Contemporary Cultural Boycotts

My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to bring to the attention of the Government and the Committee the themes in this recent report, The New Boycott Crisis. If we value art as a crucial mirror on society, the corruption of art reflects social trends right back at us and we should look back closely, so I say many thanks go to those noble Lords who are doing that today. The report was launched here in Westminster at the end of April, alongside the Art Beyond Boycott Toolkit. It was a packed room with lots of cross-party attendance. The authors are co-founders of Freedom in the Arts, Rosie Kay, an award-winning choreographer, and Denise Fahmy, a senior arts professional, who teamed up with Reading University’s Professor Jo Phoenix. All three have experienced the vicious consequence of cancel culture. They combine their personal insights with oodles of professional knowledge to provide a multilayered investigation into how boycotts operate against different art forms, looking not just at individual artists but at gatekeepers such as venues, agents, managers and producers. Using survey data and qualitative interviews, the report shows how even the threat of cultural boycotts is leading to anticipatory cancellation, institutional anxiety, silent boycotts and self-censorship. The report is so on the money that it got extensive media coverage even in the same crowded week as the local elections. Significantly, it was picked up by specialist publications such as Arts Professional, Museums Journal, Chortle and Mixmag, no doubt because it cut through due to its insights into the genuinely heartbreaking stories of individual artists brought to financial and reputational personal ruin by boycotts—you cannot get more personal than being cancelled because of your identity. As the report documents, that is the fate of so many Jewish artists today. Perhaps this is nothing new. As we head into August and Edinburgh Festival season, I recall years of participating in that wonderful, artistically rich atmosphere, when the Academy of Ideas put on arts debates and live reviewing at the Fringe and at the book and international festivals. It was a joy, but it started to turn sour when, 20 years ago, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demanded boycotts of any art form involving Israelis. Whether it was an ugly disruption of a performance of the Jerusalem Quartet in 2008, with activists yelling, “Israeli-armed musicians”, or a decade later, getting an Israeli hip-hop opera evicted from its venue. These were shocking but marginal, isolated incidents. What is shocking today is that such occurrences are so regular they are barely noticed. The campaign against antisemitism notes: “Discrimination against Jewish people has become normalised in the arts: it’s now simply part of doing business as a Jewish creative in modern Britain”. The report notes something else that has changed. If boycotts were historically public, involving external bodies bullying arts organisations, today they have evolved into an internal, systemic dynamic within arts organisations. Sometimes, it is a leadership team more driven by ideological agendas than artistic excellence, but more often it is insidious, with weak management capitulating to staff complaints demanding that their well-being is protected from allegedly dangerous performers. Last year, comics Philip Simon’s show “Jew-O-Rama” and Rachel Creeger’s “Ultimate Jewish Mother” had their acts pulled at the last minute by a fringe venue. The reason? Staff at the venue complained of “feeling unsafe”. Apparently, a fictional comedic Jewish mother was a threat to employee safety. The report is full of similar evidence of employees activating internal HR procedures to reframe political demands. There is an additional institutional vehicle used similarly, especially in publicly funded arts organisations, and that is values frameworks and equality, diversity and inclusion policies. I know that the Government can be a little defensive about the virtues of EDI, but I hope the Minister will examine the documentation of how EDI is being weaponised to demand the boycotting of certain artists. I note that in February, DCMS Minister Ian Murray MP, while stating the Government’s commitment to free speech, caveated it. He quoted the Secretary of State’s ambition not to stoke the culture wars, and stressed the need to protect people from hate speech. But does the Minister acknowledge that, in many institutions, the culture wars are stoked by EDI enthusiasts and that hate speech is often a euphemism for speech someone disagrees with? Arts organisations often state that their value statements are anti-hate to justify cancelling Zionist and gender-critical artists, for example. In her moving and passionate speech at the report’s launch, acclaimed singer-songwriter Róisín Murphy, herself a victim of a high-profile vicious boycott after speaking her mind on puberty blockers, made an important, relevant point. She said: “Public funding, meant to support excellence regardless of politics, has become an ideological points system …This isn’t patronage. It’s patronage with strings attached so tight they strangle the critical thinking it takes to invent anything”. What can politicians and government do to help the arts escape this censorious stranglehold? While the Arts Council declined an invitation to attend the parliamentary launch of the report, it was notable that a couple of days later, after two Jewish men were murdered in Golders Green, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, used the opportunity to put pressure on the Arts Council. He said: “Where public funding is being used to promote or platform antisemitism, the Arts Council must act, using its powers to suspend, withdraw and claw back funding”. That is a positive sentiment, but I worry about cancelling the cancellers as a tactic. It perhaps also misses more subtle, silent boycotts, rather than the overt anti-Jewish abuse. Also, it does not note that a wider range of artists with dissenting views are now targeted. For example, Scottish performance poet Jenny Lindsay, author of the aptly titled book Hounded, explains that after a tweet criticising a trans activist threatening violence against lesbians, she had seven months of private, quiet, bewildering cancellation, losing work without knowing why, unanswered emails, complaints to her publishers, messages saying we are frightened to book you. She notes, “It was clear people had got a memo: Jenny Lindsay’s a TERF”. But with no paper trails, no proof, just commissions swerved in case they cause grief, it can be especially isolating. The real loss is, “artwork that was never made and never seen”. I therefore hope that the Minister will meet the authors of this report to discuss how the Government can help the sector adopt the report’s proposals to improve institutional capacity to resist this politicisation of programming and employment decisions that is discriminatory in terms of who gets to create, perform, exhibit and publish. Artistic judgments must be centre stage. Leadership from Ministers could include public support for boycotted artists, encouraging publicly funded arts organisations—indeed, the Arts Council—to adopt the Freedom in the Arts free speech charter. To conclude, artistic creation needs freedom to challenge, explore, surprise and push boundaries. Otherwise, art created and programmed will be risk-averse, narrower, safer, samey, carefully calculated and curated not to offend. What a dreary tragedy. To quote Róisín Murphy again: “Without that freedom, we don’t get better art, we simply put artists into a chokehold and suffocate the life out of our culture”. The arts must breathe freely again. How can the Minister help them breathe freely again?.