These actions were based on false accusations of anti-Semitism against Waters, who is a vocal critic of the Israeli government and its policies towards the Palestinians.
Waters’ lawyers argue that the proposed cancellations are unconstitutional, unwarranted and a violation of her basic human right to free speech. They plan to overturn the decision and ensure that everyone who wants to attend the concerts can do so. The former Pink Floyd frontman believes that if this attempt to silence him goes unchallenged, it could have serious consequences for artists and activists around the world.
Frankfurt’s cancellation decision was based on allegations of Waters’ support for the controversial BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, which calls for a boycott of Israel to force the country’s government to change its policies towards the Palestinians. The Frankfurt city council alleged that Waters repeatedly called for a cultural boycott of Israel, compared South Africa’s apartheid system, pressured artists to cancel events in Israel and displayed anti-Israeli behavior.
Waters has also faced criticism in Poland, where concerts were canceled after his comments about the war in Ukraine sparked a backlash. Waters wrote an open letter to the first lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska urged her to ask her husband to take another route and criticized the West for supplying arms to Ukraine. This sparked outrage in the Polish media, resulting in the cancellation of the concerts in Krakow.
Although Waters has not issued an official statement about the recent cancellations, he retweeted messages of support from a Palestine Chronicle writer and editor who denied the singer was anti-Semitic and an editor at Delhi, India-based Marxist publishing house Leftword Books. , which defended Waters’ position on Israel. He also criticized local councilor Lukasz Wantuchi for declaring him persona non grata in Krakow.
Waters’ legal actions and defense of free speech highlight the growing problem of a culture of cancellation, where individuals are targeted for their views and beliefs, resulting in violations of their rights. Whether he succeeds in overturning the decision remains to be seen, but this case raises important questions about the right to express one’s opinion without fear of censorship or retribution.
HT
Source: The Nordic Page