Let Kneecap and Bob Vylan speak freely
Photo byGetting charged with a terror offence is the best thing that could have happened for Mo Chara's career. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, one third of Belfast rap trio Kneecap, was in Westminster Magistrates' Court two weeks ago, brought there by the Metropolitan Police for allegedly brandishing a Hezbollah flag at a London gig over six months prior.
It's the perfect formula: Kneecap have made pro-Palestine and anti-British-state stances a keystone of their product; now they can say on stage at Glastonbury that they're being persecuted for their activism by a government more interested in policing their language than looking after starving children in Gaza; and they might even be right.
Taking a leaf out of the Kneecap playbook, rap duo Bob Vylan made their own headlines at Glastonbury on Saturday. On the same afternoon as Kneecap's set at the West Holt stage, in the baking heat, one half of the pair led the crowd in a chant: 'Death, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]'. Somerset Police, for some reason, have got involved. Wes Streeting told Laura Kuenssberg yesterday that it was 'appalling'; the BBC – who broadcast the set live – is embarrassed; Glastonbury festival is in a pickle – how to marry their punk free-speech stick-it-to-the-man credentials with their acts who contravene such basic politeness codes? They have settled for saying they are 'appalled' by Vylan, just like Streeting.
Can you believe in free speech and be annoyed by rude and misguided people at the same time? The answer is simple: this should never have been a police matter, Glastonbury needn't apologise, and the BBC has bigger things to worry about than broadcasting bad music by admittedly unpleasant but staggeringly banal rappers. I would suggest Labour cabinet ministers also had more pressing issues to address, on this of all weekends.
Palestine flags are common at Glastonbury anyway, but this year they are ubiquitous, with too many to count in the thousands-strong crowd that shouted 'death to the IDF' back at Bob Vylan. That crowd was unusually extreme. But no matter your fealty to any cause, and no matter the political tastes of the professional Glastonbury-goers (simplistic and ugly they may be), it is hard to argue that any response to the Bob Vylan interjection beyond 'ignore them' is appropriate, or commensurate.
In this, the millennial left and the young online right are united. The pragmatic case made by both sides is simple: by investigating the duo, or charging them, Bob Vylan's campaign is elevated beyond any reasonable proportion; it brings more eyeballs to the message (totally counterproductive if you are also minded to condemn them); and hands them the argument that they are victims of an oppressive state. This is precisely how the charges against Mo Chara have cemented his career.
But the principled case is far more important: Free-speech absolutism is the only logical position in a modern democracy. In Britain the left has been hounded by agents of the state as far back as the wars against Revolutionary, and then Napoleonic France. Spies, provocateurs, and strong-armed police tactics have been used to suppress conversations and organisations for the best part of two centuries. Free speech as a societal axiom was and is the only answer to these bullying tendencies. The last ten years, when all sorts of left-liberals cowardly abandoned this principle, were a nadir for the movement, both in Britain and abroad.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Maybe that same movement, watching Kneecap and this rapper face over-the-top condemnation will recover some of its sense. It's almost always fine for people to say things that other people don't agree with. That may be cliché to argue, but the fact that we keep having to argue this suggests the fact is neither ingrained nor obvious.
[See also: The Kneecap crossover event]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
No state is safe: Trans people are planning to move overseas rather than live in Trump's America
Isabella remembers the moment she knew she needed to leave the U.S. It was March 2023, when Daily Wire host Michael Knowles gave a chilling speech to one of the most influential conservative gatherings in the country. "There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing," Knowles told the Conservative Political Action Conference. "For the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen victim to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely: the whole preposterous ideology, at every level." To Isabella, who is trans, this declaration was a clear sign of the Republican Party's increasing embrace of hardcore anti-trans politics — and a potential harbinger of "genocidal action." This spring, after years of preparation, she moved to Chile. She is not alone. In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in US v Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee and other red states' rights to ban transition healthcare for minors, four trans people told The Independent that the case had solidified their plans to escape the USA. Like every single person interviewed for this story, Isabella would only speak under a pseudonym out for fear of reprisals from far-right extremist groups, or perhaps even government officials. And while the Skrmetti decision only concerned trans children, those who spoke to The Independent feared that the Court's reasoning could make it easier to restrict trans healthcare for adults too — as Republicans are already trying to do nationally. "Before the 2024 election, my timeline for relocating abroad was more like five to ten years out, if at all. Before today, I was considering sometime within the next year or two. But now, I am thinking of moving by the end of the summer," said Wayne, a trans man in his late forties in Washington state, on the day the Skrmetti ruling came down. Though he also has personal reasons to leave the country, he said the Skrmetti ruling was "another falling domino." "I don't want to leave my country, but things have been on a downward trajectory for trans rights for the past several years," he said. "We have transitioned from a system of democracy into an electoral autocracy... no one is coming to save us." 'I won't accept second class status' In the past few years, 25 U.S. states have passed laws restricting banning transition healthcare for minors, according to the pro-LGBT+ Movement Advancement Project — covering an estimated 37 percent of all trans under-18s. Some states have also enacted restrictions on adult care, and Republicans in Congress have made repeated attempts to defund or limit access at the federal level. Meanwhile, conservative rhetoric about trans people has become ever more venomous. Knowles likened them to "demons." One Republican candidate claimed pro-trans teachers should be "executed." Multiple serving GOP legislators have falsely claimed that random mass shooting suspects are trans, while Donald Trump Jr has alleged — contrary to all available evidence — that trans people are "the most violent domestic terror threat" in the country. Then came Donald Trump's second inauguration, and his blitzkrieg effort to centralize federal power under the office of the president. Since then migration has become a regular topic among trans people both online and in person, along with acidic social media debates about the ethics and class politics of fleeing one's country. "My plans for emigration have been in a holding pattern,' said one trans lawyer in her forties, who began transitioning roughly 25 years ago