Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Oxford Union alumni will descend on city to try to oust president-elect

218 replies

BonfireLady · 15/10/2025 17:23

Well, that's quite a turn up for the free speech books!

When the president-elect of the Oxford Union debating society hit the headlines with his awful celebration of a violent assassination, I hoped that he would be declared unfit to run it. Yes, I support free speech, including the right to offend. However, he is president-elect of a debating society and is simply not fit for the role if he's advocating assassination in place of debate. Charlie Kirk was killed while debating. Specifically while answering a question about trans(-identifying) people, by a young man who is/was in a romantic relationship with a (transwo)man.

It seems like this university is waking up to the idea that critical thinking is a good thing. Please keep thinking Oxford Union...... 🤞

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/14/oxford-union-alumni-descend-city-oust-president-elect/

He's written quite a lengthy statement and this was included:

When a national columnist explicitly calls for you to be shot, and your family receives threats, it creates an environment where reasoned debate cannot exist.

Obviously it's appalling that his family received threats but which national columnist explicitly called for him to be shot? Does anyone know? That sounds rather far-fetched and I would hope that this isn't what happened.

Edited for clarity.

Access Restricted

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/14/oxford-union-alumni-descend-city-oust-president-elect

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
teawamutu · 17/10/2025 11:26

DrBlackbird · 17/10/2025 10:34

I agree with so much of what you say @BonfireLady but in this case, I’m also uncomfortable with alumni pouring into the city to denounce and condemn this young dreadlocked black man who was going to be the next Oxford Union president. Let him learn from the experience.

Have a debate about boundaries of free speech or a debate on right vs left is a null concept or how social media drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Don’t run him out of town and humiliate him. No learning occurs in those spaces. Just entrenchment along with resentment.

What we need is for young people to fully embrace free speech and to be comfortable to challenge the ideas and not the man or woman espousing them.

Edited to add: But should someone who celebrates violence against an opponent be in charge of a debating society? I’d guess most liberal UGs would be doing or thinking similarly. If this young man genuinely accepted condoning or celebrating violence is wrong, then yes he could be in charge of a debating society as its raison d’etre is to advance knowledge through logic and reason.

Edited
Show quote history

I agree with much of what you say, but I'm not sure that he gets any extra leeway for being a "young, dreadlocked black man". If he was a lanky bespectacled white posh boy from Tunbridge Wells - like that unspeakable little twat filmed chanting this week - I'd feel the same.

Arrest him, no. Remove him from position of responsibility and prestige because he's either too bigoted (and high on his own virtue to realise it) or insufficiently mature to handle it? Probably yes.

ThatCyanCat · 17/10/2025 10:57

DrBlackbird · 17/10/2025 10:52

I do believe that physical presence of protesters is fuelled by social media algorithms. Repeated experience tells me that undergrads still base their opinions on social media posts. Much to my dismay and despite teaching about reliable vs unreliable evidence.

Show quote history

But there's a difference between limiting yourself to liking and sharing posts on SM (or writing them) and taking it into the real world like that. Obviously SM acts as communication and networking but if people are prepared to take part in the vote and travel to another city to make their feelings known, it's more than just Internet World.

DrBlackbird · 17/10/2025 10:52

ThatCyanCat · 17/10/2025 10:39

Have a debate about boundaries of free speech or a debate on right vs left is a null concept or how social media drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Isn't the physical presence of a lot of protestors proof that this goes beyond social media?

Show quote history

I do believe that physical presence of protesters is fuelled by social media algorithms. Repeated experience tells me that undergrads still base their opinions on social media posts. Much to my dismay and despite teaching about reliable vs unreliable evidence.

ThatCyanCat · 17/10/2025 10:39

DrBlackbird · 17/10/2025 10:34

I agree with so much of what you say @BonfireLady but in this case, I’m also uncomfortable with alumni pouring into the city to denounce and condemn this young dreadlocked black man who was going to be the next Oxford Union president. Let him learn from the experience.

Have a debate about boundaries of free speech or a debate on right vs left is a null concept or how social media drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Don’t run him out of town and humiliate him. No learning occurs in those spaces. Just entrenchment along with resentment.

What we need is for young people to fully embrace free speech and to be comfortable to challenge the ideas and not the man or woman espousing them.

