Listen closely to the Kneecap furore. You'll hear hypocrisy from all sides

Earlier this year, the Northern Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap appeared to be entering their respectable phase. Their self-titled film, a raucous semi-fictionalised biopic directed by Rich Peppiatt, won a Bafta for outstanding British debut, while Kemi Badenoch's attempt to block a grant awarded by the British Phonographic Industry was overturned in court. As the film illustrates, Kneecap were accustomed to being denounced by unionist MPs but both sides reaped useful publicity. 'We have a very dysfunctional, symbiotic relationship,' admitted rapper Naoise Ó Cairealláin.
This process was dramatically derailed last week when Kneecap touched the third rail of Gaza and accused Israel of genocide on stage at Coachella festival in California. Cue fury from Fox News, calls for their visas to be revoked and, according to their manager, death threats. The British press combed through old videos and found clips that appear to show two explosive onstage pronouncements from Kneecap's November 2023 UK tour: 'Up Hamas, up Hezbollah' and 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.'
Denunciations came thick and fast: Keir Starmer's spokesperson, the security minister, Dan Jarvis, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and relatives of the murdered MPs Jo Cox and David Amess all denounced the apparent remarks. The shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, accused Kneecap of representing nothing less than 'despicable evil'. Their concert at Cornwall's Eden Project has been cancelled, as have several shows in Germany. Glastonbury, among other festivals, is facing immense pressure to drop them, too. The Met's counter-terrorism command has launched an investigation. Badenoch, bearing a grudge, says they should be prosecuted for incitement and have been 'avoiding justice for far too long'.
Some artists seek controversy while others have it thrust upon them. The Sex Pistols released God Save the Queen during the silver jubilee as a calculated provocation, leading to a BBC ban but massive sales. Pulp, however, never expected the playfully druggy packaging of their 1995 single Sorted for E's and Wizz to land on the front page of the Daily Mirror with the timeless headline 'Ban This Sick Stunt'.
Kneecap seem to be in the Sex Pistols tradition. When I interviewed them last year, Ó Cairealláin admitted: 'We're very calculated in our PR stuff. We know things are going to get a reaction.' But sometimes the scale of a backlash far exceeds expectations. Cop Killer, a 1992 single by Ice-T's rock band Body Count, inspired condemnation from the then US president, George HW Bush, and a police-led boycott of the whole of Time Warner until Ice-T buckled and removed the song from the album.
Off-the-cuff remarks should carry less weight than recorded lyrics, but tell that to the previously obscure rapper Sister Souljah, whose comments on the LA riots that same year were used by Bill Clinton to distance himself from his Black rival Jesse Jackson during his presidential campaign, thus spawning the phrase 'Sister Souljah moment' to describe strategic scapegoating.
Loose talk is even more dangerous in the online era. While writing a history of protest songs I came across more than one artist fantasising about a politician's assassination in the 1980s, but their quotes never travelled beyond the music press. Yet the Dixie Chicks' – now the Chicks – fairly mild criticism of then president George W Bush at a London show in 2003 (they told a crowd that they were 'ashamed' that Bush was also from Texas) went viral and killed their country music career. Nothing can be safely forgotten now.
Kneecap's 2023 remarks are hard to defend on their merits, even in the context of their activist reputation. Their republicanism is unapologetic: they largely rap in Irish and call their homeland 'the north of Ireland'. (Their name refers to the IRA's punishment for drug dealers, identifying the band with the latter.) Their solidarity with the Palestinian people is equally sincere, but celebrating proscribed terrorist groups is something else. Perhaps it's the kind of careless radical chic that briefly led the Clash's Joe Strummer to valorise Italy's Red Brigade in the late 1970s. Perhaps not.
The band's recent statement, while apologising to the families of Cox and Amess and identifying the outrage as part of a broader effort to delegitimise support for Palestine, did not clear things up. They claimed 'We do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah' and would never 'seek to incite violence against any MP'. So, did they say those words? If so, what did they mean by them? If they have been taken out of context, then what was the context?
The Cop Killer example is clarifying. Ice-T was clearly singing about killing cops but wasn't actually encouraging murder. Likewise, Kneecap are not an active security threat. Within music, there is ample room for such ambiguity, provocation and free expression of outlaw thoughts. But in the harsher light of the tabloids, social media, parliament and policing, tossed-off slogans appear savagely literal and have real consequences.
This controversy has inspired hypocrisy on both sides. While Kneecap's rightwing critics are suddenly enthusiastic about 'cancel culture' and 'offence archaeology', their defenders have transformed into free-speech absolutists. One thing invariably holds true though: politicians who attack musicians come off as opportunistic, authoritarian and often foolish in their thirst for soft targets. Ban this sick stunt.
Dorian Lynskey is a writer, podcaster and author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute and The Ministry of Truth
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

