I really don’t like to engage in politically charged debates on the internet, but when I read that a South African journalist says that “Charlie Kirk’s views are inconsequential” in this part of the world, I couldn’t sit on any fence.
I had never heard of Charlie Kirk, before 9.10 this year: the day he was assassinated. But this is not a surprise: I chose to focus my attention and time on aspects of life that affect us humans globally, and to work in my little corner of this beautiful, but undoubtedly broken, world of ours to make things better, in ways that I can, three decades ago already. Charlie Kirk was not having an impact on my life in South Africa.
Until he was shot.
I follow a couple of online news sources, which highlight issues of the day, locally and globally. The South African online newspaper, “The Daily Maverick”, is one such online source which I value, because it keeps me informed of topics that are of concern locally, as well as some broad issues globally. I have read a couple of Rebecca Davis’ articles and appreciate all the journalists who faithfully contribute to this online publication.
It’s just one of the variety of online sources which I peruse, to have a very light finger on the pulse of what’s happening outside my own four walls and garden fence. Most of the time the issues that concern me have to do with Africa’s increasing importance in global commodities trade, the ongoing mis-education of children and youth in Africa (and elsewhere) and the state of my own rose cuttings and their perilous existence in view of our neighbour’s ever-increasing gaggle of unruly goats… which clearly have zero understanding of what the construct ‘fence’ actually means.
But for a journalist writing for a news source which aims to address critical issues, to miss the point of Charlie Kirk’s impact on society so completely, as to denounce it as ‘irrelevant’ to South Africans, has touched a nerve so raw, that I feel compelled to present another perspective.
And the point I want to make is that, what Charlie Kirk stood for is actually NOT the point. And that is not what a journalist who wants to comment on a global incident should focus on. Globally speaking, and therefore of global, i.e. also of South African relevance, the point of Charlie Kirk is not what he stood for, but that he was MURDERED by a fellow citizen, who stood for different views and beliefs.
That, dearest Rebecca Davis, is why Charlie Kirk is of utmost relevance to every single human here on earth, including for us who live here in South Africa, yes, including for every single member of the South African political party, the “Economic Freedom Fighters” (EFF)!
Because that single shot fired by another human, who simply didn’t agree with what Charlie Kirk had to say, is reverberating around the world: not because whatever Charlie Kirk said had value or no value, but because one human being has chosen to attack another human being’s right to express his or her beliefs or opinions in a way, that took away this human being’s right to LIFE!
To write an article about the local relevance or irrelevance of an assassination victims opinions and beliefs, is as deeply disturbing as debating whether a victim of rape is to be blamed for the crime, because she was wearing a mini skirt!
Charlie Kirk may not have been relevant to South Africans. But the way his life ended is of utmost concern.
Like you, Rebecca, I may or may not agree with much, or even understand anything that Charlie Kirk had to say. But you, I and hopefully every South African who cares about freedom of speech – and that should include you, Julius! – should take part in a global “Moment of Silence”… to let the echo of that single shot that felled Charlie, reverberate LOUDLY around the world as a reminder of our shared obligation to uphold those freedoms for which so many people across the history of humankind have sacrificed their lives…
It’s not about Charlie. It’s about us as humankind.
LET LOVE LEAD.
REINHILD NIEBUHR 
Leave a comment