and is now considering leaving the country. "Getting all the documents and background checks and apostilles to be able to move, and contacting contractors... but not making any decisions yet in the increasingly vain hope that abandoning my family and home country won't become a necessity,' she said. "This [Skrmetti] decision definitely made me get back into planning mode. I had begun to build up some steely resolve about fighting for my country... but days like this really suck out all the air. "When you find yourself crying at random songs, no matter how limited their emotional appeal would be in any other situation, it's hard not to look at your hands and then up and the sky and say 'where do I go now?' "I won't accept being a pariah, or being denied hormones despite being post-[surgery]. I won't accept second or third class status." The lawyer also argues that the SCOTUS ruling may be widened, since there is "nothing in the decision that indicates it will remain confined to pediatric care questions." Stacy Davis, a 42-year-old Nashville realtor who has a trans child, told The Independent that her family will stay in Tennessee as long as they possibly can, even if it means traveling regularly for medical care at great expense. But if they are forced to move, it would probably be abroad. 'I think it would have been easier to move from Tennessee to a blue state if [Kamala Harris] would have won, because at least then we would have had some reassurances that on a federal level we would be more protected,' she said. But now, 'it almost feels like a blue state can't save us.' Multiple groups have sprung up to help trans people migrate, either within the U.S. or internationally. Some are open and legally incorporated, such as the Denver-based non-profit Trans Continental Pipeline. "At the heart of it, we're glorified movers, trying to help people get where they want to go and out of traumatic situations," founder Keira Richards told Mother Jones last year. Other groups are more secretive and ad-hoc, fearful of attacks and harassment by anti-trans extremists. "We've had a few people today contact us and/or announce their desire to emigrate faster from the USA, considering the broader implications of this ruling," a member of one such group told The Independent. "People of course are stockpiling hormones and getting passports in order if they can... I can tell you our top destinations are Canada, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Thailand, and the Netherlands in particular." The group includes trans people in countries across the world, this person said, including some lawyers who help people understand the implications of new U.S. anti-trans policies. In some places, they have contacts who can help trans immigrants get settled in and find community. Group members gather and share information on immigration pathways, visa requirements, and the level of freedom and protection available to trans people in various countries. 'We've read our history books. We know where this goes' The story of one trans woman we'll call Rachel illustrates how individual areas and then the entire USA have become progressively more hostile to trans people. Back in 2023, having already moved from the Tennessee countryside where she grew up to the big city of Nashville, she felt forced to flee her home state entirely. "At that time I was highly skeptical that it would ever get to the point where I had to emigrate," Rachel told The Independent. "I have to say that I completely stand corrected." Initially, Nashville had felt safe enough for her to finally transition. But beginning in around 2020, when conservative news site The Daily Wire moved its headquarters to Nashville, she felt a major "tonal shift." Relatives who'd once been supportive began to turn against her. Nazi flyers were stuffed into her mailbox. She received "direct threats" from people she believes were probably her neighbors, and suffered repeated housing discrimination despite having a steady income. Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, a prominent anti-trans activist, held a "rally to end child mutilation" at the state capitol. In March 2023, on the same day Tennessee's Republican governor Bill Lee signed the healthcare ban at the heart of the Skrmetti case, someone draped a huge swastika-emblazoned banner from a Nashville bridge thanking him for "tirelessly working to fight trannies and fags." At another point, Rachel recalls, someone projected the words "TRANS-FREE TENNESSEE" on a local building. Rachel even had a brush with Skrmetti himself: that is, Tennessee's attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti, against whom the Supreme Court lawsuit was filed. In 2022 he demanded detailed patient records from Rachel's trans healthcare provider Vanderbilt University, leading to accusations that he was trying to compile a "list" of trans people. "Skrmetti seems like the ghost that will hound me for the rest of my life," complained Rachel. "It's always Tennessee! It's a state out of which the current manifestation of conservative politics has grown. And I was there to witness it.' Now those politics have taken root in the White House, and Rachel is applying for citizenship in the foreign country where one of her parents was born — something she's always been eligible for, but only recently started seriously working on. For her, the new Supreme Court decision changed nothing. But listening to the oral arguments before Trump's inauguration, and anticipating which way the case would go, was part of what made her plan to leave in the first place. Even though she isn't totally sure whether she'll go, Rachel wants to be ready at short notice. She keeps many of her belongings in storage, and has abandoned some of her hobbies for fear that the equipment would weigh her down. "I think that everything is on the table at this point," she said. "The same rhetorical patterns, in some cases precisely the same accusations, that are being levied at trans people were being levied at the Jewish population [in Nazi Germany]. "We've read our history books. We know the outcome of that is... I think it's naive to think that it's impossible in the United States." (Knowles, for his part, has insisted that his 2023 CPAC speech was not a call for cultural genocide against trans people because they are not a group with shared genetics, and also because they are "not a legitimate category of being.") To Isabella, living in Chile has been both a challenge and a relief. She's still figuring out her medical care, still learning Spanish, still trying to meet new friends. "Winter and summer are flipped, which is so weird to me," she said. Not everyone could have made the move, she notes. She was lucky enough to have some local contacts and a job that she could keep doing from her new country, as well as the financial resources necessary to uproot her life. But she no longer has to deal with the daily drumbeat of assaults on her rights and unashamed demonization of her identity. "You feel like you can breathe better, and you're not worried that you're gonna be the victim of some terrible attack," she said. Even so, she can't completely stop worrying. Conservative politicians across the world have found trans people a tempting punchbag, including in nearby Argentina. The feminist philosopher Judith Butler has argued that transphobia is a central element of modern fascism, from to Hungary to Brazil to the USA and beyond. "You never know, these days, because transphobia is global," said Isabella. "The question is, is it going to come to Chile? That's always a fear. So I'm always keeping my eyes open."
