The right outcome: Tricycle Theatre reverses UK Jewish Film Festival ban

15 August 2014 by

TRICYCLE-UKJFFAs a brief update to my post from last week. The Tricycle Theatre and the UK Jewish Film Festival have settled their differences after an agreement was struck to end the theatre’s refusal to host the festival.

Despite its previously robust defence of the decision, the Tricycle appears to have entirely relented on the issue of Israeli Embassy funding. A joint statement has been published, stating amongst other things:

‘Some weeks ago the UKJFF fell out, very publicly, with the Tricycle over a condition imposed by the Tricycle regarding funding. This provoked considerable public upset. Both organisations have come together to end that. Following lengthy discussions between the Tricycle and UKJFF, the Tricycle has now withdrawn its objection and invited back the UK Jewish Film Festival on the same terms as in previous years with no restrictions on funding from the Embassy of Israel in London. The UKJFF and the Tricycle have agreed to work together to rebuild their relationship and although the festival is not able to return in 2014, we hope to begin the process of rebuilding trust and confidence with a view to holding events in the future.

The Tricycle received some support for its decision, which is still on its website (ironically just underneath the new conciliatory statement). But it also was subject to some trenchant criticism from well known commentators such as Hadley Freedman, Nick Cohen and Hugo Rifkind. In fact, there were surprisingly few commentators who came out in support for the Tricycle, and a surprising (to me anyway) number who were prepared to say they thought this decision was, or was very close to, anti-Semitic.

My post questioned whether the decision might have been discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. There were some fascinating comments which are still coming in. I also received some interesting emails from senior lawyers suggesting issues which I hadn’t considered such as standing under the Act as well as problems in finding an appropriate comparator. I stand by my view that the theatre’s decision was certainly vulnerable under the Equality Act, although a claim would be by no means straightforward.

Cultural boycotts involve highly sensitive political and ethical questions, but it is important to remember that the Tricycle never attempted to argue it was imposing a cultural boycott. Rather, it wanted to maintain its own political neutrality. That was always a spurious argument as the reality was that UKJF were being asked to compromise their own neutrality by dropping its ties with Israel.

This spat has been more than just an opportunity for lawyers to muse over an interesting equality issue. The Tricycle’s decision was obviously flawed. Its board were under a lot of pressure from funders and the Jewish community to backtrack. However, that board includes very senior arts and legal figures such as Philippe Sands QC who would have only reversed the decision if they had decided it was wrong in principle. Which it was.

It will be interesting to see whether the Tricycle’s stance has an effect on other organisations who do openly support cultural boycotts. One of the reasons commentators, and especially Jewish commentators, were so openly uneasy is that whatever your view on Gaza, the Tricycle’s decision seemed motivated less by principle than by a kind of allergic reaction to even a whiff of Israel. Nobody was asking the theatre to accept Israeli funding nor were the UKJFF even arguably supporting the Israeli government’s position on Gaza. And that disconnection between action and motivation feels a bit like anti-Semitism even if it was not consciously motivated by racial hatred of any sort.

So that is that. Hopefully this truly excellent festival can return to the Tricycle Theatre next year.

13 comments


  1. Andrew says:

    Every individual is free to boycott anything. No individual is bound to. no individual can require another individual to do so. No organisation can require any individual, its member or not, to do so. No employer, private or public sector, can require its employees to do so. No manifestation of the State, national or local, can require anyone, including public employees, to do so. No individual’s wish to do so can interfere with the free trade in goods and ideas. No employee has the right to refuse to handle any goods the employer handles because of that individual’s wish to boycott those goods. In short: if you don’t want to buy Israeli goods, or goods from a country where human rights are suppressed such as China, you don’t have to: but that is as far as it goes.

  2. Patrick Harrington says:

    Good news! Although I support the Palestinian cause I don’t support attacks on artistic freedom. These boycott campaigns should be treated with the utmost suspicion by all lovers of liberty.

  3. Sorry Adam but I just don’t see how you can call this dispute a “cultural boycott”. The decision was taken to distance the Tricycle Theatre from the Government of Israel not Jewish Culture. I hope you recognise there is a difference.

    As the post from Stephen | August 16, 2014 at 1:48 pm states (a point which you have not commented on or responded to). The UKJFF withdrew from using the Tricycle as a venue when it raised concerns about funding from the Israeli Embassy (the representatives of the Israeli Government in the UK) . The Tricycle offered to cover the shortfall in funding which the UKJFF refused.

    Kind regards

    Richard

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      I didn’t refer to it as a cultural boycott: in fact, I said the “Tricycle never attempted to argue it was imposing a cultural boycott”. The argument which I said was spurious was that they were attempting to protect their own political neutrality.

      As to the “ban” point – the Tricycle imposed a condition on UKJF which it made very clear it couldn’t accept. The offer to cover the shortfall was beside the point as the money itself was not the point (it was only £1,400 – see my previous post). The precondition made it impossible for UKJF to use the venue, hence the word “ban”.

