The world is better, and more complex, when artists can speak in their own terms. But in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2025, expression about Palestine increasingly became a pressure point for artistic freedom. Under scrutiny, the space for artistic expression depends less on the work itself than on the institutions willing to circulate and defend it.

The cancellations, withdrawals and episodes of policing expression described here are rarely the result of direct, centralised state bans. Instead, the range of expression narrows when Palestine is at issue through institutional risk management, neutrality rules and pre-emptive decisions about “safety”. In 2025, artistic freedom in the UK was shaped less by law than by this kind of risk aversion.

Speaking about Israel and Palestine has long been difficult for artists, as it has always been treated as a sensitive subject, shaped by both censorship and the need for caution. Since the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel of 7 October 2023, that difficulty has only intensified. The humanitarian catastrophe that followed in Gaza, which the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and rights organisations have described as genocide¹, has led exhibitions and performances far from the region to be postponed, cancelled or quietly stripped of institutional backing. 

Despite the ceasefire that began in October 2025, the humanitarian emergency has not ended. Since it took effect, Palestinians have continued to be killed.² And Gaza, in the occupied Palestinian territories, remains a landscape of displacement, restrictions, loss and hunger.

The effects have been felt internationally, with repercussions for artistic expression from the beginning of the war and not just in the UK. Freemuse’s 2024 reporting identified Germany as a particularly intense site of cultural aftershocks after 7 October.³ It traced the pressure to institutional gatekeeping, as arts funding became tied to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, a definition even its lead author, Kenneth Stern, warns is being misused to silence pro-Palestinian speech.⁴ The German Bundestag reinforced this climate further by passing a resolution against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, cutting funding for organisations that supported it.⁵

What has been happening is less a ban than a quiet withdrawal. Screenings disappeared. Festival slots were pulled. Venues cited neutrality, staff welfare or public safety.

The UK was subject to similar pressures and developments as regards expression connected to Palestine. But by 2025 it was generating its own steady supply of cases, framed less by explicit clauses addressing the matter than by procedure: risk assessments and neutrality policies.

The pattern around artistic freedom is now clear enough to have entered official discourse, as evidenced by an independent review of Arts Council England by Baroness Margaret Hodge, published in December.⁶ The Baroness, a member of the House of Lords (the independent upper chamber of the UK Parliament), warned that politicisation and external pressure threaten the sector’s independence and, by extension, artistic freedom. The report did not single out Palestine. It did not need to.

Palestinian narratives and scrutiny

What has been happening is less a ban than a quiet withdrawal. Screenings disappeared. Festival slots were pulled. Venues cited neutrality, staff welfare or public safety. Each decision is defensible in isolation. Together they form a system in which expression about certain subjects, Palestine above all, carries disproportionate institutional risk.

In March, a film about censorship itself, Censoring Palestine, had multiple UK screenings cancelled after what its makers described as behind-the-scenes pressure on venues. No authority formally intervened. The film simply became difficult to show.⁷ Producer Norman Thomas called it “the most crude and malicious form of censorship – the worst kind because it’s secret”. In June, documentary filmmakers Hannan Majid and Richard York said they feared prosecution under counter-terrorism laws if they kept distributing their film To Kill a War Machine.⁸ The film follows the direct-action group Palestine Action as it targets arms firms and factory sites linked to the supply of weapons used by Israel, just as the UK government moved to ban the group as a terrorist organisation. The filmmakers’ anxiety over being criminalised had them scrambling for legal advice even as they pressed on with filming. The group was later banned, making it illegal to belong to the group or invite support for it, though the High Court ruled the proscription unlawful in February 2026.⁹ The ban, however, remains in force pending a government appeal.

Restrictions even extended to public broadcasting. In early 2025, the BBC pulled a Gaza documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, from iPlayer after it emerged that its teenage narrator was the son of a Hamas-affiliated official. The broadcaster cited editorial concerns, but critics said the removal showed how Palestinian narratives face extraordinary scrutiny in mainstream British media, and can disappear not because the information they present is disproven, but because they are deemed too risky amid concerns about bias.¹⁰

Similar caution resurfaced months later, when the BBC declined to air Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a film it had commissioned – an investigation into Israeli military attacks on hospitals in Gaza – citing impartiality concerns.¹¹ The decision only amplified the documentary’s impact when Channel 4 – a publicly owned but commercially funded UK broadcaster with editorial independence – chose to air it. In cases such as these, the constraint is not based on an explicit ban but rather a narrowing of what a large institution is prepared to stand behind.

