logo
Eurovision bosses can't tame the 'political beast' of the competition

Eurovision bosses can't tame the 'political beast' of the competition

Metro12-05-2025

'The special thing about Eurovision is that it's the one night of the year where people, in theory, put aside their differences and share that stage.'
That's what Paul Jordan, also known as 'Doctor Eurovision', tells Metro when asked about Eurovision's non-political nature. Jordan is a lifelong fan and expert on the contest, having worked behind the scenes and served on international juries.
'But it's unrealistic to expect it to be seen as a non-political event. It's important they try to keep it that way, but ultimately, politics comes into it,' he adds.
This year is no different, with Israel's inclusion in the competition proving to be highly controversial for the second year in a row, in light of the country's military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.
72 former contestants have signed an open letter calling for Israel to be banned, while the opening ceremony, held in host city Basel, was marred by pro-Palestine protests in which a throat-slitting gesture was made towards the Israeli Eurovision act, Yuval Raphael.
The 24-year-old is a survivor of the October 7 Hamas attacks, and it was later announced that she would not be giving interviews to the media due to security concerns.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Despite the Eurovision Song Contest's official stance as a non-political event, the contest has long been steeped in geopolitical drama. From Jordan (the country) refusing to announce Israel as the winner in 1978 to host country Ukraine banning the Russian contestant in 2017, Eurovision is no stranger to controversies.
This year, host country Switzerland is banning artists from taking Pride flags on stage, which have been a staple at the contest in previous years, instead allowing only national flags in official areas.
Meanwhile, Palestinian flags will this year be permitted in the audience, after a rule banning flags of non-competing countries was overturned. The change marks the latest point of tension in Eurovision's ongoing challenge to reconcile cultural celebration with political reality, and begs the question: can Eurovision ever truly be non-political?
Martin Green, director of the Eurovision Song Contest, is not naive to the challenge.
'Everything takes place in the context of a wider world, and we're not immune to that,' he exclusively tells Metro.
This is the first year Eurovision introduced a Code of Conduct, reaffirming the 'proud tradition of celebrating diversity through music', adding that the event must remain free from political influence. While on event premises, promoting, carrying, or wearing any political material is prohibited, and no lyrics of a political nature are allowed. Additionally, all participating broadcasters are responsible for ensuring the Eurovision Song Contest isn't politicised.
Performances are also forbidden from including messages, speeches, gestures, symbols or slogans of a political nature.
The key challenge for Eurovision, Paul Jordan says, is staying consistent.
'A song about world peace, technically, could be seen as political. So what is political and what isn't is a very blurred area. Eurovision hasn't helped itself by allowing some political songs and saying no to others.'
In 2009, Georgia was forced to withdraw from the contest for refusing to change the lyrics to their entry 'We Don't Wanna Put In', which took aim at Russian President Vladimir Putin a year after the Russo-Georgian war. In contrast, Ukraine's winning song in 2016 about the deportation of the Crimean Tatars was allowed, and its triumph angered Russian politicians.
Jordan believes that 'if Eurovision hadn't been held in Moscow in 2009, Georgia's song probably would have been allowed. So a lot of it depends on context and timing'.
He adds of the Ukrainian tune: 'It was ambiguous enough that you couldn't say for sure whether they were talking about Russia or the Soviets.'
Green says the first port of call after a rule break is to try and resolve it simply through a conversation with the participants. 'But like any big competition in the world, we do have a set of rules that we can refer to, if we have to,' he says.
The Code of Conduct states that serious rule breaks can lead to 'immediate removal' from the event and, depending on the severity of the misconduct, 'legal action may also be pursued', including slapping a fine for the country's broadcaster.
But despite the risk of punishment, many performers have defied the Eurovision rules over the years, the access to a mass audience presenting a unique opportunity some feel they must seize.
Icelandic act Hatari caused a stir in 2019 when they held up banners in support of Palestine during the results.
'It was always our main reason for entering – to make awareness of the occupation of Palestinian territories and the pinkwashing that was taking place,' they said.
The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) later fined Iceland's broadcasters €5,000 (roughly £4,200).
Elsewhere, Armenian singer Iveta Mukuchyan landed her country in hot water during a semi-final in 2016, when she waved the flag of Nagorno-Karabakh, a region at the centre of a decades-long dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Armenia was sanctioned by the EBU and warned they could be kicked out of the contest if they did it again. Singer Iveta said at the time: 'I am representing my country in my heart, my thoughts my feelings and all my emotions. My thoughts are with my motherland and what I want to spread is peace on borders. I wrote this song because this was going on inside of me'.
It's not just the performers who have been known to bring politics to Eurovision. Last year Israel was drowned out by boos and chants of 'Free Palestine' in footage posted to social media by attendees.
These protests went unnoticed by viewers at home, however, with some claiming anti-booing technology was used to muffle the dissent.
The technology was first employed in 2015, one year after Russia's act was repeatedly booed while performing, with then-Eurovision communications coordinator Jarmo Siim telling The Moscow Times: 'It was very embarrassing for us last year when this happened, as it is not in the spirit of the contest'.
But it's yet another area where Eurovision is caught between a rock and a hard place. Paul Jordan tells Metro: 'By using this technology, that's almost making a political choice. But then, Eurovision has a duty of care to the artists to give them all an equal opportunity.
'So, they're suppressing freedom of expression, but, at the same time, it's really unfair on the artist to be horribly booed. It's a really complex, double-edged thing.'
While freedom of expression is respected as 'a fundamental right' in the Eurovision code of conduct, participants can only express themselves freely in a personal capacity and must avoid linking political views to their Eurovision participation.
'Eurovision tries to create something which is unique, which is apolitical, and yet to do that, it has to suppress freedom of expression, which is one of the core values,' says Jordan. For him, this is a lose-lose situation. 'It has to, at some point, just acknowledge that there are going to be elements of politics coming in.' More Trending
But the hijacking of a politically neutral event isn't exclusive to Eurovision. The 2022 FIFA World Cup, held in Qatar, was criticised because of the country's alleged violations of human rights.
The same year, several countries, including the UK, declared a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing due to alleged atrocities against the Uyghur Muslim population in the northwest province of Xinjiang. Similar concerns have already been voiced after it was announced that Saudi Arabia will host the World Cup in 2034.
Eurovision clearly isn't alone in its challenge, and perhaps political neutrality is impossible on an international stage.
View More »
As Paul Jordan says, 'These international events are, by their very existence, political beasts, even though they're not meant to be.'
Got a story?
If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you.
MORE: Fans shocked to discover boxing star's dad is 60s Eurovision icon
MORE: Fans shocked to discover boxing star's dad is 60s Eurovision icon
MORE: 90s pop legend's showstopping Eurovision 2025 return 'still up in the air'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MPs call for UK to recognise Palestine after Government sanctions ministers
MPs call for UK to recognise Palestine after Government sanctions ministers

