Outrage and selective principles
The killing of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy, whatever your political persuasion.
No one deserves death for their opinions, however sharp or provocative those may be. If we value free speech, then we must apply that principle universally – not only when it suits our ideological tribe. It is astonishing to see some celebrating his death, forgetting that if the political tables were turned, they would rightly be appalled.
The hard truth of free speech
Free speech is not comfortable, tidy, or polite. It allows space for views that offend us. It allows someone like George Abaraonye, president of the Oxford Union, to make a crass, even distasteful remark about a man he despised.
The key point is this: George is entitled to that view, just as others are entitled to challenge it. To demand his resignation for expressing an opinion is to erode the very freedom we claim to defend.
Consistency over convenience
The real test of principle comes when we must defend the rights of those we dislike. If we only protect speech we agree with, we have no principle at all – only preference.
Too many today fail that test. They cheer when opponents are silenced but rage when their own side is threatened. That hypocrisy corrodes public discourse far more than any single offensive comment ever could.
Holding the line
We need to hold the line: no killing for opinions, no censorship for distaste, and no double standards. Freedom of expression is universal or it is nothing. George should not resign – not because his words were wise, but because free speech means he is allowed to be wrong.
Watch this video from Sen. Sanders – it brings essential context and urgency to an important conversation.