Edited to add: But should someone who celebrates violence against an opponent be in charge of a debating society? I’d guess most liberal UGs would be doing or thinking similarly. If this young man genuinely accepted condoning or celebrating violence is wrong, then yes he could be in charge of a debating society as its raison d’etre is to advance knowledge through logic and reason.

Edited
Show quote history

Have a debate about boundaries of free speech or a debate on right vs left is a null concept or how social media drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Isn't the physical presence of a lot of protestors proof that this goes beyond social media?

ThatCyanCat · 17/10/2025 10:36

I also noticed he seemed to be dressed like a slob while debating Kirk. He didn't necessarily have to be in a three piece suit (although when representing that august organisation, it would not have gone amiss) but he seemed to be in a T shirt, joggers, and were those slippers? It's disrespectful, not only to the visiting speaker but to the Union.

If you respect a person enough to host them at the debate then you should respect them enough not to cheer if they're murdered. If he believed Kirk was so despicable that his murder was something to celebrate, he shouldn't have platformed him.

DrBlackbird · 17/10/2025 10:34

Skyswim · 17/10/2025 09:19

I'm in two minds about this. On the one had what he said was repellent and concerning - you always wonder whether this is the sort of thing a lot of people believe deep down but cover up in public. It also makes me doubt his judgement as a leader. On the other hand, he is young and impulsive and has apologised.

I agree with so much of what you say @BonfireLady but in this case, I’m also uncomfortable with alumni pouring into the city to denounce and condemn this young dreadlocked black man who was going to be the next Oxford Union president. Let him learn from the experience.

Have a debate about boundaries of free speech or a debate on right vs left is a null concept or how social media drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Don’t run him out of town and humiliate him. No learning occurs in those spaces. Just entrenchment along with resentment.

What we need is for young people to fully embrace free speech and to be comfortable to challenge the ideas and not the man or woman espousing them.

Edited to add: But should someone who celebrates violence against an opponent be in charge of a debating society? I’d guess most liberal UGs would be doing or thinking similarly. If this young man genuinely accepted condoning or celebrating violence is wrong, then yes he could be in charge of a debating society as its raison d’etre is to advance knowledge through logic and reason.

Justme56 · 17/10/2025 10:16

It shouldn’t be a criminal offence for saying what he said. However, I do agree with the vote. Debating societies should be about opening up discussion where there is often strong disagreement. Seeing things from different perspectives to try and deter such issues resulting in violence. I just think his words indicate that this is quite possibly not the role for him.

Skyswim · 17/10/2025 10:06

JeminaTheGiantBear · 17/10/2025 09:54

Seriously I would have thought women would realise by now that legitimising censorship, and punishing disapproved-of speech, unattractive speech, speech that upsets and offends, speech ‘celebrating’ things we don’t like, will ALWAYS rebound on us.

Amazing how many women want to feed the censorship crocodile hunks of bleeding meat - without apparently realising we’re in the water with it too. And it’s hungry.

I guess the question is, what is being censored here? If we value free speech is there any speech that puts you beyond the pale? My view is his point of view should not be illegal although it’s on the edge (he did not incite violence but he did celebrate it). But should someone who celebrates violence against an opponent be in charge of a debating society? I think as GC women we probably would think celebrating a trans person being shot is going too far.

ThatCyanCat · 17/10/2025 10:04

Free speech means it shouldn't be illegal to say stuff and indeed it shouldn't be illegal to say (certain) disgusting things and show yourself up as an arsehole. It doesn't seem he was inciting violence so there shouldn't be legal consequences.

However, you can show yourself up to be unfit for your role and a total disgrace, and that most definitely applies to the president of a debating society who glories in the murder of a debating opponent. He shouldn't be arrested but he absolutely should be removed from the position he is not fit to hold. I hope the vote recognises that.

JeminaTheGiantBear · 17/10/2025 09:54

Seriously I would have thought women would realise by now that legitimising censorship, and punishing disapproved-of speech, unattractive speech, speech that upsets and offends, speech ‘celebrating’ things we don’t like, will ALWAYS rebound on us.

Amazing how many women want to feed the censorship crocodile hunks of bleeding meat - without apparently realising we’re in the water with it too. And it’s hungry.

anyolddinosaur · 17/10/2025 09:47

He's legally an adult and what exaclty did he say as an apology? I know the brain is not fully mature until 25 but that doesnt mean his remark should not be condemned, that is how brains develop.

