Roger-Luc Chayer (Image : Meta AI / Gay Globe)

Can We Still Give Ourselves the Right to Rejoice?

Reactions After the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent Republican figure of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, reactions were widespread around the world. They ranged from hatred and anger to, for many, a certain rejoicing at the idea that the young man could no longer radically influence American youth. All these emotions are legitimate, but one question remains today: do we have the right to rejoice at Kirk’s disappearance?

I am speaking specifically about the disappearance of the man, not the fact that he was assassinated. He could have died of a heart attack, and the same feeling of relief, even joy, would have arisen for many.

Context of the Murderer

Furthermore, to clarify some elements, preliminary information obtained by the media from the authorities responsible for the investigation indicates that Kirk’s killer, Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old from Utah, was neither trans, nor homosexual, nor pansexual, nor Democrat. He was, on the contrary, a Republican from an openly MAGA family – in other words, from the same political movement Kirk identified with.

According to these provisional reports, Robinson was likely influenced by a growing extremist movement in the United States. We will revisit this when available data allows a clearer picture.

Why Rejoicing Should Not Be Shameful

History teaches us that in humanity’s gravest moments, rejoicing was not only normal, it manifested in mass movements that were often unanimous.

Historical Examples

Benito Mussolini: During the capture and execution of Benito Mussolini in April 1945, the Italian people expressed intense and liberating joy, mixed with revenge and relief after years of dictatorship. Crowds spontaneously gathered, expressing accumulated anger while celebrating the end of an oppressive regime.

United States and Canada: The end of World War II sparked collective euphoria mixed with relief and national pride. Populations celebrated the Allied victory through public gatherings, parades, and festivities, marking the end of years of worry and sacrifice. However, these celebrations coexisted with awareness of human losses and atrocities revealed in Europe and Asia.

Romania: At the death of Nicolae Ceaușescu on December 25, 1989, after his arrest and execution during the Romanian revolution, the people expressed a mix of relief and jubilation. Citizens spontaneously celebrated in the streets, seeing the dictator’s brutal fall as the end of a political nightmare and the start of a new era of freedom.

Other Historical Movements: Throughout history, many movements of rejoicing have followed periods of great oppression or disaster. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of apartheid in 1994 sparked euphoria and hope, just as the post-tsunami ceremonies in 2004 and the Armistice celebrations of 1918 did. These demonstrations reflect collective relief, social catharsis, and the desire to rebuild a future after suffering.

Japan 1945: When Japan surrendered after the United States used two atomic bombs, despite the considerable number of deaths and lives shattered by these weapons, a vast movement of rejoicing occurred worldwide—not for the bombs themselves, but for the end of the war, one of the deadliest in the world and in Asia.

Examining Parallels Between Charlie Kirk’s Ideology and Adolf Hitler’s

Comparing Charlie Kirk’s political speeches and strategies to those of Adolf Hitler reveals primarily a similarity in rhetorical logic rather than exact content or historical scope. Both mobilize a deeply polarized worldview, based on an irreducible opposition between a “we” seen as legitimate and threatened, and a “they” presented as corrupting or destructive.

For Kirk, this polarization crystallizes around the idea of a traditional America under siege from progressive forces, immigration, or cultural leftists, while for Hitler it took the form of an ideological construction portraying the German people as victims of Jewish, Marxist, and foreign conspiracies. The mechanism is similar: simplifying complex realities into a moral and identity-based confrontation, reducing politics to an existential struggle.

Importance of Youth

Kirk made the political indoctrination of students and young adults a strategic priority, convinced that the country’s ideological future is decided on campuses. Hitler, in a far more radical and institutionalized context, had established the Hitler Youth to shape a generation loyal to his project from an early age. In both cases, youth is seen as a vector of ideological continuity.

Identity Dimension

Kirk bases part of his discourse on defending an “authentic” American identity, associated with tradition, Christian faith, and conservatism, against a cultural threat. Hitler extended this logic further, constructing a myth of racial purity and making exclusion, even elimination, a central principle of his policy.

On Alleged Statements Calling for the Stoning of Homosexuals

To my knowledge and according to available verification, Charlie Kirk never literally stated that homosexuals should be stoned. This rumor circulates mainly as an exaggeration or caricature of his conservative positions.

Some reports indicate he cited a Bible verse mentioning stoning in a critique of selective Scripture use, but it is unclear that he made a direct call to violence.

However, on his Wikipedia page, it is reported that he made statements about LGBT communities that could be seen as degrading and criminally homophobic.

Evolution of Charlie Kirk’s Discourse on LGBTQ Issues

Between 2017 and 2025, Kirk’s discourse on LGBTQ issues shifted from relatively liberal to marked by religious conservatism. In 2017, he supported Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military. In 2025, he applauded the revocation of a decree allowing trans people to serve openly and strongly criticized the court decision blocking it.

In 2019, Kirk credited Trump with decriminalizing homosexuality in Botswana, emphasizing his administration’s international influence. While affirming marriage as “one man, one woman,” he accepted homosexuals in the conservative movement. From 2021 onward, his statements radicalized: he denounced gender fluidity as a “lie,” likened LGBTQ activism to an “alphabet mafia,” and accused the movement of wanting to “corrupt children.”

In 2024, he called for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, criminalization of doctors performing it, and even “Nuremberg-style trials.” He described homosexuality as an “error,” comparing LGBTQ pride to glorifying drugs.

Finally

It is certainly understandable, when analyzing all his statements and teachings on societal issues, that many might rejoice at his disappearance, perhaps for the good of humanity to come.