Bob Vylan at Glastonbury

[discovolante]

Well I'm sure this is going to be uncontroversial.

Since seeing Bob Vylan's set and the media response afterwards I've been stewing away and feeling pretty angry to be honest. A couple of the people I was with over the weekend had parents in the army so I'm not making light of how his comments could be interpreted. But there's a pretty striking difference between the reaction to someone saying something like that so directly, and politicians and the media twisting themselves in knots to avoid ever actually saying what they're doing (or allowing to happen).

[Chris Preston]

Watching this from afar, I can't help feeling there has been a massive overreaction with some people getting outraged as an opportunity of attacking people they do not like.

Having said that, back in the 60s and even the 80s, this sort of display would have been laughed off as a protest against bad stuff that was happening. However, times have changed. The rise of social media and echo chambers means there are people who are likely to take something like this literally and act on it. From that perspective, authorities are going to feel obliged to take it seriously. It was an inflammatory thing to do.

The conflation by a number of people of anti-Israel commentary with anti-Semitism is making this whole area a minefield to navigate. There is no world where it is right for an army to control the distribution of humanitarian aid, but to then shoot and kill those trying to access that aid. In fact, this is a war crime. I am finding it virtually impossible to have this conversation in some quarters without accusations of anti-Semitism. Netanyahu et al. have done their propaganda well.

[Grumble]

I can’t help but think that conflating the IDF with Jews - which you have to do to say that an anti-IDF chant is anti-Semitic - is deeply f.cked up.

[discovolante]

I can’t help but think that conflating the IDF with Jews - which you have to do to say that an anti-IDF chant is anti-Semitic - is deeply f.cked up.

It's obscene, and the Daily Mail in particular has outright lied by claiming on its front page that the chant was 'death to Israelis'. There are plenty of ways that, if you wanted, you could argue that that's something that would follow, but it's not what he said at all.

[discovolante]

By the way...I know this is a bit childish and probably isn't really that important, but I was originally planning to go see Weezer (who were on at the same time as Bob Vylan and Kneecap), because I'd seen Bob Vylan and Kneecap before and musically prefer Weezer to Kneecap. But Keir Starmer trying to interfere with it all made me change my mind. So take that Keir.

Anyway, as you were.

[Opti]

Many people find it easier to express outrage about a band at Glastonbury than to express outrage at what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank.

Had anyone in charge of programming had the vaguest idea about contemporary music they would have known that the Bob Vylan set might just contain something "outrageous". Naturally, some heads will roll at the BBC because of this (it has been reported worldwide) but, meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza continues unimpeded.

What a world we live in, eh?

edit: ISTR posting a Bob Vylan track on the 'what are you listening to' thread.

[Martin Y]

BBC has a story today about the chief rabbi saying it's a "national shame" that such "jew-hate" was broadcast. I honestly suspect they published it as an example of how hyperbolically over the top and misdirected the criticism has got. If any nation is shamed by current events it's not Britain because of some band getting on the telly and wishing death on an army that's killed thousands of civilians.

[discovolante]

Many people find it easier to express outrage about a band at Glastonbury than to express outrage at what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank.

Had anyone in charge of programming had the vaguest idea about contemporary music they would have known that the Bob Vylan set might just contain something "outrageous". Naturally, some heads will roll at the BBC because of this (it has been reported worldwide) but, meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza continues unimpeded.

What a world we live in, eh?

edit: ISTR posting a Bob Vylan track on the 'what are you listening to' thread.

So you did. We Live Here is a great track.

Honestly I have slightly mixed feelings about his full comment (violence is the only language some people understand) - I don't even think he's wrong about that but I suspect the majority of people who have lived through that kind of violence would never want to see it again, and to publicly call for it is a bit unnerving. But on the other hand it's easy to forget that it genuinely takes guts to stand up and be that direct. If he is antisemitic I didn't get that from anything he said and well, to repeat what everyone else has said, to equate the IDF with Jews is horrific. As Chris Preston says, the propaganda has been very effective. I hope this incident brings that to light in the long run.

