Words aren't violence—violence is violence

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed today because he attempted open debate about political ideas.

Charlie Kirk, founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, known for his appearances on college campuses, where he debates leftist ideas, was shot dead at Utah Valley University (UVU) earlier today. He was scheduled to appear later in the month at Utah State University (USU) in Logan.

A petition, signed by almost 1000 people, demanded the event be cancelled “to help maintain UVU as a truly inclusive place for everyone.” The petition reads:

“Utah Valley University's tagline is ‘a place for you.’ How then, can the university claim to represent inclusion and diversity by allowing an influencer like Charlie Kirk to have a platform? Charlie Kirk is known for his divisive rhetoric that often supports policies and laws which aren't inclusive and can marginalize various communities.”

As of Tuesday morning, nearly 7000 people had signed a petition demanding he also be barred from coming to USU, reasoning that the conservative commentator doesn't align with the college's value of “inclusivity to all.”

"Utah State University has consistently worked toward fostering an inclusive space for all its students and faculty. Letting a figurehead, whose speeches often seem to undermine the essence of inclusivity, use our beloved institution as a platform contradicts this mission.”

After a decade of leftist insistence that words are violence, that political disagreement kills, that saying things like “transwomen are men” is equivalent to genocide, a real, live, human man—a 31-year-old father of two—was shot in the neck as he sat on an outdoor stage, speaking to a large crowd.

After years of hysteria insisting President Donald Trump, his supporters, and “the right” (whatever that means nowadays) is a mortal threat to progressives, to “minorities,” to women, to the trans-identified, to “people of colour,” to the working class, and to the country, more broadly, we have only seen endless evidence that the threat is coming from the other side.

This has been obvious to all of us who have been labeled enemies to leftist causes and to various identities the left claims to protect. Those of us who speak in public against progressive sacred cows, who have challenged liberal policy and legislation, who criticize leftist ideology, including of course gender identity ideology, are very familiar with threats of violence.

We do not fear debate, or different ideas, or being challenged or disagreed with. We fear real, physical violence and death. We are well aware that every time we speak in public there is a possiblity we could be attacked or worse. We do it anyway because it is important to maintain free speech, open debate, and to have the conversations we are told we may not have, as these conversations are apparently “dangerous.”

I don’t think I should have to say “you may not agree with Charlie Kirk, but he should have the right to speak freely and safely, in public, about his ideas.” I feel sick at the notion we should ever offer a caveat—”I don’t agree with everything he says….” Who cares. Who cares if you agree with Charlie Kirk, or me, or anyone else. Your disagreement does not entitle you to violent acts.

Charlie Kirk was a good and intelligent man who aimed to have open, free debate. And he was killed for doing so.

When Luigi Mangione murdered Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, right out in public, back in December, legions of leftists cheered him on. They made Mangione a hero. According to them, this violence was justified on account of the “existential violence” supposedly caused by this man. Whether Thompson was “good” or “bad” is not the point, though. You may not murder people because they stand for things you don’t like. Yet this is exactly what the left has been arguing for years. Those the left can claim represent and are responsible for a “violent system” or for “oppression” are fair targets, according to them. They could be cops, or Terfs, or Trump, or Kirk, or the CEO of a corporation that wronged them somehow. They could be you. There is always a moving target with this kind of justification.

The thirst for violence from the left has been disturbing for years. I’ve seen it firsthand. I left my hometown and country for fear I would be physically attacked (I had been already), jailed, or killed on account of my “dangerous” speech against gender identity ideology. The left seems to find these fears amusing or is simply apathetic towards such concerns. They have a perpetual excuse in their deluded politics and amoral outlook on the world.

I have few more words to say today. The murder of Charlie Kirk is a horrific tragedy I can hardly get my head around. I don’t ever want to hear from the left that their political enemies are a mortal danger when we know the opposite is true—when they seek to kill or when they defend violence against those they claim are “fascists,” or “bigots,” or “extremists” or simply on the wrong end of the political spectrum. When they invent nonsensical labels—inverting words for their own convenience, in order to defend their own unethical, hateful, violent behaviour.

Words are not violence, ideas don’t kill, disagreement is not genocide. You may not claim to fight hatred or fascism or bigotry, nor may you claim to support democracy, when you simultaneously advocate your political adversaries be silenced or worse.

If the left cannot manage to find in itself an ethic that supports free speech and open debate, and cannot muster a clear and unequivocal opposition to threats and violence against their believed enemies, I fear that what we are witnessing will only become worse.

That said, it is clear that now, more than ever, we must all stand up and speak out, and refuse to be cowed by the political psychosis and demented rhetoric that has overtaken those who claim to support “inclusion” and “diversity.”