Part of the reason why Bob Villain and also NICAP feel so
strongly a sense of solidarity to Palestine is that they relate
it to their own experience of colonialism and racism.
Is it always wrong to go on stage at any kind of event and
call for the death of anyone or any institution?
I don't think he should be prosecuted to be clear, but
nevertheless I think it was pretty unsavoury and had it been
another ethnic group he was attacking I think the BBC would
have pulled the blood. Welcome to the forecast.
It's the controversial performance that's dominated the
headlines and sparked massive debate and controversy.
Puncture Bobville enchanted death to the IDF to a crowd of
thousands and crucially, an audience of millions as their
Glastonbury performance was aired live on the BBC.
The backlash was immediate, with some calling it an essential act
of artistic protest while others saw it as crossing a line, a
deeply offensive and anti-Semitic sentiment on
screen. Warnings issued by the BBC about
discriminatory language during the set were not good enough.
That's what one minister said today.
We're joined by Toby Young, a journalist and commentator, and
Ash Sarkar, who was at the performance, a political
activist and writer to discuss the reaction to the performance,
the BB CS decision to broadcast it, and what this all means for
free speech and creative freedom.
Welcome to you both. Thanks for coming on the
forecast. So let's start with this.
First of all, an assertion. Is it always wrong to go on
stage at any kind of event and call for the death of anyone or
any institution? First you, Ash.
Well, first thing I would say is that saying death to the IDF
when that army is currently committing A genocide, when
there are recorded and verified instances of them firing on
unarmed civilians while they're waiting for A to be distributed,
recorded instances of gang rape, children being admitted to
hospital with sniper wounds to the skull.
I think it is an appropriate impression of rage and disgust.
So, so in this particular instance, you say because of
what the IDF has done in Gaza, you would say shouting or
leading a chorus, death to the IDF is legit.
That's what you're saying. Absolutely.
The same way it is completely legitimate to, say, destroy
ISIS. These are organisations founded
on violence terrorizing innocent civilians and it is always
appropriate to express 1's opposition to that.
I don't think that it was anti-Semitic and nor do I think
it was inappropriate for a punk band when this is a genre
associated with pushing the boundaries to lead a chant at
what's effectively a concert. OK, Toby, what's your reaction?
Well, I think Ash and I profoundly disagree about the
military operation in Gaza, Which I believe is a legitimate
act of self defence on Israel's part.
And I thought it was particularly insensitive to
chant death death to the IDF at a music festival given that
something like 350 people were killed at the Nova music
festival on October 7th, 2 years ago.
But I think parking the question about whether we think Israel's
military response to that massacre is legitimate or not, I
think it's it's helpful to distinguish between two things.
First of all, whether we think Bob Villain should be prosecuted
for leading that chant and whether it's actually unlawful
for them to have led that chance.
So whether in fact they could be prosecuted under UK law, On the
first question, I think Ash and I agree.
I don't think they should be prosecuted any more than I think
Lucy Connolly should have been prosecuted for the tweet she
posted in the immediate aftermath of the Southport
attacks. I think the test to apply here,
the test we should be applying, is the Brandenburg test, which
was established in a Supreme Court case called Brandenburg
versus Ohio. And the Brandenburg test
essentially says that if, unless what you've said is going to
lead to imminent lawless action, then it should be protected
speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
And I don't think chanting death, death to the IDF is going
to lead to imminent lawless action.
So I think that speech should be protected and we should have
something like the First Amendment in the UK to protect
it. There's a separate question
which is, well, is it nonetheless prosecutable under
UK law? And that's I think quite a
complicated question and I've been trying to kind of get my
head around that today and we can get into that.
And if you want to get into it, Matt?
As we've heard that the police is now investigating the band to
see if they're going to file criminal charges.
We also just heard that the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio
in the US has cancelled their visas.
They were going to go to the US on tour.
They're now, they're not going to be able to do that because
their visas have been cancelled. And of course, inevitably this
discussion will lead to what the IDF is actually doing in Gaza,
which is a, you know, hugely controversial subject that we've
been dealing with on our programme and our podcast, you
know, almost on a daily basis. But before we go to that, just
on the specific issue of the BBC, if I may, I mean, they,
they didn't broadcast kneecap. They did broadcast this.
They put out a health warning that clearly wasn't strong
enough. Was this just an example of the
BBC kind of not knowing what its own policy is, of being perhaps
incompetent, or did they do the right thing?
First you, Ash. I think the BBC has on repeated
instances displayed an appalling lack of moral fortitude when it
comes to freedom of expression, whether that's artistic or
journalistic. There is a documentary which I
believe Channel 4 is now going to where about the experiences
of medics in Gaza who are under attack.
The BBC for some reason decided they didn't want to show it
despite it being a factual documentary.
