Thread by @docrussjackson

🧵

A few thoughts on Bob Vylan leading the #GlastonburyFestival crowd in chants of "Death to the IDF" (Israeli Defence Force), livestreamed by the @BBC, and the mischaracterisation of the chant by some MPs, news media, and activists.

In England, where #GlastonburyFestival is located, all of us have the right to freely express our criticism of anyone or anything - as long as there is no intent to provoke immediate unlawful violence or there is a reasonable likelihood it will occur as a consequence.

In England, free speech is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, inciting violence is a criminal offence under several laws which attempt to balance public safety with free expression rights.

There are a number of key provisions in UK Law.

Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 criminalises using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of or provoke unlawful violence. Section 5 also covers similar conduct causing harassment, alarm, or distress.

Section 4A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 addresses intentional harassment, alarm, or distress.

Sections 44-46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 criminalise encouraging or assisting a crime, including violence, with intent or belief it will occur.

Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 prohibits encouraging or glorifying terrorism or indirectly inciting terrorist acts.

These laws apply to spoken, written, or online speech where there is intent to provoke immediate unlawful violence or a reasonable likelihood it will occur.

Context, intent, and the likelihood of violence are critical in prosecutions.

Penalties range from fines to imprisonment (up to 7 years for serious cases like terrorism-related incitement).

Free speech defences may apply if the expression is deemed legitimate, and courts generally tend to prioritise preventing serious harm over absolute speech protection.

Striking the right balance between freedom of expression and keeping people safe is important, and difficult.

Many of the people and media calling for legal action against the Glastonbury artists are also passionate defenders of Lucy Connolly. Some of her supporters and defenders even call her a 'political prisoner', with the implication that UK law is wrong and/or compromised by judges.

However, both prosecution and defence agreed that Connolly's tweet, in the context of when it was sent and how many people it reached, especially her call to “set fire” to hotels housing asylum seekers, was an incitement to serious violence, not merely an emotional outburst.

Both parties accepted her offence fell under Category A (high culpability) of the sentencing guidelines for Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986. This classification requires intent to stir up racial hatred: her tweet was interpreted as an intent to incite serious violence.

The sentencing judge noted the agreement between defence and prosecution, and the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Holroyde, upheld it, rejecting Connolly’s later claim that she did not intend to incite violence as “incredible” given her guilty plea and legal consultation.

The same people criticising Bob Vylan, Kneecap, and some other artists performing at #Glastonbury2025 who mentioned or alluded to the mass killing of innocent Palestinians, also passionately argue that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies.

The notion of freedom of expression as a "fundamental British value" or a "basic human right" has been articulated by a wide range of figures and sources, including Suella Braverman, Nigel Farage, Keir Starmer, Richad Tice, Justin Welby, the DfE, and Amnesty International UK.

#GlastonburyFestival has a long history of political radicalism and remains a platform for left-leaning activism. Eavis insists its politics are core to its identity.

Artistic performances are recognised platforms for political and social commentary, even when controversial.

UK law, under the UK's Human Rights Act 1998, incorporates Article 10 of the ECHR, protecting freedom of expression, except where it incites violence, constitutes a hate crime with intent to harm protected groups, or violates laws on harassment, terrorism, or public order.

The chant "Death to the IDF" targets a military institution - not a racial, ethnic, or religious group - and so it is unlikely to meet the legal threshold for incitement under the Public Order Act 1986, which requires intent to provoke imminent lawless action.

Without evidence of immediate harm or specific intent to incite violence, prosecuting Bob Vylan risks overreach, chilling artistic and political speech.

Courts are generally very cautious in criminalising protest or performative expressions without clear evidence of direct harm.

Mischaracterising the chant as "Death to Israelis" (Mail), "Death to Jews" (Tice), "glorifying violence against Jews" (Badenoch), or "wishing death on almost every Israeli child" (Collier) conflates criticism of a military entity (IDF) with attacks on a nation or ethnic group.

The implication made by critics is that at some point almost ALL adult Israelis will serve in the IDF. But evidence suggests about 50-60% of all Israeli adults (over 18) will serve or have served in the IDF, accounting for mandatory service, exemptions, and voluntary enlistment.

This estimate aligns with 2017 data showing 47.4% enlistment and 40% completion rates, adjusted for demographic exclusions and recent policy changes.

Precise figures are unavailable due to varying exemption rates and incomplete public data.

newprofile.org/en/military-an…

The mischaracterisation fuels accusations of antisemitism and distracts from the chant’s focus on IDF actions in Gaza.

407 IDF military have died, while the IDF has killed a conservative estimate of 30-40,000 Palestinian civilians (including 17K children) since October 7, 2023.

Such reframing risks escalating political critique into a broader ethnic or religious conflict, a distortion that amplifies calls for legal action by misrepresenting the chant’s target, potentially undermining legitimate debate about the Israeli Government's military actions.

Critics, including the Israeli Embassy, Badenoch, Tice, and news media like the Mail, have equated the chant with calls for Israel’s dismantlement or violence against Jews, but this leap ignores the specific context of targeting a military body, not civilians or an ethnic group.

The problem with legal action is compounded by the precedent it sets. Policing festival performances for controversial political statements could suppress artists’ ability to address issues, especially when amplified by the @BBC’s broadcast. Rupert Lowe has called for censorship.

In May, MP Rupert Lowe tabled a parliamentary motion 'defending free speech', explicitly asserting the right to criticize Islam, arguing no religion should be above critique. By June 2, only four MPs (Peter Bedford, Bradley Thomas, Charlie Dewhirst, Sammy Wilson) signed it.

Responding to criticism, Lowe stated “Free speech matters, even if it offends you.” A Telegraph article supported Lowe. The motion coincided with controversy over Lowe’s antisemitic remark in a leaked video, which prompted condemnation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Imho, the @BBC’s mandate to reflect diverse perspectives is vital for robust public discourse. While Bob Vylan’s provocative chants at #Glastonbury2025 sparked debate, legal action risks chilling artistic expression unless clear evidence shows intent to incite unlawful violence.

@BBC Moments after completeing the above 🧵, and a day after the @BBC refused to livestream #Kneecap's performance at #Glastonbury2025, MET Police have now confirmed that they will be taking no action against @KNEECAPCEOL's Mo Chara after he was charged with a terror offence in May.