Euan McColm: Reactions to Charlie Kirk shooting and viral clips of the horror are simply depressing
Even when the response from political opponents was respectful, words of sympathy were qualified
Within minutes of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in Utah on Wednesday, his final moments could be viewed online. In fact, across social media, it was difficult to avoid seeing the moment when, after the pop of a gun, Kirk slumped forward in his seat.
In one clip, filmed from a distance, the campaigner’s movements seem comical, as if he’s playing to the camera.
Another shows in graphic detail the effect of the assassin’s bullet. Blood falls from Kirk’s neck, like bathwater finally broken through a bowed ceiling. It’s horrific and I wish I’d not seen it.
At the age of 31, Charlie Kirk had become one of the most influential right-wing activists on the planet. Kirk co-founded conservative student organisation Turning Point USA in 2012 and, by the time of the 2016 US presidential election, he had become a key figure in Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, winning over younger voters to the cause.
It was through his “Change My Mind” events at universities that Kirk became famous. He would turn up on campus, set up a microphone and invite students to step up and debate him on the issues of the day.
These events produced countless, eminently shareable, clips of Kirk colliding with activists on issues from gun control to abortion to trans rights. It was at such an event on Wednesday that Kirk was killed.
In May, Kirk took his roadshow to Oxford University where he debated with students at the Union. As news of events at the Utah Valley University campus broke on Wednesday evening, one of those students wrote “Charlie Kirk got shot let’s f***ing go”. On Instagram he added: “Charlie Kirk got shot loool.”
Students saying stupid things is nothing new but the writer of those words – George Abaraonye – is the incoming president of the Oxford Union which declares itself “the world’s foremost debating society” and his celebration of the murder of a man during a debate doesn’t say much for his suitability for the position.
In a statement posted on X on Thursday, the Oxford Union “unequivocally” condemned its incoming president’s words.
“His reported views do not represent the Oxford Union's current leadership or committee’s view,” read the statement. The organisation’s current leadership had “no association” with Abaraonye.
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss demanded Oxford University expel Abaraonye, who had “brought shame on Oxford and shame on Britain” while, on Friday, former Oxford Union president James Price resigned as honorary secretary of the Oxford Literary Debating & Union Trust, the charity that owns the Union’s buildings.
In a statement Price wrote: “The callousness of the Union’s President-Elect has shocked me, but I also can’t accept the lack of intervention on the issue.”
Abaraonye has apologised for the “insensitivity” of his initial reaction, adding – because it seems that nobody can issue a simple bloody apology, these days – that his words were “arguably less” insensitive than Kirk’s.
I’m not sure calling for Abaraonye to be sanctioned for what were perfectly legal if distasteful opinions is wise. There appears to be nothing in the constitution of the Oxford Union that prevents its incoming president from opining as he has. This being so, are supporters of Kirk really in favour of a crackdown on unpleasant but legal speech? How would they square that with the way he approached debate?
Even when the response from political opponents to Kirk’s death was respectful, words of sympathy were, routinely, qualified.
Many of those from the political left who expressed their sorrow – or outrage – felt it necessary to preface their statements with the disclaimer that they did not agree with Kirk’s views.
This nonsense runs both ways, from left to right and back again. The death of a political opponent is routinely used to restate one’s own, impeccable credentials.
I’ve detected, in recent days, some confusion among people of middle age and beyond about who exactly Charlie Kirk was and why his murder has attracted global coverage. Anyone who has teenage kids will understand.
Kirk, slick, polite, and plausible, was not merely an American political commentator but a leading activist for the new, authoritarian right, whose viral videos – think “five times woke students got schooled” – found a huge and enthusiastic audience around the world.
When, as is so frequently the case, organisations such as student unions or arts venues refuse to accommodate or platform individuals for their views, it is now normal for the matter of safety to be brought up. This is always spurious.
Just last month, management at the Edinburgh venue Summerhall apologised to staff and performers for allowing deputy first minister Kate Forbes to appear at an event, saying their primary concern was the “safety” of artists and performers.
It is no longer enough for someone’s controversial – or merely unfashionable – views to be described as foolish or offensive, now they must be identified as dangerous and appropriate action taken.
I noticed in the hours after Kirk’s murder that many of those who welcomed and celebrated his death were activists who, routinely, denounce the views of their opponents as unsafe.
Have they, I wondered, in overstating the threat and impact of emotional harm allowed themselves to diminish the real, painful consequences of physical harm? Certainly, something has gone awry when people can, simultaneously, profess real fear over the “danger” of words and ideas and celebrate the killing of someone over the ideas he had and the words he used to express them.
That fact Charlie Kirk’s murder was filmed – from various angles – and then broadcast around the world within minutes of the assassin’s bullet tearing through his neck, turned it into entertainment. It became yet another viral clip, shared to provoke reaction.
And the reaction from some quarters was depressing, indeed.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.