And when you look at their coverage, there was a recent
study released by the Centre for Media Monitoring which showed
that the coverage of Israeli deaths gets 33 times more
attention on the BBC than coverage of Palestinian deaths,
despite Palestinian deaths outnumbering Israeli deaths by
about 30-4 times. Similarly, when reporting on
what I believe is a genocidal war in Gaza, only nought .5% of
the reports intention that there was violence and occupation by
the IDF, by the Israeli government before October 7th.
Compared to the fact that in these reports 40% of them start
by talking about October 7th. So I think that this is an
extension of that cowardice and and that political bias of the
BBC I mean. You know, what you're referring
to are these very substantive points that, again, we've been,
you know, debating, you know, really ad nauseam since the
beginning of this latest war and after October the 7th.
But I, you know, did the band undermine their serious
arguments, if they have any, about what's going on with that
particular chant? Because what people are talking
about is the chant and not the actual substantive issues.
Ash. Understandable.
I think if you're looking for a substantive political
engagement, don't go looking to a band called Bob Villain or
another band called Nika. All right?
I think that this is part of this long tradition of punk
bands who, like I said, are outrageous and do present their
politics and their worldview in a way which is sometimes tongue
in cheek. I mean, you can go back to the
Sex Pistols for that. Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious, Rage
Against the Machine, where the chorus of their most famous song
is F You, I Won't do What You Tell Me.
So I think that they can be sincere in their politics, but
not necessarily sincere in the presentation of that politics,
the language and the imagery that's used.
And we shouldn't expect that of artists.
We should expect that politicians and journalists, but
not musicians. Toby I mean, obviously people
are very upset, many people are upset about death to the IDF.
But had they shouted, had someone shouted death to Hamas
or death to the Russian army, would we be having this
conversation, do you think? Well, we might not because we
are allied to the Ukraine and to Israel.
I think that the pertinent hypothetical is let's suppose
they've been a far right Skinhead band and started
throwing around the P word and the N word.
I think the BBC in those circumstances would have pulled
the plug on the broadcast pretty promptly.
It still sounds to me as though what he chanted and what he said
it was borderline if not straightforwardly anti-Semitic.
And I think it's just generally true that expressions of
anti-Semitism, certainly anti Zionism, are not considered as
egregious as other forms of racism.
And I do think that had he had he said something about another
ethnic group, let's not forget, Ash, that the majority of the
population of Israel are in the IDF, including teenagers.
So when he was chanting death, death to the IDF, you were
essentially calling for the genocide of Jews living in
Israel. So it's, it's, it's quite hard
to defend it. I think on, on, on.
I mean, I don't think he should be prosecuted, to be clear.
But I nevertheless, I think it was pretty unsavory.
And had it been another ethnic group he was attacking, I think
the BBC would have pulled the plug.
I completely disagree with you, Tobia, which is a shame because
I find you normally to be a very, very rigorous thinker.
The IDF is an organization, it is an institution, it is an army
which is currently carrying out absolutely egregious war crimes
and massacres. So agree just that even where
streeting who is, you know, generally very supportive of
Israel said get your house in order.
And I don't think that I think it's possible to object and to
find distasteful what Bob? Villain or anyone?
Else said that's that's entirely your right without changing
substantively what was said, not talking about an ethnic group,
talking about an army, a military currently engaged in an
absolutely brutal war. The second thing, and this is
important for coming back to the points made by Bob Villain and
also by Kneecap, which is part of the reason why Bob Villain
and also Kneecap feel so strongly a sense of solidarity
to Palestine is that they relate it to their own experience of
colonialism and racism. Obviously Bob Villain, this, you
know, punk duo, both of them are black Kneecap.
They say we consider the north of Ireland to be an occupied
territory. And they make the connections
between the history of, say, the black and Tans who are operating
in Ireland, you know, enacting horrific violence.
And the same individuals were were involved in, you know,
1930s and and 1940s, what was then the mandate of British
Palestine. So all of these things they have
answers for. They have a set of politics
around. And it's not about singling out
Jews. They've put it in their own
words about what it's about, and I think that there is something
so pernicious and underhand about when someone's telling you
what their politics are and saying This is why I believe
what I believe. Instead, you're saying no, I can
see into your heart, I can read your mind, and this is what I
think is really going on because it's completely unfalsifiable.
By shouting death to the IDF, isn't, you know, Bob Villain and
those who support what he was shouting, Aren't they also, you
know, playing into the hands of those people, you know, who say
that, you know, that if you criticize one, you're doing the
other? I mean, it's it's the word death
that is the problem here. But I'm just wondering whether,
you know, if he's really serious about raising this issue, Bob
Villain, then by, you know, doing it in that way from the
stage, he's not doing himself or his cause a service.
