Latest / The Fourcast / Bob Vylan at Glastonbury: free speech or hate speech?

Transcript

Bob Vylan at Glastonbury: free speech or hate speech? · The Fourcast

0:00
Part of the reason why Bob Villain and also NICAP feel so
0:04
strongly a sense of solidarity to Palestine is that they relate
0:08
it to their own experience of colonialism and racism.
0:12
Is it always wrong to go on stage at any kind of event and
0:16
call for the death of anyone or any institution?
0:19
I don't think he should be prosecuted to be clear, but
0:21
nevertheless I think it was pretty unsavoury and had it been
0:24
another ethnic group he was attacking I think the BBC would
0:26
have pulled the blood. Welcome to the forecast.
0:32
It's the controversial performance that's dominated the
0:35
headlines and sparked massive debate and controversy.
0:38
Puncture Bobville enchanted death to the IDF to a crowd of
0:42
thousands and crucially, an audience of millions as their
0:46
Glastonbury performance was aired live on the BBC.
0:49
The backlash was immediate, with some calling it an essential act
0:53
of artistic protest while others saw it as crossing a line, a
0:58
deeply offensive and anti-Semitic sentiment on
1:02
screen. Warnings issued by the BBC about
1:04
discriminatory language during the set were not good enough.
1:07
That's what one minister said today.
1:10
We're joined by Toby Young, a journalist and commentator, and
1:13
Ash Sarkar, who was at the performance, a political
1:16
activist and writer to discuss the reaction to the performance,
1:19
the BB CS decision to broadcast it, and what this all means for
1:23
free speech and creative freedom.
1:25
Welcome to you both. Thanks for coming on the
1:26
forecast. So let's start with this.
1:29
First of all, an assertion. Is it always wrong to go on
1:34
stage at any kind of event and call for the death of anyone or
1:38
any institution? First you, Ash.
1:40
Well, first thing I would say is that saying death to the IDF
1:44
when that army is currently committing A genocide, when
1:47
there are recorded and verified instances of them firing on
1:50
unarmed civilians while they're waiting for A to be distributed,
1:54
recorded instances of gang rape, children being admitted to
1:58
hospital with sniper wounds to the skull.
2:01
I think it is an appropriate impression of rage and disgust.
2:05
So, so in this particular instance, you say because of
2:08
what the IDF has done in Gaza, you would say shouting or
2:12
leading a chorus, death to the IDF is legit.
2:17
That's what you're saying. Absolutely.
2:20
The same way it is completely legitimate to, say, destroy
2:23
ISIS. These are organisations founded
2:27
on violence terrorizing innocent civilians and it is always
2:32
appropriate to express 1's opposition to that.
2:35
I don't think that it was anti-Semitic and nor do I think
2:39
it was inappropriate for a punk band when this is a genre
2:42
associated with pushing the boundaries to lead a chant at
2:45
what's effectively a concert. OK, Toby, what's your reaction?
2:49
Well, I think Ash and I profoundly disagree about the
2:54
military operation in Gaza, Which I believe is a legitimate
2:58
act of self defence on Israel's part.
3:01
And I thought it was particularly insensitive to
3:05
chant death death to the IDF at a music festival given that
3:09
something like 350 people were killed at the Nova music
3:13
festival on October 7th, 2 years ago.
3:18
But I think parking the question about whether we think Israel's
3:24
military response to that massacre is legitimate or not, I
3:29
think it's it's helpful to distinguish between two things.
3:33
First of all, whether we think Bob Villain should be prosecuted
3:41
for leading that chant and whether it's actually unlawful
3:46
for them to have led that chance.
3:47
So whether in fact they could be prosecuted under UK law, On the
3:52
first question, I think Ash and I agree.
