US To Revoke Visas For Glastonbury Band Over Anti-Israel Chant
The United States said Monday it was revoking visas for the British punk-rap group Bob Vylan, which led a chant at the Glastonbury festival calling for death to the Israeli military.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said that the United States has "revoked the US visas for the members of the Bob Vylan band in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants."
"Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country," he posted on X.
President Donald Trump's administration has aggressively revoked visas, mostly of students, over anti-Israel activism.
Bob Vylan, a London-based duo combining punk riffs and hip-hop delivery whose lyricism often tackles racism, led a chant of "Death to the IDF," the initials of the Israel Defense Forces, at the celebrated music festival.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the group's "appalling hate speech" and the BBC apologized for not pulling a livestream.
The controversy comes after a protracted dispute over another act at Glastonbury, politically charged Belfast hip-hop group Kneecap, who sharply criticized Israel's actions in Gaza when performing in April at the Coachella festival in California.
Glastonbury rebuffed pressure, including from Starmer, to remove Kneecap from the roster but the BBC did not stream Kneecap's performance.
Both Kneecap and Bob Vylan, who also played Coachella, had dates scheduled for later this year in the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
38 minutes ago
- The Wire
Trump's Extortionary Demands Recall the East India Company's Modus Operandi
US President Donald Trump is aiming for a trade agreement which can safely be called extortionary. It resembles the East India Company's success in turning India into a permanent colony for more than 200 years. Whether India will acquiesce – like Canada, which removed its 3% digital services tax on major tech firms on June 30 to restart trade talks with Washington – remains to be seen. Though the US Code refers to 'trade agreement ' 341 times, trade executive agreements or mini trade rent-seeking deals under American trade law jurisprudence require a prior authorisation or approval from Congress through the trade promotion authority (TPA). Regardless of the form of agreement, Congress must authorise the conclusion of a binding agreement so to enable requisite changes requisite legal changes. Of course, the Indian Vishwaguru went ahead into talks with the Trump administration after prime minister Narendra Modi held discussions with Trump on February 13. The Indian government even boasted of signing a $ 500-billion agreement with little or no preparation. Later, India's much-hyped 'big, good, beautiful ' trade agreement with the United States seemingly made halting progress when it now appears to be teetering following a sudden realisation in New Delhi about the potentially damaging implications of Washington's regulatory and market access demands. Chief among them – allowing unfettered entry of American genetically modified (GM) agricultural products into the Indian market and removal all regulatory barriers, India, with a population of 1.4 billion and over 700 million smallholding farmers (with farms less than three hectares), is understandably sensitive to these pressures. Yet, this "wake-up call" comes despite longstanding knowledge that the US would push aggressively to pry open India's markets – especially for its heavily subsidised, GM-laden agricultural exports, which have already been rebuffed by nations like Australia, the European Union, and China. Worryingly, institutions like NITI Aayog and some of its key agricultural advisors appear to be endorsing the American GMO agenda. This, despite clear evidence that such products, through cross-pollination and cultivation, could irreversibly damage India's diverse agricultural sector. Mexico, one of America's largest trading partners, has persistently cautioned against the use and import of GMO crops, emphasising the long-term risks. The current finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, who as commerce minister in 2015 did not defend India's demand for a permanent solution to public stockholding at the WTO's 10th Ministerial Conference in Nairobi now seems to recognise that trade negotiations cannot be initiated on the back of non-tariff issues. Yet, the damage may already be underway. Successive commerce ministers in the BJP-led government have struggled to secure substantial gains in trade negotiations and have often appeared to concede ground under pressure. India is already facing a slew of US tariffs: a universal 10% basic tariff, 25% tariffs on steel, aluminium, automobiles, and auto-components, and an upcoming tariff on pharmaceutical exports which is particularly damaging, given India's strength as a global supplier of generics. If India fails to comply with US demands by the July 9 deadline, it may face an additional 26% reciprocal tariff. Trump has stated that countries failing to finalise trade deals will receive formal letters outlining tariff penalties. Some of the tariffs already put in place by the Trump administration could rob off export revenue worth tens of billions of dollars, even though India's overall trade surplus is just about $ 44 billion. The only figment of hope is that the US will turn India into a major supplier of several items while breaking the Chinese domination of supply chains. NTBs a monster American commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has repeatedly labeled India's non-tariff barriers a ' monster,' insisting that high tariffs are just one part of India's complex regulatory web. As the pressure mounts, India is realising that contemporary trade negotiations are being broadened to include sustainability clauses, carbon taxes, government procurement rules, gender and labour standards – areas traditionally excluded from trade pacts. 