“ROGER WATERS”, “THIS IS NOT A DRILL RESIST WAR”, “STOP THE GENOCIDE”, “GOOD”, “EVIL”, “RESIST WAR”, “EQUAL RIGHTS”
“Ladies and gentlemen, the show is about to begin. Before it does, if you’re one of those “I love Pink Floyd but I can’t stand Roger’s politics” people, you might do well to (bleep) off to the bar right now. Thank you.”
“And if you are one of those who can’t stand Roger Waters’ politics, now might indeed be a good time to go grab a drink, because the founding member of the iconic band Pink Floyd and one of the world’s most outspoken musicians, joins me now for a conversation about activism, Israel’s war in Gaza, rock and resistance. Good to have you with us, Roger.”
“We just saw there that spectacular opening of your latest ‘This Is Not a Drill’ tour. Quite a statement. What’s behind that message telling people to bugger off to the bar if they don’t like your politics.”
“Well it’s a piece of theatre and it was very effective piece of theatre because obviously it’s humorous, it’s tongue in cheek. I’m not actually seriously telling people to eff off to the bar. And so it was a it’s a very good way to open the show, and particularly towards the, the end of the tour, the latter shows where everybody knew that the spoken message was coming. And so they’re ready for it, and enjoyed it because they enjoy telling the opposition to eff off along with me.”
“And obviously towards the end of the tour, Israel’s war on Gaza started and all that messaging gained a whole new and more urgent meaning perhaps. Can you tell us about that?”
“... the Zionist war on the indigenous people of Palestine started in the middle of the 19th century, ...” and going on to describe more recent events in the following way: “... What we’re seeing now beggars belief in every way. It’s obviously inconscionable [sic]. And every morning we all wake up flabbergasted and disgusted by the Zionist entity committing this, genocide. None of us, including you, are quite sure what to do, because the scale, the enormity of the crime that Israel is committing is so great that it’s hard for us to wrap our minds around it and to figure out how to respond to it.”
“Since the 1990s Roger has toured extensively as a solo act incorporating political themes into his shows” “Roger calls himself an anti-war & human rights activist who speaks out against injustices all over the world” “Roger’s activism focuses on issues including racism and the imprisonment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange” “Roger has faced backlash over some of his political views including his comments the wars in Ukraine and Syria” “As one of the world’s most outspoken musicians, Roger has been a vocal supporter of a free Palestine since 2005”
“BORGES You have been an outspoken voice for Palestine for years now, how did you come to know about, what opened your eyes to the injustices endured by Palestinians? WATERS (RW outlines why he became concerned about the Palestinians and why the issue pre-dated7 October 2023 .) CAPTION SHOWN ON SCREEN For the past two decades, Roger has been critical of Israel’s occupation and oppression of Palestinians. In his latest tour, Roger displayed messages on big screens including “stop the genocide” and “resist war”
“That’s it. This is Jew food. What’s with the Jew food?’ BORGES I mean, we're not trying to validate those points. I actually wanted to get your reaction. I mean, this seems to be an old strategy, isn’t it to kind of - I dunno - link whoever criticises Israel's government to some kind of behaviour to Jews. CAPTION For the past two decades, Roger has been critical of Israel’s occupation and the oppression of Palestinians. WATERS (at the same time as Borges is speaking) ....John Ware.... CAPTIONS Roger Waters, Musician and co-founder of Pink Floyd. In his latest tour, Roger displayed messages on big screens including “Stop the genocide” and “Resist war.”
“I would like to ask you, what do you think of critics saying that artists should not have opinion on politics? Thank you.”
“[Well bull- Obviously its complete bull-shit] What? What? Why shouldn’t artists have political opinions. It’s a… …It’s like saying a coal miner shouldn't have an opinion or a doctor.”
“What do you want to be remembered by your music or your activism or doing the right thing?”
