When I first heard of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, my mind went back to Amsterdam, 2004. Theo van Gogh, a 47-year-old father and Dutch filmmaker, was cycling to work in the morning rush hour when a man rode up beside him. He shot Theo, slit his throat and pinned a five-page letter to his chest with a knife.
The murder was not just an act of barbarity – it was meant as a message. Theo had made a film criticising Islam’s treatment of women. For this, he was executed in broad daylight. Even those who despised him condemned the killing. No film, no words, no opinion could justify murder.
Theo and I had worked together on that film, Submission. I wrote the script, and Theo brought it to the screen. We knew the risks.
I had already received death threats, not only for being an ‘apostate’ for renouncing my Islamic faith after fleeing to the Netherlands to escape an arranged marriage, but for daring to condemn the perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as religious fanatics, rather than political freedom fighters.
Fast forward to 2025.
Charlie Kirk, the most civilised of men, has met the same fate as Theo. For what, I ask? For doing what he always did, debating students with civility and good humour. He was not a violent man. He was a gentle husband and the father of young children. And yet he was shot, executed for speaking what he believed, in the very country where free speech is enshrined in its founding constitution.
When Theo was killed, I did not yet see that the activist Left could mirror the cruelty of the Islamists. But today it is undeniable. For as news of Kirk’s death broke, the Left did not mourn. It celebrated. Social media filled with crass jokes, open glee and smug satisfaction. And the mainstream Press was not far behind.
Influential voices on the Left called him ‘controversial’, as though that label explained or excused his fate. The implication was clear: say things they dislike, and you invite the assassin’s bullet. Imagine, if you can, the same words spoken about a progressive struck down mid-speech. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Kirk, seen moments before he was shot, was assassinated Wednesday on the UVU campus in Orem, Utah as he held a Turning Point USA event
Kirk leaves behind wife Erika, a former Miss Arizona winner, and two young children
The incoming president of the Oxford Union, George Abaraonye, chipped in.
This is a man who actually hosted and debated Charlie. There goes the myth that once you meet your opponent, hostility is diminished and humanity triumphs. Not so, among the activist Left. Charlie himself had warned us.
Earlier this year, with uncanny foresight, he spoke of a spreading ‘assassination culture’ on the Left. He cited polls showing nearly half of liberals said killing Elon Musk would be at least ‘somewhat justified’, and a majority said the same of Donald Trump.
He pointed to a publicity stunt in which a retired Californian attorney proposed legislation that would improve patient access to health insurance, which was named the ‘Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act’.
Mangione is, of course, accused of gunning down a health insurance chief executive in broad daylight last December.
Charlie noted how the activist Left excused violence so long as it struck the ‘proper’ targets.
Even the murders of two young Israeli embassy employees in Washington DC in May were met not with mourning but with thinly veiled delight online.
The pattern is painfully clear: when violence strikes those the Left despises, they celebrate. Charlie described this trend with chilling precision: ‘Any setback – whether losing an election or losing a court case – justifies a maximally violent response.’
Charlie Kirk (left) debates George Abaraonye (right) at the Oxford Union in May 2025
Mr Abaraonye, 20, reportedly posted his message on WhatsApp after the shooting
The student relaxes at the Union, where he is due to take over the prestigious presidency
He called it the natural outgrowth of a protest culture that had tolerated riots, mayhem, and political intimidation for years.
He saw the cowardice of local prosecutors who refused to prosecute violent mobs, the weakness of school officials who surrendered to radicals, and he warned that the Left had become a ‘ticking time bomb’.
What seemed like commentary proved closer to prophecy. Charlie’s real threat to the activist Left lay not only in his message but in his mission, carried out on the campuses he came to conquer.
Long before him, conservatives – myself included – had tried to defend academic freedom, to challenge the ideological corruption of higher learning, to push back against grievance studies. These efforts mattered, but none carried the reach or resonance of Charlie’s.
He went where others hesitated: into lecture halls, student unions, debating chambers. He took the fight to the very ground where the next generation of leaders was being formed. And he won.
Charlie was unapologetically pro-American, pro-Christian, pro-Israel, and pro–nuclear family. He treated patriotism as a virtue, not a vice. He upheld faith as the anchor of freedom. He called Israel a vital ally and condemned anti-Semitism wherever it appeared.
In a way, he became a spokesman for Western civilisation itself. And it was this, above all, that made him so hated.
The activist Left does not merely oppose policies. It despises the very idea of the West as something noble. It loathes the Judeo-Christian tradition. It sneers at patriotism. It seeks to erase the past in order to control the future.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination has cemented the activist as a conservative martyr, with Donald Trump going as far as to speculate he could have someday become president himself
Vigils and tributes for Kirk were held throughout the world in the aftermath of his killing, including remembrance events held in South Africa, London (pictured) and Australia
To them, Charlie Kirk was intolerable because he exposed the weakness of their creed. He did more than defend freedom. He inspired loyalty to it.
He believed the West – for all its flaws – was still the best hope for mankind. And for that, he was despised. For that, he was murdered.
When Theo was killed, the Islamists danced with delight. And their nihilism was aped by the activist Left who celebrated – some openly, some silently – when Charlie was killed.
The parallel is undeniable. Both groups reject reasoned debate. Both seek not to argue but to annihilate. Both reveal themselves as movements of destruction, not justice. Violence, intolerance and censorship are hallmarks of fundamentalist Islam, and all were on wicked display at Utah Valley University last week.
Just as Europe once deceived itself into believing Islamist violence could be contained, America now deceives itself about the danger of its radical Left.
What little we know about the suspect arrested on Friday for Charlie’s murder is beside the point. The reaction to the killing tells us what matters most.
It is not only the act that shocks – it is the jubilation that followed. The laughter unmasks the true face of the activist Left.
Charlie warned us: ‘You are seeing Leftists for who they truly are.’ We see it now. And the sight is revolting.
To hope to understand why, there are many corners of society where we could shine a torchlight. And I’d start with schools, colleges and universities where the youth are shaped. These institutions, once dedicated to education and free inquiry, have become factories of indoctrination and conformity.
If we are to honour Charlie’s life, we must reclaim them, restore them as places where ideas are probed rather than prohibited.
For it is in the classroom – where hearts are formed, minds molded and motivations set – that the struggle for the West will be won or lost.
