Bob Vylan clearly need to be investigated by the police, and it is difficult to see how they will not be charged, although there is a very different test between the Public Order Act and the communications offences. However, the politicisation of these matters is deeply unhelpful. The Shadow Home Secretary should know (and if he does not, should not be in his job) that these matters rarely lead to an 'immediate arrest', and that did not happen in the Connelly case. The way that the Conservative Party is portraying Connelly as some sort of freedom fighter is disturbing. Both Bob Vylan and Connelly deserve the attention of the criminal law, but pretending there is somehow a different timeline or process is as dangerous as it is unhelpful. The party seems determined to undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system which, at least in my view, is inappropriate irrespective of party.
The BBC clearly have answers, although I expect OFCOM will be the more likely adjudicator than the courts. The BBC will have more defences in law than Bob Vylan. There was discussion before the festival about a delay of a few seconds in broadcasting for Kneecap, so it is surprising the same delay was not used here, and that will no doubt be a pertinent factor for OFCOM.
Yes indeed. There are a number of tricky legal issues here.
Calling for "death to the IDF" may amount to encouraging murder. But arguing for the defeat of a foreign army in battle would not necessarily amount to racial hatred.
The phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” is a demand for all Jews to be removed from Israel — in effect, genocide.
It seems to me that the crucial question for prosecutors is whether "having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred [was] likely to [have been] be stirred up" by the broadcast — meaning, in this context, hatred of Jews. That depends on viewing the performance as a whole rather than parsing particular phrases used.
Thanks, Joshua. I agree. It brings a stark comparison between the offences. Had these been said online, the communication offences would almost certainly have applied because they would likely be considered 'grossly offensive', but, as you note, that isn't the test offline. Had the Law Commission proposals gone through, the answer to the online issue would be different, but they were pulled.
It is also what is going to make this incredibly difficult because these nuances are unlikely to play out on the benches of the Commons or in the headlines of newspapers, who will either not understand the differences in law or (more likely) will but will gamble the public will not.
In an ideal world, we would have a calm review about the whole issue of hate speech to reach a set of laws that applied online and offline, but there is zero chance of that happening.
Yawn yawn. Being anti the actions of the Israeli government is NOT antisemitic.
Bob Vylan clearly need to be investigated by the police, and it is difficult to see how they will not be charged, although there is a very different test between the Public Order Act and the communications offences. However, the politicisation of these matters is deeply unhelpful. The Shadow Home Secretary should know (and if he does not, should not be in his job) that these matters rarely lead to an 'immediate arrest', and that did not happen in the Connelly case. The way that the Conservative Party is portraying Connelly as some sort of freedom fighter is disturbing. Both Bob Vylan and Connelly deserve the attention of the criminal law, but pretending there is somehow a different timeline or process is as dangerous as it is unhelpful. The party seems determined to undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system which, at least in my view, is inappropriate irrespective of party.
The BBC clearly have answers, although I expect OFCOM will be the more likely adjudicator than the courts. The BBC will have more defences in law than Bob Vylan. There was discussion before the festival about a delay of a few seconds in broadcasting for Kneecap, so it is surprising the same delay was not used here, and that will no doubt be a pertinent factor for OFCOM.
Yes indeed. There are a number of tricky legal issues here.
Calling for "death to the IDF" may amount to encouraging murder. But arguing for the defeat of a foreign army in battle would not necessarily amount to racial hatred.
The phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” is a demand for all Jews to be removed from Israel — in effect, genocide.
There is arguably no such thing as as the "Jewish race" but the law appears to regards Jews as both a race and a religion: see examples in this briefing: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0042/CDP-2019-0042.pdf
It seems to me that the crucial question for prosecutors is whether "having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred [was] likely to [have been] be stirred up" by the broadcast — meaning, in this context, hatred of Jews. That depends on viewing the performance as a whole rather than parsing particular phrases used.
Thanks, Joshua. I agree. It brings a stark comparison between the offences. Had these been said online, the communication offences would almost certainly have applied because they would likely be considered 'grossly offensive', but, as you note, that isn't the test offline. Had the Law Commission proposals gone through, the answer to the online issue would be different, but they were pulled.
It is also what is going to make this incredibly difficult because these nuances are unlikely to play out on the benches of the Commons or in the headlines of newspapers, who will either not understand the differences in law or (more likely) will but will gamble the public will not.
In an ideal world, we would have a calm review about the whole issue of hate speech to reach a set of laws that applied online and offline, but there is zero chance of that happening.