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing forward this important debate. The Freedom in the Arts report raises important questions about artistic freedom and the role of our cultural institutions in an increasingly polarised society. While Members may reach different conclusions about some of the findings, I believe it presents us with an opportunity to reflect on the kind of cultural institutions we want for our country. Art has always challenged society. It can inspire, provoke, comfort and sometimes unsettle us. Shakespeare explored powers, prejudice, justice and the human condition. I am sure each of us can think of a contemporary work of art that has challenged our assumptions or encouraged us to see the world through different eyes. Great art does more than entertain, it invites us to question, reflect and better understand one another. That is why the arts matter not only to our economy but to our national identity and to the strength of our democracy itself? Drawing on my experience of leading one of London’s most diverse boroughs, I think that one of the greatest lessons that I have learned is that good leadership is not about eliminating difference; it is about creating the conditions for respectful dialogue, where people of different backgrounds, faiths, cultures and perspectives can come together, encounter new ideas and learn from one another. That is why our theatres, galleries, museums and festivals are so important. They are among the few places where people who may never agree on every issue can still sit in the same audience, visit the same exhibition or share the same cultural experience. In doing so, they encounter different perspectives and often leave with a deeper understanding of one another. Equally, the right to peaceful protest and criticism is fundamental to a healthy democracy. The challenge before us is not choosing one freedom over another, but ensuring that artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest can both flourish and coexist. The report raises important questions about the pressures that some cultural organisations face when making difficult decisions. Whether those pressures are widespread or more limited, it is right that we consider how institutions can be supported to respond with confidence, fairness and integrity. The true test of a cultural institution is not whether it avoids controversy but whether it has the confidence to navigate controversy fairly, openly and with integrity. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of whether publicly funded cultural institutions have the confidence and support that they need to uphold artistic freedom while fostering respectful dialogue and community cohesion? Are there examples of good practice that the Government believe should be shared more widely across the cultural sector? Artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest are not competing principles. We must ensure that our cultural institutions have the strength of leadership and the confidence to strike the right balance between protecting artistic freedom, respecting the right to peaceful protest and fostering dialogue and community cohesion.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate. The New Boycott Crisis raises issues that go well beyond disagreements over politics or foreign affairs. It asks whether we are still willing to defend one of the defining characteristics of a free society—the freedom to create, perform, exhibit and debate without fear of ideological intimidation. Art has always challenged orthodoxies. It provokes, unsettles and encourages us to see the world differently. That is precisely why artistic freedom matters. If artists, writers, musicians and performers feel compelled to self-censor because of organised campaigns, threats or pressure to conform to a political orthodoxy, our cultural life is diminished. The report documents a growing trend of cancellations, boycotts and institutional pressure directed not at the quality of artistic work but at the ethnicity, religion, perceived political views or associations of those producing it. Hearing the stories from the founders of Freedom in the Arts, Denise Fahmy, Rosie Kay and others, at the launch in April, was powerful and shocking, especially to those who were not really aware of how quickly cancellation happens and how brutal it is. Throughout history, boycotts based on identity have rarely advanced understanding. During the Cold War, we rightly welcomed Soviet dissidents, musicians and writers, rather than excluding them; we recognised that culture builds bridges where politics erects barriers. Universities, museums, theatres and galleries should be places where difficult ideas are encountered, not places where only approved opinions are permitted. Increasingly, however, cultural institutions find themselves under pressure from highly organised activist campaigns that seek not to debate but to silence. Decisions are sometimes made because managers fear reputational damage or disruption rather than because they reflect the institution’s commitment to artistic excellence. This has consequences beyond the arts. Once organisations begin deciding who may speak or perform according to political tests, we erode the principle of viewpoint diversity that underpins liberal democracy itself. The report’s emphasis on stronger institutional leadership is to be welcomed. Trustees and governing bodies should have the confidence to uphold freedom of expression even when doing so attracts criticism. Publicly funded cultural organisations have a particular responsibility to serve the whole public, not simply the loudest campaigners. The Government also have a role. The protections for freedom of expression in our law are important, but they must be accompanied by clear expectations that publicly funded institutions will defend artistic freedom consistently and transparently. Funding agreements should reinforce rather than undermine this principle. This debate is not about shielding anyone from criticism. Artists should expect robust debate and peaceful protest. However, criticism is very different from organised efforts to prevent performances, exhibitions or collaborations from taking place at all. The answer to speech that we dislike is more speech, not enforced silence. Our cultural institutions have long been admired because they have welcomed excellence from every nation, every background and every viewpoint. We should not allow them to become places where ideological conformity replaces intellectual curiosity. Freedom in the arts is not a luxury; it is one of the foundations of a confident, democratic and open society. If we fail to defend it now, we will be all the poorer not only culturally but civically. