When words are said to be violent, violence becomes the response to words

There is an intellectual justification for political violence that has become mainstream. It must be defeated

The murder of Charlie Kirk in America has exposed the ideological insanity and social sicknesses that exist on both sides of the Atlantic. On the Left, some have celebrated Kirk’s death, and some have equivocated in their condemnation of political violence. On the Right, some have argued that extreme political language – such as calling opponents “fascists” – lies behind the shooting of Kirk and other attacks on public figures.

In Britain, while figures such as Alastair Campbell have made fools of themselves, the clash in values and perspectives has been epitomised by the response of George Abaraonye, a student at Oxford University and the president-elect of the Oxford Union. Abaraonye’s response was shocking not only for its callousness or its ease with violence, but for its complete lack of humanity. To Abaraonye, Kirk was not an ideological abstraction but somebody he had met in person at the Union. Yet he immediately and instinctively celebrated his death.

And as the president-elect of the Union, Abaraonye is – more than anybody – supposed to stand for the vital importance of free speech. The Union traces back its history by more than 200 years and fancies itself as the “most prestigious debating society in the world.” Abaraonye might only be at Oxford because of politically-correct admissions policies, but surely we might expect a man who has reached the top of the Union to stand against political violence and free speech?

Of course not. In growing numbers, those who call themselves liberals – on the Left and the Centre of politics – have rejected free speech for many years. And their reasons are not only selfish and intolerant: they also enjoy the cover of intellectual justification provided by a series of post-modern thinkers, starting with Michel Foucault.