At Glastonbury Festival, Bob Vylan incited chants against the IDF and for a free Palestine, sparking backlash from politicians, the Israeli embassy, and festival organizers. This event has stirred discussions on free speech limits, broadcasters’ duties, and cultural events’ influence on politics.
The Incident on Stage
Bobby Vylan, lead of Bob Vylan, urged the crowd to chant against the Israel Defense Forces, calling himself a “violent punk” who believes violence is sometimes necessary to convey messages. After Bob Vylan, Northern Irish rap group Kneecap spoke, seeking support for member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, aka Mo Chara, facing terrorism charges for showing a Hezbollah flag in London last November. Ó hAnnaidh declared, “Glastonbury, I’m a free man!” and thanked the Eavis family for their support despite the controversy.
Health Secretary’s Response
England’s Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, condemned the chanting as “appalling” during a Sky News interview. He criticized the BBC and Glastonbury organisers, stating they need to explain why this was broadcasted. Streeting called the act “shameless publicity” and stressed it shouldn’t receive excessive attention.
Streeting urged Israel to address internal issues, highlighting violence by settlers in the West Bank and the crisis in Gaza. He compared this to Ukraine, emphasizing he wouldn’t celebrate Russian soldiers’ deaths despite supporting Ukraine. This, he argued, shows the importance of moral consistency and opposing violence everywhere.
Political Reactions
Conservative MPs and leaders quickly denounced the chants as hateful and anti-Semitic. Former leadership contender Kemi Badenoch labeled the scenes as “grotesque,” emphasizing that celebrating violence against Jews is not “edgy.” Labour members, while criticizing the language used, largely agreed with Streeting’s critique of media responsibility and stressed the need for political leaders to tackle global humanitarian issues without inciting violence.
On Monday, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper questioned Home Office Minister James Cleverly about handling hate speech at public events. Cleverly confirmed that police are reviewing video evidence to see if any crimes, like inciting violence or hate speech under the Public Order Act, occurred.
Festival Organisers and Broadcasters Under Fire
Emily Eavis, Glastonbury’s co-organizer, addressed the controversy before Kneecap’s performance, affirming the festival as a global platform welcoming all artists. However, the festival condemned the “appalling” remarks, clarifying that a performer’s presence doesn’t endorse their views. Glastonbury emphasized it rejects antisemitism, hate speech, and violence.
The BBC aired parts of the festival live, facing backlash for broadcasting chants. The corporation stated its guidelines ban content that “promotes violence or hatred,” and has started an internal review to check for rule breaches. Ofcom received viewer complaints and will investigate possible violations.
Legal and Policing Considerations
Avon and Somerset Police are examining video evidence to see if any crimes occurred. The Public Order Act 1986 states that using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior” to incite racial or religious hatred is illegal. Legal experts caution that prosecutions depend on proving intent. Organizers and performers could be charged only if authorities show that chants aimed to incite violence, not just express political views.
If charges arise, festival organizers might be examined for inadequate on-site moderation. Last year, Form 2024 faced a similar issue when a headliner’s casual comments sparked protests and internal reviews of festival policies on hate speech.
Free Speech vs Hate Speech Debate
The Glastonbury event has sparked a renewed debate on the limits of free speech versus hate speech. Civil liberties supporters claim that even extreme political protests should be protected as free speech, as long as they don’t incite violence against protected groups. On the other hand, some argue that chants calling for “death to” any group, including military personnel, cross ethical boundaries and foster dehumanization.
Professor Mark Phillips from King’s College London highlights that events like Glastonbury are crucial for political expression. However, broadcasters and organizers must ensure public safety and community harmony. Live broadcasts require swift editorial decisions to prevent spreading harmful rhetoric.
International Dimensions
The Israeli embassy in London released a forceful statement condemning “inflammatory and hateful rhetoric” and slogans that call for dismantling Israel and threaten Jewish self-determination. It urged UK festival organizers and leaders to “reject all forms of hatred” and distinguish between valid political critique and incitement to violence or ethnic cleansing.
The controversy reflects similar disputes at major festivals and sports events where calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel often clash with hate speech rules. In 2023, the Football Association banned a banner from a supporter group that read “Israel genocide,” as it violated the sport’s rules on political messaging.
Reactions from Artists and Fans
Social media buzzed with memes, stories, and debates. Festival attendees supported performers’ political speech, sharing images of signs like “Glastonbury stands with Palestine.” Others were shocked, viewing it as supporting violence. Fan petitions urged Glastonbury to ban violent speech at future events.
Bob Vylan’s indie label defended the duo’s protest rights, criticizing mainstream media for exaggerating their lyrics to divert attention from Gaza issues. Kneecap shared a video after their performance, showing support for Mo Chara and framing UK legal action against him as political persecution.
Looking Ahead: Policy Changes and Future Festivals
Following the controversy, Glastonbury organizers will strengthen broadcasting rules and remind performers of the festival’s code of conduct, which bans hate speech and violence. The BBC’s forthcoming editorial review is expected to update live festival coverage guidelines, possibly introducing time-delay broadcasting or on-site editorial teams with the authority to cut away from problematic content.
Culture and media parliamentary committees will likely call BBC and Glastonbury reps for testimony. The Home Office might revise police guidelines on managing hate speech at big events.
Conclusion
Chants of “Death to the IDF” at Glastonbury have sparked intense debate, merging political, legal, and cultural concerns. This incident highlights the clash between free speech and preventing violence. As police investigate and broadcasters reassess their policies, this event will influence rules on political speech at live events and broadcasts. It shows that even major music festivals can’t ignore politics; their stages are now arenas in the broader fight over protest limits and public platform duties.
READ MORE:Bill Hader Recalls “Terrible” Encounter With Martin Kove