  4. intsolpal says:

    how can you call this a human rights blog shame on u. off course it wasnt the right decision to reverse funding. you make no mention of the boycott movemen..would you have written sich an article about white apartheid south african govt part funding a film festival or french theatres refusing to show german movies during ww2. stop playing the antisemitism card its pathetoc…they offrted alternative funding thats NOT anti semetic…what is is the fascist despicable treatment of palestinians by israel…write about that on ur human right blog!

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      What an extraordinary comment – you have obviously not read a single word of either post.

  5. David J-S says:

    I have only now become aware of this extremely interesting website; I happened upon it when looking for reactions to the Tricycle Theatre’s sensible re-think about its decision to refuse to host the Jewish Film Festival unless the organisers eschewed its funding from the Israeli Embassy. It has been a real pleasure to read such calm, intelligent and reasoned writings about the situation. Leaving to one side the emotive question of whether the original decision was anti-Semitic (and only noting in passing that the supporters of the original decision have, it seems to me, hung themselves on the usual horns of trying to purport that ‘We are not anti-Semitic, we are anti-Israel’, which always seems akin to those who say ‘It’s not homosexuals to whom we object, it is the practice of homosexuality’ aka ‘It’s fine to have TB, just don’t cough’ – but intelligent people often do get themselves into all sorts of contortions in trying to justify the unjustifiable, as not to do so would mean questioning an entire socio-political ethos), one can only wonder about the quality of the legal advice received by the Tricycle (assuming they received any, and given that the Tricycle receives public funding through the Lottery, one would have though that they would have proceeded with especial care on any issue pertaining to discrimination), especially given that other festivals, e.g. Portuguese, Irish, are part-funded by the respective embassies. Living a couple of miles from the Tricycle, I have been aware of the protests against the Jewish Film Festival in previous years, and I feel that this nuisance factor, and pressure from such groups, brought about the original, misguided decision.

  6. Andrew says:

    The tragedy of Gaza is wholly and entirely the result of the Hamas gangsters attacking Israeli civilians (Jew and Arab) and using their own civilians as cover. I am well aware that the losses in Israel have been less and Zahal is rightly determined to keep it that way. I wish somebody would tell me what a “proportionate” response would be. To allow just a few rockets, just a few mortars, just a few tunnels?

    As for the Tricycle, they have surrendered at discretion and rightly so. John, please tell us when supporters of the only democracy in the Middle East have misused the law to deny individuals (not organisations) their personal right to boycott? Please tell us whether you think there is a human right to go into a shop where Israeli-made goods are on sale, buy them, and leave, without being molested?

  7. Stephen says:

    You are still stating (incorrectly) that the Tricycle banned the UKJFF, when it did not. The UKJFF decided that it would rather not have the festival at the Tricycle than refuse funding from the Israeli embassy. I posted a comment on your blog (to which you did not reply) that either this was a dishonest characterisation of the matter, or very stupid. Why do you think that anyone should rely on your commentary on human rights when this obdurate misrepresentation of the facts persists? If you were appearing as a lawyer in a case, I would not trust what you say and doubt that judges or your opponents would either.

  8. John says:

    You seem to be making a common error in assuming that “Israel” represents all the Jews in the world. It does not. There are many Jews I know who detest “Israel” both for what it has done in the past and for what it has been doing in Gaza, where murderous mass slaughter is dismissed as “mowing the lawn” by senior Zionist politicans and senior Zionist military officers.
    I am sorry the Tricycle is withdrawing from the cultural boycott campaign, though I understand why. The ever-present threat of hugely expensive lawfare from “Israel” is something that makes many lesser committed people think more than once before embarking on any similar campaign.
    I respect you, Adam, and I respect this blog and the fantastic work it does in highlighting developments in human rights law. Please do not abuse the tolerance of your readers by introducing matters of your own religio-ethnic personal opinions into the page contents.

  9. Andrew says:

    Boycotts are only of any moral value if they are the choice of individuals – or at the highest households – and cause the individual/household some loss; not necessarily financial. If not, they are just gesture politics.

  10. APDLondon says:

    Great news, and a sensible one in the circumstances. Whatever your feelings towards the horrendous Israel/Gaza conflict, they cannot be used as an excuse for what is, prima facie, racial discrimination back home.

  11. wagaba1 says:

    Regardless of what went on during and after the discussions following the boycott, and this subsequent decision to relent, I still stand by and want to applaud Tricycle management for making their feelings known during the time when Gaza was under heavy bombardment. Now that it has almost ended, UKJJF can as well plan for the future without Tricycle and, I am sure following this incident UKJJF will have to rethink about their future relationship with the management of Tricycle. I am also glad that common sense prevailed and it didn’t end at the courts.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: