Well, that was quite a weekend wasn’t it?
Firstly let me say that I’m no fan of Glastonbury. I don’t own a pair of wellies, and the idea of spending hours in a muddy, potentially damp field fills me with dread.
When I saw Elton John at Grace Road in Leicester almost a decade ago, I did so from the comfort of a VIP box and I watched Sting live at the very posh Atlantis Palm in Dubai. I’m far from posh (I’m a proud Working Class lad… honest) but I’ll admit to preferring comfort over muddy fields and camping.
But I know lots of people enjoy Glastonbury, whether in person or via TV and Radio. And I know that it’s always had a bit of an edge. It attempts to do mainstream (Dame Shirley Bassey, Rod Stewart etc) alongside the very alternative (this year including the controversial Kneecap and Bob Vylan) and that’s a potentially very tricky tightrope to walk… especially when you throw in that it’s being covered live (or, at least, as live) by good old Auntie, on BBC TV and BBC Radio Two (and you don’t get much more middle England than that).
BBC management tied itself up in knots about what to broadcast and what not to. It decided not to stream Kneecap live, for fear of in-PC outburst but did carry Vylan live which proved to be, well, depending on your point of view I suppose, not exactly the best decision ever made by the Beeb.
A number of very controversial things were said, including the apparent incitement of death against the Israeli Defence Force.
Now, let’s be clear, incitement to violence from any platform is of course never, ever acceptable, and I condemn it in the strongest terms, but let’s get some consistency here, shall we? Where were the Radical Right, who were clutching their pearls all weekend and becoming the snowflakes they normally profess to abhor, when innocent Palestinians, some whilst seeking urgently needed food aid, were attacked and killed by Israeli forces? There was total silence from them on it. Not a word was spoken.
And this is a recurring thing on the Right.
They demand their own free speech but hate it when their opponents use theirs.
Now, let me also say at this point that I’m certainly not a free speech absolutist. I’ve long since said that none of us have free speech in the sense most would understand it and that that is probably a very good thing.
We all have curbs on our speech. There are laws and things like libel and defamation. There is certainly not free speech without potential repercussions. None of us, unless we can afford regular court costs and don’t mind stints in the clink, can say exactly what we want.
Of course that idiot at Glastonbury shouldn’t have said what he did and he’s starting to face the consequences today with his management reportedly dropping him. And that confirms the point I’ve just made. Yeah, go ahead, say what you like if you’re a fool… as long as you don’t mind all of the consequences that follow.
As for what the BBC should or shouldn’t have broadcast (live, or otherwise) I feel for the Corporation. They have a duty to be a service for the whole country, to appeal to an audience of all ages, and to sometimes be alternative whilst also being mainstream. In fact, let’s be honest, their task is impossible.
Of course all of the BBC’s media and political opponents of the BBC have turned the offence-ometer up to maximum and are demanding resignations, firings, the axing of the licence fee etc, etc. I say again, what pearl-clutching snowflakes so many on the reactive Right are.
Where should we stand on this, as Lib Dems?
We should, of course, do our best to defend free speech within the law, free expression, but also personal responsibility and the artists who know they’re saying things that will be very controversial to many (whilst being music to the ears of others) cannot pretend that the ensuing row has nothing to do with them.
Liberalism is not libertarianism.
We are not ‘do what the heck you like without consequence’ folks.
Liberalism is just as much about personal responsibility and not causing unwarranted, needless offence to others as it is about people being able to be free and express themselves as they see fit.
As in this case, these two things do not sit easily with other.
Where the shades of grey are drawn is for us all as a society to decide.
You may wonder where the Catholic Church fits into all of this.
Well,as you may have seen on social media yesterday, another row has broke out about the Catholic Church, a vote on Assisted Dying by one of our MPs, and the right or otherwise of a Priest to very publicly lambast the MP from the pulpit and refuse him Holy Communion.
The MP is the brilliant Chris Coghlan, MP for Dorking and Horley and a member of the Treasury Select Committee, who tweeted yesterday: ‘My Catholic Priest publicly announced at every mass he was denying me Holy Communion following the assisted dying vote. Children who are friends of my children were there. This followed a direct threat in writing to do this four days be for the vote. It is a matter of grave public interest the extent to which religious MPs came under pressure to represent their religion and not necessarily their constituents in the assisted dying vote. This was utterly disrespectful to my family, my constituents including in the congregation, and the democratic process. My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP representing all my MPs without fear or favour,’
Very well said by Chris, who I feel such sympathy for.
He voted as he felt was right, in the best interests of his constituents.
Not just according to how some ‘religious authorities’ thought he should.
I think we can all think of at least one Lib Dem MP who, on conscience matters, seems at least to vote only based on his own personal religion.
