Image Credit: Gage Skidmore on Wikimedia Commons

Charlie Kirk has been dead for a little over a week. He was shot fatally at Utah Valley University on 10 September when he was speaking there as part of his "American Comeback" tour.

But I'm sure we all know that, and a few days on, we've caught his killer, taken his body back home, seen countless leaders and celebrities express their condolences, and watched social media erupt.

One of the biggest discussions online has been whether his death was justifiable or not. Now you're probably reading this for one of two reasons: you want to hear my take, or you're trying to make sense of your own. Which is perfectly okay.

This is an exceptionally politically divided time, one of the biggest gaps we've seen between the left and right in history. Kirk's death did nothing but escalate it, the political violence being blamed on the left by Donald Trump and a lot of the right.

As a leftist, I'm offended. Sure, Kirk was controversial; he had his opinions, as we have ours. But he didn't deserve to die.

Maybe he needed to be questioned or schooled, but he didn't need to be shot in the neck while debating about gun violence, something he defended several times in the past and moments before he died. Ironic.

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore on Wikimedia Commons

If Tyler Robinson were to kill Donald Trump, it still wouldn't be right, but it would be more justified to some extent because Trump has power. He's the President, he has the power to order US Forces around the world and bypass Congress by using EOs. Kirk was a close friend of Trump's, which means he most likely had some influence over his decisions, but not so much to the point of assassination.

Image Credit: Eva Braun on Wikimedia Commons

What does bug me, though, is the fact that Kirk is being lionised after his death. Yes, it is sad, yes, two children were orphaned, yes, the crowd saw someone die, but that doesn't give us an excuse to glorify him. We don't glorify figures like Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini.

Rather extreme examples, I agree, but it's the truth. When we think of them, we think of the negatives, never about those who agreed with them or their families.

Just because he's dead, it doesn't mean we can pretend he didn't say some controversial things or align himself with controversial figures. Of course, it's important to be respectful, but glossing over the vast majority of his life as an activist? That's where we should draw the line.

Like when he said he would let his daughter carry the baby of her rapist, or when he said that empathy "is a made-up new age term" and that "it does a lot of damage." This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be empathetic towards his children, because nobody deserves to have a father taken away from them, let alone this brutally.

Which brings me nicely to my next point, we can empathise with Kirk's family, and rightfully so, but not with the families of the thousands of people killed in Gaza? Not with the Ukrainian girl who was stabbed on the subway and left to bleed in silence? We can paint murals and plaster Kirk on newspapers, but what about those being murdered across the globe? It's a ridiculous double standard that does nothing but serve the government's own personal agendas and push them in the media.

Image Credit: Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Kirk's death serves as a reminder of the social unrest and the split in society between the left and the right. It was an act of political violence that was carried out by a 22-year-old who disagreed with Kirk's opinions, and it didn't need to happen. I strongly disagree with many of his opinions, but I've never thought about murdering him, or anybody for that matter, because of it.

I shouldn't need to, either, because whether we know it or not, there's always someone who cares about them. Kirk's family lost a loved one, the same way we would if we lost a grandparent or a cousin. Political unrest is everywhere and anywhere, but taking someone's life is unacceptable, and that's what the world needs to see.