Oxford Union Condemns President-Elect Over Charlie Kirk Shooting Comments
The Oxford Union, one of the world’s most famous debating societies, has been thrown into controversy after its president-elect, George Abaraonye, was reported to have made celebratory comments about the shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk, aged 31, was killed earlier this week during an event at Utah Valley University in what authorities have already described as a political assassination. The incident shocked political circles across the United States, with former President Donald Trump calling Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom.” Kirk, who was married with two young children, had built a reputation as a divisive but influential voice on the American right.
Also Read:- Starmer Under Fire After Mandelson’s Sacking Over Epstein Links
- ANZ Shuts Down Cashrewards After Airwallex Sale
The controversy surrounding Abaraonye began when screenshots reportedly showed him reacting in a WhatsApp group with the words, “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f **ing go.”* Another post, believed to have appeared briefly on his Instagram account, read, “Charlie Kirk got shot loool.” These comments were swiftly condemned by the Oxford Union, which issued a statement stressing that it “firmly opposes all forms of political violence” and that such remarks did not reflect the values of its current leadership.
The statement emphasized that under the current president, Moosa Harraj, the society remains committed to free speech and respectful debate. The Union also extended condolences to Kirk’s family, recognizing the immense grief being endured by his wife and children. Oxford University itself distanced from the situation, pointing out that the Union is an independent body, though it made clear that comments endorsing violence are “entirely unacceptable.”
For his part, Abaraonye issued an apology, saying he had “reacted impulsively” and deleted the posts once he learned Kirk had died. He admitted that his reaction was shaped by anger at Kirk’s past rhetoric, which he described as dehumanizing. Abaraonye pointed out that Kirk had dismissed mass shootings as an acceptable “cost” of protecting gun rights, supported collective blame on civilians in Gaza, and advocated for rolling back the Civil Rights Act, among other controversial positions. However, Abaraonye stressed that “nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence” and expressed condolences to Kirk’s family.
The irony is that just a few months earlier, in May, Abaraonye and Kirk had faced each other in a debate at the Oxford Union on the subject of toxic masculinity. That debate ended with Kirk reportedly telling Abaraonye to “think about” their discussion—a remark that now feels heavy with hindsight.
The fallout from the incident has spread far beyond Oxford. Leaders across the political spectrum in the U.S. have condemned the shooting, and the FBI has released images of a person of interest while offering a $100,000 reward for information. Meanwhile, reactions to Abaraonye’s reported comments have sparked debate about responsibility, free speech, and the line between criticism and cruelty when public figures face tragedy.
In the end, the Oxford Union’s response makes one thing clear: whatever differences exist in political ideas, celebrating violence has no place in civil discourse. This episode is a stark reminder of how words, spoken or typed in haste, can carry enormous consequences in moments of grief and conflict.
Read More:
0 Comments