President-Elect of the Oxford Union George Abaraonye is receiving backlash for his positive comments on Charlie Kirk’s death. Abaraonye posted on his Instagram yesterday the statement: “Charlie Kirk is dead loool [sic.].” The post has since been deleted.
George Abaraonye told Cherwell: “Last night I received the shocking news about a shooting at Charlie Kirk’s event. In that moment of shock, I reacted impulsively and made comments prior to Charlie being pronounced dead that I quickly deleted upon learning of his passing. Those words did not reflect my values.”
The Telegraph has also reported that Abaraonye wrote in messages to a WhatsApp group for the Oxford freshers: “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f—ing go.”
The backlash has led to doxxing of other people exposed from the screenshot of the WhatsApp groupchat and racist comments directed at Abaraonye.
The Union has condemned Abaraonye’s comments in a public statement, saying “his reported views do not represent the Oxford Union’s current leadership or committee’s views”. They have emphasised that the Union “opposes all forms of political violence and strongly stands by our commitment to free speech and considerate debate”.
The comments have sparked a backlash. Josh Wolfe, co-founder of Venture Capital firm Lux Capital, posted on X that he will decline his invitation to speak at the Union until “cultural leadership from the top celebrates peace + coexistence + civil discourse + denounces violence [sic.]”.
StopAntisemitism also posted on X: “Our Executive Director was recently invited to debate at [Oxford Union]. Until George Abraraonye steps down/is removed, StopAntisemitism employees will not be engaging with your debate society due to safety concerns and your President elect’s pro violent stance.”
Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities Claire Coutinho criticised the comments, posting on X: “Where is the belief in free speech, the tolerance for opinions, the empathy?” The Telegraph article was also reposted by Dan Crenshaw, Republican Congressman.
A spokesperson of the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “The Oxford Union is independent of the University. We deplore comments appearing to endorse violence – they are unacceptable and entirely contrary to the values of our community.”
Charlie Kirk, 31 was shot dead yesterday while speaking at Utah Valley University. He was attending the University as part of his ‘American Comeback Tour’. Kirk is known for his right-wing activism and public debating in support of second amendment rights and pro-life stance on abortion.
Kirk visited the Oxford Union earlier this year on 20th May as a speaker in opposition at the debate ‘This house believes Trump has gone too far’. George Abaraonye was one of the students debating Kirk that day.
In response to the backlash, George Abaraonye further told Cherwell: “To be clear: nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence. Nobody should be harmed or killed for the views they hold. I may have disagreed strongly with Mr. Kirk’s politics, but in death we all deserve respect, and I extend my condolences to his family and loved ones.
“At the same time, my reaction was shaped by the context of Mr. Kirk’s own rhetoric – words that often dismissed or mocked the suffering of others. He described the deaths of American children from school shootings as an acceptable “cost” of protecting gun rights. He justified the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children, by blaming them collectively for Hamas. He called for the retraction of the Civil Rights Act, and repeatedly spread harmful stereotypes about LGBTQ and trans communities. These were horrific and dehumanising statements.
“My reaction was not a call for violence, but a raw, unprocessed response to what felt like a painful irony. I retracted those words almost immediately, yet I’ve been troubled to see some in the media ignore my retraction while amplifying my deleted comments. A standard of behaviour that is now leading to racist comments and a myriad of threats and discrimination made towards me. It is right to call out my insensitivity, but the same scrutiny must be applied to rhetoric that has caused real harm and continues to do so.”
