Kneecap describe decision to ban them from Hungary as ‘political distraction'
Government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs wrote on social media platform X that the decision to ban Kneecap was because the group's 'members repeatedly engage in antisemitic hate speech supporting terrorism and terrorist groups'.
But in a statement posted on Instagram, Kneecap described the decision to bar them from entry as 'political distraction' and pointed out that none of the group has any criminal convictions.
A spokeswoman for Sziget Festival also described the move as 'unnecessary and regrettable'.
'Cancel culture and cultural boycotts are not the solution,' she added.
The statement from Kneecap said: 'To the tens of thousands of fans who we were buzzing to see in person at Sziget, we're sorry we won't be with you.
'The authoritarian government of Viktor Orban say we 'pose a national security threat'.
'Which is f****** outrageous coming from a man who welcomed Netanyahu, a wanted war criminal, like a hero just a few weeks ago.
'There is no legal basis for his actions, no member of Kneecap has ever been convicted of any crime in any country. We stand against all hate crimes and Kneecap champions love and solidarity as well as calling out injustices whenever we see it.
'It's clear that this is political distraction and a further attempt to silence those who call out genocide against the Palestinian people.'
Kneecap have had several shows cancelled in recent months, including TRNSMT festival in Glasgow and at the Eden Project in Cornwall.
They claim this is part of a smear campaign against them because of their vocal support for Palestine and criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza, which they say is a genocide.
The statement posted earlier on Thursday by Mr Kovacs said: 'Hungary has zero tolerance for antisemitism in any form.
'Their planned performance posed a national security threat, and for this reason, the group has been formally banned from Hungary for three years.
'If they enter, expulsion will follow under international norms.'
The spokeswoman for Sziget Festival said: 'Following concerns raised by government and pressure groups across Hungary over the past weeks at the prospect of Kneecap performing, we have liaised closely with the band and they reassured us that their performance would not contravene either Sziget's values or Hungarian law.
'Over the past 30 years, Sziget has served as a free and safe place for different cultures, hosting artists and visitors from around the world, earning significant recognition in the international community and enhancing Hungary's reputation.
'We fear that the government's decision announced today to ban Kneecap may not only damage the reputation of Sziget, but also negatively affect Hungary's standing worldwide.'
Kneecap – comprised of Liam Og O hAnnaidh, Naoise O Caireallain, and JJ O Dochartaigh – were formed in Belfast and released their first single in 2017.
They hit the headlines recently after O hAnnaidh, who performs under the name Mo Chara, was charged with a terror offence relating to allegedly displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah.
In May, the Metropolitan Police said the group were being investigated by counter-terrorism police after videos emerged allegedly showing them shouting 'Up Hamas, up Hezbollah' and 'Kill your local MP'.
The group apologised to the families of murdered MPs and said they have 'never supported' Hamas or Hezbollah, which are banned in the UK.
They were also investigated over their set at Glastonbury Festival in June, but last week Avon and Somerset Police confirmed they would be taking no further action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a few seconds ago
- The Guardian
Fears for Palestinians and hostages as Netanyahu plans full Gaza occupation
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has convened a security cabinet expected to be held on Thursday evening to discuss the full occupation of the Gaza Strip, which aid agencies have warned would lead to countless more Palestinian deaths and more mass displacement. The families of the roughly 20 remaining living hostages have called for Israelis to protest against the government and a decision they fear would endanger the lives of their loved ones. On Thursday morning, about 20 family members of those still held captive in Gaza boarded about 10 boats that departed from the coastal city of Ashkelon, near the border with Gaza, carrying yellow flags and posters bearing the images of the hostages, as they shouted their names. Speaking in English through a megaphone, Yehuda Cohen, whose son, Nimrod, was captured by Hamas on 7 October 2023, said: 'Mayday, mayday, mayday. We need all international assistance to rescue the 50 hostages who are nearly two years held by the hand of Hamas.' 'Please, we need international help,' Cohen added. Of the 251 people kidnapped on 7 October by Hamas and its allies, 49 remain hostages in Gaza, of whom 27 have been declared dead by the army. 'This is the moment for courageous leadership,' the families said, appealing directly to Netanyahu, as well as the lead hostage negotiator, Ron Dermer, and the IDF chief. 'Continued obstruction, delay, and failure to bring our loved ones home will be a tragedy for generations. The responsibility is yours. Do not sacrifice our loved ones on the altar of an endless war.' Israeli media, citing officials speaking on condition of anonymity, said Netanyahu was hoping to seek approval on the full occupation of Gaza. The plan would mean sending ground troops into the few areas of the strip that have not been totally destroyed, roughly 25% of the territory where much of its 2 million people have sought refuge. Israel is reportedly preparing a two-phase operation aimed at seizing control of Gaza City, with plans to evacuate around a million residents – half of Gaza's population – in what officials describe as a temporary measure to establish civilian infrastructure in central Gaza. According to Israel's Channel 12, the campaign is being framed as a limited operation rather than a full invasion, apparently to placate military chiefs wary of long-term occupation. The chief of staff, Lt Gen Eyal Zamir, is said to have warned that occupying Gaza would plunge Israel into a 'black hole' of prolonged insurgency, humanitarian