I have already written how the chant of “Death to the IDF” said by Bob Vylan (real name Pascal Robinson-Foster) at Glastonbury could be prosecuted under section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986.
I also believe that the other controversial words of the band, “I hear you want your country back, STFU, you can’t have that” could also be prosecuted under the same Act.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits the use of words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred. It states:
(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour… is guilty of an offence if —
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
I am a lawyer but you do not have to be a lawyer to understand the offence. The words have their ordinary meaning. If you use threatening, abusive or insulting words and either intend racial hatred to be stirred up or having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up, you commit an offence.
Section 17 defines “racial hatred” as hatred against a group of persons – defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
In very simple terms, if you use insulting words (or behaviour) in circumstances where racial hatred is likely to be stirred up you commit an offence.
You do not have to incite violence. You do not have to name the group of people you intend to stir up racial against. In fact, you do not even have to intend to stir up racial hatred, just that objectively speaking, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.
If this sounds like a low bar, that’s because it is.
For a criminal offence (and this is a bit technical) what really sets the bar low is that the CPS (the Crown) does not have to prove that the person saying the words intends to stir up racial hatred. This is known as subjective intention.
In fact not even recklessness is required (a term of legal art), which would mean the defendant must be aware that racial hatred could be stirred up in the circumstances, even if he doesn’t intend it.
In fact, all that must be proved is that, in the circumstances in which the defendant said the insulting words, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. This is very unusual in criminal law. But this offence has been on the books for years and I don’t remember anyone complaining about it.
So this rapper gets on stage and raps “I hear you want your country back, STFU, you can’t have that.” These are insulting words. He said them. Therefore the actus rea is proved.
In the current circumstances of immigration, open border, the Southport riots etc. it could well be argued that these words were likely to stir up racial hatred against white people.
Now Mr Robinson-Foster might say that was not his intention. That doesn’t matter. As I said before the bar is low for this offence, merely showing that racial hatred against white people was likely to be stirred up in the circumstances is enough for the offence once the words are deemed insulting.
That’s how broad Part 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is. Now, if you think all of this is ridiculous, that you do not like these rapper people but you do not think they should be prosecuted, then you need to put together a campaign for the repeal of Part 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Understand however, that it will be too late for Lucy Connolly, who is still serving her 31 month sentence after pleading guilty to a very similar offence under section 19 of the Act.
The other key issue is that the Attorney General Lord Hermer KC must consent to a prosecution under part 5 (section 27). I suspect this was put in there as a limiting power.
However it is a huge discretionary power that directly undermines the rule of law. The rule of law (which AG Lord Hermer KC never stops banging on about) means that the law must be applied equally and in an unbiased way. Therefore if Lucy Connolly was prosecuted, pleaded guilty and sentenced to a significant custodial sentence then a charge or charges should be laid in the Glastonbury case.
In addition, the Attorney General is a political appointment. So the decision whether to prosecute under Part 5 of the act is by definition a political decision. These are political decisions to prosecute speech. The AG, who is appointed by the government of the day, has the final word on which “insulting words” should be prosecuted and what not to prosecute.
Can you imagine in the US if the Attorney General just got to pick and choose which prosecutions of speech to make? That is the English legal system at the moment. It’s ridiculous and I am a lot less liberal on speech than others on the Right.
Laura Perrins is a conservative commentator and former barrister. Subscribe to her Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We could of course just go back to Common Law – free speech unless it incites hatred and/or violence, which has to pass three tests: intent; likelihood; did it? Up to a jury to decide.
Of course then people couldn’t be prosecuted for questioning immigration policy or behaviour of our cultural enrichers or saying hurty things about misfits, freaks and others.
I’m strongly in favour of dropping hatred. This is a human emotion whose existence can only every be conjectured but never proven. This would mean it’s free speech for as long (as I’ve already written a couple of times) it’s informational and not functional, ie, it’s meant to affect the minds of the listeners but not to cause them to take any kind of direct real-world action.
“That’s how broad Part 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is. Now, if you think all of this is ridiculous, that you do not like these rapper people but you do not think they should be prosecuted, then you need to put together a campaign for the repeal of Part 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Understand however, that it will be too late for Lucy Connolly, who is still serving her 31 month sentence after pleading guilty to a very similar offence under section 19 of the Act.”
Yes those of us who believe in free speech would I am sure want that part of the Act repealed, and the Race Relations Act too or whatever replaced it. And yes we know about Connolly. We’re not stupid.
Agreed;
”If racial hatred is what you teach in schools, then racial hatred is what you’ll get in the pop culture. It might be wrapped up in progressive CRT nonsense, but the essence is unmistakable. There’s a smell to it.
