“Stessa Old Annulla Culture”: il presidente dell’Unione di Oxford non dovrebbe perdere il suo posto per i commenti di Charlie Kirk, Badenoch dice a LBC
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/same-old-cancel-culture-oxford-union-president-shouldnt-lose-his-place-over-char-5HjdD6R_2/
di tylerthe-theatre
12 commenti
Wouldn’t be surprised if Badenoch isn’t even clued in who Charlie Kirk was.
I don’t agree with cancel culture. But that disagreement is outweighed by agreeing “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.
This to me isn’t a free speech matter, of course people can say what they like but that doesn’t mean you’re exempt from consequences. The individual is entitled to say what they want but equally the union are able to decide who they want there and representing them.
He does not have a job, he has a position in a voluntary society whos entire purpose was to promote the free debate of ideas. He celebrates the murder of people because he has no emotional self control, no capacity to reflect on the wider implications of such actions. He is the perfect ambassador for where institutions like Oxford are going.
He shouldn’t lose his place, but he shouldn’t be president. Some would say he shouldn’t have even got into Oxford in the first place given his grades.
Good for Kemi. It is depressing how many oppose or support cancellation depending entirely on which side is being cancelled. This seems to be the position in America. Freedom of speech provided you say the right things. First it was the left cancelling those on the right, now (and sfaict, more effectively) it is the right cancelling those on the left.
And as Kemi points out, it is ironic that at least this Oxford chap had actually met Charlie Kirk.
It was just unbecoming for someone so prominent in a debating society.
Personal opinions of Kirk aside, he was murdered when offering public debate. So it’s hard to fathom why an Oxford Union President would celebrate or encourage this.
The argument for the Union president stepping down isn’t one of freedom of speech but one of suitability for the role. When you head the most visible debating society in the country, professing that murder is OK when a persons opinions conflict with yours shows that you are not the right person for the job IMO. If the Pope suggested that maybe they thought God was made up we wouldn’t defend him staying in role because of freedom of speech. Being free to say what you want doesn’t mean everything you say will make you suitable for your job.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
He’s a 20-year old edgelord who got into Oxford (and ergo the Union Presidency) because of the colour of his skin, not his ABB grades. The guy is out of his depth academically and politically.
His speech about the need to bring down “broken” institutions with violent means is more worrying imo. Sorry can’t find the original source but widely shared:
[https://x.com/Suffragent_/status/1966411211995513228](https://x.com/Suffragent_/status/1966411211995513228)
I’m sure it doesn’t take much for an institution to be deemed “oppressive” by this guy, and therefore the people in it to be subject to violence.
For possibly the first time ever, I agree with Kemi Badenoch!