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