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

[BonfireLady]

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.

i don’t condone threats and violence to carry my point. But he does apparently. I hope the former students do turn up and oust him, but we’ll see.

Archive link:

https://archive.ph/mr9Sr

Unfortunately I am tied up Sat, going to the Battle of Ideas, or id honestly be tempted to head up there.

Why is this in FWR?

Was just going to ask the same.

This board is for discussion about issues regarding sex and gender. You're welcome to ask MNHQ if they think it should be moved somewhere else though.

It's here because a) it's entirely feasible/likely that Charlie Kirk was murdered for his views that gender identity doesn't exist and b) saying this freely (free speech) has been an issue for some time and it's an interesting development that the tide seems to be turning significantly on this. There are other threads about free speech on this board too.

Edited for typos

A surprise to see this here, but anyway

What am I missing? Why didn't GA just resign from his post?

It could be because he wants the debate. Or it could be that he wants the attention. I can't access that Telegraph article either so I'm none the wiser!

He definitely won’t resign if the other leaked messages are anything to go by….

I've not read the article either but like most Oxford Union presidents he's probably an overconfident self-centred ego maniac.

With judgement poor enough he actually put his below usual Oxford offer grades on his LinkedIn profile (ABB).

I expect he will lose the vote of non confidence. At any rate I doubt many interesting speakers will accept any invitation from him to the Union.

What a witch-hunt. Being privately 'happy' that's some one is dead isn't the same as condoning the method. You can bet if it weren't about a far right misogynist racist who effectively ushered in the dangerous clown show that is Trump who celebrates the murderous harm he does there wouldn't be such a fuss.

Ah here's dictionary boy...couple for you then...

"Witchhunt" - a vote of confidence by members of an organisation which the individual triggered and gets to defend themself beforehand.

"Privately happy" - sending celebratory messages to a WhatsApp Group chat celebrating someone's death

People need to learn big WhatsApp groups are not ‘private’.

BonfireLady
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.

No more far fetched than you claiming he was ‘advocating assassination in place of debate’. George Abaraonye is hardly the first person in the world to be pleased that an unpleasant person is dead, though the Telegraph tells me his comments were actually made before he realised Charlie Kirk was dead and ‘were retracted shortly afterwards’.

I know that you think his work for the Gender Critical cause makes Charlie Kirk a virtual saint but black people like me were chilled by what he had to say about us, and frankly, I was more chilled by the over-the-top reaction to his death, especially on Mumsnet.

But I’m not surprised that racists will travel from far and wide to put the black man in his place. Sorry, I’m just not buying the idea that they are making trips from halfway across the world because they feel George Abaraonye has irredeemably damaged the reputation of the Oxford Union.

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.

Celebrating the death of anyone is thoroughly offensive and the comment that he didnt realise a man had died is not believable. But I believe in free speech and the idea that people will travel from America to oust him is also offensive. Colour of his skin shouldnt be an excuse for celebrating someone's death and being more chilled by someone's words than their murder means you have your priorities wrong.

@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).

If they are alumni who are concerned about 'their' beloved Oxford union being brought into disrepute why should they not travel and vote? Voting must be in person and not all alumni will be in Oxford or the UK. As there needs to be a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no confidence it will be unlikely that Abaraonye will be ousted. If he is it will be because the current members of the union ( those his own age) do not support his actions. That would be quite a hopeful outcome.

I think that the true horror of Abaronye's remark-
'Charlie Kirk got shot loool'
was that he had met with him at Oxford Union and debated with him and shook hands with him, and so it goes beyond saying it about a stranger.
His performance against Charlie Kirk during the debate was roundly thought not to have been very good.

Why is it ok to celebrate the shooting of people that you have debated against? Should we just advocate to shoot all of our political opponants?
The only point of debate is that we can work out differences without violence and so he's brought it into disrepute.

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.

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.)

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.

It appears that they have changed the voting so people can vote by proxy if they can't attend in person
https://www.restorerespectoxfordunion.co.uk/

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

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.

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.

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

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