I keep coming back to two paragraphs from Richard Novak, the defense attorney for Tyler Robinson, during the preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk murder case. Read them carefully:
Read more A Kenyan tragically loses his job to AI
It is true that Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people. He spoke hatefully of people who don’t have traditional norm-conforming gender identities. He spoke hatefully of people who are not strictly heterosexual. He spoke hatefully of people who have sexual relationships out of marriage.
And yes, it is true that the evidence from Mr. Twiggs is that he identified in a non-gender-conforming way to his friends and that he was in a romantic relationship with Mr. Robinson. But that doesn’t mean that those personal choices by Mr. Twiggs and by Mr. Robinson equate with the hate that at least Mr. Robinson says he had toward Mr. Kirk.
There is a defense argument here. Novak was challenging the prosecution’s theory of motive and arguing that the evidence did not establish that Robinson killed Kirk because of his political or religious views. Fine. That is what defense attorneys do.
But then there is that phrase: “It is true.” Not Robinson believed. Not the prosecution alleges. Not some people regarded Kirk’s words as hateful. It is true. That is a very different proposition.
Charlie Kirk is dead. He cannot answer for himself. Yet his beliefs, his words, and his character are being placed before the court as though they belong in the explanation for his own murder.
The dead man has entered the courtroom.
And look at what Novak chose to put on trial: Kirk’s views on gender, sexuality, and sex outside marriage. Those are not political positions Charlie Kirk invented. They are rooted in the Christian faith he openly professed.
Read more My Body/My Choice on trial
Charlie Kirk did not write the Bible. He did not invent Christianity. He did not create Christian teaching on marriage or sexuality. He believed it, defended it, and spoke about it.
So when those beliefs are characterized as hate, what exactly are we being asked to condemn? Charlie Kirk? Or Christianity?
That is where this gets uncomfortable. Because if a Christian expresses a biblical belief about marriage, sexuality, or human identity, and that belief is introduced into a courtroom as evidence of “hate,” the argument has moved beyond the defendant’s alleged motive. It has moved into the territory of faith itself.
When did quoting the Bible become hate speech?
The Christian principles Charlie Kirk defended predate him by roughly two thousand years. That is why Novak’s wording deserves scrutiny.
A man accused of killing Charlie Kirk is entitled to a vigorous defense. His attorney is entitled to challenge the prosecution’s evidence and its theory of motive. But Charlie Kirk is entitled to something, too. He is entitled not to be put on trial simply because he is no longer alive to defend himself.
The first killing took Charlie Kirk’s life. The second begins when his beliefs are placed in the dock.
Read more Playing the casualty claim game
Image: Charlie Kirk. Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.