Student and guest speakers at the Cambridge Union criticised the alleged “racist” and “hateful” language used by Katie Hopkins in a debate at the Union on Thursday (12/02).

Student speakers alleged that her remarks as “racist propaganda” and “nasty,” arguing that her references to “Islamist extremists” reflected Islamophobic sentiment.

Katie Hopkins, a controversial media personality and far-right political commentator, spoke in proposition of the motion “This House Believes in the Right to Offend”. She appeared alongside Nico Perrino, executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and Catherine Liu, professor of Film and Media Studies at the University of California, Irvine.

Speaking in opposition of the motion were Rose Simkins, chief executive of Stop Hate UK, Kehinde Andrews, professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, and Cambridge second-year undergraduate student Ted Yip.

Opposition speaker Kehinde Andrews said during his floor speech that he had considered not attending the debate upon learning that Katie Hopkins would be present. The professor added that he did not believe Hopkins should have been given the platform to speak in the debate.

Rose Simkins expressed a similar view, condemning the “totally unacceptable words used” by Hopkins against disabled people, specifically referencing Hopkins’ use of an alleged “ableist” term in her speech.

In her floor speech, Hopkins attempted to illustrate what she described as the absence of free speech in the UK by recalling an incident last year when Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers interviewed her after she used a word identified as an ableist slur to refer to herself on social media.

Later in the speech, Hopkins demanded that Cambridge Union President Christopher Lorde apologise for not reading out the CV she had sent the Union when introducing her.

In the introduction provided by the Union, a statement included at Hopkins’ request read: “Hopkins’ commentary, especially on politics, social class, immigration, and race, has attracted controversy, and she is banned from South Africa, Australia, schools in Wales, and all Murdoch media.”

In his speech opposing the motion, Kehinde Andrews highlighted why Hopkins was banned from South Africa, citing her creation of a documentary about an alleged “white genocide” targeting white South African farmers.

During the debate, Hopkins described Cambridge students as “delicate flowers” and asked who the “weakest little wallflower” in the Chamber might be, before suggesting it might be the Union President, who she referred to as “the man who wouldn’t read my CV”.

Hopkins’ remark that she had chosen to dress like a “nazi Elvis” also raised concern among Union members, with one spectator telling Varsity that they found the comment “insensitive”. Hopkins concluded her speech by asserting that everyone should have the liberty to dress as a “nazi Elvis […] and cause offence if we must”.

A Union member who watched the debate told Varsity that they were disappointed Hopkins was invited to speak at the Union given that “she has little regard for the consequences of her words, and has […] justified the words of others on the British radical right, including Stephen Yaxley-Lennon [Tommy Robinson] and, more recently, Sir Jim Ratcliffe”.

They added that Hopkins’ past references to migrants as “cockroaches” and her call for a “final solution” to address Islamist terrorism following the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing mean “it is likely that members of the Union and the University […] would feel increased distrust for the Union given their persistent platforming of far-right and Islamophobic speakers”.

The Cambridge Union told Varsity: “The Cambridge Union’s commitment to free speech has one clear purpose: to allow our members to explore, challenge, and debate the views of a wide range of individuals in British public life. We consistently invite speakers of all political stripes to speak in our Chamber, and would like to reiterate in the strongest possible terms that an invitation to the Union is not – under any circumstances – an endorsement of a speaker’s personal beliefs, arguments, or opinions.”

The Union added: “As the rules of debating at the Union dictate, our moderators do not interject or interrupt our debates unless a procedure is not being followed, or something is said that crosses the line of legality. The Cambridge Union does of course condemn discrimination, and is deeply committed to ensuring that our institution is a space of safety for all our members.”

In response to the motion, Hopkins summarised her argument, saying: “I don’t ask you to agree with my opinion […] but I will say it, and if you feel offence, that’s a you problem.”

She claimed that many people are “pre-programmed” to be offended by her, describing this type of person as “some pro-Palestine, pro-LGBT […] bisexual queer-curious ally”.

Hopkins was also criticised for her “aggressive” behaviour towards student speakers, with one audience member telling Varsity that she “repeatedly belittled and talked down to other speakers,” while guest speaker Rose Simkins condemned her use of “cheap jokes”.

The proposition, or the ayes, were declared the winners of the debate, with 175 votes in favour of the motion, 95 votes against, and 145 abstentions.

Katie Hopkins was contacted for comment.