What I'd say is that there has been no form of criticism of the
state of Israel that the state of Israel or its supporters have
found acceptable. From the river to.
The sea, they don't like that. They don't like it when you call
them an apartheid state, despite the fact that leading
international human rights organisations like Amnesty, like
Human Rights Watch, have called what they're doing apartheid.
They don't like it when you call what they're doing a genocide,
despite the fact that South Africa and other countries have
presented A compelling case at the ICJ.
They don't like it when even Kissed Armour and Emmanuel
Macron, who are hardly punk rock radicals, say hey, you've gone
too far, you need to let in some aid.
All of that is anti-Semitic, so I think, but while you may at
once more think, oh, this isn't helpful.
To the cause, and I think it's fine to have that opinion.
I think that one shouldn't. Think there is a form of
expression. That wouldn't be labeled.
As anti-Semitic by supporters of Israel.
And I. Again, would like to return to
this point about the difference between political art and
politics itself. Political art has always.
Been about. Pushing boundaries, you say?
Things in ways which are are highly emotive and punk bands.
Especially have always, always done that.
I mean, you only have to go back and, you know, listen to songs
by the Clash, for instance, like Spanish bombs.
It's all about telling an emotional story.
And I think that Bob Villain are they see themselves in that
tradition. I mean, one of the rappers who
who has inspired Bob Villain directly is Dizzy Rascal, who's
not particularly political, but when he.
Raps all I care. About is sex and violence a
heavy baseline is my kind of silence.
You know, sure, that's going to be off putting to some people.
And some would say, oh, Mr. Roscoe, you're you're letting
yourself. Down, but he's a.
Rapper These are punk artists. What do you want from them?
The trouble with all this, I guess, isn't, isn't it, and we
see this in America as well, that there is no universal free
speech, you know, someone else's someone's free speech is someone
else's unfree speech. Elon Musk rages about, you know,
the need to have free speech on X, his own platform.
But if people criticize him, well, he cancels them.
So what is the definition of free speech, Toby, in a deeply
tribally divided democracy like America and to some extent like
ours? Well, as I say, Matt, I I like
as my guide, my guide rope. I like the Brandenburg test
which says that speech should be protected.
This is on public platforms, in the public square, not
necessarily on privately owned companies where it often
conflicts with the right to freedom of association, but in
the public square. I think the test should be the
Brandenburg test, which means that unless you can show that
the speech is going to lead to imminent lawless action, then it
should be permitted. And how that one way of trying
to understand that, Matt, is if a white supremacist group
marches through a Jewish neighborhood chanting death to
the Jews, then that speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
But if they say kill this particular Jew in this
particular place at this particular time, that isn't
protected. And part of the rationale for
that is I think this became clear during the Lucy Connolly
case. I don't think Lucy Connolly
should have been prosecuted for that tweet, because I don't
think it's possible to show definitively that what she said
lead to an outbreak of serious violence.
Now, serious violence did follow what she tweeted, but the fact
that A follows B doesn't mean B caused A.
Had she called for a particular hotel housing asylum seekers to
be burnt down, and that hotel was burnt down, then yes, it
would have failed the Brandenburg test.
She should be prosecuted, but because she didn't, and because
she added the caveat for all I care, which suggested
indifference rather than actual incitement, I don't think she
should have been prosecuted. I think 1 interesting case is
Kneecap at Glastonbury this weekend did call for people to
riot outside Westminster Magistrates Court when one of
the band members is going to be on trial for raising a Hezbollah
flag. And I think that that is that is
an interesting case because to my mind that could fail the
Brandenburg test. He's not just calling for a riot
in general in response to the prosecution.
Well, they're not just calling in fact, but that they're
calling for a specific riot at a specific place at a particular
time. So I think that probably does
fail the brand. But Toby, it's according to your
definition then and the Brandenburg test as you just
described it, what was said on the stage about the IDF then
passes that test. That's free speech because it's
not specific. I agree, Yeah, I think it should
be. If we had a First Amendment in
this country, it would be protected.
And actually, I think, I think I mean it's.
So was the BBC right to it to broadcast it?
Was the BBC right to broadcast it?
That that doesn't mean the BBC, that doesn't mean the BBC will
right to broadcast it, I think. Well, if it's free speech, why
not? Well, the BBC, the BBC isn't
committed to broadcasting anything, provided it's lawful.
The BBC makes editorial decisions about what to
broadcast and what not to broadcast.
And it ought to have, you know, a degree of latitude and not
just broadcast anything, provided it's lawful.
And, you know, I think most viewers reasonably expect the
television company they're paying for to observe certain
standards of propriety and what they decide to broadcast.
And I think it fell short of that.
And so just on what one of the band members of Kneecap said
regarding the riot, again, I was at the set and he specifically
said afterwards, I'm only joking, don't do that.