3:56
I don't think they should be prosecuted any more than I think
3:59
Lucy Connolly should have been prosecuted for the tweet she
4:02
posted in the immediate aftermath of the Southport
4:05
attacks. I think the test to apply here,
4:08
the test we should be applying, is the Brandenburg test, which
4:11
was established in a Supreme Court case called Brandenburg
4:13
versus Ohio. And the Brandenburg test
4:15
essentially says that if, unless what you've said is going to
4:20
lead to imminent lawless action, then it should be protected
4:23
speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
4:26
And I don't think chanting death, death to the IDF is going
4:30
to lead to imminent lawless action.
4:32
So I think that speech should be protected and we should have
4:35
something like the First Amendment in the UK to protect
4:38
it. There's a separate question
4:40
which is, well, is it nonetheless prosecutable under
4:43
UK law? And that's I think quite a
4:44
complicated question and I've been trying to kind of get my
4:48
head around that today and we can get into that.
4:50
And if you want to get into it, Matt?
4:51
As we've heard that the police is now investigating the band to
4:55
see if they're going to file criminal charges.
4:57
We also just heard that the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio
5:00
in the US has cancelled their visas.
5:03
They were going to go to the US on tour.
5:04
They're now, they're not going to be able to do that because
5:06
their visas have been cancelled. And of course, inevitably this
5:09
discussion will lead to what the IDF is actually doing in Gaza,
5:13
which is a, you know, hugely controversial subject that we've
5:16
been dealing with on our programme and our podcast, you
5:19
know, almost on a daily basis. But before we go to that, just
5:22
on the specific issue of the BBC, if I may, I mean, they,
5:27
they didn't broadcast kneecap. They did broadcast this.
5:30
They put out a health warning that clearly wasn't strong
5:33
enough. Was this just an example of the
5:35
BBC kind of not knowing what its own policy is, of being perhaps
5:40
incompetent, or did they do the right thing?
5:42
First you, Ash. I think the BBC has on repeated
5:47
instances displayed an appalling lack of moral fortitude when it
5:52
comes to freedom of expression, whether that's artistic or
5:55
journalistic. There is a documentary which I
5:58
believe Channel 4 is now going to where about the experiences
6:02
of medics in Gaza who are under attack.
6:04
The BBC for some reason decided they didn't want to show it
6:07
despite it being a factual documentary.
6:11
And when you look at their coverage, there was a recent
6:13
study released by the Centre for Media Monitoring which showed
6:17
that the coverage of Israeli deaths gets 33 times more
6:22
attention on the BBC than coverage of Palestinian deaths,
6:25
despite Palestinian deaths outnumbering Israeli deaths by
6:28
about 30-4 times. Similarly, when reporting on
6:32
what I believe is a genocidal war in Gaza, only nought .5% of
6:38
the reports intention that there was violence and occupation by
6:42
the IDF, by the Israeli government before October 7th.
6:46
Compared to the fact that in these reports 40% of them start
6:49
by talking about October 7th. So I think that this is an
6:52
extension of that cowardice and and that political bias of the
6:55
BBC I mean. You know, what you're referring
6:57
to are these very substantive points that, again, we've been,
7:00
you know, debating, you know, really ad nauseam since the
7:03
beginning of this latest war and after October the 7th.
7:06
But I, you know, did the band undermine their serious
7:10
arguments, if they have any, about what's going on with that
7:13
particular chant? Because what people are talking
7:15
about is the chant and not the actual substantive issues.
7:19
Ash. Understandable.
7:21
I think if you're looking for a substantive political
7:24
engagement, don't go looking to a band called Bob Villain or
7:27
another band called Nika. All right?
7:29
I think that this is part of this long tradition of punk
7:32
bands who, like I said, are outrageous and do present their
7:37
politics and their worldview in a way which is sometimes tongue
7:40
in cheek. I mean, you can go back to the
7:41
Sex Pistols for that. Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious, Rage
7:45
Against the Machine, where the chorus of their most famous song
7:47
is F You, I Won't do What You Tell Me.
7:50
So I think that they can be sincere in their politics, but
7:54
not necessarily sincere in the presentation of that politics,
7:58
the language and the imagery that's used.
