news

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.