I’m both a liberal Christian and a liberal politically.
I support gay marriage, the decriminalisation of abortion, and assisted dying at least in part because my God is a God of love and of compassion.
That some priest considers himself high and mighty enough to deny a congregant communion only further shows to me that just because someone wears a clerical collar doesn’t automatically mean they are a good,decent, or indeed Christian person.
Chris Coghlan is clearly someone of deep thought, of compassion, and someone who knows that he is in Parliament to represent his constituents not his own personal religious opinions.
That, I might gently say, is Liberalism in action!
Strawberries and cream, please!
And, finally, something much lighter.
I’m writing these words whilst listening to radio commentary of day one of the Wimbledon tennis championships, one of my favourite two weeks of the year. Can a Brit win it all this time? Probably not, but you’ve gotta dream right?
New balls, please!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The belligerent youths are back: The sacking of Christine Jardine
A quartet of Lib Dem wins in council by-elections
Corso Street event tomorrow! #dundeewestend
Details needed on Welsh rail investment
The 'elevator pitch' for solo consultants
Simon McGrath
Lin Macmillan
Richard Dickson
Nigel Quinton
Chris Lewcock
10 Comments
Cool story. But Mathew – when was the last time you came to help in a parliamentary by-election? Much cheaper than pop concert tickets.
The MP you fail to name does not always vote as his religion might dictate. Look at the record. You shouldn’t always believe what is written in the press about him
>” to vote only based on his own personal religion.”
From the article, it seems both you, Matthew and Chris also vote according to your personal religions, which whilst based on establish religions have been informed by your own experience and revelations rather than simply being what some dogmatic person says.
I hope Chris continues to attend mass and, as it is important to him and his personal religion, to continue to confront his priest, by offering himself for communion. But I appreciate not everyone has grown up with what many today would regard as old school Quakerism, and refuse to swear on the bible in court – surprisingly it still causes a stir.
Of course all of the BBC’s media and political opponents of the BBC have turned the offence-ometer up to maximum and are demanding resignations, firings, the axing of the licence fee etc, etc. I say again, what pearl-clutching snowflakes so many on the reactive Right are….
Exactly… If the BBC are held responsible for everything chanted and said that happens during their media coverage then demonstrations (let alone riots) and even football matches cannot be covered..
The outcry, especially from a Tory shadow minister, says more about their attitude to the BBC than their concern for public sensibilities..
With regards to the BBC – I can’t help but think that this is likely to be more cock-up than conspiracy. They can’t have every feed watched by different people, and the priority would have been to check those on BBC1/2 or Red Button rather than an iPlayer stream of a relatively obscure rap artist.
We all know that a repetitive one-line pentameter works better as a crowd chant than a nuanced fourteen line sonnet, and its just bad luck that “death, death” rhymes with “the IDF”, although their association with death in Gaza and the West Bank is there for all to see.
No-one at Glastonbury was going to fly to Israel and start killing Israeli soldiers, so you can’t accuse Bob Vylan of fomenting violence, unlike the woman who urged people on social media to burn nearby refugee hotels, whose posts were intended to have that effect, and indeed did. Avon and Somerset Police have decided to charge Vylan with a ‘public order offence’, presumably because daring to challenge the UK government’s stance on genocide (“none of our business”) might inflame the public against their rulers in Westminster.
Although slightly off the point of Matthew’s very interesting article, we have heard the BBC’s apology for broadcasting the Bob Vylan set include the accusation that it was “antisemitic”. It may be standard fare from Israel to claim that anyone who criticises Israel is de facto antisemitic, but where is the evidence that could have persuaded a news organisation like the BBC that a musician at Glastonbury expressing disapproval of a powerful army which has killed an almost entirely defenceless (estimated) 75,000 people in Gaza must have been motivated by hatred of Jews?
Mathew, how can you be sure that the MP you mention voted against assisted dying “only based on his own personal religion”. His speeches on the subject in Parliament, and his posts about it on social media, do not mention religion. He mentioned concerns about people who might feel that they ought to choose assisted dying because they were afraid of being a burden – something that he referred to as “self coercion”. Many MPs, of many faiths and none, opposed assisted dying for similar reasons. But if this MP’s political decisions are sometimes influenced by his faith, is this necessarily wrong? It is likely that, for example, his support for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers is influenced by his Christian faith
We’ve had two controversial bills through parliament of late – both gave MPs the opportunity for emotive anecdotes – which have no place in a legislative assembly.
When you forget how to care , you learn how to kill.
Following up Andy Daer’s comment, would there have been the same fuss if the chant had been “death to the Russian army”?
I would have put that on a very similar footing – an excessive but understandable protest at an army that has committed war crimes – but I doubt that the press and politicians’ reactions would have been at all similar.