The discussion around the murder of Charli Kirk seems to be summarized in two positions, obviously clear and granite: the first is that Kirk, being a violent who said aberrant things and who supported the importance of free weapons, had what was being preached. The second is that, since violence is always wrong, the violent if anything are those of the other side, because he was free to express themselves, the United States is a democracy. For many it seems impossible to conceive a more articulated speech than these two beliefs. It seems very difficult to understand that, since it is a character like that and a historical moment like this, a little more complex reflections are needed.

Two equally superficial positions

Celebrating for killing is obviously from barbarians and also idiots. It makes no sense from any point of view, also because it automatically poses on the wrong side, and liquidates the question in a simplistic way: it was bad, worse for him. It is clear that with such a prerequisite you don’t go anywhere.

To say that violence is always wrong is an obvious. Not for this false, but an obviousness: it is one thing that teach us since we are born, all the laws of the democratic countries say it, we discovered it centuries ago. This statement does not constitute an analysis of the problem, but a very simple way to place yourself in the right.

Neither responses is minimally useful. We waste time to debate between these two nonsense, without anything from this debate that anything can be born: I am right, no, you are anti -democratic, you are not. It is evident that both positions have a fund of truth: killing someone is wrong, preaching racial hatred is equally a form of violence. But it is on this that less obvious considerations should be made, and difficult to do as you risk losing the label of good Christian.

Freedom of expression does not mean being able to say anything

Starting from the fact that killing is wrong, unacceptable things are being supported. First of all, freedom of expression is called into question: this man had the right to support his political positions, to express them loudly, to heavily influence the politics of his country through them. It is not an antidemocratic, but whoever wants to silence him. But how do you say that a man should be free to say serenely that a victim of rape, even a minor, should be forced to carry on a possible pregnancy? How do you consider tolerable that someone propagands the idea that blacks are lower, tendentially criminal? It will be that we Italians are used to Matteo Salvini.

Are these sentences violent? Are I not aimed at destroying civil society, replacing it with something else, with the domain of a single team? And let’s not only talk about sentences. We are talking about having made fashion and “cool” being racists, the rip -off of the lives of others, making “provocative” statements (it will be that we have also been used to Silvio Berlusconi) in the name of freedom of expression and with the excuse of not fearful to say things as they are. We talk about having influenced thousands of young people through their own media power, fomenting hatred and spreading ideas that if we read in a history book that speaks of 1945 we would consider unacceptable.

We do not conceive a balanced point of view

This is the madness of being good: that you end up conditing anything. With the diminishing of someone’s regrettable acts, because he is now dead, so he is the victim, and there is no other possible reading of reality. Since he is a victim, he doesn’t matter everything he did alive: who killed him is still more violent. As if it were a race, as if only these two had only alternatives. As if it were not possible to believe senseless to celebrate and not wanting that the guilty remains unpunished, and at the same time admit that the person who was killed was a bad element, dangerous and all too powerful. One truth does not cancel the other, and they are far from irreconcilable.

It is not the murder of a common citizen, therefore liquidable with the violent fury of a criminal. A criminal is undoubtedly, but his fury and violence are not born from nothing. We cannot ignore the decisive and undaunted construction of a movement that on violence based its own existing, and one cannot think that exacerbated reactions, and as much violence, cannot be born from this. To pass the thing as an attack on democracy and freedom is to ridicule, how much it is to pass it for an act of justice.

Where does violence come from, and what forms do forms?

So we should talk about this: what happens in society when we legitimize the absurd and illegitimate. Let’s look around: wherever in the world violence is going up. Do we want to ask ourselves questions about the reason, or do we settle for saying that violence is wrong? And we also try to be a little more awake, since we have, very clear, the demonstration of how politics mixes anything for its own gain. Trump was waiting for nothing more than an excuse to intensify his repressive policy, to tickle the desire for blood that characterizes the Americans: the death penalty. The violent here find no space! Do you see how the Democrats want to silence us? We just lacked giving him a martyr for his arsenal.

And in our country? A government that would first declare itself on the United States, with an foreign minister who blathe with freedom of speech and democracy when in the meantime he does not beat an eyelid in front of the violence (on a little wider scale) of Israel: the members of the global Summud Flotilla, affected several times while trying to bring help, do not have “that they complained, they knew what they were going on”. And we are discussing who is better than others.