14 minutes ago

• The Independent

ICE detains Marine Corps veteran's wife who was still breastfeeding their child

Marine Corps veteran Adrian Clouatre doesn't know how to tell his children where their mother went after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained her last month. When his nearly 2-year-old son Noah asks for his mother before bed, Clouatre just tells him, ' Mama will be back soon.' When his 3-month-old, breastfeeding daughter Lyn is hungry, he gives her a bottle of baby formula instead. He's worried how his newborn will bond with her mother absent skin-to-skin contact. His wife, Paola, is one of tens of thousands of people in custody and facing deportation as the Trump administration pushes for immigration officers to arrest 3,000 people a day. Even as Marine Corps recruiters promote enlistment as protection for families lacking legal status, directives for strict immigrant enforcement have cast away practices of deference previously afforded to military families, immigration law experts say. The federal agency tasked with helping military family members gain legal status now refers them for deportation, government memos show. To visit his wife, Adrian Clouatre has to make an eight-hour round trip from their home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to a rural ICE detention center in Monroe. Clouatre, who qualifies as a service-disabled veteran, goes every chance he can get. Paola Clouatre, a 25-year-old Mexican national whose mother brought her into the country illegally more than a decade ago, met Adrian Clouatre, 26, at a southern California nightclub during the final months of his five years of military service in 2022. Within a year, they had tattooed each other's names on their arms. After they married in 2024, Paola Clouatre sought a green card to legally live and work in the U.S. Adrian Clouatre said he is 'not a very political person' but believes his wife deserved to live legally in the U.S. 'I'm all for 'get the criminals out of the country,' right?" he said. "But the people that are here working hard, especially the ones married to Americans — I mean, that's always been a way to secure a green card.' Detained at a green card meeting The process to apply for Paola Clouatre's green card went smoothly at first, but eventually she learned ICE had issued an order for her deportation in 2018 after her mother failed to appear at an immigration hearing. Clouatre and her mother had been estranged for years — Clouatre cycled out of homeless shelters as a teenager — and up until a couple of months ago, Clouatre had 'no idea' about her mother's missed hearing or the deportation order, her husband said. Adrian Clouatre recalled that a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services staffer asked about the deportation order during a May 27 appointment as part of her green card application. After Paola Clouatre explained that she was trying to reopen her case, the staffer asked her and her husband to wait in the lobby for paperwork regarding a follow-up appointment, which her husband said he believed was a 'ploy.' Soon, officers arrived and handcuffed Paola Clouatre, who handed her wedding ring to her husband for safekeeping. Adrian Clouatre, eyes welling with tears, said he and his wife had tried to 'do the right thing' and that he felt ICE officers should have more discretion over arrests, though he understood they were trying to do their jobs. 'It's just a hell of a way to treat a veteran,' said Carey Holliday, a former immigration judge who is now representing the couple. 'You take their wives and send them back to Mexico?' The Clouatres filed a motion for a California-based immigration judge to reopen the case on Paola's deportation order and are waiting to hear back, Holliday said. Less discretion for military families Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement that Paola Clouatre 'is in the country illegally" and that the administration is 'not going to ignore the rule of law.' 'Ignoring an Immigration Judge's order to leave the U.S. is a bad idea,' U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a June 9 post on X which appeared to refer to Clouatre's case. The agency added that the government 'has a long memory and no tolerance for defiance when it comes to making America safe again.' Prior to the Trump administration's push to drive up deportations, USCIS provided much more discretion for veterans seeking legal status for a family member, said Holliday and Margaret Stock, a military immigration law expert. In a Feb. 28 memo, the agency said it 'will no longer exempt' from deportation people in groups that had received more grace in the past. This includes the families of military personnel or veterans, Stock said. As of June 12, the agency said it has referred upward of 26,000 cases to ICE for deportation. USCIS still offers a program allowing family members of military personnel who illegally entered the U.S. to remain in the country as they apply for a green card. But there no longer appears to be room for leeway, such as giving a veteran's spouse like Paola Clouatre the opportunity to halt her active deportation order without facing arrest, Stock said. But numerous Marine Corps recruiters have continued to post ads on social media, geared toward Latinos, promoting enlistment as a way to gain 'protection from deportation' for family members. 'I think it's bad for them to be advertising that people are going to get immigration benefits when it appears that the administration is no longer offering these immigration benefits,' Stock said. 'It sends the wrong message to the recruits.' Marine Corps spokesperson Master Sgt. Tyler Hlavac told The Associated Press that recruiters have now been informed they are 'not the proper authority' to 'imply that the Marine Corps can secure immigration relief for applicants or their families.' ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

