UK PM Starmer says Kneecap should not perform Glastonbury
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Saturday said it was not "appropriate" for Irish group Kneecap to perform at Glastonbury, one of the country's biggest and most famous music festivals.
Asked in an interview by The Sun tabloid whether the Irish rap trio should perform at the iconic festival next week, Starmer responded: "No, I don't, and I think we need to come down really clearly on this.
"This is about the threats that shouldn't be made. I won't say too much because there's a court case on, but I don't think that's appropriate," he added.
Kneecap has made headlines with their outspoken pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel stance, with one of their members charged with a "terror" offence for allegedly supporting Hezbollah.
Last Wednesday, Liam O'Hanna, known by his stage name Mo Chara, appeared in court accused of displaying a Hezbollah flag while saying "Up Hamas, Up Hezbollah" at a concert that took place in London last year.
The Iran-backed Lebanese force Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas are banned in the UK, and it is an offence to show support for them.
Glastonbury festival, attracting hundreds of thousands of music fans from around the world, is set to take place in at Worthy Farm in southeast England next week starting June 25.
Kneecap is due to perform on Saturday June 28 on the West Holts Stage.
The government had previously called on the organisers of Glastonbury festival to "think carefully" about the band's planned appearance there.
The group has been pulled from a slew of summer gigs since, including a Scottish festival appearance and various performances in Germany.
During their performances, rapping in Irish and English, Kneecap often lead chants of "Free, free Palestine" and display the Palestinian flag.
The group apologised this year after a 2023 video emerged appearing to show one singer calling for the death of British Conservative MPs.
But they deny the terrorism charge and say the video featuring the flag has been taken out of context.
O'Hanna, Liam Og O Hannaidh in Gaelic, who has been granted unconditional bail, told London's Wide Awake Festival in May the charge was an attempt to "silence us".
The group, which shot to fame with their biting, provocative song lyrics and an award-winning docu-fiction based on them, slammed it as "political policing" and "a carnival of distraction".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
44 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Iran's neighbours condemn US strikes
The US strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, in alignment with Israel's mission to destroy the nuclear capabilities of its long-time foe, have outraged the Islamic republic's allies and raised fears of a wider regional conflict. Iraq on Sunday strongly condemned the US strikes in neighbouring Iran and warned of the fallout on security in the Middle East. "This military escalation constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East and poses serious risks to regional stability," the Iraqi government said. Baghdad has called for immediate de-escalation and the use of diplomacy to defuse the crisis. "This must be done in a manner that safeguards collective security and upholds the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations," a spokesman for the Iraqi government added in an online statement. Iraq, which maintains good ties with both Washington and Tehran, has been trying to stay clear of the current war between Iran and its arch-rival Israel. Iraqi pro-Iranian militias recently threatened to attack US interests in the region if Washington intervenes in the ongoing war between Iran and Israel. An umbrella grouping of pro-Iranian militias, known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, has repeatedly claimed strikes on US bases inside Iraq and neighbouring Syria with drones and missiles since the Gaza war erupted in October 2023. The Iraqi militias are part of the the self-styled "Islamic Axis" led by Iran that also groups Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Palestinian Islamist Hamas movement. The Houthis are vowing to support Iran in its fight against "the Zionist and American aggression." Their statement called for the Muslim nations to join the holy war and act as "one front against the Zionist-American arrogance." The militant Palestinian group Hamas says the US strikes on Iran are a "direct threat to international peace and security" and "a blind pursuit of the rogue Zionist occupation's agenda." Saudi Arabia expressed its "great concern" following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, according to a statement by the foreign ministry on X. The kingdom called on the international community to boost efforts in such 'highly sensitive circumstances' to reach a political solution to end the crisis. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations called on Sunday for an emergency Security Council meeting for what he described as America's "heinous attacks and illegal use of force" against Iran. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani, said that the UN's most powerful body must "take all necessary measures" to hold the US accountable under international law and the UN charter. "The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns and denounces in the strongest possible terms these unprovoked and premeditated acts of aggression, which have followed the large-scale military attack conducted by the Israeli regime on 13 June against Iran's peaceful nuclear sites and facilities," the letter continued.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
'Biggest terrorist organisation in the world': Pro-Iran protester disrupts Andrew Hastie's press conference as Coalition backs US strikes on Iran
