The assassination of Charlie Kirk while speaking with students at Utah Valley University was a great tragedy, firstly for his wife and two young children, and secondly for the cause of free speech in a democratic country. At 31 he was at the height of his powers speaking with openness and respect, promoting the need to use reason and not just emotion in advancing ideas in public debate. His tent meetings held for years on university campuses across America were courageous as he often met with antagonistic questioning from students who held opposing views.

 

Yet over the years he gained a wider and wider audience of young people in particular who were inspired by his ideas. He had more than seven million Tik Tok followers. His death sent shock waves across the world as vast numbers, particularly of young people, were devastated. Social media lit up as millions expressed their sadness and pain that a man who inspired their search for truth was taken from them.

Charlie always gave people a chance to express themselves. He did not cut them off. Nor was he condescending. He promoted respectful dialogue. He listened and then answered. He wanted the debate to be on the level of exchange of ideas. His banner was perhaps provocative: “Prove me wrong”. However, he was interested in the free exchange of ideas. He avoided glib one-liners and cleaver put-downs.

He wanted the pursuit of truth to be what drove public debate, especially on sensitive social issues.

Charlie Kirk was an evangelical Christian. Christian beliefs about the nature of the human person, about life, sexuality and marriage were foundational to his argument about the fostering of a truly healthy human society. He believed in human freedom, and he respected the freedom of others, even those who disagreed with him. He sought to present what he believed was true and let the evidence truth speak for itself.

He was an advocate of free speech and of respectful public dialogue. He represented the best of what our democratic political system is meant to be and showed us how we can disagree well.

He represented all that a nation should strive to ensure so that its citizens are able to have and hold opinions yet allow public debate to reveal what is best. He stood opposed to the grave dangers associated with ‘cancel culture’ where a person who opposes our views is denied the right to express their opinions. In a way, he suffered what cancel culture really sought to do, that is, to kill off all those of an opposing view.

He also stood in clear contrast to the prevailing public culture of emotive positions which refuse to listen to the facts. He believed in the capacity of the human person of good will to recognise and accept the truth when it is self-evident.

In public debate, many readily fall into the attitude of labelling an opposing view as ‘hate speech’.

Charlie’s approach was testimony to the fact that one does not have to be protected from ideas that make one feel uncomfortable. He was willing to be out there in the open, alone, with microphone in hand, and listen to ideas that he was opposed to. He listened and gave people a chance to express themselves even when they were insulting and angry with him, and he responded not with emotion but with calm and clear thought.

Charlie Kirk elevated public discourse. His death was a truly tragic event. He was a martyr for free speech. He represented all that is best in Western democracy. We hope and pray that his example will inspire many to seek to restore the quality of national debate not only in the United States, but also in Australia.