The Independent

time41 minutes ago

  • The Independent

MPs call for UK to recognise Palestine after Government sanctions ministers

MPs have called for the Government to recognise the state of Palestine at a summit next week, hours after the Foreign Secretary confirmed the sanctioning of two Israeli government ministers. Foreign minister Hamish Falconer faced repeated cross-party calls from MPs to recognise Palestine at the meeting in New York. In response, Mr Falconer did not rule out the move, saying he had 'no doubt' he would return to the Commons to update MPs. It came as the UK imposed an asset freeze and travel ban on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's security minister and finance minister, respectively. The move came alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. When asked about the recognition of Palestine by Liberal Democrat foreign spokesperson Calum Miller, Mr Falconer said: 'The two-state solution conference next week is an important moment we're discussing with our friends and allies our approach to that conference and no-doubt I will return to this house, with your permission Mr Speaker, to discuss further.' Mr Miller had said: 'The time has also come to listen to members on all sides of this House and officially to recognise the independent state of Palestine. Will the Government commit to taking this vital step at next week's summit in New York? 'Recognition will demonstrate the UK's commitment to self-determination but also make clear that, building on today's announcement, the UK will do all it can to wrest control away from the extremes and give both Israelis and Palestinians hope of a lasting peace.' Conservative MP for Herne Bay and Sandwich, Sir Roger Gale, had chastised the Government for not taking more action. He said: 'When the minister came to the despatch box, I had expected to hear something constructive. What we've heard is the sanctioning of two people. The United Kingdom Government could unilaterally recognise Palestine. The United Kingdom Government could show the world and lead.' He added: 'When is the Government going to do something?' Labour MP Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central), who was denied access to the occupied West Bank earlier this year, agreed with the calls. She said: 'Annexation is real. It is happening. Partners in the region are calling for recognition before it's too late.' Ms Mohamed continued: 'Does the minister agree with me that we must not throw recognition into the long grass? That failure to recognise next week at the UN conference implies that Israel does have a veto, and that the Israeli government will continue to annexe and terrorise Palestinians in the West Bank. If we do not recognise now, there will be no Palestinian state to recognise.' Mr Falconer said: 'Recognition is right at the centre of any discussion of a two-state solution.' The minister had earlier told MPs the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine was in critical danger. He said the rhetoric of Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich did not represent the majority of Israelis. He said: 'This is an affront to the rights of Palestinians, but it is also against the interests of Israelis, against their long-term security and democracy.' Later in the session, Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) accused the Government of doing the 'bare minimum' while Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse further pressed the minister on whether recognition at the summit is now 'off the table'. Mr Falconer said 'we are doing everything we can', adding: 'We are so incredibly frustrated by the scenes that meet us, meet everybody behind me, and I would say gently to (Mr Malthouse), he has no monopoly on the morality of this situation.' The minister went on to say settler expansion had increased hugely in recent years, and last year had seen the worst settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank on record. He added that this year is on track to be just as violent. 'This is an attempt to entrench a one-state reality,' he told MPs. He continued: 'The gravity of this situation demands further action. The reality is that these human rights abuses, incitement to violence, extremist rhetoric comes … from individuals who are ministers in this Israeli government.' Mr Falconer added: 'We have told the Israeli government that we would take tougher action if this did not stop. It still did not. The appalling rhetoric has continued unchanged. Violent perpetrators continue to act with impunity and with encouragement. 'So, let me tell the House now, when we say something, we mean it. Today we have shown, with our partners, two extremists we will not stand by while they wreck the prospects for future peace.' Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said: 'The situation in the Middle East and the suffering we are seeing is serious and completely intolerable. Dame Priti added: 'We all want to see a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, and the UK must continue to play a leading role in achieving this.' She told MPs the previous Conservative government considered sanctioning the two ministers. 'The minister will be aware that the sanctioning of individuals is always under review, that is the right policy,' she said. 'And in the case of Israel, this has been previously considered even by Lord Cameron, who has spoken of that in the last government.' DUP MP Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) suggested Mr Falconer is 'pandering to the increasingly loud anti-Israel voices on his backbenches', adding: 'The minister must know that this will not bring peace to Gaza.' Mr Falconer replied: 'I have spoken about the perilous decline of the situation in the West Bank, and indeed events of the last two weeks, and I've also spoken about the importance of co-ordinating with allies. So, I don't think I have anything further to say.'