Music festivals, which increasingly operate under intense insurance and security scrutiny, became battlegrounds in 2025. At Victorious Festival in Portsmouth in August, stage crew intervened during a set by the Irish folk band, the Mary Wallopers.¹² They removed a Palestinian flag and cut the sound after chants of “Free Palestine”. Organisers pointed to a long-standing “no flags” policy. After the ensuing backlash, with various other music groups withdrawing from the venue in solidarity with the Mary Wallopers, the festival apologised to the band.

In Cornwall in August, the American DJ The Blessed Madonna withdrew from the Boardmasters festival after being asked, hours before her set, to sign a “Show Stop Procedure Acknowledgement” that she said would restrict political or symbolic elements.¹³ She framed her withdrawal as a free-speech issue. Organisers said their measures were based on routine safety procedure and legal guidance.

Cases involving comedy venues followed a similar pattern. In early July, Liverpool’s Unity Theatre cancelled a privately hired show by pro-Palestinian comedian Sundeep Bhardwaj, part of his Ceasefire for Palestine comedy tour, a political satire, after complaints and pressure exerted on the venue and its funders. It cited safety and community concerns.¹⁴ It later apologised, saying it had failed its mission and that the cancellation risked silencing others.¹⁵ Bhardwaj staged the show elsewhere.

Bob Vylan: Escalation without conviction

The case of the punk-rap duo Bob Vylan shows how quickly a political statement can collide with broadcaster standards, promoter risk calculations and policing. During their BBC-broadcast at the Glastonbury music festival in June, the frontman led chants of “death, death to the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]” prompting immediate condemnation.¹⁶ In response to criticisms, Bob Vylan posted on their Instagram account, “We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine”.¹⁷ Within days, the Radar Festival in Manchester dropped the band and police opened an investigation.¹⁸ A planned autumn US tour then fell into doubt after the State Department revoked the band members’ visas.¹⁹ The ripple effects impacted corporate sponsorship, as well. After documentary filmmaker Louis Theroux interviewed Bob Vylan on his podcast, British Airways paused its sponsorship and pulled its ads from the show. The airline said the episode breached its policy on politically sensitive or controversial content.²⁰

The investigation itself proved decisive in its aftermath. Even before any legal outcome was pronounced, the group’s status shifted from controversial to high-risk. Venues and promoters, facing little upside and significant risk, stepped away. Months later, police said there would be no charges, citing insufficient evidence, and the Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed with any further action.²¹ The legal system, at least at that stage, declined to criminalise the artist’s speech. But the damage was already done: lost bookings and reputational harm. In December, Bob Vylan sued the Irish national broadcaster RTÉ for defamation, saying it falsely claimed that they had led “antisemitic chants” at Glastonbury.²²

Kneecap: When culture meets counter-terror law

If the Bob Vylan case suggests how political pressure can flare and then fade, incidents concerning the Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap illustrate what happens when controversy hardens, and when an artist’s support for Palestine becomes inseparable from their public identity. In May, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, a member of the group, was charged under UK terrorism laws over the alleged display of a Hezbollah flag at a London concert the previous year — the case was later dismissed on procedural grounds, although prosecutors had moved to reinstate it.²³

In June, Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly questioned the appropriateness of the group’s inclusion in the Glastonbury Festival lineup.²⁴ Artists, fellow musicians, and civil-liberties advocates warned that such statements amounted to political pressure on cultural programming. The controversy did not remain confined to the UK. In July, Hungary imposed a three-year entry ban against the band, citing national security concerns and alleging antisemitic speech and support for terrorism.²⁵ Around the same time, the municipality of Saint Cloud in France withdrew its subsidy from the Rock en Seine festival after it booked the group.²⁶ By late summer, a Vienna headline show was cancelled over what organisers described as acute safety concerns.²⁷ In September, Canada barred the trio from entry altogether.²⁸ Kneecap responded by rejecting the allegation of antisemitism, noting that The Times had described their London headline show the previous night as “emphatically anti-sectarian”.

For artists and venues, the distinction between dismissal and appeal matters less than the fact of the allegation. Terrorism law triggers a different kind of institutional reflex from public-order offences. 

Complaint campaigns have produced their own pushback. Musicians and bands Massive Attack, Brian Eno, Fontaines D.C. and Kneecap announced in July a “syndicate” to support artists who speak about Gaza and face what they call vexatious complaints from pro-Israel advocates.²⁹ They pointed as an example to UK Lawyers for Israel, which reported Bob Vylan and the BBC to the authorities and wrote to venues ahead of cancellations, carrying out both public actions and actions behind the scenes to exert pressure without publicising the fact.