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising the report and I commend the founders and supporters of Freedom in the Arts. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to its recommendations, reaffirming that, in Britain, artistic freedom remains a principle worth defending.

My Lords, this subject is one of those where you suddenly think, “Yes, there shouldn’t be any form of cancellation”—here, primarily on grounds of antisemitism. I have always felt it to be rather absurd that the Abrahamic religions attack each other over which day they pray on, given that half the time they are all referring to similar texts, but let us go into this issue in further detail. I turn to the recommendations in the report. It admits that it is not the most scientific of structures but, still, questions around taking on the law and training for organisations have been asked. It says that on page 6. What are the Government going to do to make sure that there are training schemes? I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not a fan of them; we have clashed on this in the past. We need to go through this and have a look at what we are doing to make sure that there is knowledge of the legal duties going forward, because that seems to be the issue here. The question of whether you are breaking the law if you do not allow somebody to do something that is legal and is not threatening somebody else seems to be the real question here. Let us remember that, although one organisation may be under pressure now, another one will be tomorrow. Other groups have been cancelled and other people have been pressured. Things have changed. Look at our own society: we have Protestants and Catholics—I speak as somebody whose background is half from the west coast of Scotland. These are real issues. What are the Government doing about making sure that the people in charge know what their duty is? That is very important here. If we cannot stop unpleasant attitudes going out in society, at least we can let people know what the legal frameworks and duties are. Surely that is the least the Government should be doing at this point.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for introducing the debate, which is of course timely. I thank Freedom of the Arts for this report, but I thank in particular the artists, the performers and the writers who found the courage to describe what has been happening to them. Speaking out is never easy when doing so may cost you your next role. This report does not allege formal censorship. It describes something quieter and in some ways more sinister and more troubling. It calls it “the silent boycott”. Opportunities simply disappear. Invitations are quietly withdrawn. Projects never quite materialise. Emails are left unanswered. Careers stall not for a want of talent but because of an artist’s Jewish identity or assumptions made about it. This has become something that institutions would rather manage than defend. The report is candid about the cause. Institutions are increasingly driven by fear: fear of a social media pile-on, fear of activist pressure, fear of internal disputes or fear of a controversy that has not even happened yet. Decisions are being taken pre-emptively before a single complaint is even made. This is not caution. Once an institution starts programming to avoid a row rather than to reward excellence, artistic freedom does not stay intact for long. Let me be clear about what this debate is not. It is not about shielding anyone from criticism or closing down legitimate political debate, including robust arguments on the Middle East. Freedom of expression must include the freedom to criticise the Government of Israel, but criticism of a Government can never justify the exclusion of an individual because he or she is Jewish. That distinction is fundamental and this report finds, again and again, that it is being lost. Jewish identity itself is increasingly treated as politically contentious, regardless of what the work in question actually says, and none of this happens in isolation. The Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents just last year, one of the highest totals it has ever logged. The arts do not sit apart from that reality. They are part of it and, because they help shape how the country talks to itself, they carry a greater responsibility to get this right, not a lesser one. Cultural boycotts have a long and unhappy history and they rarely open a conversation. More often, they close one down, narrowing perspectives and impoverishing the very culture they claim to defend. What has always made British culture strong is confidence: the confidence that ideas can be debated, that disagreement can be aired and that audiences can be trusted to make up their own minds. That confidence should not now be allowed to give way to fear. I ask the Minister three things. Will the Government make clear to the Arts Council of England that informal exclusion of Jewish artists is antisemitism, not just discrimination? What support will the Government give publicly funded institutions to withstand pressure campaigns? Will the Government tie funding to proof that programming decisions are made on merit, not on fear? Our arts should be open to all. They should reward talent and defend freedom, and they should never become places where an artist has to conceal who he or she is to work. I conclude with a tribute and a plea—a tribute to a British icon, my friend Maureen Lipman. A couple of weeks ago, I saw her perform brilliantly as “Allegra” in Windsor; it is opening tonight at the Harold Pinter Theatre, but activists have stood outside the theatre that she is playing with leaflets stating “Maureen Lipman supports genocide”. My plea to the Minister is this: is she aware of this, and is it right that Maureen, a proud Jew, has been forced to hire security guards because she is being targeted by anti-Israel activists?

