Explicit videos of Charlie Kirk's killing have been circulating on social media and are being used to deepen political divisions. Photo / The Washington Post
Explicit videos of Charlie Kirk's killing have been circulating on social media and are being used to deepen political divisions. Photo / The Washington Post
THE FACTS
American activist Charlie Kirk was killed on a Utah university campus last week.
Kirk, 31, was a leading supporter of US President Donald Trump.
He was outspoken in his criticism of feminism, Black Lives Matter and other “liberal” movements.
The horror of explicit videos of Charlie Kirk’s killing on our social media feeds has only been made worse by the immediate and cynical attempts to use his death to further deepen political divisions.
Rather than trying to divide and control societies by stirring up fear of the“enemy within”, we need leaders who will unite us and resist attempts to divide us.
I’m not going to expound on what I thought of Kirk’s politics. You know that my values don’t agree with his. It should go without saying that doesn’t mean he deserved to be killed.
As of writing, Kirk’s killer has not stated his motives. The point is: it doesn’t matter. The awful actions of this individual do not damn entire sections of society. They do not justify a crackdown on anyone.
It’s been sad to see people who called Kirk a friend immediately attempting to weaponise his death against their political enemies. It is so dehumanising to make the tragedy that has befallen his whānau another point-scoring exercise and an excuse to attack the rights of others.
American activist Charlie Kirk was killed on a Utah university campus last week and has risked creating greater political divisions. Photo / Getty Images
This politics of division is the real danger to the future of democracy around the world.
We have seen this many times, particularly during the rise of fascism and communist dictatorships a century ago. An “outrage” is used to whip up hate and vilify certain groups as “guilty by association”, which becomes a cover to attack opponents of the regime and, ultimately, curtail everyone’s rights.
Last year, I took a trip to the United States during the elections. Talking with folks, I quickly realised most of them were worried about the same things. While there were moments of hot, engaging conversation, the overwhelming sentiment was one of frustration.
As we reflect on the legacy of figures like Charlie Kirk, it’s crucial to prioritise inclusivity and understanding, says Shane Te Pou. Photo / The New York Times
To foster connection effectively, we should encourage open conversations that include a diverse range of voices. This means creating environments where people can share their experiences freely. Listening and showing empathy are essential in these conversations, particularly for those who have been marginalised. The best way to deradicalise people is to make them feel valued and give them a sense of belonging.
It has become fashionable to mock Dame Jacinda Ardern’s politics of kindness. But you only need to look at New Zealand’s success in keeping at bay the Covid pandemic that killed so many in more divided societies to see that our ability to be kind to each other, to pull together in crisis, rather than turn on each other, can be a real strength.
That’s one reason I find the Government’s political strategy of demonising the doctors, nurses and teachers for striking so troubling. It’s one thing to have an honest disagreement over what they should be paid and what they can afford. But to paint them as greedy and not caring about the patients and students – as an “enemy” – is divisive.
Likewise, ministers suggesting immigrants should sign a “Kiwi values pledge” is troubling. First, it frames immigrants as “others” who are not like “us” in their values. Secondly, it presupposes there is an acceptable set of values for Kiwis to have, and the Government will decide what it is. Values should emerge organically from communities, not be dictated by politicians.
Government-imposed values risk alienating immigrants by enforcing a narrow definition of what it means to be a Kiwi. Photo / 123rf
In an echo of the Treaty Principles Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill, a “Kiwi values statement” would only ever reflect the values and interests of certain people. This top-down approach risks silencing diverse voices and promotes a narrow definition of belonging, alienating those who already feel marginalised, while further hardening the attitudes of people who feel displaced by immigration.
No libertarian, or conservative, or liberal should accept a government-mandated set of values that define what it is to be Kiwi. Ultimately, only meaningful conversations can heal divides.
By fostering community support and encouraging inclusive dialogue, we can begin to break down barriers that hinder connection. We must create a culture where everyone feels comfortable seeking relationships and support, leading to a healthier, more engaged society.