Australia news live: Wong says sanctioned Israeli ministers incited human rights abuses with ‘extremist rhetoric'
Australia news live: Wong says sanctioned Israeli ministers incited human rights abuses with ‘extremist rhetoric'

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Australia news live: Wong says sanctioned Israeli ministers incited human rights abuses with ‘extremist rhetoric'

Update: Date: 2025-06-10T20:38:47.000Z Title: Five countries issue joint statement on sanctions for Israeli ministers Content: The news about the sanctions against the Israeli ministers broke in reports after 11pm Australian time and was confirmed at midnight by a joint statement by the five countries. The joint statement, issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said that 'settler violence is incited by extremist rhetoric' against the Palestinian community and 'fundamentally rejects the two-state solution'. It said Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have incited 'extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights' and these actions were 'not acceptable'. However, it goes on to note the ministers' 'unwavering support for Israel's security and we continue to condemn the horrific terror attacks of 7 October by Hamas'. This is the full statement: Today, the foreign ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom have announced sanctions and other measures targeting Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Settler violence is incited by extremist rhetoric which calls for Palestinians to be driven from their homes, encourages violence and human rights abuses and fundamentally rejects the two-state solution. Settler violence has led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole communities. We are steadfastly committed to the two-state solution which is the only way to guarantee security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians and ensure long term stability in the region, but it is imperilled by extremist settler violence and settlement expansion. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous. These actions are not acceptable. We have engaged the Israeli Government on this issue extensively, yet violent perpetrators continue to act with encouragement and impunity. This is why we have taken this action now – to hold those responsible to account. The Israeli Government must uphold its obligations under international law and we call on it to take meaningful action to end extremist, violent and expansionist rhetoric. The measures announced today do not deviate from our unwavering support for Israel's security and we continue to condemn the horrific terror attacks of 7 October by Hamas. Today's measures are targeted towards individuals who in our view undermine Israel's own security and its standing in the world. We continue to want a strong friendship with the people of Israel based on our shared ties, values and commitment to their security and future. Today's measures focus on the West Bank, but of course this cannot be seen in isolation from the catastrophe in Gaza. We continue to be appalled by the immense suffering of civilians, including the denial of essential aid. There must be no unlawful transfer of Palestinians from Gaza or within the West Bank, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza Strip. We will continue to work with the Israeli Government and a range of partners. We will strive to ensure an immediate ceasefire, the release now of the remaining hostages and for the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid including food. We want to see a reconstructed Gaza no longer run by Hamas and a political pathway to a two-state solution. Update: Date: 2025-06-10T20:37:24.000Z Title: Australia sanctions two Israeli ministers Content: Australia has joined the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway in placing financial sanctions and travel bans on two Israeli government ministers, over what foreign minister Penny Wong described as 'inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank'. In an unexpected move, news of which broke overnight Australian time, the Albanese government joined several allies in levelling targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich. The Magnitsky-style sanctions come over concerns from the five governments about serious human rights violations and abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank. The two ministers were sanctioned in relation to a range of public comments and actions, including marching through Jerusalem's Muslim Quarter with a group that chanted 'death to Arabs' and 'may your village burn'. Ben-Gvir last month said Israel would 'occupy the entire territory of the Gaza Strip' and encourage migration of Gazans elsewhere, while Smotrich in February said: ''With God's help we will work to permanently bury the dangerous idea of a Palestinian State.' The sanctions make it an offence to make assets available to a sanctioned person, require the freezing of any assets in Australia, and prevent them from entering Australia. Update: Date: 2025-06-10T20:33:50.000Z Title: Welcome Content: Good morning and welcome to our live news blog. I'm Martin Farrer bringing you the best of the overnight stories before Nick Visser takes control. Australia has joined the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway in placing financial sanctions and travel bans on two Israeli government ministers, over what foreign minister Penny Wong described as 'inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank'. Wong is expected to tour the radio and TV studios this morning to explain the surprise move which was announced overnight in a joint statement with the other nations. The ABC's managing director, Hugh Marks, is expected to unveil his first tranche of changes at the public broadcaster on Wednesday morning, including a new round of redundancies and the axing of Q+A after 18 years. We will have more details and reaction.