responsibility and heightened risk to hostages. The operation's goal – potentially involving up to five IDF divisions and lasting four to five months – suggests a far more extensive campaign. Israeli officials say the campaign aims to pressure Hamas back into negotiations, and possibly align with a broader US-led peace framework. Yet many remain sceptical. As one unnamed security official put it: 'We are entering a Vietnam model, with our eyes wide open.' Netanyahu is under intense international pressure to reach a ceasefire agreement, but he also faces internal pressure from within his coalition to continue the war. Some far-right allies in his government have pushed for a full occupation of Gaza and for Israel to reestablish settlements there, two decades after it withdrew. The far-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, told reporters on Wednesday that he hoped the government would approve the military taking control over the rest of Gaza. 'Where should we go? We have been displaced and humiliated enough,' said Aya Mohammad, a 30-year-old Palestinian who, after repeated displacement, had returned with her family to Gaza City. 'You know what displacement is? Does the world know? It means your dignity is wiped out, you become a homeless beggar, searching for food, water and medicine,' she said. Close to 200 Palestinians have died of starvation in Gaza since the war began, nearly half of them children, according to Gaza's health ministry. More than 61,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel's assault on Gaza, according to local health officials, who said that at least 20 people had been killed in airstrikes across the territory on Thursday. Reuters, AFP and Associated Press have contributed to this article.
The Guardian
a few seconds ago
- The Guardian
Budapest Festival Orchestra / Fischer review – palpable joy in a vivid Prom pairing of Beethoven and Bluebeard
Beethoven's jubilant Seventh Symphony and a psychodrama about serial polygamy may seem curious bedfellows, but when the band is as good as the Budapest Festival Orchestra, who cares? This was the 19th Proms appearance of the ensemble founded by Iván Fischer and the late Zoltán Kocsis in 1983, and like the finest of Hungarian reds they have matured splendidly. Chief among many virtues was the visible sense of camaraderie, that and the palpable joy they brought to the music-making, no matter how familiar the fare. These musicians must have played No 7 countless times, yet still it came up fresh as a daisy. There was the opulent string tone, bows digging deep as if the performers' lives depended on it. Brass and woodwind players seemed born soloists, yet each visibly embraced the team spirit. And then there was Fischer, a model of elegance, coaxing and cajoling while teasing out those tiny details that lent the music spontaneity and vitality. In a truly memorable performance, the seamless flow and Fischer's dynamic control of the Allegretto stood out, every instrumental line crystal clear (no mean feat given the Albert Hall's soupy acoustic). Ditto the frisky scherzo, light and airy as a good souffle. The Bartók opera Duke Bluebeard's Castle was an opportunity for the orchestra to demonstrate its impressionistic side, invoking a broad range of moods and musical imagery. Fischer paid close attention to orchestral colours, conjuring if not 50, then at least 12 shades of grey to convey the dank and gloom of Bluebeard's sunless domain along with grinding dissonances and tense, eerie pianissimos. Woodwind and xylophone painted a lurid portrait of his grisly torture chamber, flickering brass fanfares illuminated the corners of a vicious armoury, while harp and celesta brought a hypnotic sparkle to the blood-stained treasury. The radiant flower garden and the overwhelming C major vistas behind the fifth door were vividly expressed. Dorottya Láng, a glowing, gutsy Judith, and Krisztián Cser, the most implacable of Bluebeards brought a crucial native intensity to the Hungarian text. Fischer's expert hand on the tiller ensured the drama ground inescapably onwards to its chilling denouement. Listen again on BBC Sounds until 12 October. The Proms continue until 13 September
The Guardian
a few seconds ago
- The Guardian
US universities' settlements with Trump ‘will only fuel his authoritarian appetite'
With the Trump administration's campaign to reshape US higher education in full swing, some top universities have agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle antisemitism claims; others may soon spend more and submit to major restrictions on their autonomy to avoid billions in funding cuts and other crippling measures. The University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University have reached settlements with the government in the past month, seeing millions in federal funding restored in exchange for adopting measures that advocates warn severely undermine their independence. Columbia also agreed to pay more than $220m to settle antisemitism allegations, including an employment discrimination claim that may qualify any Jewish employee who has allegedly experienced antisemitism to get a payout. The University of California, Los Angeles, also agreed last week to pay $6m to settle a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests – but that did not stop the Trump administration from citing 'antisemitism and bias' to freeze more than $300m of the university's funding. Harvard University is reportedly considering paying as much as half a billion dollars to restore billions in research funds and fend off further attacks by the government – even though the university's president, Alan Gerber, has denied the reports. The settlements come amid a flurry of cuts, investigations and other measures designed to curtail the independence of universities that the Trump administration has described as 'the enemy'. Lynn Pasquerella, the president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities says they mark 'a watershed moment for American higher education' and will 'further embolden the administration to use coercive tactics against other institutions'. 