The National

21 minutes ago

• The National

The proscription of Palestine Action has frightening implications

The legal proscription of groups such as Palestine Action is founded upon Islamophobic counter-terror legislation, which has disproportionately targeted Muslims and securitised issues related to the Middle East. It risks criminalising not only membership of an effective activist group but also a host of pro-Palestinian statements and actions. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to announce the ban today after Palestine Action members broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire last week and sprayed two military planes with red paint. Proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation sets a dangerous precedent against anti-war activism but also represents the suppression by successive UK governments of activism drawing attention to British support for Israeli war crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran. READ MORE: 'He should be in the Hague': Laura Kuenssberg slammed for Israeli president interview One reason why Palestine Action is facing such a harsh reprisal is the clear embarrassment the Brize Norton event has caused the British Government. By breaking into an RAF air base, Palestine Action has sharply highlighted the limits of British power and security, at a time where Keir Starmer's Government seems keen to impress a reactionary US administration and show support for Israeli aggression in Iran. Meanwhile, the tactics of Palestine Action,have proven to be highly effective. Targeting institutions complicit in the genocide of Palestinians – such as Israeli-based military contractor Elbit Systems UK – it has used highly visual forms of direct activism to great effect, with occupations, the scaling of public structures and the spray painting and daubing of buildings. Such activism has both disrupted the British military and British-based businesses profiting from war and genocide, and tapped into a widespread sense of disapproval and disgust across the public at UK Government for Israel, a country which has carried out mass killings. The use of counter-terrorism powers against Palestine Action may seem surprising, but it represents a long process by which successive UK governments have sought to clamp down on activism highlighting British hypocrisy on the international stage. For many years, counter-terror police have been conducting intelligence gathering on climate activists, to see if their activity could 'indicate a path towards terrorism'. Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have regularly faced harassment and threats of counter-terror action. The proscribing of Palestine Action not only forms part of an assault on activism, but also showcases how counter-terrorism has become increasingly anti-Palestinian in its orientation, with British authorities deliberately and systematically conflating support for Palestine with terrorism. Academics and human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, have long detailed experiences of harassment by counter-terror police, based on actual or perceived support of Palestinian rights. The UK Government Prevent programme has played a significant part in securitising Palestinian activism, with schools students as young as five being reported to authorities after expressing sentiments in support of Palestine. Since the start of massive Israeli violence in Gaza in October 2023, such reports have skyrocketed by 455%, with students told to remove badges, stickers and T-shirts that have 'free Palestine' on them, alleged retaliatory measures against college students for tweeting support or joining pickets for Palestine; and reports of university exclusions, suspensions and investigations, as well as the cancellations of pro-Palestinian events. This normalisation of targeting