Controversy has erupted on the Channel Island of Guernsey after the announcement that British media personality Katie Hopkins will be performing her 'Free Range' comedy show at the publicly owned Beau Séjour leisure centre in May 2026. The event, which sold out months in advance, has ignited a fierce debate about freedom of expression, the responsibilities of public venues, and the protection of vulnerable community members.
The spark for this debate came after a reader’s letter, published by Bailiwick Express, urged locals to boycott Hopkins’ show. The letter prompted a wave of public discussion, with many questioning whether it is appropriate for a controversial figure—known for her history of libel convictions and accusations of hate crimes—to perform at a States-owned venue. According to Bailiwick Express, the show’s synopsis promises “a cracking evening out with British funny woman, Katie Hopkins,” with the comedian “giving herself ‘FREE RANGE’ on all the usual targets: useless politicians, idiot celebrities and the morons in our midst.” The event is recommended for those aged 16 and over, with under-16s only admitted at the discretion of a parent or guardian.
Deputy Jayne Ozanne, a vocal critic of the booking, pressed the issue during a States Assembly session on February 26, 2026. She asked whether the States had a duty to balance freedom of expression with the concerns of vulnerable members of the community, especially when States-owned venues provide a platform for potentially hateful content. “Is it right to put vulnerable members of the island community at risk from hate speech where States owned venues are providing the platform?” Ozanne queried, as reported by Bailiwick Express.
Deputy Paul Montague, President of Education, Sport, and Culture (ESC)—the political figure responsible for Beau Séjour—responded by emphasizing the importance of both democratic principles and individual freedoms. “I do believe that the States does have the duty to strike a balance in matters related to freedom of expression,” Montague stated, according to the Guernsey Press. He further explained, “There was no invite for these entertainers to come over. I would ask that we consider this very carefully. It is entirely inappropriate for an Assembly such as ours to descend into a culture war issue on this.”
Montague’s position was clear: while the concerns of vulnerable community members must be treated “very, very seriously,” he believes that “it’s consistent with democratic principles and individual freedom that people should be allowed to book a venue in the States of Guernsey.” He warned that preventing a so-called entertainer from hiring a public venue could set a dangerous precedent, where “access is determined by political opinion rather than rule of law.”
The Head of Recreation Services, who manages Beau Séjour, echoed this sentiment, stating that the centre “does not selectively choose which acts can and cannot hire its facilities.” Instead, the public is encouraged to “vote with their feet” if they dislike what’s on offer. This approach, they argue, maintains fairness and avoids the pitfalls of censorship or political interference in the arts.
Still, the controversy has not gone unnoticed. Deputy Ozanne and others have voiced concerns about the potential impact on vulnerable individuals. Hopkins’ reputation as a divisive figure—coupled with her previous legal troubles—has only intensified the scrutiny. According to Bailiwick Express, the booking platform’s warning about age appropriateness and parental discretion reflects an awareness of the show’s potentially provocative content.
Montague, however, maintained that the show should be viewed as entertainment rather than a political rally. “Beau Séjour has a theatre, and people will be going to that theatre if they bought tickets for this particular piece of entertainment. I do not see how there is a safety issue here,” he remarked. Acknowledging that “people may feel vulnerable, they may feel concerned, we might get upset when we read about these comments online, and we might feel that this is uncomfortable knowing that maybe our neighbour has booked a ticket,” Montague insisted, “I don’t think it is the responsibility of this assembly to judge what people find entertaining.”
Despite his position, Montague did signal a willingness to revisit policies in light of the public reaction. “I will finish by saying that we are asking officers to look again at the booking policy. It will be entirely wrong for every booking to be elevated to a political decision but we need some robust and really carefully thought through principles to avoid any contentious issues in the future,” he said. He reiterated his openness to further discussion, stating, “I am open to persuasion. I think this is an issue that may need some more discussion, but I would like to know what the safety issues are. It is badged as entertainment. People will buy tickets. They will go to listen to some things, and then they will go home.”
For now, Beau Séjour’s management maintains that its role is to facilitate bookings, not to act as a gatekeeper for public taste or morality. The centre, described by Montague as “being run as a business,” does not extend invitations to acts but simply provides a venue for those who wish to hire it. Whether this policy will change in the wake of the Hopkins controversy remains to be seen, but the debate has certainly put the spotlight on how public venues should navigate the tricky waters of free speech and community responsibility.
As the May 13 show approaches, the issue continues to divide opinion on the island. Some see the event as a straightforward matter of individual choice—if you don’t like it, don’t attend. Others argue that public venues, funded by taxpayers and serving the entire community, have a higher duty to consider the wellbeing of all, especially those who may feel threatened or marginalized by the messages presented on their stages.
Underlying the local debate are broader questions about the role of public spaces in democratic societies. Should freedom of expression always take precedence, or are there circumstances where the protection of vulnerable groups justifies limiting certain forms of speech? And who gets to draw that line—politicians, venue managers, or the public themselves?
For now, Guernsey’s leaders appear to be walking a careful line, seeking to uphold both the right to free expression and the need to safeguard community members. As Deputy Montague put it, “Freedom of expression protects not only popular and agreeable views, but also those that many people strongly oppose.” The coming months may reveal whether Beau Séjour’s policies—and the island’s approach to contentious entertainment—will shift in response to this high-profile test.
Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: the conversation about free speech, public responsibility, and the role of entertainment in society is far from over in Guernsey.