'The weaponization of federal funds in an effort to enforce ideological conformity through the control of campus policies, the curriculum, research, and discourse inside and outside of the classroom poses a threat to the fundamental mission of US colleges and universities,' she said. UPenn, Columbia and Harvard did not respond to the Guardian's requests for comment. A spokesperson for Brown said the agreement with the administration 'preserves the integrity of Brown's academic foundation and enables us to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty'. The White House is reportedly negotiating with several other universities. About 60 institutions are under investigation over alleged antisemitism and several have had federal funding cut or threatened. Education advocates warn that with each settlement, more universities risk coming under attack. 'When one university capitulates to Trump's hostage-taking strategies it puts pressure on all institutions because it confirms that this strategy works,' said Isaac Kamola, a professor at Trinity College who studies conservative efforts to undermine higher education. 'Every institution is now at risk.' Columbia, where pro-Palestinian students staged a 2024 protest encampment that was soon followed by dozens of others nationwide, was the first university to be targeted by the administration. When it reached a much-anticipated settlement after months of negotiations, the US education secretary, Linda McMahon, boasted that the deal would offer 'a roadmap' for other universities. Columbia's reforms 'will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come', she said. Todd Wolfson, the president of the American Association of University Professors, called the settlement 'a disaster' for 'the independence of colleges and universities nationwide'. But he echoed McMahon's prediction: 'The settlement will only fuel Trump's authoritarian appetite.' The deal sees Columbia submitting to the oversight of an independent monitor reporting to the government, and agreeing to review its Middle East curriculum and expand Israel and Jewish studies. That's in addition to several measures the university had already taken, including the adoption of a controversial definition that conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel. Notably, the agreement does not preclude the government from issuing more demands in the future. Columbia also agreed to pay $200m to the government over three years, and $21m to settle a class-action lawsuit that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission described as the 'largest such settlement' in two decades. That agreement follows a charge brought on behalf of 'all Jewish employees' at Columbia, with the funds intended 'to remedy alleged antisemitism harassment that may have been experienced by its employees', the commission said. It added that a claims administrator would reach out to all 'potential aggrieved individuals' with a confidential questionnaire to determine eligibility. A spokesperson for the commission said that all Jewish employees were entitled to part of the settlement 'if they experienced discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation' based on their Jewish or Israeli identity, and that they do not need to have previously filed a complaint to be considered. 'What matters is their experience with antisemitism at Columbia,' the spokesperson said. Some of Columbia's Jewish employees questioned the criteria. 'Where is my antisemitism money?' James Schamus, a faculty member who previously denounced the university's actions 'in the name of Jewish safety' wrote in a post. He said that he suspected the payouts would be distributed not based on 'Jewish-ness' as much as political considerations. But it is Columbia's agreement to yield to the administration on academic matters that met the fiercest backlash. Last week, the prominent historian Rashid Khalidi announced in an open letter that he would cancel a class he had planned to teach in the fall, citing the settlement and adoption of the IHRA definition, and accusing Columbia's leaders of having turned the storied institution into 'a shadow of its former self' and an 'anti-university'. Still, Columbia's deal with the administration fell short of some of the most restrictive scenarios floated during negotiations, and even those critical of it acknowledge the university found itself in a near-impossible position. 'We fully appreciate that the alternatives to settlement would have come with their own formidable costs and risks,' a group of scholars from Columbia's own Knight First Amendment Institute wrote in an analysis on Monday. 'It would be deeply unfortunate, however, if Columbia's settlement were to become a model for the rest of the academy.' So far, that seems to be the case. A week after Columbia's announcement, Brown followed, reaching a deal with the administration to restore frozen federal funds in exchange for adopting the administration's definitions of male and female, which advocates say infringe transgender rights. Brown will also pay $50m to Rhode Island workforce development organizations as part of the deal. The university also granted the government access to its admissions data to ensure it is 'merit-based'. UPenn made similar concessions when it became the first university to settle in early July. Harvard has been the only university to fight back, suing over $2.6bn in funding cuts and the revocation of its eligibility to host international students. Both cases are proceeding in court, where the university has notched some early victories, even though Harvard is also negotiating with the administration and has passed measures pre-empting some of its demands. At UCLA, part of the largest public university system in the US, administrators also tried to anticipate the administration by issuing a flurry of new policies. They restricted the ability to protest on campus and centralized faculty hiring. A spokesperson for UCLA referred the Guardian to a statement by the university's chancellor, Julio Frenk, in which he listed a host of measures it has taken to combat antisemitism. But that wasn't enough to keep UCLA from becoming Trump's latest target. 'Unsurprisingly, the anticipatory obedience of UCLA administrators has not prevented Trump administration attacks,' the UCLA Faculty Association wrote in a statement. 'Each university that falters legitimates the Trump administration's attacks on all of our institutions of higher education and we must stand up now. To protect our democracy we must protect our universities.'