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Now even Labour seems to have understood our courts are out of control
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill has flown rather under the radar of all but a handful of open-borders organisations. But following as it does Shabana Mahmood 's previous showdown with the Sentencing Council over its proposals for two-tier justice, it casts an interesting light not only on the slowly emerging cross-party consensus on regaining political control over Britain's borders, but how to do it: responding to adverse court judgments with primary legislation. The Bill has been tabled because of a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. In February, in its judgment on N3 (ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, it ruled against the Government (which had prevailed in both the High Court and Court of Appeal) on the question of whether a child, born to a man who had his citizenship revoked and then restored, was a British national. As so often, the case itself dealt with unusual circumstances: the child ('ZA') was born during the gap in her father's British citizenship. But as also so often, it involved the Supreme Court setting a wider precedent. As the Government's explanatory fact-sheet explains: 'The Supreme Court held that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, the initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen.' The sheet adds: 'This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.' It isn't difficult to see the problems here. First, while undoubtedly a nice thing to do for a child, this precedent could be extremely problematic if exercised by an adult litigant deprived of their citizenship on national security grounds: like going to join Islamic State, as did Shamima Begum. Second, it is out of line with existing law and policy in similar areas. A successful asylum appeal, for example, does not automatically grant asylum status; all avenues of appeal by the Government must be exhausted first. But most seriously, the Supreme Court's version of the policy risks making it practically impossible to deprive anyone of their citizenship at all. Why? Because Britain remains committed to the international conventions which prohibit rendering someone 'stateless', i.e. without citizenship. This is why citizenship can only be revoked from dual nationals (indeed, that has been one of the criticisms levelled against it). Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling creates an obvious exploit. In a future case, the Government might lose an initial challenge to a deprivation of citizenship order (DCO), but go on to win on appeal. However, if the plaintiff's initial victory quashed the DCO, they could then renounce their dual nationality – making a new DCO unlawful, even if the Government eventually proved the original was lawful. It's an extremely silly precedent to set and ministers are right to take action. More than that, this is very much the right kind of action. A narrowly targeted Bill is much less liable to being undermined by judicial interpretation than a broader, more eye-catching law, both because it is less open to creative interpretation and because it makes the political will of Parliament extremely clear. For all the legitimate criticism levelled at the judiciary, it's important to keep in mind that under our constitution, they can only move into territory vacated by MPs. Even when they egregiously overstep the mark, as when they interpreted completely out of existence the attorney general's veto in the Freedom of Information Act in the Evans ruling, Parliament could have legislated to put that right – and didn't. Perhaps the single biggest reason to be sceptical that we'll see any sustained pushback against judicial overreach is simply that it would involve MPs doing a lot more work, and perhaps even having to reverse New Labour's comfy cuts to their sitting hours. Given that the new generation seem to think that Commons debates intrude on their diaries, that seems like a long shot.
Daily Mirror
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Bob Vylan banned from US over 'hateful' Glastonbury outburst as visas revoked
Bob Vylan has had their US visa application rejected following their Glastonbury set. The duo caused controversy when they performed over the weekend at Worthy Farm as they started chants of "Death to the IDF." They were set to perform in America later this year, yet their visas have now been rejected. United States Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said on X: "The @StateDept has revoked the US visas for the members of the Bob Vylan band in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants. "Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country." The band, who were set to tour the US in October, have been highly criticised for the messages in their set over the weekend, as they performed before Kneecap. Bob Vylan's performance was aired live on the BBC at the time, but the corporation have since said they have no plans of putting it on iPlayer. The US ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens said the actions of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury were 'a disgrace'. He said: 'The anti-Semitic chants led by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury were a disgrace. There should be no place for this hateful incitement or tolerance of antisemitism in the UK.'
