The Oxford Union and the free speech fallacy
George Abaraonye’s vile remarks about the murder of Charlie Kirk must be defended as free expression. But they also show why he is unqualified to lead.
The jubilation in left-wing activist circles following the murder of Charlie Kirk has been depressingly revealing. Many of the worst examples were posted on Bluesky, that online sewer where the most ferociously bigoted members of society gather to reassure each other that their venom is actually some kind of nectar. It’s reminiscent of Roald Dahl’s witches, assembling in the privacy of a hotel conference room so that they can remove their wigs and gloves and revel in their true repulsiveness.
Of course, these activists are not to be taken seriously. By outing themselves as devoid of basic human empathy, they are the more easily avoided. But what happens when those in positions of influence echo similarly violent sentiments? We’ve already seen the likes of Stephen King and Alistair Campbell smearing the murdered man – spreading the fiction that he supported the stoning to death of gay people – the precise kind of lie that turned him into a folk devil in the first place. And now we have the president-elect of the Oxford Union celebrating Kirk’s murder on social media.
The student in question is George Abaraonye. Shortly after the atrocity, he had written in a WhatsApp group: ‘Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s fucking go’. From his Instagram account he posted: ‘Charlie Kirk got shot loool’. This may well be the sourest of grapes, given that Kirk had roundly trounced him in a public debate at the Oxford Union only months before. Even so, I cannot conceive the kind of mindset that would think of posting such heartless remarks. It discloses a great deal about his character; none of it good.
Abaraonye now faces disciplinary proceedings at the union, and many political figures – including Liz Truss and Richard Tice – have called for his expulsion from the university. For free speech campaigners, this is concerning. Even the most offensive utterances must be defended if the principle of freedom of expression is to stand.
Lord Moylan, a former president of the Oxford Union, has argued that Abaraonye should resign, and this is a much stronger case. A statement on the union’s website asserts that ‘its identity as a forum to uphold free speech has never been questioned’. This may have to be updated, given that its incoming president appears to believe that the murder of his political opponents is cause for celebration. Whatever else we might say about his chilling outburst, it reveals that he is fundamentally unqualified to lead an organisation such as the Oxford Union.
There are many misconceptions about free speech, one of which appears to be that being removed from a post for which one is unsuitable is a form of censorship. When I was a schoolteacher, I signed a contract which meant that I had voluntarily committed to a range of responsibilities. If I had spent all my time in the classroom ignoring the curriculum, and instead swearing at the children and slandering their parents as prostitutes, I would expect to be fired. Being dismissed for failing to fulfil the obligations of a job is simply not a free speech issue.
The same goes for the school teacher in Toronto who has been suspended after allegedly showing a video of the murder of Charlie Kirk repeatedly to a class of 10-year-olds, while lecturing them about trans rights, anti-fascism, and how the victim deserved to be killed. Similarly, there is the case of the teacher in Los Angeles who allegedly posted: ‘Far right assholes have a target on their backs, and deserve to die. One down, millions to go.’ Again, his right to free speech means that he is entitled to publish such rebarbative views. At the same time, his speech rights are not violated by schools that would rather employ staff members who do not publicly exhibit psychopathic tendencies. That kind of thing does somewhat undermine a school’s ability to act in loco parentis.
It is no threat to our liberty to acknowledge that we are not well suited to all forms of employment. After Rachel Dolezal, former leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), was outed as white, members of the group called on her to step down. Was this cancel culture? Or was this simply a case of people recognising that the wrong person had been hired for the job? If I were the director of an atheist society, and it was to be discovered that I was secretly worshipping Sucellus, the Gaulish god of agriculture and brewing, I would expect to be asked to submit my resignation. I wouldn’t complain about free speech violations; I’d probably just apply for a job in which the veneration of pagan deities is not considered an impediment.
As for the Oxford Union, Abaraonye’s position is obviously untenable. It is incoherent for an organisation predicated on the open exchange of ideas to be helmed by a man who delights in political violence. For one thing, there are practical considerations. Right-wing speakers are unlikely to accept invitations knowing how little the president values their right to life, and in order to function the union must be able to platform a range of perspectives. If Abaraonye had any integrity, he would recognise that he is not fit for the role and resign. But we know already from his comments that integrity is not a quality he possesses.
So while I believe that Abaraonye is entitled to his free speech, and ought not to be censored or disciplined, the members of the union should be offered the chance to elect a president based on all the relevant information. A vote of no confidence has already been called, so we shall see if the union’s enthusiasm has been dampened by these revelations. Perhaps it will voluntarily detonate its credibility by reappointing Abaraonye. Certainly, there are activists enough among the student body who are already tending towards this goal. But for the sake of the union’s reputation, let’s hope that they instead choose a figurehead who understands what free speech actually means.
Lies abound including of course in the Guardian where a journalist who I won't elevate by naming her says that Kirk " “debated” untrained liberal undergraduates" the 'untrained' made me laugh and his "’ “debates” were aggressive, unequal, trolling affairs, in which he sought to provoke his interlocutors to distress, shouted them down and belittled them, spewed hateful rhetoric about queer and trans people, women, Black people, immigrants and Muslims, and selectively edited the ensuing footage to create maximally viral content in which his fans could witness him humiliating the liberals and leftists they perceived to be their enemies. This was not “debate”; it was not reasoned, good-faith discourse; it was not the kind of fair deliberation that democracy relies on".
If you watched a handful of his debates you would know these are simply pure outright lies its quite incredible.
Great points and I agree; by letting people speak they out themselves as idiots or worse and we can all see them for what they are. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and must be protected, even at the cost of having to listen to the worst of humanity. We need to resist the urge to join in the cancel culture frenzy, tempting as it may be. A bit of schadenfreude won’t go amiss in some of the cases though.