Former Oxford Union President Offers Belated Apology to Kirk Family Following Removal Vote

Let’s get the facts straight here. George Abaraonye, the former president-elect of the Oxford Union, celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk in a WhatsApp group immediately after Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University on September 10. His exact words were “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f—ing go.” He posted similar sentiments on Instagram.

Now, weeks later, after losing a no-confidence vote that removed him from his position at Oxford’s prestigious debating society, Abaraonye wants everyone to know he is very sorry.

The timeline matters. Kirk was assassinated in front of students while doing what he did best: engaging young people in political discourse. Abaraonye, who had previously debated Kirk when the Oxford Union invited him to speak in May, saw the news and decided this was cause for celebration. Only after the video of the shooting circulated online, after public backlash mounted, and after he lost his leadership position did the apologies begin flowing.

“I had very little context for what I was reacting to, but I wanted to start a conversation,” Abaraonye claimed. This defense is intellectually bankrupt. What conversation, exactly, does one start by celebrating a political assassination? The man is a 20-year-old studying philosophy, politics and economics at one of the world’s premier universities. He understood perfectly well what “Charlie Kirk got shot” meant.

Abaraonye now tells The Times he wants to apologize to Kirk’s family. “No one deserves to lose a husband, no child deserves to grow up without a father,” he said. These are fine words, but they ring hollow when delivered only after facing professional consequences.

Here is what Abaraonye got right: Kirk did not exist in a vacuum. Kirk had national influence, shaped policy decisions, and maintained close relationships with political leadership. Kirk was someone who could not be ignored. That is precisely why his assassination represents such a dangerous moment for American political discourse.

But Abaraonye’s analysis stops short of the logical conclusion. If Kirk was indeed influential and important, then celebrating his murder is not merely tasteless but represents a fundamental rejection of democratic discourse. When political disagreement transforms into celebration of violence, civilization itself breaks down.

Abaraonye admits he was on the committee that brought Kirk to Oxford, where there was “extensive debate” about whether Kirk should even be allowed to appear. This reveals the rot at the heart of elite academic institutions. The question should never be whether someone with Kirk’s influence and following should be allowed to speak. The question should be how quickly one can arrange the debate.

The former Oxford leader now claims his comments were “without nuance and without having done research.” Translation: he saw a headline and reacted emotionally rather than rationally. For someone studying politics at Oxford, this represents a spectacular failure of the very discipline he purports to master.

Abaraonye says he received abusive messages online for his comments. While no one should face genuine threats, facing harsh criticism for celebrating a political assassination is not abuse. It is accountability.

The facts are simple. A young man celebrated murder, faced consequences, and now offers apologies. Whether those apologies reflect genuine remorse or damage control remains an open question. What is not in question is this: Charlie Kirk’s assassination has exposed the depths to which political discourse has fallen, both in America and abroad.

Related: Trump Commutes Sentence of Private Equity CEO Convicted Under Biden DOJ