Like most real evil, this stuff is terribly banal. Some moron calling for the death of certain people, the bog-standard mainstream cheering along. All of it brought to you by a BBC that slaps trigger warnings on Fawlty Towers.
It isn’t so much the cheap yobs with microphones. It isn’t even the cringing hypocrisy. None of that. It’s the institutional bloody gaslighting. Our education system, which is supposedly built on tolerance and inclusion, is busy breeding little monsters.
Luxury Nazis.
And what is the best cover for bigotry? Brown skin. It’s the oldest trick in the book. But still, somehow, the virtue-signalling cretins fall for it. You can’t help but feel that they desperately want to.
It’s what comes of being brainwashed in the classroom, I suppose.” Dr Philip Kiszely
Also agreed. I mean, what do they suppose the long-term affects and consequences are going to be? Unity? Social cohestion? It’s what happens when you tolerate everything. You end up standing for nothing, social standards therefore tank;
”The sight of thousands at Glastonbury repeating a chant for death to Jews – because that’s what the IDF is – is what happens when you do nothing about two years of hate-filled placards and slogans at protests on our streets.
Hatred of Jews has been allowed to flood mainstream culture and now the supposed BeKind brigade are too scared and too weak to confront the monster they’ve created.” Benjamin Butterworth.
“And what is the best cover for bigotry? Brown skin”. Wholeheartedly I agree with the whole entry, but please allow me to narrow down the “brown skin” to those who insist on a Draconian law on “Islamophobia” being imposed on Free Speech (or, what’s left of it).
Helmer and his friend Starmer will not want to prosecure this man, nor the Irish band nor the BBC and its Director. They will want to bury it in platitudes.
There needs to be a proposal in the HoC (or the HoL I suppose) to draw out the decision as soon as possible.
So does that mean that if I stir up hatred against persons not grouped by a protected characteristic, I e maybe railway enthusiasts, then that’s ok then?
Those trainspotting a*holes really have it coming. I’m with you.
The DS has become consumed by this event, all with a slant from one side only, though, I see. Par for the course these days.
5 written articles plus 4 mentions in the News Round up in 3 days! Impressive.
Anyone want to hazard a guess at what tomorrow’s “Evil, Hate Filled Glastonbury Singer” article might be? May I suggest, “Bob Vylan Ate My Hamster”?
Well John boy pleased state the alternative argument which makes a sub human death chant good for social cohesion , legitimate political expression, and a testimonial to reciprocal free speech. yes we are waiting to see it consistently prosecuted.
What is “reciprocal free speech”?
Who decides what is “legitimate”? Who decides what is “good for social cohesion” or even if “social cohesion” is always good?
I will point out what’s good for social cohesion – good manners backed up with discipline in schools, a return to teaching British history, respect for Jesus Christ, a predominantly white population which most on here grew up with and genuine respect for our flag. No more woke fantasies and a bloody full stop to ALL immigration.
And the abolishment of the treasonous, money grubbing Windsor clan.
I would agree with most of that – I am not religious but recognise the positive aspect of it.
Reciprocal free speech is ” I can say anything which doesn’t undermine your basis or platform for saying what you want to say” and visa versa. And by basis or platform I do not mean the suppositions of your hypothesis, I mean your basic existence , and this is a fairly simple objective measure and so not a who decides. So a mindless death chant seems to be prejudice existence, but so would threatening loss of access to aspects of the public commonwealth, which would actively intimidate your further free expression.
So all cancellation practice is antithetical to free speech as well.
Except of course banning being antithetical to free speech.
Thanks for your reply. I’m not that bright so still struggling to understand. Some more examples would help, if you’ve the energy.
Well the killing one is obvious, but in another context stopping you from using what is a public service essential for survival in our current climate because of your expressed views, such as banking, also undermines your basic existence platform.
You can apply this to a lot of aspects in the public sphere which relates to our basic existence platform, I e access to power, transport, housing, food, none of these should be threatened by what I say, and neither should I threaten others with them based on what they say. It is antithetical to free speech to threaten another person platform by which they live and so can speak freely themselves.
Yes, that is coherent I think. Thanks. I am not sure exactly what the law should do in this regard, but I think we have too little free speech currently, not too much. Would you see “Death to the IDF” as violating your proposed rule? They are the military of another country, engaged in military action.
Just saying death to someone is clearly a violation of their basic platform, it is morally the same as a declaration of war against them . Having a mass crowd chant this in a public gathering will have been frightening for anyone remotely sympathetic to Israel. By the way have you read the original Hamas covent with it’s reference to islamic hadith. They believe this justifies their approach and Israel and the IDF believe they believe it too. The problem is the Islamic Hadith as interpreted is not about reciprocity . Oct 7 was a trigger which underlined Israeli belief in their beliefs .thehttps://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hamas-covenant-full-text
Reciprocal free speech is ” I can say anything which doesn’t undermine your basis or platform for saying what you want to say”
This is just Nobody is allowed to say anyhing unless approved beforehand.