[Martin Y]

PS Yes the people in charge of programming do know what's likely to happen and the bands know what the deal is too. There's a threshold at which they won't be available for streaming until edited and a threshold at which a live stream will just be pulled. I've seen that happen. Mostly that's about swearing rather than anything libellous or criminal. There's an entire department whose sole job is to listen to each performance for compliance and note the fall of every "f.ck" and "c.nt" on top of noting every bit of music that goes out for performance rights.

The bands are performing to the crowd, not for the radio, and it's an afterthought that they're also being streamed. It used to be only a few headliners who were broadcast live, but with streaming too it's now more common, so there's a lot more live stuff to worry about and more upcoming bands who might think a bit of controversy will get them noticed.

[discovolante]

PS Yes the people in charge of programming do know what's likely to happen and the bands know what the deal is too. There's a threshold at which they won't be available for streaming until edited and a threshold at which a live stream will just be pulled. I've seen that happen. Mostly that's about swearing rather than anything libellous or criminal. There's an entire department whose sole job is to listen to each performance for compliance and note the fall of every "f.ck" and "c.nt" on top of noting every bit of music that goes out for performance rights.

The bands are performing to the crowd, not for the radio, and it's an afterthought that they're also being streamed. It used to be only a few headliners who were broadcast live, but with streaming too it's now more common, so there's a lot more live stuff to worry about and more upcoming bands who might think a bit of controversy will get them noticed.

Sorry Martin, my brain is absolutely melted today. Are you saying someone at the BBC sneakily allowed that to be broadcast or that it slipped through the net because of the amount of stuff that needs to be monitored?

[Tristan]

If he is antisemitic I didn't get that from anything he said

Everyone's focusing on the "Death to the IDF" chant. I'd love to know what the crowd's reaction would have been if an artist had called out "Death to Hamas!". I suspect it wouldn't have been cheers from the audience.

Anyway, that aside, I'm more concerned about his comments about his former boss, saying "I've done it all, including working for f***ing zionists" and "from the river to the sea, palestine will be free". I don't think claims of antisemitism are that much of a stretch.

[discovolante]

If he is antisemitic I didn't get that from anything he said

Everyone's focusing on the "Death to the IDF" chant. I'd love to know what the crowd's reaction would have been if an artist had called out "Death to Hamas!". I suspect it wouldn't have been cheers from the audience.

Anyway, that aside, I'm more concerned about his comments about his former boss, saying "I've done it all, including working for f***ing zionists" and "from the river to the sea, palestine will be free". I don't think claims of antisemitism are that much of a stretch.

I suspect it wouldn't have been either, given the entirely disproportionate death toll caused by the IDF since 7 October.

[noggins]

FIFY "Death to the IDF, when they are engaged in illegal military activities"

[Bewildered]

I think it’s obviously a distraction from the horror of what is going in Gaza, and it’s ridiculous if people do something about this and nothing about war crimes in Gaza.

However, I do also believe it’s important to call out “my side” in things like these. And I’m trying to decide what I think. Should I consider this “bad” / “outrageous” or even if I think it should be illegal? Probably not the latter I think.

Some random and incoherent thoughts:

1. Calling for people to kill someone’s or a group of people in general is incitement to violence and should be illegal
2. But there must be exceptions to this including A) calling for the legal execution of someone who has committed a crime. B) Calling for military intervention (some military interventions are necessary)
Furthermore
3. Saying you hope certain people die should not be illegal, in my opinion, unless its shown to be tantamount to, or a deliberate way of getting around, restrictions on 1)
4. Should calling for the assassination of a foreign head of state be illegal? I think probably not, for similar reasons to point 2 B). Maybe part of the reasoning is also that most people are powerless to enact such things so it should be interpreted more as a call for legal government action against a perceived tyrant or threat, but when you think of lone shooters and the possibility of encouraging them I am not so sure.
5. Should saying you want one side of a military conflict to win be illegal? No. Should expressing that as “I hope they kill the bastards” illegal? No.
6. What does shouting death to an organisation even mean? That they way want people to kill all the members / workers in the organisation ? Or the leaders to be killed? That they want the oragnisation itself to be destroyed? If it’s the latter is that tantamount to saying they want Israelis to be left defenceless?

