麻豆社

Overall, the ECU found the performance breached the 麻豆社鈥檚 editorial standards in relation to harm and offence by going beyond the limits of what the Guidelines refer to as 鈥済enerally accepted standards鈥�.  The segments of the performance which primarily led the ECU to this decision were one in which a member of the duo led the Glastonbury audience in chanting 鈥淒eath, death to the IDF鈥� (as well as reciting the slogans 鈥淔rom the river to the sea鈥� and 鈥淔ree, free Palestine鈥�) and an earlier segment in which the same member referred to the boss of a record company he once worked for who 鈥渨ould talk about his support for Israel鈥� and whom he went on to describe in the most abusive terms, using the most offensive language, also referring to 鈥渇鈥ng Zionists鈥�.  Additionally, the ECU considered this segment to be in breach of the section of the Guidelines on harm and offence which deals with 鈥渦nduly intimidating, humiliating, intrusive, aggressive or derogatory remarks aimed at real people鈥� and the section which requires the use of the most offensive language to be editorially justified.

The ECU did not consider the performance fell foul of the Guidelines on material likely to encourage or incite crime because, in the context of a performance at a music festival, the chanting of slogans can be regarded as primarily an invitation to endorse a particular attitude.  References to 鈥淔ree Palestine鈥� and 鈥淔rom the river to the sea鈥�, while viewed by some as implying the disappearance of the state of Israel, can also be regarded as no more than expressions of support for aspirations to a Palestinian state and do not of themselves threaten violent action.  鈥淒eath, death to the IDF鈥� is clearly more problematic, but it is directed at an institution rather than individuals, and one which is not defined by ethnic or religious composition.  However, it occurred in a context coloured by the earlier comments about the record company boss, which seemed to the ECU to have the effect (whether intended or not) of evoking a certain stereotype of Jewish influence in the entertainment industry.  Although Bob Vylan referred to 鈥淶颈辞苍颈蝉迟蝉鈥� rather than 鈥淛别飞蝉鈥�, that appeared to the ECU to be a distinction with very little difference in this instance.  The ECU therefore shares the view that the content of this act, taken in the round, can fairly be characterised as antisemitic.

In relation to impartiality, the ECU took the view that coverage of a music festival is clearly not on the same footing as coverage of news and current affairs; and, while there may be festivals the 麻豆社 would not cover on account of their polemical character, a wide tolerance for expressions of opinion by performers or audiences would be in keeping with audience expectations for events it does cover.  While recognising there is widespread disagreement with the political views expressed by Bob Vylan on this occasion, the ECU did not consider they represented a breach of the 麻豆社鈥檚 standards of impartiality in this context.

Partly upheld