8:00
And we shouldn't expect that of artists.
8:01
We should expect that politicians and journalists, but
8:04
not musicians. Toby I mean, obviously people
8:08
are very upset, many people are upset about death to the IDF.
8:11
But had they shouted, had someone shouted death to Hamas
8:15
or death to the Russian army, would we be having this
8:18
conversation, do you think? Well, we might not because we
8:21
are allied to the Ukraine and to Israel.
8:25
I think that the pertinent hypothetical is let's suppose
8:32
they've been a far right Skinhead band and started
8:37
throwing around the P word and the N word.
8:40
I think the BBC in those circumstances would have pulled
8:43
the plug on the broadcast pretty promptly.
8:46
It still sounds to me as though what he chanted and what he said
8:53
it was borderline if not straightforwardly anti-Semitic.
8:58
And I think it's just generally true that expressions of
9:02
anti-Semitism, certainly anti Zionism, are not considered as
9:07
egregious as other forms of racism.
9:11
And I do think that had he had he said something about another
9:14
ethnic group, let's not forget, Ash, that the majority of the
9:18
population of Israel are in the IDF, including teenagers.
9:24
So when he was chanting death, death to the IDF, you were
9:26
essentially calling for the genocide of Jews living in
9:31
Israel. So it's, it's, it's quite hard
9:34
to defend it. I think on, on, on.
9:35
I mean, I don't think he should be prosecuted, to be clear.
9:38
But I nevertheless, I think it was pretty unsavory.
9:40
And had it been another ethnic group he was attacking, I think
9:42
the BBC would have pulled the plug.
9:44
I completely disagree with you, Tobia, which is a shame because
9:46
I find you normally to be a very, very rigorous thinker.
9:48
The IDF is an organization, it is an institution, it is an army
9:52
which is currently carrying out absolutely egregious war crimes
9:56
and massacres. So agree just that even where
9:59
streeting who is, you know, generally very supportive of
10:01
Israel said get your house in order.
10:04
And I don't think that I think it's possible to object and to
10:07
find distasteful what Bob? Villain or anyone?
10:10
Else said that's that's entirely your right without changing
10:14
substantively what was said, not talking about an ethnic group,
10:17
talking about an army, a military currently engaged in an
10:21
absolutely brutal war. The second thing, and this is
10:25
important for coming back to the points made by Bob Villain and
10:29
also by Kneecap, which is part of the reason why Bob Villain
10:34
and also Kneecap feel so strongly a sense of solidarity
10:38
to Palestine is that they relate it to their own experience of
10:42
colonialism and racism. Obviously Bob Villain, this, you
10:46
know, punk duo, both of them are black Kneecap.
10:49
They say we consider the north of Ireland to be an occupied
10:53
territory. And they make the connections
10:55
between the history of, say, the black and Tans who are operating
10:59
in Ireland, you know, enacting horrific violence.
11:03
And the same individuals were were involved in, you know,
11:06
1930s and and 1940s, what was then the mandate of British
11:10
Palestine. So all of these things they have
11:14
answers for. They have a set of politics
11:16
around. And it's not about singling out
11:18
Jews. They've put it in their own
11:20
words about what it's about, and I think that there is something
11:24
so pernicious and underhand about when someone's telling you
11:29
what their politics are and saying This is why I believe
11:31
what I believe. Instead, you're saying no, I can
11:34
see into your heart, I can read your mind, and this is what I
11:36
think is really going on because it's completely unfalsifiable.
11:40
By shouting death to the IDF, isn't, you know, Bob Villain and
11:44
those who support what he was shouting, Aren't they also, you
11:47
know, playing into the hands of those people, you know, who say
11:50
that, you know, that if you criticize one, you're doing the
11:52
other? I mean, it's it's the word death
11:54
that is the problem here. But I'm just wondering whether,
11:57
you know, if he's really serious about raising this issue, Bob
12:01
Villain, then by, you know, doing it in that way from the
12:04
stage, he's not doing himself or his cause a service.