One response of resistance has been practical. In May, the Palestine Museum U.S., based in Woodbridge, Connecticut, in a gesture of solidarity, opened a satellite space in Edinburgh. The move followed a series of cancellations of Palestinian cultural events in the UK.³⁰

For artists and venues, the distinction between dismissal and appeal matters less than the fact of the allegation. Terrorism law triggers a different kind of institutional reflex from public-order offences. Once it is in play, it can narrow not only what an artist feels able to say, but what venues and promoters feel able to host.

Antisemitism and censorship 

The pressures brought on since 7 October 2023 have not been confined to artists speaking for Palestine. They have spread outward, reshaping the conditions under which Jewish and Israeli artists, as well, are able to work. But they fall most heavily on Palestinian related artistic expression. In May, planned UK performances by English guitarist Jonny Greenwood and the Israeli musician Dudu Tassa were cancelled after venues cited “credible threats”.³¹ The phrase offered a public safety rationale, though activists said the pressure was political, not based on actual physical risk. The same month, Jewish klezmer-dance band Oi Va Voi, after two decades of touring, saw shows in Bristol and Brighton cancelled amid objections to past performances in Israel and their collaboration with an Israeli singer, Zohara. Objections also focused on the cover of Zohara’s solo album, Welcoming the Golden Age, which shows her nude in a field with watermelons, a fruit whose colours echo the Palestinian flag and has become a symbol of Palestinian resistance.³² Her bandmates say she meant it only as a statement about femininity and nature, unaware of that association. The Brighton promoter later apologised, while the Bristol Strange Brew club event organisers conceded they had “made a mistake”.

Comedic expression proved no safer. At the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, performances by veteran Fringe comedians Rachel Creeger and Philip Simon were dropped after a venue said staff felt “unsafe”, a rationale the performers said was entangled with their public positions on Israel and Palestine.³³ By August, the matter had reached one of the UK’s leading cultural institutions. The Royal Ballet and Opera withdrew a planned production of Tosca in Tel Aviv after a hundred and eighty-two staff members signed an open letter criticising the company’s relationship with Israeli cultural institutions.³⁴ The signatories also noted that, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the company had played the Ukrainian national anthem and displayed the country’s flag. Why, the signatories asked, was silence appropriate now?

It was in this climate that UK-based Jewish artists published Courage and Care: Guidelines on Confronting Antisemitism and Censorship in the Arts in May. The text argues that antisemitism must be confronted without collapsing into censorship, and that slogans such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are not, in themselves, antisemitic or grounds for a ban.³⁵ It also insists that criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian liberation can coexist with Jewish presence in the arts.

Institutions under pressure

What connects these incidents is an institutional logic that repeats across settings. Cultural institutions are being asked to manage Israel’s war in Gaza and the wider Israel–Palestine question with tools designed for health and safety. Neutrality policies, originally intended to prevent partisan campaigning in shared public space, are increasingly invoked to exclude political art altogether. Safety rationales, often based on anticipated protest rather than concrete threat, become a tool for refusal. Over time, these small acts of restraint add up to something larger. 

The shape of that larger problem came into focus in two reports on artistic freedom published in the UK last year. They observe the same phenomenon from different angles. Afraid to Speak Freely, published by Freedom in the Arts, presented findings from a survey of 483 artists and arts professionals, and argued that certain opinions have become professionally costly inside parts of the cultural sector.³⁶ It identified gender-critical views as the most “dangerous” topic, with Israel and Palestine close behind, and noted that even expressions of support for Israel, or Jewish solidarity, had become professionally risky.

When cultural expression is even loosely linked to terrorism law, through symbols, slogans or associations, the stakes change. The law may eventually draw a line, but the cultural sector often steps back long before any formal line is drawn.

The report Let’s Create Change: Artistic Freedom in a Time of Genocide and Rising Fascism, published by QUEERCIRCLE, reached a different conclusion.³⁷ Drawing on anonymous testimony from forty-four cultural workers, it argued that the most powerful constraints sit higher up the chain, among trustees, funders, regulators and a risk-averse state. It described neutrality as a managerial language that disciplines pro-Palestinian speech through funding guidance, legal anxiety and media scrutiny. 

Palestine as the fault line

Why Palestine? Partly it is the intensity. Few issues combine moral urgency, mass human rights violations, and what the UN Commission of Inquiry, the International Criminal Court, and some rights organisations have described as genocide, with international law, domestic politics, and communal sensitivity. Speech about Gaza or Israel is quickly read not as commentary but as alignment. Institutions, wary of being seen to take sides, retreat. Another part of the equation is the way these matters are treated as a security matter. When cultural expression is even loosely linked to terrorism law, through symbols, slogans or associations, the stakes change. The law may eventually draw a line, but the cultural sector often steps back long before any formal line is drawn. But if institutions are retreating, how will the work be shared, who still gets to tell the story and who will hold the institutions to account? 

The result is a quiet contraction of space. Artists learn which subjects carry disproportionate cost. Venues learn which bookings invite scrutiny. None of this requires a ban. Sometimes self-censorship does the rest. Policing of expression, venue withdrawals and organised complaints have had an effect on even ambiguous cases, where the speech is critical or symbolic rather than violent. The UK remains a country where artists can, in theory, say almost anything. In practice, speaking about Palestine became increasingly costly in 2025.

---

1. D. Gritten and, I. Foulkes, ‘Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, UN commission of inquiry says’, The BBC, 16 September 2025 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go; ‘Amnesty International investigation concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza’, Amnesty International, 5 December 2024 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza; ‘Israel’s Crime of Extermination, Acts of Genocide in Gaza’, Human Rights Watch, 19 December 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza (accessed 10 January 2026).
2. ‘Israeli strikes kill five in Gaza, health officials say’, Reuters, 10 February 2026 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-strikes-kill-five-gaza-health-officials-say-2026-02-10 (accessed 15 February 2026).
3. M. Igrek and S. Whyatt, ‘Censorship of Commentary on Palestine in Germany: Art in the Crossfire: Navigating Censorship in Turbulent Times’, in The State of Artistic Freedom 2025, Freemuse, https://www.freemuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/SAF-2025_web.pdf (accessed 10 January 2026).
4. E. Press, ‘The Problem with Defining Antisemitism’, The New Yorker, 13 March 2024, https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/the-problem-with-defining-antisemitism (accessed 10 January 2026).
5. B. Knight, “Lawmakers condemn ‘anti-Semitic’ BDS movement”, Deutsche Welle, 17 May 2019, https://www.dw.com/en/german-parliament-condemns-anti-semitic-bds-movement/a-48779516 (accessed 10 January 2026).
6. ‘Arts Council England – an independent review by Baroness Margaret Hodge’, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 19 December 2025 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/arts-council-england-an-independent-review-by-baroness-margaret-hodge/arts-council-england-an-independent-review-by-baroness-margaret-hodge  (accessed 10 January 2026).
7. ‘Secret censors censoring film about Palestine, says film’s producer’, Skwawkbox, 14 March 2025 https://skwawkbox.org/2025/03/14/secret-censors-censoring-film-about-palestine-censorship-says-films-producer/ (accessed 5 January 2026).
8. B. Quinn, ‘Palestine Action documentary makers fear being criminalised under anti-terror laws’, The Guardian, 29 June 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/jun/29/palestine-action-documentary-makers-fear-being-criminalised-under-anti-terror-laws (accessed 5 January 2026).
9. S. Tobin, ‘UK terrorism ban on Palestine Action group unlawful, court rules after appeal’, Reuters, 13 February 2026, https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/uk-terror-ban-pro-palestine-group-unlawful-court-rules-after-appeal-2026-02-13/ (accessed 20 February 2026).
10. D. Sabbagh, ‘BBC pulls Gaza documentary from iPlayer amid concerns about narrator’s family ties’, The Guardian, 21 February 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/feb/21/bbc-pulls-gaza-documentary-iplayer-hamas (accessed 5 January 2026).
11. B. Pear and R. Navai, ‘BBC bosses pulled our film on Israel attacking Gaza’s medics. Here’s why’, The Observer, 13 July 2025 https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/bbc-bosses-pulled-our-film-on-israel-attacking-gazas-medics-heres-why (accessed 5 January 2026).
12. ‘Mary Wallopers stopped at Victorious Festival after Palestinian flag displayed’, BBC News,  24 August 2025 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jnyrk07ndo (accessed 2 January 2026).
