BBC Stands By Decision To Censor The Word “Palestine” From Rap Verse

Written by J.Monkey. Posted in Spotlight, WTF, Ya Heard?!?!

Published on February 08, 2012 with 7 Comments">7 Comments

To quote the late, great Amy Winehouse, “What kind of f*ckery is this?”

In February 2011, British MC Mic Righteous spit a verse on late night BBC Radio containing the following words:

I still have the same beliefs
I can scream Free Palestine,
Die for my pride still pray for peace,
Still burn a fed for the brutality
They spread over the world.

The word “Palestine” however, was replaced by the Beeb with the sound of broken glass, something usually reserved for curse words. This obviously led to many a skewed eyebrow and justified complaints to the BBC, who have ruled last week that “Mic Righteous was expressing a political viewpoint which, if it had been aired in isolation, would have compromised impartiality.” Which is of course, patently ridiculous, not only because of you know, artistic integrity and freedom of expression ‘n all that, but because that “counterpoint” needed to comprise “impartiality” has no actual basis in reality.

image

Stating that Palestine is not free is not an expression of opinion but of fact. It is not antisemitic or unbalanced reporting to suggest Palestine is not free, rather the opposite. As everybody should be well aware, there is a conflict in Israel spanning generations that is only getting more complicated as years go by. Palestinians however, are denied free trade, transportation and often (those in Gaza) contained behind an illegal wall. Their economy has been systematically and intentionally ruined. Their remaining territories are colonized by armed settlers. They are cut off from sources of drinking water, their agricultural soil has often been seized without justification and their houses can be demolished on a whim by the military without consent from any judiciary body. A military by the way, that is not made up of Palestinians but by Israelis. Sure, they have their own government, but it’s outranked by the Israeli government that occupies them. How anybody can call a country free when it has foreign soldiers based within it’s boundaries controlling their moves is beyond me. Saying these things does not condone acts of terrorism in any way. They are statements of fact, backed up by historic reports, human rights studies, international law and the friggin’ UN:

In 1975, by its resolution 3376 the UN General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), and requested it to recommend a programme to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty; and to return to their homes and property.

In short, implying Palestine is not free does not need to be addressed with a counterpoint as much as implying water is wet needs to be countered by some random random yahoo claiming it isn’t, for the sake of impartiality. Doing so is a slap in the face of millions of Palestinians, politically moderate Israelis and international law. The BBC needs to pull their heads out of their @sses and apologize to Mic Righteous, air his uncensored verse and fire the blithering idiot that made this ruling.

FREE PALESTINE

The only good thing coming out of this is that the verse in question, “Free Palestine” included, has now gained tons more traction than it would’ve had they simply let it pass. Below is Mic Righteous’ verse in full.

J.Monkey

1982 was when Jaap van der Doelen aka J.Monkey shot his way out his mom dukes. A mere two years later he was already battling Big Brother and The Illuminati. Whenever he has time to spare from those efforts he writes (about music, mostly), hosts a radio show and designs graphics for a living. He lives in The Netherlands where he continues to be winning.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

  • Wernski

    “Stating that Palestine is not free is not an expression of opinion but of fact… etc”But he’s not stating that Palestine isn’t free; he’s stating that it should be freed.  And that is a question of political opinion, not fact….Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for less censorship and the freeing of Palestine. But the concept of this particular post: that no counterpoint is called for because he’s stating fact as opposed to opinion, seems incorrect to me.

    • Jaap

      “…it should be freed. And that is a political opinion, not fact.”

      Only if you believe that one people can legitimately occupy and oppress another, which is in direct opposition with UN resolutions concerning the matter, basic human rights and international law. All people have the right to be free.

    • Jaap

      Also, if you watch the video on top, you’ll see the BBC litterally said that implying Palestine is not free, is contentious. Which it
      obviously isn’t, as you yourself already said.

  • Dan

    No offense to the author of this post, it’s a worthy story. Just one that happened 11 months ago…

  • Dan

    No offense to the author of this post, it’s a worthy story. Just one that happened 11 months ago…

  • Some_Person_

    It’s probably best to reveal about myself before I speak.  I am a young Jewish man.  I realize that this statement will make many who read my comment disregard it immediately.  Please, hear me out.  Concerning the incident that this article is based upon, I find it ridiculous that Palestine would be censored.  The rapper is saying nothing inflammatory, he is making no threats on the Jewish people, he is stating his beliefs.  Concerning the rest of this article, I find a lack of substantiality.  Foremost, the “Alarming Trend” image is ridiculous.  The first view, the UN Partition Plan, was accepted by the Jewish community with joy.  It was, however rejected by the Arab community.  The UN Partition Plan was never enacted.  The President of Israel said “It is now our primary task to establish relations of peace and harmony with our Arab neighbors,” when the plan was being debated upon.  Arab leaders spoke of “driving the Jews into the sea.”  Arab nations attacked Israel and war broke out.  Israel won.  Israel went on to return land to Egypt and eventually entered into peace with Egypt.  Following this peace, Israel attempted to negotiate peace with Palestine in 2000.  During this summit, Israel offered to return 75% of Palestinian lands in the West Bank and 100% of the lands in Gaza to the Palestinians.  The Israeli reasoning for not returning all land was for their own safety.  Eventually, Barak 90% of the West Bank to Palestine.  The Palestinian authorities responded that they wished 100% of the territory back as a pre-condition for peace.  Israel said it could not, Clinton cited the Palestinians as the cause for the plans failing to come to pass.  Finally, we come to “Sharon’s Plan” as you call it.  This was not a plan for finalized territory, this was Sharon forcibly dismantling many Israeli settlements in attempts to promote peace.  You show a picture of various territory distributions and, rather than recognizing that each is an attempt to give back land and promote peace, you seem to imply that Israel has successively been trying to take land.

    Now, I would like to say that I am not screaming pro-Israel bias.  I am trying to correct misconceptions.  I, personally, fully support a two-state solution.  I believe that Israel needs to work harder to dismantle illegal settlements.  I believe that Israel should be constantly reaching out to the Palestinians in attempts to peace.  Likewise, Palestine needs to show that it is willing to engage in peace by ceasing to support terrorist organizations.  The Israeli and Palestinian people both want peace.  I believe that this is possible.  It hurts me to know that a close friend of mine, who is Palestinian, cannot return to his home.  It hurts me to hear from family I have in Israel of recent bombings around them.  I wish there to be an end to warfare and to do this, we need to stop seeing this as black and white.  This is not a tale of the oppressed and an oppressor.  This is the tale of two oppressed people, two scarred people desperately trying to make the other bleed more.

    • Jaap

      You bring up some fair points, and thanks for taking the time to put them down eloquently and completely. I wish more people would take your level-headed approach (on both sides of the conflict), a solution would truly seem negotiable then.