of pro-Palestinian activism has had severe legal impacts, leading to prosecutions based on anti-activist sentiment. These include the prosecution of three women who displayed images of paragliders during a protest and a man for wearing a green Saudi Arabian headband containing the basic statement of the Islamic faith 'shahada', on the charge of 'carrying or displaying an article in a public place in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion' that they were supporting Hamas. In addition to the long trend by successive UK governments of criminalising Palestinian activism, proscription now frames it as a terror threat – equating Palestinian activism with, for instance, the 2005 London bombings, the murder of 51 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, or the execution of 77 left-wing youth at Utøya, Norway. The use of such powers has frightening implications for Palestinian activism, not just because it will be framed as a security threat to the British state, but also because of how such legislation is constructed. The Act of Proscription, as detailed under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000, not only makes it illegal to be a member of a banned group, but also criminalises a host of other actions that are, or can be perceived as, being linked to the aims or objectives of the group. It is not just a terror offence to belong, or profess to belong to, a proscribed organisation, in the UK or overseas – it is a terror offence to engage in acts that may be considered as supportive. Under Part II, Section 12 of the Act, supportive acts are defined as 'moral support or approval' of a proscribed organisation, expressing an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organisation, or encouraging support for the activities of such an organisation. The implementation of this law, when used against a non-violent Palestinian activist group, is the criminalisation of anyone who publicly expresses sentiment in support of Palestine Action's aims. Its website lists these as 'ending global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime' and seeking to 'make it impossible for … companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians' Proscription also criminalises the wearing of clothing or carrying of signs that may 'arouse reasonable suspicion' that an individual supports a proscribed organisation, under Section 13 of the Act. This includes publishing images of such items online. Pro-Palestinian clothes, the Palestinian keffiyeh, Palestinian flags and signs are now very squarely in the crosshairs of counter-terror police, creating a vast array of possibility for prosecution of activists. The proscription of Palestine Action places people in Scotland and across Britain in very dangerous legal territory. Heavy-handed measures are increasingly being deployed by the British state to prosecute non-violent groups and activists as 'terrorists'. Successive UK governments have sought to roll back human and democratic rights under the guise of counter-terrorism, prevent activism critical of the British state, and to conflate Muslim communities and Middle Eastern issues with terrorism. The banning of Palestine Action represents an attempt to crush dissent that highlights British complicity in war crimes and embarrasses the UK Government. It also introduces a host of deeply worrying possibilities for the prosecution of activists, journalists, academics – indeed, anyone who speaks out in support of Palestinian rights, an end to the genocide and the use of public activism. Proscription shows the contempt the UK Government has for Palestinian freedom, and should be a loud alarm for those who value democracy and human rights, in times of genocide. Richard McNeil-Willson lectures in the Islamic and Middle Eastern studies department at the University of Edinburgh

The National

26 minutes ago

• The National

Scottish Labour MSPs missing more Holyrood votes than Tories and SNP

In recent weeks, the number of Labour MSPs failing to vote on motions in the Scottish Parliament has increased, leading to concerns that their absence could be "changing the result of the votes". Last Wednesday for example – the most recent day of voting at the time of writing – 39% of Labour MSPs (nine members) did not vote in the chamber, compared with 6.7% of Tory MSPs (two members) and 1.6% of SNP (one member). The National analysed all the main votes which have taken place so far in June, excluding amendments, and found that among the three main parties, Labour consistently had the highest percentage of absent MSPs, with the Tories following not far behind, while the SNP had the highest turnout. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action Between June 1 and 19, an average of 20.1% of Labour MSPs failed to vote in motions, compared to 14% Tory and 6.6% SNP. Of the 10 votes that took place in that time, there were only four instances where turnout for both Labour and the Tories was higher than 90%. Meanwhile, the SNP turnout was above 90% in all of these votes. Scottish Labour had a higher turnout when it came to their own motions, such as their Planning motion on June 11, which was missed by one MSP, and their motion on Scotland's medical and nursing workforce crisis also on June 11, which all Labour MSPs voted on. More Labour MSPs tended to turn up when it came to voting on bills. At the Scottish Languages Bill debate on June 17, 17.4% of Labour MSPs did not vote, compared with 20% Tory and 8.2% SNP. And at the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill on June 10, 8.7% of Labour MSPs were absent, while the Tories had double, at 16.67%, and the SNP had 6.6%. But when these figures are compared with the start of the year, it shows a significant drop in attendance from Labour MSPs. READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election The National found that in January, an average of 7.9% of Labour MSPs failed to vote, compared with 9.1% Tory and 6.6% SNP. And in February, the average number of MSPs missing votes stood at 15% Labour, 10.1% Tory and 6.2% SNP. When looking at the smaller parties, the Greens and LibDems – which have seven and five MSPs respectively – were much more likely to show up to votes. In fact, since the beginning of this year, the Scottish Greens have had a full turnout at 86.9% of votes (53 out of 61 votes), while the LibDems had 65.6% (40 votes). In the instances where full turnout was not recorded, this was down to a maximum of two MSPs not voting. READ MORE: Scottish civil service reaches 'record' size, figures show There is one Alba MSP (Ash Regan) and one Independent MSP (John Mason), who turned up to 75.4% (46 votes) and 100% of votes respectively. For parties with higher numbers of MSPs, it is more difficult to achieve a full turnout. The SNP, which have 60 MSPs, recorded a full turnout at just two votes (3.3%) – the Assisted Dying Bill on May 13 and an SNP motion on Scotland's Hydrogen Future on May 1. The only instance where every single Tory MSP (of which there are 30) took part in a vote was for the Assisted Dying Bill (1.6% of the total number of votes), while Labour (which have 23 MSPs) saw a full turnout at four votes (6.6%) – but three of those were motions submitted by Labour, while the fourth was for the Assisted Dying Bill. While it is expected that MSPs will not be able to make every single vote, such as due to illness or maternity leave, there are proxy voting arrangements in place which mean that the absence would not affect the overall result of a vote. Commenting on the figures, Greens MSP Ross Greer – who has voted in every motion analysed by The National – said that "if Labour MSPs don't want to do the jobs they were elected to, they should resign". He added that the proxy voting arrangements mean "there is no excuse for almost half of the Labour group casting no vote at all" in some cases. Ross Greer MSP"That is bad enough on ordinary motions, but it is totally unacceptable when we are deciding on the laws of this country," he said. Greer added that "it is a privilege to serve Scotland in Parliament", and that turning up to vote is "the bare minimum" that voters expect of those they elect. READ MORE: SNP the only pro-indy party not to sign pledge condemning Gaza genocide He continued: "This isn't a one off. The attendance of Labour and Tory MSPs has been shocking for years. "It has absolutely changed the result of votes and therefore meant that Scotland's laws are different than they otherwise would have been if everyone elected by the public had actually turned up to do their job." Commenting, SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said: "The fact Labour and Tory MSPs are increasingly failing to turn up to Parliament shows that Scotland is always an afterthought for the unionist parties. "SNP MSPs have the best attendance rate of any party – we are in Parliament every day, standing up for our constituents – while Labour and the Tories are nowhere to be seen when it matters most." Scottish Labour did not respond when approached for comment.