[Tristan]

If he is antisemitic I didn't get that from anything he said

Everyone's focusing on the "Death to the IDF" chant. I'd love to know what the crowd's reaction would have been if an artist had called out "Death to Hamas!". I suspect it wouldn't have been cheers from the audience.

Anyway, that aside, I'm more concerned about his comments about his former boss, saying "I've done it all, including working for f***ing zionists" and "from the river to the sea, palestine will be free". I don't think claims of antisemitism are that much of a stretch.

I suspect it wouldn't have been either, given the entirely disproportionate death toll caused by the IDF since 7 October.

I suspect it wouldn't have been at any point since October 7th, even soon after.

But as I said, I think the other comments are far more indicative.

[Martin Y]

Sorry Martin, my brain is absolutely melted today. Are you saying someone at the BBC sneakily allowed that to be broadcast or that it slipped through the net because of the amount of stuff that needs to be monitored?

Really all I'm saying is it's a terrible job and you can't win. It's the judgement call of whichever producer has the on the spot decision to cut the stream or let it run. I don't envy them the job. If it's just swearing then it's probably an easier judgement but when it's something potentially libellous or criminal then you first have to work out how problematic their words actually are and of course once it's said it's already gone out. If the band keep saying it then your finger has to hover over the button. I have no idea how long the chant went on or how many joined in or even whether it was clearly audible. In hindsight it might have been a better call to pull the plug, but it would probably normally have passed without comment, if it hadn't been for Kneecap getting the Daily Mail etc all primed and ready to pounce when anyone said something they could liken to whatsername who got the jail for saying asylum seeker hostels should be burned or whatever it was she said.

The immigration rioters and their supporters are deeply bitter about some of them getting prison time for their crimes so any opponent who seems to be getting away with anything they think is equivalent will get howls of protest.

[discovolante]

I think it’s obviously a distraction from the horror of what is going in Gaza, and it’s ridiculous if people do something about this and nothing about war crimes in Gaza.

However, I do also believe it’s important to call out “my side” in things like these. And I’m trying to decide what I think. Should I consider this “bad” / “outrageous” or even if I think it should be illegal? Probably not the latter I think.

Some random and incoherent thoughts:

1. Calling for people to kill someone’s or a group of people in general is incitement to violence and should be illegal
2. But there must be exceptions to this including A) calling for the legal execution of someone who has committed a crime. B) Calling for military intervention (some military interventions are necessary)
Furthermore
3. Saying you hope certain people die should not be illegal, in my opinion, unless its shown to be tantamount to, or a deliberate way of getting around, restrictions on 1)
4. Should calling for the assassination of a foreign head of state be illegal? I think probably not, for similar reasons to point 2 B). Maybe part of the reasoning is also that most people are powerless to enact such things so it should be interpreted more as a call for legal government action against a perceived tyrant or threat, but when you think of lone shooters and the possibility of encouraging them I am not so sure.
5. Should saying you want one side of a military conflict to win be illegal? No. Should expressing that as “I hope they kill the bastards” illegal? No.
6. What does shouting death to an organisation even mean? That they way want people to kill all the members / workers in the organisation ? Or the leaders to be killed? That they want the oragnisation itself to be destroyed? If it’s the latter is that tantamount to saying they want Israelis to be left defenceless?

So, I generally chicken out of saying anything I don't feel too confident about because to be honest, there is a lot I'm unsure about and I know there'll be people with differing viewpoints that I won't have fully contemplated, along with others who will just want to fling accusations around. But on the other hand, discussing it might be helpful. So with that in mind, here are my thoughts in responses to your thoughts, but I'm completely open to changing my mind on pretty much all of this.