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for introducing this important debate. Freedom of expression has always been the lifeblood of great art. Art flourishes through freedom, not conformity. History reminds us what happens when freedom is lost. In the Soviet Union, writers and artists who challenged the official ideology were censored, blacklisted, imprisoned or sent to the Gulag. My own family experienced that world. My aunt was a dissident writer and a close friend of both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Anna Akhmatova. She chose satire as her way to defy the regime, rather than open political confrontation. Even so, she spent days under interrogation in the Lubyanka. She watched friends and fellow writers disappear into the Gulag, including her friend Solzhenitsyn. Like Akhmatova, she knew that in such a climate silence could become a means of survival. Britain is not the Soviet Union, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but history teaches us that freedom is rarely lost overnight. It is eroded gradually as people begin to censor themselves, because they fear the consequences of speaking openly. The New Boycott Crisis suggests that this climate of fear is now affecting our cultural sector. As James Marriott wrote in the Times, something has gone badly wrong. A world once built on talent, merit and creative risk has, he argues, been replaced by a culture of fear, informal sanctions and institutional cowardice. The report identifies two groups as particularly affected: Jewish artists and those with gender-critical beliefs. Since 7 October, some Jewish artists, as we have heard, have found themselves judged not by the quality of their work but by their identity. Likewise, gender-critical artists, such as Rosie Kay and Róisín Murphy, have described the professional backlash they faced for expressing lawful views. The problem arises when cultural institutions become so fearful of organised campaigns that they no longer defend artistic freedom. Instead, they quietly exclude those views considered controversial, not because they are unlawful but because they are not fashionable. The greatest casualty is self-censorship. We never see the play that was never written, the exhibition that was never staged or the young artist who decided it was simply safer to remain silent. Does the Minister accept that artistic freedom includes the right to hold lawful gender-critical beliefs, even when those beliefs are not popular and considered controversial today? If public bodies are under a statutory duty to uphold freedom of speech, how will the Government ensure that this duty is honoured in practice rather than being quietly abandoned in the face of organised campaigns?

My Lord, in his great essay The Prevention of Literature, George Orwell wrote: “imagination, like certain wild animals, will not breed in captivity”. I think this is a little commented-on reason why the current repression of free speech and freedom in the arts is such a problem. It affects not only those whose opinions are repressed but everybody. That repression is obviously outrageous in its own terms, with the shocking levels of antisemitism that have been documented and the bias against gender-critical views and even simple views on the right of politics. I congratulate Rosie Kay and Denise Fahmy for drawing attention to it in this excellent report, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for getting today’s debate. As we know and as the report documents, the repression of free speech and the spread of antisemitism have had seriously bad effects on those directly affected. We know that. It constrains what they can produce, and it may force them entirely out of the sector. There are some telling quotes to this effect in the report, such as one artist saying: “I realised how much of myself I had edited out just to survive”, or: “You make terrible art when you are cowering”. This is clear—it is sort of obvious—but my point is that the effect is on not only those affected in this way, but on everybody else. It is on those who somehow get through it. A politicised art sector produces a lot of bad art, and we have had quite a lot of it recently. On the London stage, from 20 years ago with “My name is Rachel Corrie”, through Ivo van Hove’s adaptation of “Who Killed My Father”, there has been a stream of plays about migration and refugees from one perspective and so on and so forth. Even when art is not politicised, this sort of sector produces an art that prioritises box-ticking and conformism. It produces art that is dull, worthless and often even contemptuous of its audience. It is a very good sign that Wigmore Hall and its director, John Gilhooly, have opted out of the Arts Council system. I cannot help noting that even the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, in her recent report on the Arts Council, said: “People felt that ACE was pursuing access to culture in an instrumentalist way and had lowered the priority given to the pursuit of artistic excellence. Art and excellence were sidelined”.