Locals against a solar farm being built say calling them Nimbys is 'hate speech'
Locals against a solar farm being built say calling them Nimbys is 'hate speech'

Metro

time2 hours ago

  • Metro

Locals against a solar farm being built say calling them Nimbys is 'hate speech'

People opposing the building of one of Europe's largest solar farms have said the term 'Nimby' is hate speech. Botley West Solar Farm could cover about 2,470 acres of countryside in west Oxfordshire and power 330,000 homes if approved. But Save Botley West says this would affect 15 villages as well as water meadows and heritage sites across Botley, Woodstock and Kidlington. The anti-solar farm campaign group's chairman, Professor Alex Rogers, has said calling them Nimbys 'alienates' them. Nimbys – 'not in my backyard' – are people who oppose new, sometimes badly needed housing or infrastructure being built near their homes. Sir Keir Starmer wrote in the Metro in January that his government is 'taking on the Nimbys' who 'clog up our system so things can't get built'. Prof Rogers said: 'We've heard the term Nimby bandied about by the Labour government in particular, effectively that is pejorative language deliberately used to alienate and isolate ordinary people who are legitimately concerned about the really serious impacts of what is, in effect, a non-sustainable project. 'I would view a sustainable project as one which obviously benefits the climate, which this does, but also benefits people who live in the region and benefits wider aspects of the environment – and this scheme certainly does not do that.' A website appearing to poke fun at Rogers' group, 'Botley West NIMBYS', was made in 2023, according to internet archives seen by Metro. It says: 'Look, our place is much more special than yours, so you should have all the stuff we don't like near YOU.' Rogers added: 'I do have a message, particularly for the Labour Party, in respect of the use of 'Nimbys' or 'Nimbyism'. 'If you look at the UN definition of hate speech, the use of that term falls within that UN definition, and I think Labour would be appalled if people were using these sorts of terms to alienate other sections of society.' The UN defines hate speech as discriminatory and offensive forms of expression, often targeting people's race, gender, sexuality or class. Save Botley West joined a nationwide walk to protest the farm on Sunday, walking from Blenheim gates to Churchill's grave in Bladon. They wrote to King Charles last month, asking him to intervene on the grounds of an 18th-century law that says the Crown must be consulted to use the land. The King has yet to reply. Developers Photovolt Development Partners say the two million solar panels are vital to meet the government's climate goals amid ever-worsening climate change. The past 10 years have been the 10 hottest in nearly 200 years, with 2024 the hottest on record, fuelling climate-related disasters worldwide. Burning fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change, which is intensifying storms, flooding, heatwaves, wildfires and droughts in the UK. Rogers, a marine biologist at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, says he sees the impact of this in the ocean 'every day'. But he said the solar farm, roughly the size of Heathrow Airport, would impact the area's view. He said: 'Because of the nature of the landscape that this has been put into, which essentially comprises river valleys and hills, it's very, very difficult to conceal this solar farm in the landscape.' Council officials said in an impact report last week that the solar farm would likely have a 'negative' impact on local tourism. The plans are at the examination stage, where representations are being submitted, with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband to make the final decision. Three-quarters of Britons would support a solar farm being built in their local area, a YouGov poll found. There are around 1,3000 operational solar farms in the UK, with solar providing 6% of Britain's energy in the past year, according to the National Grid. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store