So while I think it's fair to say, was that necessarily wise
considering the broader context of of, you know, one of their
members being charged with terror related offences?
I think that, you know, when someone says I'm only joking,
for me that that that should be taking it as a mitigating
factor. I agree with Toby actually, that
I think the Lucy Connolly sentence was unduly excessive
and I think it sets a very bad precedent for for prosecutions
regarding forms of expression that morally I condemn.
But that doesn't necessarily mean or it doesn't follow that
you want the state to intervene in all of those cases.
I'd like to add to that the use of terror legislation and the
prescription of terror organisations because there's a
freedom of speech dimension as well.
So when it comes to a group like Palestine Action, if I were to
say following their prescription, I think what they
did was brave and honourable and justified under section 12 of
the Terrorism Act. I could be charged for being
reckless as to whether that could cause someone else to
support Palestine Action and there is no journalistic
exemption from the Terrorism Act.
What we've seen is a pro Palestine journalist such as ASA
Winstanley, his house was raided.
A judge later ruled that that was unlawful and he's being
investigated under terror legislation.
So I think that there is something very troubling here,
which is the terrorist. The Terrorism Act was was
brought in in the year 2000. At the time the home secretary
said we're not going to use this for domestic or industrial or,
or environmental cases, right. They, they specifically said
we're going to use this for international terrorism.
But now we're seeing a government abuse that
legislation. I think it's in such a way which
has very chilling implications for free.
Speech. If I've got this right, you both
seem to agree on this, that this wasn't a criminal offence, you
know, although it's being investigated now by the police,
that, you know, these are First Amendment free speech rights.
But you also both seem to agree that, you know, Israel has a
special case here. You, Toby, seem to think that
Israel is being singled out for criticism.
And you, Ash, seem to think that Israel's being, you know,
getting a, getting a, an easy ride on what it's been doing in
the Gaza Strip. Just to be clear, I think it's
possible that what Bob Villain said might be a criminal
offense. I think it turns on whether you,
whether the IDF can be defined as a racial group.
Now, on the face of it, you'd think, well, no, so they can't
be prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred under the Public
Order Act. But then Lucy Connolly was
prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred on the grounds
that asylum seekers are a racial group.
Now, Hachi plead not guilty and the Free Speech Union defended
her. We probably would have argued
that asylum seekers aren't a racial group.
They're made-up of many different ethnic groups and
they're not defined by their membership of a racial group so
much as the fact that they're seeking asylum here.
So I think that would have been our defence.
And I think if the villain are prosecuted, that would be their
defence too. The IDF is not a racial group,
it's a military organization. And this is perfectly fair
comment. And I think for that reason, I
think because that defence would be pretty strong, I think for
that reason they're very unlikely to be prosecuted.
But then, I don't think Lucy Connolly should have been
prosecuted either. But you also both believe that
Israel has been singled out either for criticism in your
case, Toby, or for being let off the hook, in your case, Ash.
Absolutely. And just to go back to what it
was that Bob Fillon said, which is death, death to the IDF, I
think that he was echoing an emotion of disgust and of horror
and of anger that is shared by many people just in this
country. But across the world.
When you look at the images of starving children, of bomb
schools, of bomb hospitals, when you see the assassination of
journalists, when you see the restriction of aid and when you
see, as I said before, toddlers being admitted to hospital,
sniper wounds to the head, Of course you would want that
organization which has perpetuated all these horrors to
end. And I think that if you are
going to make the argument that saying death to the IDF is
anti-Semitic, you end up in a really silly place because then
you'd have to argue, well, destroy ISIS must be
Islamophobic. Because then you're saying
there's no separation between an organization which has got
political goals, which is armed, which carries out war crimes and
the community that they claim to represent in its broadest
possible sense. And I think that's stupid place
to end up in and really, really worrying if that's where a
political class and where the editorial decision making of the
BBC is at. I think Ash and I probably
disagree about whether singling out Israel for particular
criticism and holding Israel to such a high standard, much
higher than other countries in the region and much higher than
China, is ultimately motivated by a degree of anti-Semitism.
I'm not saying that because it is, it should therefore be
prescribed. I have no more truck with the
IIHRA definition of anti-Semitism than I do with the
APPG on British Muslims definition of Islamophobia.
I don't think any particular religious or ethnic roots should
be given special privileged protections in the public
square. So I think Ash and I probably
agree with them, agree with each other about that.
I'm not suggesting that that that speech should be prosecuted
because it's anti-Semitic and that particular group should
enjoy special legal protection. I don't think they should.
I think everyone should be equal in the eyes of the.
Law, OK, we're going to leave it there.
Ash Sarkar, Toby Young, thank you very much to both of you.
That's it for this episode of THE Forecast.
Until next time, thanks for watching and goodbye.