Andrew Hastie's press conference has been interrupted by a pro-Iran protester as he confirmed the Coalition's support for US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Mr Hastie said on Sunday the world could never accept a nuclear Iran, describing the Islamic Republic as a "repressive, theocratic autocracy" and a "sponsor of terrorism". "From October 7, we've seen Iran support Hamas. We've seen Iran support Hezbollah. We've seen Iran support the Houthis, and we saw last year, Iran conduct missile strikes in April and October against Israeli citizens in Israel. This is a regime committed to the destruction of Israel and our allies, like the United States," he said. "It's also a highly repressive regime which has persecuted women, dissidents, religious minorities, and that is why we support the actions today - because we have no faith that the Iranian regime will negotiate in good faith. "The Coalition does not want war. We do not want war. But we believe this was a necessary action to take by the United States." But as shadow home affairs minister continued his comments, a pro-Iran protester could be heard booing in the background and claiming it is the United States, not Iran, that are the "biggest terrorists". "Boo man, come on," the protester yelled. "Oh come on, the USA is the biggest terrorist country in the world. Mr Hastie attempted to continue his comments, but the protesters was not finished. "Hello? The USA is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world," they said. After pausing for the interjection, Mr Hastie said, "It's a free country. She's allowed to say what she likes. Nonetheless, our position is unchanging." "We do support the United States, and the Albanese government should be supporting the United States as well." The shadow home affairs minister then began to speak about how Iran had breached its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "We've seen 400 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium stockpiled by Iran. Now, the IAEA caps enrichment at 20 per cent for military use, which is sort of reactor you have in a submarine," he said. To which the protester replied: "And the USA does exactly the same". Mr Hastie continued, adding that civil nuclear reactors only require 5 per cent enrichment. "So 60 per cent (shows they) were headed towards a nuclear weapon," he said. "And given that they sponsor terrorism, and that the Supreme Leader of Iran himself has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, I think it was the right call to make." "So does the US have nuclear weapons," the protester again yelled. "The US is a bigger terrorist organisation than Iran." The Coalition's position comes after the Albanese government continued to call for 'de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy' following US airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. In a statement responding to the US military action, a spokesperson reiterated the Albanese government's existing position. 'We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programme has been a threat to international peace and security," the spokesperson said. "We note the US President's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.'
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Iran's talking tough after US attack. But the regime has run out of options
In the end Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu got what he wanted – America involved in his aerial campaign against Iran. And in a timeframe determined by Israeli, rather than US, calculations. It is an extraordinary turn of events. Neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard supported Netanyahu's claim about the 'golden information' possessed by Israel indicating an imminent threat posed by any weaponised nuclear program. Yet US President Donald Trump has variously told reporters not to listen to Gabbard, and later simply that 'she's wrong'. Once again, the White House has committed its forces to a conflict in the Middle East without making the case as to why it needed to. The world now waits for Iran's response to the attacks by the United States. Its options are limited. It is relatively weak militarily and Israel has air supremacy. Iran's armed non-state supporting actors have either been degraded – as is the case with Lebanese Hezbollah – or internal political or broader national considerations have forced them to critically re-evaluate that support. A wariness about President Trump's unpredictability also makes support for Iran more challenging than was the case before October 7. Iran's own conventional capabilities have taken a hit through Israel's military campaign and have been depleted as a result of Tehran's week-long response to those attacks. Their remaining stockpiles and what, if any, ability they have to replenish them, will be one of the pieces of intelligence most keenly sought by its adversaries. One can have the greatest intent to retaliate but, if you possess limited capabilities, then your military options remain constrained. The regime's ultimate aim is, and always has been, survival. Their ambiguity regarding their nuclear program was a means to that end, not necessarily an end in itself. Suspicions about its nuclear capability or intent was seen as a way of securing the regime from direct attack, but the economic sanctions that secrecy over the program brought with it constrained its own economic development and put pressure on the regime. The nuclear program then became the means by which it could negotiate sanctions relief without entirely giving up its strategic ambiguity. The Iran Nuclear Deal (or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was the result of this approach. Loading Nuclear ambiguity worked as long as Iran's policy of 'forward defence' worked. Tehran's reliance on its so-called 'axis of resistance' – a network of armed non-state actors in the region – was ultimately a strategic miscalculation. These groups destabilised the countries in which they operated. Iran's use of these affiliates made Gulf states suspicious of Tehran's motives in the region. When Israel degraded them as part of their post-October 7 response, few tears were shed in the region. Without them, and with a new and unpredictable president in the White House, Iran's strategic nuclear ambiguity quickly became a millstone around Tehran's neck. The question now is, what Iran will do in response to the US attack? If regime survival remains the priority, it is quite possible that its best chance for achieving that comes from limiting and focusing – rather than broadening – their response. Tehran knows that Washington can deliver an overwhelming response to any Iranian retaliation, while any Iranian response against US interests is going to achieve limited results. A largely symbolic military response may be carried out, if only for appearance's sake.