“Doing the right thing. You know, I think about this every day because all of all of those of us who care for our brothers and sisters and who have love in our hearts, we spend every day wondering how to get through the next moment in face of this calumny. They are murdering an entire people. The Israelis are murdering every man, woman and child in Palestine. Nothing else matters at the moment. Once we can stop them doing that, and we can only do that by persuading Biden to say no, he could say no tomorrow. They all they have to do is stop sending the money. And it's over. Over. All those children can live. They can start feeding their children again. We can send in medicines and we could start to redevelop Gaza. But you're living, they are living, unfortunately, next to, an entity that has been so thoroughly brainwashed in its callous inhumanity that they are going to be very, very difficult to stop. But certainly we have to turn off the tap. So Macron, Sunak, all you Europeans, all… that idiot woman who keeps spout [sic] shooting her mouth off, Van Der Leyden [sic], or whatever her name is, in the European Union. No listen to the people. The people are right and you are wrong. It's really, really simple. Read. Go and read. All of you. All of you morons who seem to think there's something okay about this. You know the world cannot be ruled. That's something else that I've learned. And that, I say, as I’ve done, the world has to be loved and respected and above all, shared. Share. We have an absolute responsibility to share the world with all our brothers and sisters. This is a lesson for the Americans mainly. You cannot steal the whole thing. You cannot eat the whole cake. You have to share it with the rest of the world.”
“9. It is important to acknowledge that assessing the meaning(s) of an hour long television programme is to a large extent a matter of impression. . . . one must not be over-analytical, in the sense of subjecting the text to a leisurely or legalistic breakdown: ordinary viewers will not have had that opportunity. The overall flavour of a programme may contribute to an interpretation which would not necessarily be found when subjecting the text to piecemeal analysis. There is a risk that such an exercise will focus on the trees and miss the wood.”
“(2) ... that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.”
“16. ... a bulwark of free speech. It must not be whittled away by artificially treating comments as if they were statements of fact. On the other hand, if a person could use this defence as a means of escaping liability for a false defamatory allegation of fact, the law would fail to give due protection to reputation. That is why the statutory defence only applies to a statement which is one of opinion.”
“[Comment is] to be taken as meaning something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation” (see Sharp LJ at paragraph 34 Butt v SSHD) going on to state that the ultimate determinant will be: “39. ... how the statement would strike the ordinary reasonable reader: ... that is, whether the statement is discernibly comment (to such a reader) in the sense described above. In that regard, the subject matter, the nature of the allegation and the context of the relevant words may well be important. ...”
“i) The statement must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact. ii) Opinion is something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc. iii) The ultimate question is how the word would strike the ordinary reasonable reader. The subject matter and context of the words may be an important indicator of whether they are fact or opinion. iv) Some statements which are, by their nature and appearance opinion, are nevertheless treated as statements of fact where, for instance, the opinion implies that a claimant has done something but does not indicate what that something is, i.e. the statement is a bare comment. v) Whether an allegation that someone has acted “dishonestly” or “criminally” is an allegation of fact or expression of opinion will very much depend upon context. There is no fixed rule that a statement that someone has been dishonest must be treated as an allegation of fact.”
“19. This is a highly fact-sensitive process that focuses on the particular statement at issue. It is obvious that the court cannot be bound or guided by findings made in other cases, about different words; ... Nor can the political role and status of Mr Corbyn, or the political nature of the Programme and its subject-matter, alter the approach required as a matter of law, still less dictate the answer to the question of whether the Statement was one of fact or opinion. These are all important features of the context to which the court should be alive when deciding how Mr Corbyn’s words would have struck the ordinary viewer. But they are no more than that.”
“18. ... this is not a matter of studying the transcript, which cannot tell you how words are spoken, in what tone, or with what emphasis. It means watching and listening to the interview as a whole, bearing in mind that the ordinary viewer will do so only once. The court should avoid over-elaborate analysis and give weight to its own impression. ...”
“24. ... The cases on “bare comment” do not lay down a rigid rule of law that requires a court to depart from this key principle, and artificially treat a statement of opinion as if it was a statement of fact. On the contrary. The authorities show that “bare comment” is a pointer, or guideline, or rule of thumb that reflects the key principle. The question is, would the words used strike the ordinary viewer as a statement of fact or opinion? The answer does not turn on whether any given word is an adjective, noun, or verb, or some other part of speech. This is a matter of substance, not a formal, analytical matter of grammar or linguistics. In practice, when someone uses a descriptive word without giving any detail of what he is describing, that will tend to come across as an allegation of fact. That is what the cases on “bare comment” say. ....”
“(3) ... that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.”
“17. There is also something of an overlap between the question of whether a statement is one of opinion, and the second requirement of the statutory defence under s 3 of the Act.... Although an inference may amount to a statement of opinion, the bare statement of an inference, without reference to the facts on which it is based, may well appear as a statement of fact: see Kemsley v Foot[1952] AC 345 . As Sharp LJ, DBE, pointed out in Butt at [37], not every inference counts as an opinion; context is all. Put simply, the more clearly a statement indicates that it is based on some extraneous material, the more likely it is to strike the reader as an expression of opinion.”