MOST NEW ZEALANDERS would have no idea who Charlie Kirk was, and their lives have not been hindered by that lack of knowledge. However, his death spurred a handful of people in the social media and in Parliament to praise the far right American commentator for qualities he did not possess when he was alive.
So, according to Act leader David Seymour, Kirk was a champion of free speech. He even proposed Parliament pay tribute to Kirk, a move that was rightly blocked by the opposition parties. This is the same Charlie Kirk, the 'champion of free speech', who supported President Donald Trump in his campaign against the independence of American universities and the free exchange of ideas. Perhaps that's something the Free Speech Union should also reflect on before they go too much further framing Kirk as a free speech champion.
Joining Seymour in praising Kirk was Sean Plunket of the struggling digital radio station The Platform. He posted on X that Kirk '....was a shining light in the movement for civilised rational debate and respectful dialogue in an increasingly polarised world.' Like Kirk, Plunket has supported Israel's genocidal war In Gaza, which has seen tens of thousands of innocent people killed by the Israeli military.
Fellow Zionist and Trump supporter Ani O'Brien posted on X; 'Every single person should condemn political violence. We are in big trouble if this becomes normalised.' But she remained silent when Trump pardoned the almost 1500 far right insurrectionists who stormed Capitol Hill on January 5, 2021.
O'Brien is the General Manager of The Campaign Group, a right wing agitprop group established by Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers' Union.
Elsewhere in the social media, some other New Zealanders of a reactionary bent embraced Kirk as a 'a truth teller silenced by violence' and that he stood 'for Christian values in a hostile world'. These statements mirror the U.S. far right narrative almost word for word.
His supporters in New Zealand, such as they are, have taken their lead from the so-called MAGA movement and are attempting to raise Kirk's status to that of political martyr.
But Charlie Kirk was no Martin Luther King. In life, Kirk’s politics were firmly anchored in the far-right ecosystem that has grown up around Donald Trump.
He rejected the idea of a separation between church and state, declaring at rallies that 'this is a Christian state' and leading chants of 'Christ is King'. He dismissed climate change science, attacked COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, and amplified inflammatory and unfounded claims about immigrants.
His stance on abortion was absolute—he called it murder and argued it should be illegal in all cases, including rape and incest.
On immigration, he went further than many mainstream conservatives, calling for an end to certain legal visa programs and framing foreign workers, particularly from India, as a threat to American jobs. His rhetoric was not designed to persuade opponents in peaceful 'dialogue' but to energise a belligerent base that see politics as a zero-sum cultural battle.
And, like Trump, Kirk's populist language masked his support for capital over the interests of the U.S. working class. He opposed measures like raising the minimum wage or expanding union power—policies that could materially improve the lives of low-wage workers. His economic vision, like that of David Seymour and others of his ilk, was rooted in free-market orthodoxy and neoliberalism, which assumes that deregulation, privatisation, and tax cuts will lift all boats. In reality, this right wing 'trickle down' fantasy has only led to a concentration of wealth at the top while leaving the working class increasingly impoverished and vulnerable to exploitation.
In the end, Charlie Kirk was only a hero to those who share his far right views. And while political violence is always unacceptable, so too is the ideological violence that enables it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.