Has the voting method actually been changed or does this keep people away from voting in person?

Still comes back to I hate what you say but will defend your right to say it.

Skyswim · 17/10/2025 09:19

I'm in two minds about this. On the one had what he said was repellent and concerning - you always wonder whether this is the sort of thing a lot of people believe deep down but cover up in public. It also makes me doubt his judgement as a leader. On the other hand, he is young and impulsive and has apologised.

Original poster
BonfireLady · 17/10/2025 09:02

BonfireLady · 17/10/2025 08:50

The Reform councillor in Falkirk has been removed from office and investigated by the police for saying that she was ‘born and bred in Falkirk’ and so if you are judging this by the same standard he should be removed as his speech was a lot more violent.

Is there any context for why the (former) councillor said this @PeachOctopus ? This is key to understanding why Falkirk council decided this action was necessary. For example, was it simply a comment about being a proud Falkirk citizen serving the locally community in which he/she grew up in, or was it a pointed comment directed at immigrants who now sit on the council? As with Abaraonye, context is important here.

Another contextual comparison is the man who shouted "I like bacon" at a group of Muslims. He was arrested, which is ridiculous as it's not a criminal offence to shout about your food tastes in public even if it is potentially deliberately and pointedly offensive to Muslims. If he'd been a local councillor, or president-elect of a debating society it has a different context, insofar as I would argue he's not fit to hold either of those positions. In either of these hypothetical scenarios I would hope he resigned his post or was voted out.

Edited to add: the part about the Falkirk ex-councillor being investigated by police really is mad. It's in the same league as the bacon comment as far as the threshold for criminality goes.

Edited

Ahhhh. I've just remembered that Scotland has a ridiculous hate crime law that we don't have in England. In England a hate crime is an aggravating factor if there is an actual crime. In Scotland it can be a standalone crime if someone takes offence. Anyway, context is key to why the police were investigating..... and it still sounds ridiculous at face value.

OP posts:
Original poster
BonfireLady · 17/10/2025 08:50

The Reform councillor in Falkirk has been removed from office and investigated by the police for saying that she was ‘born and bred in Falkirk’ and so if you are judging this by the same standard he should be removed as his speech was a lot more violent.

Is there any context for why the (former) councillor said this @PeachOctopus ? This is key to understanding why Falkirk council decided this action was necessary. For example, was it simply a comment about being a proud Falkirk citizen serving the locally community in which he/she grew up in, or was it a pointed comment directed at immigrants who now sit on the council? As with Abaraonye, context is important here.

Another contextual comparison is the man who shouted "I like bacon" at a group of Muslims. He was arrested, which is ridiculous as it's not a criminal offence to shout about your food tastes in public even if it is potentially deliberately and pointedly offensive to Muslims. If he'd been a local councillor, or president-elect of a debating society it has a different context, insofar as I would argue he's not fit to hold either of those positions. In either of these hypothetical scenarios I would hope he resigned his post or was voted out.

Edited to add: the part about the Falkirk ex-councillor being investigated by police really is mad. It's in the same league as the bacon comment as far as the threshold for criminality goes.

OP posts:
Original poster
BonfireLady · 17/10/2025 08:41

MidnightScroller · 17/10/2025 06:55

This should not be left to the students to decide - OU should just have a simple rule that celebrating violence leads to an automatic expulsion from leadership positions - it’s promoting the opposite of debating and according to this article he had actually debated Charlie Kirk previously so surely would be expected to have some respect for a former opposition debating partner?

This was my initial reaction.

I read an interesting counterargument by Peter Boghossian that effectively said he should keep his position and go down with the ship that was already sinking i.e. he felt that universities were beyond hope:

https://boghossian.substack.com/p/why-george-abaraonye-should-not-be

On balance, I now think the better outcome would be if the alumni and current union members were the ones who took action to say that he wasn't fit for purpose. It gives far greater hope for the future of critical thinking in universities if the debating society itself recognises why it's not appropriate for him to lead it.

Why George Abaraonye Should NOT Be Removed as Oxford Union’s President

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, one thing is clear: Burn the University System to the Ground

https://boghossian.substack.com/p/why-george-abaraonye-should-not-be

OP posts:
bundlesandbundles · 17/10/2025 07:15

GoldThumb · 17/10/2025 06:55

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.

Investigated by the police for saying you were ‘born and bred’ somewhere 🤯

Show quote history

These days, you get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you're English.