12:08
What I'd say is that there has been no form of criticism of the
12:11
state of Israel that the state of Israel or its supporters have
12:13
found acceptable. From the river to.
12:15
The sea, they don't like that. They don't like it when you call
12:17
them an apartheid state, despite the fact that leading
12:20
international human rights organisations like Amnesty, like
12:23
Human Rights Watch, have called what they're doing apartheid.
12:26
They don't like it when you call what they're doing a genocide,
12:28
despite the fact that South Africa and other countries have
12:31
presented A compelling case at the ICJ.
12:34
They don't like it when even Kissed Armour and Emmanuel
12:36
Macron, who are hardly punk rock radicals, say hey, you've gone
12:40
too far, you need to let in some aid.
12:43
All of that is anti-Semitic, so I think, but while you may at
12:46
once more think, oh, this isn't helpful.
12:48
To the cause, and I think it's fine to have that opinion.
12:51
I think that one shouldn't. Think there is a form of
12:54
expression. That wouldn't be labeled.
12:56
As anti-Semitic by supporters of Israel.
12:59
And I. Again, would like to return to
13:01
this point about the difference between political art and
13:06
politics itself. Political art has always.
13:09
Been about. Pushing boundaries, you say?
13:12
Things in ways which are are highly emotive and punk bands.
13:17
Especially have always, always done that.
13:19
I mean, you only have to go back and, you know, listen to songs
13:23
by the Clash, for instance, like Spanish bombs.
13:25
It's all about telling an emotional story.
13:28
And I think that Bob Villain are they see themselves in that
13:32
tradition. I mean, one of the rappers who
13:34
who has inspired Bob Villain directly is Dizzy Rascal, who's
13:37
not particularly political, but when he.
13:39
Raps all I care. About is sex and violence a
13:41
heavy baseline is my kind of silence.
13:44
You know, sure, that's going to be off putting to some people.
13:46
And some would say, oh, Mr. Roscoe, you're you're letting
13:49
yourself. Down, but he's a.
13:50
Rapper These are punk artists. What do you want from them?
13:53
The trouble with all this, I guess, isn't, isn't it, and we
13:55
see this in America as well, that there is no universal free
13:59
speech, you know, someone else's someone's free speech is someone
14:02
else's unfree speech. Elon Musk rages about, you know,
14:06
the need to have free speech on X, his own platform.
14:09
But if people criticize him, well, he cancels them.
14:12
So what is the definition of free speech, Toby, in a deeply
14:17
tribally divided democracy like America and to some extent like
14:21
ours? Well, as I say, Matt, I I like
14:24
as my guide, my guide rope. I like the Brandenburg test
14:30
which says that speech should be protected.
14:32
This is on public platforms, in the public square, not
14:35
necessarily on privately owned companies where it often
14:39
conflicts with the right to freedom of association, but in
14:43
the public square. I think the test should be the
14:45
Brandenburg test, which means that unless you can show that
14:49
the speech is going to lead to imminent lawless action, then it
14:52
should be permitted. And how that one way of trying
14:54
to understand that, Matt, is if a white supremacist group
15:00
marches through a Jewish neighborhood chanting death to
15:04
the Jews, then that speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
15:09
But if they say kill this particular Jew in this
15:12
particular place at this particular time, that isn't
15:14
protected. And part of the rationale for
15:16
that is I think this became clear during the Lucy Connolly
15:19
case. I don't think Lucy Connolly
15:20
should have been prosecuted for that tweet, because I don't
15:23
think it's possible to show definitively that what she said
15:26
lead to an outbreak of serious violence.
15:30
Now, serious violence did follow what she tweeted, but the fact
15:33
that A follows B doesn't mean B caused A.
15:35
Had she called for a particular hotel housing asylum seekers to
15:41
be burnt down, and that hotel was burnt down, then yes, it
15:44
would have failed the Brandenburg test.
