news

it is disappointing. it's their choice whether they want to be rockstars or revolutionaries i suppose. easy for me to say but i wish they had doubled down and tested the courts.

The answer is that it's incredibly murky as to what support for proscribed organisations means, by design. And that does make it potentially dangerous to not put that line in a statement.

For years and years the British government has been taking a more aggressive approach to these kind of arrests and cases, but it has mostly been a case of making a big show of the arrests itself, sometimes having the prosecution or judges pull some slightly shady shit about what testimony is allowed, but ultimately letting the courts sort it out. The point has primarily been the chilling effect on dissent and red meat for the right. They work hand in glove with the media to hype the arrests and bringing of cases but the results (which are sometimes dismissals or often far less severe punishments - although still immoral and abuse of power if you ask me - than the prosecution pushed for) aren't reported in the same way.

However, the last couple of years has seen a noticeable increase in using terroism legislation, often completely unjustifiable legally even with the way the law is written, as a tool for other types of repression seperate from the actual charges.

For example, after repeated failures to prosecute the majority of Palestine Action members for shutting down weapons providers to the Israeli military, the state tried to disrupt the organisation by slapping co-founder Richard Barnard with two terrorism charges apparently based on speeches he'd made over a year before. They don't detail what the offending lines were, but from what I can tell, its predicated on the flimsy basis that he spoke positively about 'Palestinian Resistance', not any specific group never mind a proscribed one, and called for direct action when needed.

The perhaps more extreme examples would be the number of journalists who have been detained under terrorism legislation and had cases opened against them but not charged or brought to trial because the state would likely lose, but then setting absolutely impossible bail conditions on them that make it impossible for them to do their work or really exist at all. We're talking being forbidden from using any electronic devices, not being able to travel far enough to recieve specialist medical care, literally having their passports taken by police, not returned, and then told they have to present a valid passport at a future date but also cannot apply for new travel documents while on bail. Obviously it's extralegal punitive punishment, but it's also a way for the state to get around the law or a public trial if they do want to imprison these people becausse they can slap them with a charge of breaking their bail conditions at any time and hand down instantaneous sentences of several years in prison, without a public or jury trial.

So how does this all relate to Kneecap. Well, as you can see, the British state is now working well outside the intended scope of the law and finding new ways to use terror legislation for oppression outside of its intended purpose. Kneecap, or at least their lawyers, almost certainly know this so it makes sense to not want to give them the obvious ammunition to do this.

If there was some kind of public charge, in many ways Kneecap would be infinately better off in terms of defending themselves than most activists and independent journalist have been and are. Their fame, money, legal team, broad support etc definitely help them in a jury trial situation. Which is probably why the British state won't take it that far.

It's far more likely the government will make some bullshit charge and then drop it later, but use that charge in that duration to find other ways to go after the band and broader speech for bands or entertainers - weaponising the charge with legal threats to their labels, venues, potentially revoking licenses of events, stopping them from touring by denying their ability to travel etc.

But even if the right-wing media baying for blood did push the state into a public trial over flags or lyrics or whatever, there's a flipside to Kneecap's fame. They're a huge target for which the establishment, and particularly the media, if it gets to that stage simply will not accept being humilated in court again like they were over revoking the arts funding. So if it did get to trial the state would have all the motivation in the world to pull some insanely illegal shit beyond the usual stitchups. That's also potentially dangerous, although I think less likely.

Regardless, I wouldn't really expect Kneecap to do anything other than stick that line in their public statement if only to head of the state's most obvious legal attack vector and to try and force this to be played out in the public sphere rather than the courts.

Yeah, this is a media attack. They've been pretty much left alone since Coachella. Sounds like their agents were in panic mode.

They spent most of their statement condemning the genocide and highlighting it. While this isn't my favorite outcome, it makes sense given the risk.

In the UK, sure, even if said laws are upheld arbitrarily. And as far as I know they didn't make any actual statements explicitly supporting Hezb or Hamas anyway. Plus, Kneecap are Irish!

I went to one rally for Palestine in Manchester and one of the speakers was unequivocally supporting armed resistance in Palestine - Not just in her speeches but her entire online presence. She even led chants of "Yemen Yemen make us proud - Turn another ship around!". She was raided by counter terror police and dragged in for questioning but in the end she was let go and she continues to go to events.

I know of another case where someone was being tried for flying a PKK flag at a Kurdish solidarity rally, but that also hasn't gone far yet.

Not that I dont think the UK govt would try to make an example of Kneecap, but there are much more politically exposed people than them getting into less trouble.

IMO the statement is more about protecting their income than anything - They're due to play at Glastonbury this year and their agents are probably threatening them to not jeopardize that gig.

This was easy to see coming. I think alot of Kneecap's international audience don't understand that their personas, songs and whole aesthetic are making fun of the post-troubles west Belfast hoods. People who were (like Kneecap) born in or after the 90s and are aping an exaggerated form of surface level republicanism that lingered beyond the ceasefire especially in Nationalist strongholds like West Belfast. When talking about the influence of the Troubles on the post-GFA generations I am often reminded of a quote from Marx; "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living". These hard lads who run around pretending they're in the IRA because they sell drugs and spray slogans on walls are really just using the aesthetics of resistance to mask the fact that they are actively harming their own communities.

I believe Kneecap's popularity abroad stems from this mask of resistance that they initially put on to mock destructive elements in their own community but that people missing the local context see as genuine and are using to LARP as revolutionaries. I don't personally know them so I wont make judgements but sometimes it seems like the lads in Kneecap have also fallen for this trap themselves.

At the end of the day they are really just like any other successful band, and they will prioritise their income above their empty slogans any day.

If they were already targeted by the state then does this actually matter, does the English courts generally allow take backsies for "supporting terrorism"?

😔