Long Live Freedom: A Tribute To Charlie Kirk
The notion that speech is somehow “violent” is absurd. Speech can be used to incite violence, but it is not inherently violent. We must draw a clear line between actual violence and mere offense.
Like millions of peaceful, freedom-loving people around the world, I am still reeling from the senseless assassination of conservative US political activist Charlie Kirk at a college campus in Utah on 10 September, where he was participating in a debate with students. While I did not know Charlie personally, his untimely passing feels like the loss of an older brother I looked up to in the realm of activism.
I may not have always agreed with his strong views or approved of his sometimes-fierce debating style, but what drew me to his work were his deep convictions, his unshakeable confidence as a young man, his undeniable talent as a speaker, and his unwavering commitment to free speech as the foundation of a civilised and harmonious society. For someone like me, who has always wrestled with self-doubt, Charlie's activism demonstrated that young people with confidence and a firm belief in their views can win people over or, at the very least, shape the conversation.
I am surely not the first to argue that he committed no crime in debating students across America and that his cowardly assassination therefore constitutes a naked and unprovoked assault on the principle of free speech. While the investigation is still officially underway (and I am aware that Tyler Robinson is the prime suspect), it almost goes without saying that this deed was a calculated attempt by an extremist to silence Charlie permanently and, by extension, others with differing views.
The term “extremist” here must not be narrowly understood as only those who mindlessly resort to violence. It should also include thousands of young, radicalised men and women on college campuses worldwide who hold views that should unsettle any genuine moderates. Such a simple exercise will explain the countless, shameless justifications - whether veiled or unveiled - that have appeared in the wake of Charlie's passing.
The only difference with the latter group of extremists, as I have already noted, is that it does not resort to naked violence. Fuelled by the same intolerance as its violent counterparts, it channels its energy into punishing, boycotting, and silencing those who dare to utter views that challenge its own. This is what we have come to know as “cancel culture.” If you want to ruin your professional reputation or lose your livelihood, the quickest way to do so is to express an unpopular view that offends radicals.
This group also works tirelessly to demonise and dehumanise dissenters with the goal of silencing and controlling them through fear. If you are white like Charlie, you are automatically branded as a racist, a fascist, a neo-Nazi, or some toxic combination of all three. If you are black, like me, you are cast as either a stooge of the worst kind or a misguided traitor in desperate need of “education.”
The common thread between both groups is intolerance and a refusal to allow opposing views to co-exist with their own. This makes them an existential threat to free speech and, by extension, to the very idea of a free society.
In a free society, people have the freedom to express themselves so long as their speech does not openly incite murder or violence against others. People have the freedom to say things that others may not like. If your idea of freedom only extends to you saying things that others do not approve of, then you do not belong in a free society.
The notion that speech is somehow “violent” is absurd. Speech can be used to incite violence, but it is not inherently violent. We must draw a clear line between actual violence and mere offence. This isn’t to suggest that ideas are harmless but saying that black families are broken or that minorities in America are disproportionately represented in crime statistics is not “violence.”
Furthermore, the claim that Charlie spread hatred, misinformation, or racism is neither here nor there in his article. What matters is that he never, at any point, called for the black people he supposedly despised to be killed. If people felt aggrieved by his views, freedom required them to meet him with better arguments and superior knowledge, and not to descend into violence or cheer on those who did.
Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. It is the very foundation of civilisation because only barbarians silence or eliminate one another. It is a principle that Charlie exercised, embodied, and defended all his life. When he travelled from campus to campus debating students, he never sought to be the only voice in the room. He wanted even his fiercest opponents to speak and to present their case to the nation.
He is on record stating that he preferred dialogue because it prevented needless conflict. This is why he leaves this world as a hero in my book. He never silenced others. He only spoke and urged his detractors to do the same and to prove the superiority of their ideas. Beyond free speech, he championed liberal values such as the rule of law, capitalism, and individual freedom. He goes out not as a saint, but as a martyr for an ideal at the heart of civilisation.
I want to close off by echoing others who admired Charlie. The attempt to silence him has failed. It has had the opposite effect; it has immortalised him in the hearts and minds of many people like me and encouraging us to remain steadfast in our beliefs. Whenever I think of Charlie, I will not only beam with pride at the meaningful life that he lived for 31 years. I will also be reminded of how sacred the principle of free speech truly is.
Rest in peace, Charlie.
Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.
 | A guest post by
|