15:45
She should be prosecuted, but because she didn't, and because
15:48
she added the caveat for all I care, which suggested
15:51
indifference rather than actual incitement, I don't think she
15:54
should have been prosecuted. I think 1 interesting case is
15:57
Kneecap at Glastonbury this weekend did call for people to
16:01
riot outside Westminster Magistrates Court when one of
16:05
the band members is going to be on trial for raising a Hezbollah
16:12
flag. And I think that that is that is
16:15
an interesting case because to my mind that could fail the
16:18
Brandenburg test. He's not just calling for a riot
16:21
in general in response to the prosecution.
16:24
Well, they're not just calling in fact, but that they're
16:26
calling for a specific riot at a specific place at a particular
16:30
time. So I think that probably does
16:31
fail the brand. But Toby, it's according to your
16:34
definition then and the Brandenburg test as you just
16:37
described it, what was said on the stage about the IDF then
16:41
passes that test. That's free speech because it's
16:44
not specific. I agree, Yeah, I think it should
16:47
be. If we had a First Amendment in
16:48
this country, it would be protected.
16:50
And actually, I think, I think I mean it's.
16:52
So was the BBC right to it to broadcast it?
16:55
Was the BBC right to broadcast it?
16:57
That that doesn't mean the BBC, that doesn't mean the BBC will
17:00
right to broadcast it, I think. Well, if it's free speech, why
17:04
not? Well, the BBC, the BBC isn't
17:08
committed to broadcasting anything, provided it's lawful.
17:11
The BBC makes editorial decisions about what to
17:14
broadcast and what not to broadcast.
17:15
And it ought to have, you know, a degree of latitude and not
17:18
just broadcast anything, provided it's lawful.
17:21
And, you know, I think most viewers reasonably expect the
17:27
television company they're paying for to observe certain
17:32
standards of propriety and what they decide to broadcast.
17:34
And I think it fell short of that.
17:39
And so just on what one of the band members of Kneecap said
17:42
regarding the riot, again, I was at the set and he specifically
17:45
said afterwards, I'm only joking, don't do that.
17:49
So while I think it's fair to say, was that necessarily wise
17:54
considering the broader context of of, you know, one of their
17:57
members being charged with terror related offences?
18:00
I think that, you know, when someone says I'm only joking,
18:03
for me that that that should be taking it as a mitigating
18:06
factor. I agree with Toby actually, that
18:09
I think the Lucy Connolly sentence was unduly excessive
18:13
and I think it sets a very bad precedent for for prosecutions
18:17
regarding forms of expression that morally I condemn.
18:21
But that doesn't necessarily mean or it doesn't follow that
18:24
you want the state to intervene in all of those cases.
18:26
I'd like to add to that the use of terror legislation and the
18:30
prescription of terror organisations because there's a
18:33
freedom of speech dimension as well.
18:35
So when it comes to a group like Palestine Action, if I were to
18:38
say following their prescription, I think what they
18:41
did was brave and honourable and justified under section 12 of
18:46
the Terrorism Act. I could be charged for being
18:49
reckless as to whether that could cause someone else to
18:53
support Palestine Action and there is no journalistic
18:56
exemption from the Terrorism Act.
18:59
What we've seen is a pro Palestine journalist such as ASA
19:03
Winstanley, his house was raided.
19:05
A judge later ruled that that was unlawful and he's being
19:08
investigated under terror legislation.
19:10
So I think that there is something very troubling here,
19:13
which is the terrorist. The Terrorism Act was was
19:15
brought in in the year 2000. At the time the home secretary
19:18
said we're not going to use this for domestic or industrial or,
19:22
or environmental cases, right. They, they specifically said
19:25
we're going to use this for international terrorism.
19:27
But now we're seeing a government abuse that
19:30
legislation. I think it's in such a way which
19:32
has very chilling implications for free.
19:35
Speech. If I've got this right, you both
19:37
seem to agree on this, that this wasn't a criminal offence, you
19:41
know, although it's being investigated now by the police,
19:43
that, you know, these are First Amendment free speech rights.
