The Guardian’s Defence of Hate Speech Isn’t Free Speech — It’s Hypocrisy

In its recent article defending Bob Vylan’s chant of “Death to the IDF” at Glastonbury, The Guardian doesn’t just misrepresent the facts — it reveals a deep and troubling inconsistency in its moral logic. Cloaked in the language of justice and liberation, the article (“The Gaza discourse has been Vylanised – but that diversionary strategy doesn’t work anymore,” 5 July 2025) is a case study in selective outrage, rhetorical sleight of hand, and ideological double standards.

Let’s take each of its key arguments in turn.

1. No, the chant wasn’t misrepresented — it was escalated

The Guardian claims that critics distorted Bob Vylan’s words:

“He didn’t say ‘Death to Israelis’, he said ‘Death to the IDF’ – Israel’s military.”

But footage later showed Vylan doubling down, explicitly calling for “death to soldiers.” That removes any ambiguity. This is not an abstract rejection of militarism — it’s a targeted call for violence against individuals, nearly all of whom are Jewish, many of whom are conscripts. The chant was not misrepresented; it was amplified — by the artist himself. The Guardian simply chose to omit that fact.

2. This defence would never stand if the target weren’t Jews

Suppose a musician had chanted “Death to the Muslim Council,” or “Death to the South African army” in protest against the treatment of whites. Would The Guardian run cover for that, insisting it was merely political criticism? Of course not. It would be (rightly) condemned as inflammatory and hateful. And yet, when the target is Jewish soldiers, The Guardian bends over backwards to excuse it:

“It takes a remarkable level of dishonesty and mental contortionism to conflate criticism of the IDF with antisemitism.”

No, it doesn’t. It takes only basic historical awareness and ethical consistency. Singling out Jews — even in uniform — for violent rhetoric in a context of rising global antisemitism is not just morally questionable; it’s dangerous.

3. Gaza hasn’t been silenced — it’s dominated the news

According to The Guardian:

“The reaction to Vylan’s chant is a diversionary strategy, one that seeks to pull attention away from Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza.”

This is demonstrably false. Gaza has been front-page news for months. UK media — including The Guardian — has extensively covered the humanitarian crisis, often using figures from the Hamas-run health ministry without caveat. The term “genocide” is not being suppressed; it’s being actively debated by international bodies, NGOs, and Western governments. There is no “diversion” here. Gaza has had relentless attention.

4. Legal action against criminal behaviour isn’t censorship

The Guardian objects that:

“The government has proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist group, and police are reportedly investigating Vylan for hate speech.”

This is a bait-and-switch. Palestine Action has been involved in criminal activity — including vandalism and trespassing. That’s why it was proscribed. Bob Vylan isn’t being investigated for criticising Israel — he’s being investigated for potentially inciting violence by chanting “death to soldiers” at a public festival. There’s a clear legal and moral distinction between political dissent and incitement. The article deliberately blurs that line.

5. The article contradicts itself

Ironically, the article states:

“Over the past nine months, there’s been a seismic shift in public opinion. More than half of Britons disapprove of Israel’s campaign; nearly half believe it’s committing genocide.”

But if that’s true, then the article’s earlier claims about censorship, erasure, and suppression collapse. If public sentiment is already turning against Israel, then clearly the conversation isn’t being silenced — it’s flourishing. The authors can’t have it both ways: either dissent is being repressed, or it’s winning. They’ve accidentally admitted it’s the latter.

6. The “false choice” is false — and invented

The piece ends with a dramatic flourish:

“We must not let ourselves be forced into a false choice between opposing antisemitism and caring about Palestinians.”

But who exactly is forcing that choice? No one in mainstream politics or media is saying you can’t do both. The real question — the one the article avoids — is this: where is the line between legitimate criticism and hate speech?

Calling for the death of Jewish soldiers crosses that line. Inventing a “false choice” between compassion and condemnation is a rhetorical distraction — not an argument.

The deeper hypocrisy: This isn’t about speech, it’s about ideology

What makes The Guardian’s stance truly indefensible is that it only defends free speech when the speech aligns with its ideological sympathies. This is a paper that has:

• Celebrated the prosecution of Tommy Robinson and others for speech deemed “incendiary,”
• Advocated the deplatforming of controversial academics and columnists,
• Supported tighter regulation of “hate speech” online.

And yet when someone publicly chants “death to soldiers” — and the soldiers happen to be Israeli — the paper suddenly discovers civil liberties.

This isn’t a principled defence of free speech. It’s situational ethics. It’s a different standard — one that excuses violent rhetoric when the target is Jews.

If The Guardian truly believed in free speech, it would apply the same rules to Bob Vylan that it applies to everyone else. Until then, its moral posturing deserves to be seen for what it is: hypocrisy wrapped in progressive language.