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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Yes there are those armchair warriors who never leave the house, that’s true. But I wouldn’t underestimate the power of social contagion spreading through social media resulting in physical action in the real world.

The recent spate of Gen Z protests in Nepal and Morocco arose out of social media campaigns. The Arab Spring likewise was in response to social media campaigns. How do thousands of people come to join the Palestinian protests in the uk? This is why Russia has developed the capacity to cut the internet off and control it domestically should the day come. The power of the medium to incite action in the real world is immense.

@teawamutu you might be right. I was assuming that Oxford Union presidents were all young white affluent males but a quick check shows a diverse group in past years.

I am attaching the link for the interview where the councillor made the comments about being’born and bred’ in Falkirk.

One of the problems is that she seems to enter a kind of Maoist struggle session with herself once she utters the words and was subsequently jumped on by the reporter who sensed her discomfort.
She was reported to police who did not subsequently charge her but was removed from her role as counsellor.

I agree, his dreads are irrelevant. I’d feel the same if he were white. The comments he made were awful and not consistent with heading up an institution which should be about promoting and exploring free speech and debate.

I am eligible to vote in this and I don’t think George Abaraonye deserves to be president but I am really uncomfortable with the whole thing. It feels like the whipping up of a mob which may have people with unsavoury motives behind it. I also don’t feel like it is legitimate for me, having had nothing to do with the Union for 30+ years, to have any say.
I also cringed at the ‘restore respect’ phrasing. The union has always had complete dicks as presidents. Boris Johnson ffs. They can have a leftwing dick for a change instead of a right wing one.

I take your point countess. I personally can’t bear Boris, god forbid he gets any political power again. But I think we seem to have reached a dangerous place in society where violence is seen as an acceptable solution (the TRAs with their threats for instance). I don’t think this is an acceptable view and George A is the face of it at the moment. If we want to deter those who advocate violence over debate there need to be consequences. He shouldn’t be sent down or hounded, but he shouldn’t head up the debating society either IMO. Otherwise, what message does this send?

Trial by combat? Force him to debate and win an appropriately worded motion?

Many clubs have elected officials who can be unseated if they break the law or the club rules or behave unbecomingly (eg the Bar Council). This does hand considerable discretionary power to the committee. But I'm not too sure about the alternative of distorting the electoral process by re-running it in the hope of enforcing some kind of lynching.

What do you mean, lynching? He's acted in a way completely unbecoming to his position and now the people he represents get to vote on whether or not they want him to retain that position, as per due process. What's the electoral distortion? What's the metaphorical lynching?