George Abaraonye was elected in June to be the Oxford Union president for Hilary term 2026. He is a PPE student at University College and was the Union’s director of press when he became president-elect. The Oxford Student reported that he ran independently ‘under the #RESET slate and endorsed by the #HOPE slate’.
He has certainly called into question his suitability for the role of president, given his comments on the Charlie Kirk assassination this week.
His response to the murder of Kirk on the Utah Valley University campus has been published and circulated widely. Screenshots from WhatsApp and Instagram show him writing ‘Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s fucking go’ and ‘Charlie Kirk got shot loool’.
Not being quite up on Gen Z patois, I had to look up the precise meaning of the first phrase, which is basically an infusion of extreme positivity or a celebratory toast to success. What the printed reports of this didn’t show was that Abaraonye ended that sentence with a praying-hands emoji, as if he were thanking God for the shooting. (Abaraonye says he ‘reacted impulsively’ to the shooting, and that his comments were ‘quickly deleted’.)
This is all the more shocking because Charlie Kirk debated Abaraonye in the Oxford Union in May, on the subject of ‘toxic masculinity’. I wasn’t there, and I’m sure they disagreed on much, but I’m equally sure that Charlie Kirk was gracious in his robustness, and generous in his compassion, because that was his essential debating style. He was charismatic and combative, arguing passionately and provocatively with students, but always with patience and kindness. He taught students how to think, not what to think; offering more counselling and spiritual guidance than dogmatic instruction. I have no doubt at all that his assertions of truth were sometimes perceived as hostile and hateful, if not evil, by those who argued with him and lost. And in that losing, in that dangerous disagreement, Abaraonye seems to find justification for murder – just four months after meeting him and debating him face-to-face.
The current officers of the Oxford Union issued a statement yesterday: ‘The Oxford Union would like to unequivocally condemn the reported words expressed by the president-elect, George Abaraonye, with regards to the passing of Charlie Kirk.’ There’s so much wrong with that sentence it’s hard to know where to begin. A split infinitive, ‘regards’ instead of ‘regard’, and the ‘passing’ of Charlie Kirk, as though he’d drifted peacefully into a dream of eternal sleep.
But what they don’t – and should – say is that they are commencing an immediate investigation into the president-elect’s reported comments to determine whether he has engaged in conduct which might ‘seriously damage the Society’s interests or… bring the Society into disrepute’ (Rule 71).
Since the president is responsible for inviting speakers for their term of office, it’s hard to see how he hasn’t damaged the Society’s interests by revelling in the murder of a recent guest. Who would accept an invitation from him, knowing that he supports the slaying of people with bullets if words don’t work?
I’d be inclined to resign my life membership of the Society if he becomes president next year, but knowing how many of them operate and think, and how they despise any expression of the political right, I suspect think they’d welcome my departure.
So, instead, I’ll watch out for his term card and personally make sure every speaker he invites is made aware that if he disagrees with their views, he may well go on to wish they were murdered. He will doubtless deny this, but he has expressed this view precisely in a previous debate:
‘To effectively create change in the world we desire… at times there is simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation. And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with: the view that some institutions are too broken, too oppressive to be reformed. Like cancers of our society, they must and they should be taken down by any means necessary.’
— 🇬🇧 𝙔𝙊𝙊𝙆𝘼𝙔 𝘼𝙀𝙎𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙄𝘾𝙎 🇬🇧 (@MythoYookay) September 12, 2025
By any means necessary?
There ought to be no place in Oxford – either the university or the Union (which is independent of the university) – for this intolerance of reasoned right-wing opinion. Disagreeing with someone does not make them evil, and it certainly doesn’t justify political assassination.
Comments