'We just can't walk into it,' a senior Indian official commented. 'India is an emerging economy with specific domestic needs.' We had repeatedly raised these alarm bells. Today, it seems the chickens are indeed coming home to roost. A group of former senior commerce ministry officials recently issued a memorandum cautioning that if the US demands excessive concessions on India's core interests, 'India should take equally hard positions and resist – even at the cost of not securing a deal.' The memorandum, signed by former cabinet secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, ex-commerce secretary Gopal Pillai and Ujal Singh Bhatia, who is the former WTO appellate body chair, among others, argued that the short-term costs of navigating a high-tariff US market may be less damaging than the long-term fallout of an unequal agreement. The statement emphasised that these negotiations are occurring in the shadow of an aggressive and unpredictable US trade policy. Trump's second term has been marked by indiscriminate use of tariffs and a deliberate redrawing of the global trade architecture. In recent bilateral discussions held in New Delhi, negotiators claimed progress on market access for industrial goods and some agricultural products, according to a June 10 Reuters report. But reports soon emerged suggesting talks were faltering, owing to several red lines from both sides. Complicating matters are Trump's seemingly dubious geopolitical claims – such as linking an India-Pakistan ceasefire to trade negotiations – statements that were denied by Indian officials but never directly countered by Modi or his cabinet. India has yet to publicly disclose the full extent of US demands, raising fears of quiet concessions under diplomatic or corporate pressure, including rumoured influence from large business conglomerates. Learning from China India could have taken a cue from China's tough approach. When Trump announced reciprocal tariffs in April 2018, Beijing responded measure-for-measure, refusing to be bullied. This strategy eventually led the US to seek a tariff truce. Admittedly, China has economic leverage – particularly in critical raw materials – that India currently lacks. However, India still had the option to adopt a firm, no-nonsense posture instead of rushing to accommodate US demands. Even a beleaguered nation like Iran has demonstrated its ability to stand its ground against dominant nuclear powers, maintaining control over more than 400kg of enriched uranium at 60% despite intense pressure. Today, India finds itself cornered. If it exits talks, it risks punitive tariffs like those faced by Canada and the EU. But capitulating could mean signing away sovereign policy space and inviting irreversible damage to its economy and agriculture – echoing the colonial entrapment of the East India Company era.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
38 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Starmer faces down revolt over welfare reform after first year in office
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer marks a year in office this week, fighting a rebellion from his own party over welfare reform and reckoning with a sluggish economy and rock-bottom approval ratings. It's a long way from the landslide election victory he won on July 4, 2024, when Starmer's center-left Labour Party took 412 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons to end 14 years of Conservative government. In the last 12 months Starmer has navigated the rapids of a turbulent world, winning praise for rallying international support for Ukraine and persuading US President Donald Trump to sign a trade deal easing tariffs on UK goods. But at home his agenda has run onto the rocks as he struggles to convince British voters and his own party that his government is delivering the change that it promised. Inflation remains stubbornly high and economic growth low, frustrating efforts to ease the cost of living. Starmer's personal approval ratings are approaching those of Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss, who lasted just 49 days in office in 2022 after her tax-cutting budget roiled the economy. John Curtice, a political scientist at the University of Strathclyde, said Starmer has had the worst start for any newly elected prime minister. Rebellion over welfare reform On Tuesday, Starmer faces a vote in Parliament on welfare spending after watering down planned cuts to disability benefits that caused consternation from Labour lawmakers. Many balked at plans to raise the threshold for the payments by requiring a more severe physical or mental disability, a move the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank estimated would cut the income of 3.2 million people by 2030. After more than 120 Labour lawmakers said they would vote against the bill, the government offered concessions, including a guarantee that no one currently getting benefits will be affected by the change. It pledged to consult with disability groups about the changes, and do more to help sick and disabled people find jobs. Some rebels said they would back the bill after the concessions, but others maintained their opposition. The welfare U-turn is the third time in a few weeks that the government has reversed course