You obviously can’t read.
What you claim to believe about me is irrelevant for the startement I made.
Well your statement was irrelevant, it made no connection with what I said, so was no justification for such a conclusion.
It’s impossible to define undermine one’s basis or platform such that anybody would be able to determine what precisely does or doesn’t constitute such undermining. This would especially apply to anything of political nature, eg, my opinion on UK climate politics would implicitly undermine Dale Vince’s ability to collect more subsidy payments and very intentionally so.
As such undermining should also be prosecuted, it follows that nobody can safely say anything in public unless consulting with whatever authorities may be responsible for such decision first to make sure it won’t result in a prosecution. You’re thus effectively arguing for making all public utterance of anyone subject to approval before they may happen: Universal pre-censorship (literal English translation of the German term Vorzensur).
BTW, that you didn’t understantd this very well yourself is inconceivable. After all, you ought to know what you really want.
Sub-human death chant? Against a military force that calls its targets sub-human and murders hundreds of them every day?
Oops, have I just broken the law? Probably. How ridiculous can this country become?
The law, as described in the article, can obviously be applied to anyone saying anything, and large numbers of the public are supposed to organize themselves to apply for its change? That too is ridiculous. What happened to the legislative, what happened to the UK judicial system? We know what happened to our parliamentarians: they live in a different world.
Damn, now I have probably broken the law again!
I don’t think you called for the death of anyone in that statement. You can call for a change in the law without invoking a mindless death chant.
May I suggest that if you don a military uniform anywhere in the world, there is a relatively high likelihood (much higher than anyone wearing an ordinary suit or skirt) than someone will wish you dead? And whereas people may wish you dead, you have the capability to shoot them dead. That is, so to speak, one of the perks of the trade.
This whole business is just another example of laws being stretched so that either extreme thinkers or the government (obviously, or both) can silence anyone of their choosing. In this case, it is the Israel lobby wishing to divert attention from the IDF’s genocide of the past 21 months.
And if you say that is nonsense, there is a recent DDN video on YouTube (which a similar law apparently forbids me from sharing) showing a member of Labour Friends of Israel discussing a one million pound sum with a member of the Israeli embassy. Of course, it could simply be an AI concoction …
The government of Israel has again chosen to act as authoritative speech police for the UK using its standard claim that the XYZ of today is really the same as calling for all Jews in the world to be murdered. And as that’s where the political sympathies of the people running this web site lie, they’re duly feeding the narrative.
As known editorial policy, I think this is best ignored. It’s not going to change, anyway.
I was at first expecting the DS to rejoice that no charges are anticipated against Bob Vylan and the BBC. If indeed Lord Hermer decides not to bring charges then this would be a victory for free speech, even if the speech were to be deemed by the current Israeli regime, or indeed the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, to be “vile Jew-hate”. It’s a commercial pop concert, albeit targeted at former hippies, not a BBC interview constrained by the Overton Window.
On reflection, perhaps there should be a criminal case brought, preferably with a jury, so that this law, and similar ones aggregated over the last half-century, come under public scrutiny.
PS: does “jury nullification” happen in the UK?
Still on the Spectator John, i’ve not renewed
Lucy Connolly – 31 months.
Pascal Robinson-Foster…? Let me predict: nothing.
Probably a request to attend Downing Street in order to assist Kneel with international relations or similar bollox.
Glastonbury and the DS have certainly re-opened the Pandora’s Box on the 1986 POA especially Section 27 (i), which gave Lord Hermer discretion over who can be charged. The Vylan/Connolly paradox now puts the ball into Hermer’s court. Doubtless he will procrastinate,, obfuscate, rant and wriggle in the hope that by some magic the matter will be forgotten over a few years, or eclipsed my a more serious crisis.
However, I suggest that there are far more frequent similar situations which affect members of the public and over which Hermer has less direct control, because the situations arise in non-judicial settings (at least, initially). These are the situations under which a professional body or local authority takes action against somebody for something they have said, or published, and which does not comply with the “Official Narrative”, but is not eligible for prosecution under the criminal justice system. Today’s topical example is Buster Mottram, but there are thousands of cases, even before the Covid-dissidents and Climate-dissidents found their careers threatened, disrupted or ended as a result of publication of dissenting opinions. In some cases these situations arise from “archaeo-googling*” targeted on finding some unremarkable (for the age) letter-to-the-editor in the 1960s or an uptick on Facebook in the 2020s. (*I’m sure that during election years there is an army of campaign volunteers trawling for speeches made by their opponents decades before.) Other cases arise naturally with the fluxion of time because yesterday’s unremarkable comment is today’s hateful, inflammatory or racist comment. An “average man” with limited financial resources doesn’t stand much chance in front of a woke sports or professional disciplinary body (which probably gets taxpayer money) hounding him for views that were once popular but nowadays are re-designated as “hateful”.
