Let’s suppose I were on the Right in politics. I would take ‘Right’ to mean in favour of all the things that were considered normal in times past, normal as opposed to Leftist exceptional: hence in favour of state, nation, rule-of-law, historic religion, established order, traditional society, marriage, family etc.

Now, let’s suppose I were on the Left in politics. Then I would take ‘Left’ to mean all the things that should be considered normal in accordance with some sort of time-independent moral or enlightened or scientific set of principles – which would be some sort of globalist and anti-traditionalist position decorated by views, perhaps, about basic income, wealth tax, LGBT and especially T, climate change, decolonisation of the curriculum, safe spaces, privilege, equity, Black Lives Matter, Gaza, etc.

Simple. But then imagine that someone on the other side is shot dead by someone on my side.

If I were on the Right in politics, this would mean that someone on the Right shot dead someone on the Left. Then I would not merely “condemn violence” in some vague, unspecific way. On the contrary, I would say: “I condemn this specifically: for according to the values of my position, I have to condemn this. This person, apparently on the Right, betrayed the cause, in shooting dead someone on the Left.” The logic would be that it should not have happened: but also that it was strictly forbidden by the morality used as a justification.

If I were on the Left in politics, it would mean – well, it means what has actually happened. Now, I know all of this is speculation at the moment. But it seems very likely that the man who shot Charlie Kirk dead was on the Left. Trump may have been supposing, but it is likely that Trump supposed rightly. The Wall Street Journal has reported that ammunition in the rifle thought to be used to shoot him was engraved with “expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology”. (According to Louder with Crowder this information was sent informally by an AFT agent because they thought it might be buried.) That’s right: an antifascist shot dead someone trying to argue out ideas, wearing “Freedom’ on his shirt, and under a sign saying ‘Prove Me Wrong’.

If a follower of Charlie Kirk had shot someone, and ammunition had been found with, let’s say, not the exaggerated ‘far-Right’ slogans that the Guardian might hope for, but simple ‘expressions of Christian ideology’, then I think what would happen is that everyone, including Charlie Kirk, were he still alive, would not only condemn the shooting but also deny that such an act could be considered Christian. In other words, the ideological appeals would provide no fig leaf. The act would be considered a crime, and not only that, but a grave sin, and a breach with the very ideology the shooter had claimed to act for.

What is so very interesting, however, is that, in general, nothing like this has happened on the Left. We have already seen the early displays of ‘He deserved it’ evident online. More seriously, among politicians, journalists etc., what there has been has been generalised condemnation of violence – with the implication, perhaps, that the violence was not an action so much as it was a reaction by someone provoked by an original action.

I find some of the articles posted on the Guardian disgusting in this regard. In general, the press has been balanced: certainly the BBC seems to have been. But the Guardian has run pieces that seem to sanction the murder, indirectly and implicitly, no doubt. They emphasise Kirk’s supposed original provocation.

Alaina Demopoulos, for instance, tells us that he was a “virulent debater and clickbait savant”. This may not be her title, but she uses the word “virulently” in her article. And:

Kirk’s ideology was caustic; he espoused openly homophobic, racist, sexist, Islamophobic and Christian nationalist views while uplifting misinformation and conspiracy theories.

This is not only a political judgement. It is a smear. She does not say, ‘To we on the Left, of course, his ideology seemed caustic.’ No. She asserts her political judgement as if it is a statement of fact. Oh, and she adds the classic smear words “misinformation” and “conspiracy theory”. Yes, but Kirk never engraved ‘Misinformation’ on a bullet before shooting someone dead. Nor did any of his followers.

Then Chris Stein and Dani Anguiano actually list his what they call “bigoted views”. Yes, indeed. So that everyone in the Guardian can relax a bit and think, ‘Well, he probably deserved it; it was wrong, of course; but he will not be missed.’ Stein and Anguiano strip out of context some of his provocative utterances and present them as if for a prosecution case. He was, they say, “far Right”, “controversial” and “accountable to no one but his audience, he did not shy away in his rhetoric from bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and stereotyping”.

The Guardian editorial, finally, declares that political violence is rising, and “people of colour are particularly targeted”. This is demonstrably false. It bears out what Eugyppius has told us about the reporting on the dreadful murder of Iryna Zarutska. But there is this, as well, in the editorial:

People appear less willing to condone violence if misperceptions of the other side’s extremism or propensity for force are corrected. In this perilous moment, the response to such hateful crimes should be to coalesce to stress non-violence and civic tolerance.

Yes, fine, fine, fine, editor of the Guardian, if it is actually you. But if this is the case, then stop using the words “far-right”, “caustic”, “virulent” and “bigoted” in your articles. Stop creating misperceptions about people like Charlie Kirk, even after his death, but certainly, hopefully, before anyone else’s death.

Why is there is no specific condemnation by, say, antifascists of this presumably, by their standards, somewhat fascist shooting? Why is the Left not examining its own virulence, causticity and bigotry?

James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.