1) The IDF isn't a group of people in the same way that say, Jews or Muslims are. It's an army. At the end of the day, armies exist to inflict violence. I'm aware they also carry out other functions, and sometimes the violence they inflict might be justified, but calling for violence against an army (whether it's ultimately the right thing to do or not) isn't the same as doing the same for other groups or organisations that serve entirely different purposes. Of course it gets even more complicated with the IDF given it uses conscription (which of course is entirely different from Hamas using civilians as human shields...). That's not to say that people who serve in militaries that don't uses conscription deserve to die and certainly the way people in lower ranks are treated by the British army, for example, is absolutely despicable a lot of the time - it seems to be one of those things everyone knows happens but it still gets sanitised somehow and it's absolutely awful. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked...I think this ties in with your point 6 so I'll merge a little bit into that now. For quite a long time after 7 October (and possibly still now) it was presented as justifiable to say that the IDF had to kill civilians because Hamas had merged itself with the civilian population so closely that it was unavoidable. But it doesn't seem to be so acceptable to say or imply the same thing about the IDF despite what it's doing now. To be honest, I'm struggling to put this into words because the idea of saying it's 'OK' to kill anyone (or at least anyone who isn't directly responsible for all of this) turns my stomach. I don't even really want to discuss it but I feel the way the media and politicians continue to spin this issue makes it unavoidable.

2) Well, I generally oppose the death penalty, and to be honest if it comes down to someone who has been responsible for war crimes or the equivalent I am not really bothered what happens to them as long as they don't get away with it. Possibly because I (like the vast majority of other people) find it hard to contemplate what must be going on in someone's mind to actually do that sort of thing. Re military intervention, I don't disagree with your statement that it's sometimes necessary but - and I feel this probably isn't what you meant - I think that calling for the military to do something can legitimise something that otherwise wouldn't be accepted.

3) I agree.

4) I don't know. The lone shooters thing is a good point and in an otherwise democratic country it's important that people who aren't power hungry despots feel like it might be worth having a go at getting into politics without risking being killed, especially seeing as that has happened here on more than one occasion in recent memory. But once you get a bit more 'high level' the distinction between who is seen as a legitimate vs illegitimate head of state seems to become more and more political, and making it illegal means only people already in power get to decide who is left in peace and who isn't (god look at that euphemistic language, sorry).

5) Agreed.

6) I think this ties in closely with the debate about 'destroying Hamas'. I asked about this relatively soon after 7 October and knew there wouldn't be a proper answer. Which is part of the hypocrisy I felt so angry about when I saw the response to the chants. I'm not arguing that Hamas is doing the population of Palestine any good, it clearly isn't. Anyway I've already said a bit about the rest of that in point 1.

Really all I'm saying is it's a terrible job and you can't win. It's the judgement call of whichever producer has the on the spot decision to cut the stream or let it run. I don't envy them the job. If it's just swearing then it's probably an easier judgement but when it's something potentially libellous or criminal then you first have to work out how problematic their words actually are and of course once it's said it's already gone out. If the band keep saying it then your finger has to hover over the button. I have no idea how long the chant went on or how many joined in or even whether it was clearly audible. In hindsight it might have been a better call to pull the plug, but it would probably normally have passed without comment, if it hadn't been for Kneecap getting the Daily Mail etc all primed and ready to pounce when anyone said something they could liken to whatsername who got the jail for saying asylum seeker hostels should be burned or whatever it was she said.

The immigration rioters and their supporters are deeply bitter about some of them getting prison time for their crimes so any opponent who seems to be getting away with anything they think is equivalent will get howls of protest.

Ah OK, I'm with you. I'm not really that fussed about decisions that were or weren't made on the spot tbh, although I appreciate a lot of other people will be. For what it's worth, I can't remember exactly how long the chanting went on for but it was more than just a couple of lines and I think there was a reasonable amount of joining in. And a decent lead up of 'we aren't pacifist punks' and 'violence is the only language some people understand' so it didn't exactly come out of the blue.