At least being not allowed into a VIP bar is not as inconvenient as 31 months as a political prisoner!
I’m hoping the Free Speech Union comes to Vylan’s defense. It would be a test for Toby but defending free speech includes defending speech you don’t like.
Defending speech intent on destroying another’s ability to speak would not be defending free speech.
I don’t think he should be prosecuted for “hate speech”, which doesn’t actually exist. The whole alien concept of hate speech and hate crime has been forcibly imposed upon western democracies by a certain desert tribe, using their “LASHON HARA” concept designed to stop parents from protesting against the rape of their children by their own priests.
I think he should invite Greta the Doom Goblin to go with him to Israel, where they can appear in a concert together, and chant the same things he’s chanting in the UK.
In fact, I think ALL the various pro-Palestine protesters in the UK should be invited to Israel to protest there, because their protests here are irrelevant, and they should be charged with “WASTING POLICE TIME”.
In fact, I think ALL the various pro-Palestine protesters in the UK should be invited to Israel to protest there, because their protests here are irrelevant, and they should be charged with “WASTING POLICE TIME”.
I’m very much in favour of that because the public shouting is as annoying as completely useless. I’d prefer it to be treated a simple noise nuisance.
I recently came across a video from November 2023, where Glenn Greenwald chatted to Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters. The video is only 10 minutes long, with the title “Glenn Greenwald-Roger Waters Addresses Israel-Gaza, Antisemitism Accusations”, and can be found on Rumble.com: just search for “Glenn Greenwald Roger Waters”. (Sorry, I have become nervous supplying URLs.)
Both gentlemen expressed how sickened and disgusted they were seeing the level of suffering in Gaza – this was one month after the 7th October attack. Reading the comments expressed here and elsewhere on this forum, DS readers obviously do not share their impressions nineteen months of continual slaughter later!
I admit to being surprised at how eloquently Roger Waters made his points. The whole was very interesting and I believe I am correct in saying there still has not been an official Israeli investigation into the precise sequence of events on 7th October, in particular, why the IDF was unprepared and took several hours to respond to the attack.
Both Seymour Hersh’s substack and the New York Times have their paywalls but the World Socialist Web Site (no, I am not a socialist) obviously has other sources of income and they present interesting details here (keeping fingers crossed that the URL is OK) on how Israel must have been fully informed of Hamas’ plans in advance.
With regard to Glastonbury, Jonathan Cook describes how “The British government is being rocked by a growing public backlash to Israel’s 21-month slaughter in Gaza and the UK’s active collusion in it”:
What Israel, Washington, the UK and others have been forced to do to sustain the genocide is to create theatre – in a series of deflection dramas – to distract from the central crime.
The aim has been to get the western media to focus on, and therefore western audiences to think about, not the main drama – either the genocide itself, or the inherently violent, apartheid nature of the Israeli state carrying it out – but to invest instead in separate plot twists and turns. Ones, of course, that don’t make western capitals look so obviously complicit and depraved.
Even when the media reports on Gaza, it is rarely to address Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians. Rather, it is to debate dozens of other matters thrown up, like the rubble and dust from an Israeli bombing run, by the genocide.
The latest is the furore over Bob Vylan, in which the British public is being mobilised – quite preposterously – by politicians and the media to worry about the safety of Israeli soldiers from the supposed threat of angry music fans.
That should apparently concern us much more than the safety of Palestinians in Gaza, who are currently being slaughtered and starved by those very same Israeli soldiers.
If your not deemed far right or racist nothing will come of this! He’s good to go, he’s socialist, he’s hip and so on fad!
Kill, death, hate…love not hate!
One mans ‘death to the IDF’ is another mans profession of true love (Notice the glaring contradiction)
The “song” lyrics are not just anti-semitic. They include: “we the people on the street, got the gammons in retreat, and their blood boils over when we speak”. “Gammon” is a racial slur equivalent to the “n” word because it references skin colour: native white Britons’ skin colour can turn pink like gammon when we’re angry or stay out in the sun a long time. It is inconceivable that the BBC were unaware of the racist content of the song. Aside from the criminal law, broadcasting it to millions represents an obvious breach of the BBC’s key commitment to “Building an Inclusive Culture”. I post this for the record because we all know they are hypocrites and professional blind eye turners.
The Express have two articles describing copycat chants; one in Leicester, the other in London outside a crown court!
Will they be the only ones?