on a policy under pressure. In May, it dropped a plan to end winter home heating subsidies for millions of retirees. Last week, Starmer announced a national inquiry into organised child sexual abuse, something he was pressured to do by opposition politicians and Elon Musk. It's a failure of leadership for a prime minister with such a big majority to not be able to get their agenda through, said Rob Ford, professor of politics at the University of Manchester. I can't think of many examples of a prime minister in postwar politics suffering such a big setback when presiding over such a strong position in the Commons. It also makes it harder for the government to find money to invest in public services without raising taxes. The government estimated the welfare reforms would save 5 billion pounds ($7 billion) a year from a welfare bill that has ballooned since the COVID-19 pandemic. After the concessions, it's only likely to save about half that amount. Starmer acknowledges errors The government argues that it has achieved much in its first year: It has raised the minimum wage, strengthened workers' rights, launched new social housing projects and pumped money into the state-funded health system. But it has also raised taxes for employers and farmers, as well as squeezing benefits, blaming previous Conservative governments for the need to make tough choices. That downbeat argument has done little to make Starmer popular. In recent days Starmer has acknowledged mistakes. He told the Sunday Times that he was heavily focused on what was happening with NATO and the Middle East while the welfare rebellion was brewing at home. I'd have liked to get to a better position with colleagues sooner than we did that's for sure, he said. UK politics is in flux Starmer's struggles are all the more ignominious because the opposition Conservative Party had its worst-ever election result in 2024, reduced to only 121 lawmakers. But British politics is in unpredictable flux. A big chunk of Conservative support and some of Labour's shifted in this year's local elections to Reform UK, a hard-right party led by veteran political pressure-cooker Nigel Farage. Reform has just five legislators in the House of Commons but regularly comes out on top in opinion polls, ahead of Labour and pushing the right-of-center Conservatives into third place. If the shift continues it could end a century of dominance by the two big parties. Starmer's key asset at the moment is time. He does not have to call an election until 2029. There's still plenty of time to turn things around, Ford said. But he said the Labour lawmakers' rebellion will make things harder going forward, because it's not like this is the end of difficult decisions that he's going to have to make in government. Barring some magical unexpected economic boom there's going to be a hell of a lot more fights to come, he said. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
39 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Harvard 'violated' civil-rights law on Jewish students' safety: Trump admin
The Trump administration has found Harvard University in violation of federal civil-rights law for "failing to protect" Jewish and Israeli students, escalating a battle that could cost the university its federal funding. In a letter sent to Harvard President Alan Garber and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, federal attorneys said the university had acted with 'deliberate indifference' to concerns raised by Jewish and Israeli students who reported feeling unsafe on campus. The letter warned that failure to implement 'adequate changes immediately' would result in the loss of all federal financial support and affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government. 'Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges,' it stated, 'and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.' Harvard denies govt findings While the Ivy League university has not publicly commented on the latest development, a spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that the university had taken substantive steps to combat antisemitism and foster civil discourse. 'Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government's findings,' the spokesperson said. The university, they added, had strengthened policies, enforced disciplinary measures, and promoted respectful dialogue. The letter also detailed reports of assaults, harassment and antisemitic imagery on campus, such as a dollar sign inside a Star of David and a defaced Israeli flag featuring a swastika. It also accused Harvard of failing to take action over a two-year period. Donald Trump vs Ivy League universities In May, the Trump administration issued a similar notice of violation to Columbia University following an investigation into the alleged harassment of Jewish students. Columbia, like Harvard, is now in negotiations with the federal government over its funding and governance. The accusation follows earlier moves by the administration, including freezing $2.3 billion in research funding and demanding federal oversight of admissions, hiring, and campus speech. Harvard rejected those demands and sued, citing violations of free speech and due process. Talks between White House and Harvard stalled Despite the escalating tensions, Trump signalled earlier this month that progress might be possible, posting on social media that Harvard had acted 'extremely appropriately' during negotiations and appeared committed to 'doing what is right'. However, the latest reports indicate that for now, talks between the White House and Harvard have stalled.
