Slain activist's critics failed to interrogate what he stood for

 

An attendee holds a picture of late right-wing activist Charlie Kirk during a vigil in his memory at Desert Financial Arena on the campus of Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, on September 15, 2025.[AFP]

Much has been said about Charlie Kirk. To some, he was a polarising and even bigoted figure. To others, he stood as a voice of reason in a world drifting away from the moral values that define our shared humanity.

Kirk was an American conservative activist, author and media personality. He co-founded Turning Point USA, a student organisation dedicated to promoting conservative principles on college campuses. He later led Turning Point Action; a sister organisation focused on advocacy and lobbying.

A close ally of President Donald Trump, Kirk echoed similar positions on issues such as immigration, gun rights and cultural conservatism. Through the daily Charlie Kirk Show, he discussed politics, education and social issues. He was especially known – and criticised – for his controversial takes on Covid-19, climate change and election integrity. Yet, were these views truly extremist, or simply unpopular in mainstream circles?

To many Christians, Kirk’s positions aligned closely with biblical teachings. He was unapologetically pro-life, labelling abortion as murder and calling for its outlawing. He was equally vocal in opposing same-sex marriage, declaring homosexuality a sin. Kirk held that there are only two genders and saw gender fluidity and transgender ideology as harmful falsehoods.

Beyond social issues, Kirk championed limited government, individual liberty and free-market capitalism. He strongly supported constitutionalism, border control and immigration enforcement – not out of xenophobia, he argued, but from a concern for national security and cultural identity.

Kirk’s life was cut short violently and the motives remain unclear. What is evident, however, is that Kirk made many enemies – often because his most controversial remarks were stripped of context and misinterpreted.

Christian distinction

For example, critics accused him of harbouring hatred toward the LGBTQ+ community. But Kirk, in fact, drew a clear line between opposing the sin and loving the sinner – a common Christian distinction. Similarly, his defence of gun rights was not a call to violence but a belief in personal protection and a check against government overreach. 

Kirk stood out because he lived his faith publicly and allowed it to inform his politics.  He believed Christians should actively participate in governance and boldly defend their values – even when it meant going against the cultural grain. “Christianity,” he once said, “is not about being nice but being good” – insisting that moral courage often comes at the cost of popularity.

In many ways, Kirk was a casualty of the more toxic elements of the woke culture – particularly the cancel culture. He was vilified, not for hate, but for nonconformity. His critics often failed to interrogate what he truly stood for. Perhaps they forgot the timeless question asked by Nicodemus in John 7:51: “Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?”

Closer home, Kenya faces a similar challenge. Political discourse has been reduced to a simplistic binary: Either for or against the government. Since its inception, the Kenya Kwanza administration has faced relentless criticism. Anyone who highlights its successes is immediately branded a government apologist – regardless of the evidence.

 In life and death, Kirk leaves behind enduring lessons: Popularity does not make evil good. Truth must be defended even at great personal cost. Though suppressed, truth cannot be destroyed – it only waits to be rediscovered.

Mr Khafafa is a public policy analyst