TheAutumnCrow · 17/10/2025 07:01

I thought this was about proxy voting (and registering by Oxford Union alumni to do so), rather than people literally visiting the city en masse to put a cross somewhere?

MidnightScroller · 17/10/2025 06:55

This should not be left to the students to decide - OU should just have a simple rule that celebrating violence leads to an automatic expulsion from leadership positions - it’s promoting the opposite of debating and according to this article he had actually debated Charlie Kirk previously so surely would be expected to have some respect for a former opposition debating partner?

GoldThumb · 17/10/2025 06:55

PeachOctopus · 16/10/2025 10:26

The Reform councillor in Falkirk has been removed from office and investigated by the police for saying that she was ‘born and bred in Falkirk’ and so if you are judging this by the same standard he should be removed as his speech was a lot more violent.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.

Investigated by the police for saying you were ‘born and bred’ somewhere 🤯

SinnerBoy · 17/10/2025 06:38

Gettingmadderallthetime

I was drawing a parallel to what you wrote here:

In this case someone who is purporting to be a leader, a voice for the future, likely a future politician, celebrates violence against someone who he has met in person in the debating chamber.

Original poster
BonfireLady · 16/10/2025 23:09

No more far fetched than you claiming he was ‘advocating assassination in place of debate’.

I accept that he probably didn't mean to promote assassination as a better way forward than debate. But intentional or not, it was the net impact of his messages, given he was celebrating someone being killed while/for debating.

I know that you think his work for the Gender Critical cause makes Charlie Kirk a virtual saint

Apologies for breaking it to you so bluntly, but mind-reading may not be your forte. No, I do not think Charlie Kirk was a virtual saint. I think he was brave to debate difficult issues and that it's important that people do share and listen to differing opinions. That's how democratic societies move forward together.

I didn't agree with him on gay marriage or abortion. He certainly wasn't gender critical - he was quite the opposite from what I saw, advocating societal roles for woman and men in line with his religion. Again, something on which I disagreed with him.

I hope the young people in your life are treated similarly harshly when they transgress BonfireLady. Maybe then you will decry the TRA tactic of burning the house down because someone saw a mouse.

I'm not even sure where to start here. The young people in my life - my children - know that I don't support anyone being killed for debating difficult issues. If my children knew that someone who was about to be the president of a debating society was celebrating this, I imagine they'd be as appalled as I am about it. I also imagine they'd agree with me that the person isn't cut out for the role.

OP posts:
Gettingmadderallthetime · 16/10/2025 22:32

SinnerBoy · 16/10/2025 16:09

You put me in mind of Young Conservative students in Newcastle, during the late 80s. They had a trend of wearing T-Shirts with "Hang Nelson Mandela" and a grossly offensive caricature of him in a noose.

I wonder how many of them went on to careers in politics.

Show quote history

Sorry, if this is being addressed at me (if I am 'you') then I am missing your point.

SinnerBoy · 16/10/2025 16:09

Gettingmadderallthetime · 16/10/2025 07:37

@QOrion its concerning enough when someone celebrates anyone being shot on social media. In this case someone who is purporting to be a leader, a voice for the future, likely a future politician, celebrates violence against someone who he has met in person in the debating chamber. Total lack of judgement. I am glad he is being called up on it.

To not agree with what someone says should be a cause for hating them and wishing them ill. (FWIW I am mixed race and none of the views I have heard attributed to Charlie Kirk would make me celebrate in a social media post if he was shot). The way to defeat arguments you do not agree with is to present evidence and arguments (not violence and shouting down).

You put me in mind of Young Conservative students in Newcastle, during the late 80s. They had a trend of wearing T-Shirts with "Hang Nelson Mandela" and a grossly offensive caricature of him in a noose.

I wonder how many of them went on to careers in politics.

SundayAfternoonTea · 16/10/2025 15:10

He also posted this publicly on Instagram. Actively celebrating the shooting of someone he debates with is wrong.

He had no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's not how these type of "hack" groups work. It wasn't a friendship group or whatever.

He only deleted it after others in the group challenged it.

He isn't going to be cancelled or kicked out of Oxford Uni. Just quite a few people don't think he's appropriate for him to be leading the Union.

(Not that it's relevant but I'm also mixed race, don't like Kirk and went to Oxford and am a Union member. I would be tempted to visit and vote if I was free this weekend.)