Kneecap’s offence is tiny in comparison with Israel’s crimes

Martin Shipton

This week a reader took me to task for the first sentence in a story I wrote about the cancellation of a netball tournament in Cardiff.

The offending sentence read: “The governing body of Netball in Europe has decided to call off an Open Competition it was organising in Wales rather than exclude Israel because of its slaughter of more than 52,000 people in Gaza.”

The offended reader wrote: “This seems less of a news story and more of a political editorial and I’m in no doubt of your political allegiances.”

I disagreed and exchanged a few emails with the reader, who accused me without a shred of evidence of supporting Hamas because I opposed Israel’s deadly activities in Gaza.

Euphemisms

Given the overwhelming evidence available over a long period, it seems incontrovertible to me that the Israel Defence Forces’ activities in Gaza amount to slaughter. It’s the deployment of euphemisms by media outlets and politicians that softens the impact of Israel’s genocidal war and enables more atrocities to be committed. It also diverts criticism from the fact that the UK continues to supply arms to the aggressors.

Another diversionary tactic seen in recent days has been the demonisation of the Irish language rap band Kneecap. Firstly they were criticised for making pro-Palestine and anti-Israel statements during concerts. Calls were made by the likes of Sharon Osbourne for them to have their US visas revoked.

Then some old concert video footage was uncovered in which a member of the band shouted: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP!” In a later video a band member shouted: “Up Hamas, up Hezbollah!” As a result, the band is now under investigation by the Counter-Terrorism branch of the Metropolitan Police.

While the shouted comments may be crass, they should be seen as performative rather than inspired by a terrorist motive.

Rampage

When the 18th Century French philosopher Denis Diderot wrote the provocative statement: “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”, he didn’t literally expect that citizens would go on a rampage, killing priests and kings.

Instead he was hoping to shake socially conservative forces out of their complacency while providing republicans with a rallying cry. To interpret his words literally is absurd.

More than 100 years ago the Dada artistic movement put on performances and “happenings” in Paris and other European cities that were geared to offending the powerful in society. Again, they were performative in content, intended to shock rather than provoke criminal acts.

Likewise, punk rock was as much about undermining and overturning conventional musical expectations as about the music itself. It was a way of channelling rebellion in an artistic context, laced with satire in its most effective examples.

When Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols sang, in his parody of Frank Sinatra’s My Way, that he killed a cat “and did it my way”, he wasn’t confessing to an authentic act of animal cruelty, but mocking a self-satisfied ballad form.

It will be interesting to see whether any evidence is gathered by the Counter-Terrorism branch that indicates a rise in terrorist crimes as a result of Kneecap’s shouted comments. Equally, it would be an interesting research project to establish whether those who have been most vocal in their condemnation of Kneecap have also condemned Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

A superficial Google search suggests there is little, if any, correlation.

Ironically the performative nature of Kneecap’s “offensive” comments is matched by a performative reaction to it by politicians.

We are living through a time where performative politics is seen by many politicians as the preferred way for them to practise their trade. Regrettably, this is a substitute for engagement with reality.

Nevertheless, performative politics can be successful – at least for a while. In the United States, where the notion of “big government” raises the hackles of many voters, Elon Musk’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) was undoubtedly a vote winner when it was a performative offering before the presidential election. When put into practice, however, it hasn’t taken long for the idea to unravel. Dismissing huge numbers of federal employees and closing down sections of government is creating what should have been predictable chaos. Coupled with the negative impact of Trump’s tariffs, it is causing serious damage to the US economy.

Performative politics

Following Reform UK’s victories in local government elections in England, performative politics is reaching new heights in the UK. According to Nigel Farage, local versions of DOGE will be unleashed in the councils won by Reform with a view to making huge savings from “woke” projects that can be diverted into front-line services.

For many, the idea sounds attractive, and undoubtedly it played a role in Reform’s success at the ballot box. But it represents an unrealistic view of local government finance.

The great majority of any local authority’s budget is already committed to paying for the services it is obliged by law to provide: education, social services, rubbish collection, road maintenance etc. The amount available for discretionary spend on “vanity” projects is actually quite small.

Perhaps surprisingly, this point was made well by Glen Sanderson, the Conservative leader of Northumberland County Council, during the BBC election coverage which saw Reform become the second biggest group in the council.

He said that in the previous council term, councillors from different parties had worked well together with a realistic understanding of how local government finances operated. He hoped that would continue.

Nigel Farage has already given an indication of what kind of priorities Reform-led councils will have. He has suggested that the UK Government will be told not to send any more migrants to the areas where his party now runs the council.

This is another act of performative politics. He knows full well that such decisions are made ultimately by the Home Office. It’s easy to envisage how he could manufacture a crisis in the run-up to the next general election, with a stand-off between Reform’s councils and the UK Labour government over where migrants will be sent.

Inevitably this will stoke community tension – something that will not disconcert Mr Farage in the slightest, for whom such disruption is a key to winning parliamentary seats, and possibly winning the general election.

We’re into dangerous territory, and doubtless such performative tactics will be used by Reform in the run-up to next year’s Senedd election.

The only way for other parties to combat this is by being honest with the electorate and offering tangible and credible improvements to their lives. And that’s not easy, given the Brexit drain on our economy bequeathed to us by Mr Farage and others.