19:46
But you also both seem to agree that, you know, Israel has a
19:49
special case here. You, Toby, seem to think that
19:51
Israel is being singled out for criticism.
19:54
And you, Ash, seem to think that Israel's being, you know,
19:57
getting a, getting a, an easy ride on what it's been doing in
20:00
the Gaza Strip. Just to be clear, I think it's
20:02
possible that what Bob Villain said might be a criminal
20:07
offense. I think it turns on whether you,
20:10
whether the IDF can be defined as a racial group.
20:13
Now, on the face of it, you'd think, well, no, so they can't
20:16
be prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred under the Public
20:19
Order Act. But then Lucy Connolly was
20:21
prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred on the grounds
20:24
that asylum seekers are a racial group.
20:27
Now, Hachi plead not guilty and the Free Speech Union defended
20:30
her. We probably would have argued
20:33
that asylum seekers aren't a racial group.
20:35
They're made-up of many different ethnic groups and
20:37
they're not defined by their membership of a racial group so
20:40
much as the fact that they're seeking asylum here.
20:43
So I think that would have been our defence.
20:45
And I think if the villain are prosecuted, that would be their
20:48
defence too. The IDF is not a racial group,
20:51
it's a military organization. And this is perfectly fair
20:54
comment. And I think for that reason, I
20:56
think because that defence would be pretty strong, I think for
20:59
that reason they're very unlikely to be prosecuted.
21:01
But then, I don't think Lucy Connolly should have been
21:03
prosecuted either. But you also both believe that
21:06
Israel has been singled out either for criticism in your
21:10
case, Toby, or for being let off the hook, in your case, Ash.
21:15
Absolutely. And just to go back to what it
21:17
was that Bob Fillon said, which is death, death to the IDF, I
21:21
think that he was echoing an emotion of disgust and of horror
21:27
and of anger that is shared by many people just in this
21:31
country. But across the world.
21:32
When you look at the images of starving children, of bomb
21:34
schools, of bomb hospitals, when you see the assassination of
21:38
journalists, when you see the restriction of aid and when you
21:41
see, as I said before, toddlers being admitted to hospital,
21:45
sniper wounds to the head, Of course you would want that
21:48
organization which has perpetuated all these horrors to
21:52
end. And I think that if you are
21:54
going to make the argument that saying death to the IDF is
21:57
anti-Semitic, you end up in a really silly place because then
22:01
you'd have to argue, well, destroy ISIS must be
22:03
Islamophobic. Because then you're saying
22:05
there's no separation between an organization which has got
22:09
political goals, which is armed, which carries out war crimes and
22:13
the community that they claim to represent in its broadest
22:16
possible sense. And I think that's stupid place
22:19
to end up in and really, really worrying if that's where a
22:23
political class and where the editorial decision making of the
22:26
BBC is at. I think Ash and I probably
22:30
disagree about whether singling out Israel for particular
22:34
criticism and holding Israel to such a high standard, much
22:37
higher than other countries in the region and much higher than
22:39
China, is ultimately motivated by a degree of anti-Semitism.
22:43
I'm not saying that because it is, it should therefore be
22:46
prescribed. I have no more truck with the
22:48
IIHRA definition of anti-Semitism than I do with the
22:52
APPG on British Muslims definition of Islamophobia.
22:55
I don't think any particular religious or ethnic roots should
22:58
be given special privileged protections in the public
23:02
square. So I think Ash and I probably
23:04
agree with them, agree with each other about that.
23:07
I'm not suggesting that that that speech should be prosecuted
23:10
because it's anti-Semitic and that particular group should
23:13
enjoy special legal protection. I don't think they should.
23:16
I think everyone should be equal in the eyes of the.
23:18
Law, OK, we're going to leave it there.
23:19
Ash Sarkar, Toby Young, thank you very much to both of you.
23:22
That's it for this episode of THE Forecast.
23:23
Until next time, thanks for watching and goodbye.