It’s my view, for example, that one cannot ‘believe away’ their biological sex. Naturally, there are those that do believe this, but their arguments have no rigour. Instead, these irrational ideas rely on force, compulsion, and coercion to be maintained. It’s why the likes of the Law Commission are pushing to criminalise those who hold biologically based views, while others on the left desperately push for hate speech laws.

More evidence of this includes the violent protests at Albert Park, where progressive activists attacked women trying to have a public discussion. More recently, a progressive activist and lawyer, Hannah Swedlund, felt justified in vandalising multiple MPs offices, multiple times.

This zealotry is backed up by the data too. Just recently, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released its annual College Free Speech Rankings with a shocking 34% of students in the United States believing violence is an acceptable response to hearing ideas they don’t like.

There is what I call a ‘continuum of violence’ - from cancel culture to killing. However, it is also important to say there are differences between physical violence against a person as opposed to a billboard or building; and a difference between physical violence and hurtful words.

Progressives talk much of tolerance and inclusivity, yet their words do not echo their actions. This is not to say they have a monopoly on violence, as the supporters of Destiny Church storming a library illustrates. In the US, both Republican and Democrat lawmakers have been violently targeted. But to suggest an equivalence goes against the evidence as well as the double standards in reporting depending on the political topic or person. I simply draw readers attention to my recent Substack, exploring how the violence against Catholics in Minneapolis was reported both because of who was targeted, and who targeted them:

Minneapolis

Lastly, the assassination of Charlie Kirk should not be seen as isolated event or an America-only problem. Too many politicians, academics, media, and others make excuses for why acts of de-platforming, protest, or violence are acceptable. As I noted at the start, commentators are already implying that because they deemed Charlie’s views as “awful” that this awful assassination is justified or his own fault. The same was true around the dual assassination attempts on President Trump or the murder of the health executive in New York by Luigi Mangione.

New Zealand may not yet have had assassinations, but we are certainly already on the continuum of violence.

May Charlie rest in peace, and his family be wrapped in the support they need at this time of shock and grieving.