13. Z. Woodcock, ‘DJ The Blessed Madonna pulls out of Boardmasters festival after censorship claims’, Mirror, 9 August 2025 https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/dj-blessed-madonna-pulls-out-35703965 (accessed 2 January 2026).
14. ‘Liverpool theatre cancels comedian who says his pronouns are ‘he/Hamas’’, Jewish News, 2 July 2025  https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/liverpool-theatre-cancels-venue-hire-for-comedian-who-called-israel-an-illegitimate-bullshit-experiment/ (accessed 2 January 2026).
15. ‘A Statement from Unity About Recent Cancellation’, Unity Theatre, 7 July 2025, https://www.unitytheatreliverpool.co.uk/a-statement-from-unity-about-recent-cancellation/ (accessed 5 January 2026).
16. T. Smith, ‘Bob Vylan ‘Death to the IDF’ Chants Leave Glastonbury ‘Appalled,’ Festival Says They ‘Crossed A Line’, Billboard, 29 June 2025 https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/bob-vylan-glastonbury-idf-chants-festival-response-1236010133 (accessed 5 January 2026).
17. Bob Vylan, ‘Silence is not an option’, Instagram post, https://www.instagram.com/p/DLkA_yQoDNs/ (accessed 5 January 2026).
18. ‘Bob Vylan performance at Manchester festival cancelled amid Glastonbury row’, The Guardian, 2 July 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jul/02/bob-vylan-manchester-festival-cancelled-glastonbury (accessed 2 January 2026).
19. S. Wolfson, ‘Who are Bob Vylan? The British punks who had their US visas revoked for anti-IDF chants’, The Guardian, 2 July 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jul/02/bob-vylan-glastonbury-band (accessed 7 January 2026).
20. H. Taylor, ‘British Airways pulls Louis Theroux podcast sponsorship after Bob Vylan interview, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/oct/25/british-airways-pulls-louis-theroux-podcast-sponsorship-after-bob-vylan-interview (accessed 7 January 2026).
21. J. Skirkowski, ‘No charge over Bob Vylan IDF chants at Glastonbury’, BBC News, 23 December 2025 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y2vy9lv6go (accessed 5 January 2026).
22. R. Carroll, ‘Bob Vylan to sue Ireland’s RTÉ for defamation over Glastonbury coverage’, The Guardian, 10 December 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/dec/10/bob-vylan-sue-ireland-rte-defamation-glastonbury (accessed 7 January 2026).
23. H. Siddique, ‘CPS to appeal dismissal of terrorism charge against Kneecap’s Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh’, The Guardian, 7 October 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/oct/07/cps-to-appeal-against-dismissal-of-terrorism-charge-against-kneecaps-liam-og-o-hannaidh (accessed 8 January 2026).
24. H. Vernon, ‘Kneecap’s Glastonbury performance not “appropriate”, says Keir Starmer’, The Guardian, 21 June 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jun/21/kneecaps-glastonbury-performance-not-appropriate-says-keir-starmer (accessed 8 January 2026).
25. K. Rawlinson, ‘Kneecap lambast Viktor Orbán over “outrageous” ban from Hungary’, The Guardian, 24 July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jul/24/kneecap-banned-from-entering-hungary-for-three-years-for-supporting-terrorism (accessed 8 January 2026).
26. ‘French town withdraws pop festival funding over Kneecap appearance’, France24, 17 July 2025, https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250717-french-town-withdraws-pop-festival-funding-over-kneecap-appearance (accessed 8 January 2026).
27. ‘Kneecap apologise to fans after Vienna show cancelled due to “safety concerns”’, Irish Times, 8 August 2025, https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/2025/08/08/kneecaps-vienna-concert-cancelled-due-to-safety-concerns/ (accessed 9 January 2026).
28. ‘Kneecap banned from Canada for “glorifying terrorist organisations”’, The Guardian, 19 September 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/sep/19/kneecap-banned-from-canada-for-glorifying-terrorist-organisations (accessed 9 January 2026).
29. H. Siddique, ‘Massive Attack announce alliance of musicians speaking out over Gaza’, The Guardian, 17 July 2025,  https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jul/17/massive-attack-announce-alliance-of-musicians-speaking-out-over-gaza (accessed 7 January 2026).
30. A. Villa, ‘Connecticut-Based Palestine Museum to Launch Satellite Space in Edinburgh’, Artnews, 26 March 2025, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/connecticut-palestine-museum-us-satellite-edinburgh-may-2025-1234736831/ (accessed 5 January 2026).
31. L. Snapes, ‘Jonny Greenwood and Israeli musician Dudu Tassa condemn ‘silencing’ after UK concerts pulled’, The Guardian, 6 May 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/may/06/jonny-greenwood-and-israeli-musician-dudu-tassa-condemn-silencing-after-uk-concerts-pulled(accessed 10 January 2026).
32. G. Hinsliff, ‘Jewish klezmer-dance band Oi Va Voi: “Musicians shouldn’t have to keep looking over their shoulders”’, The Guardian, 26 December 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/dec/26/london-klezmer-dance-band-oi-va-voi-josh-breslaw-steve-levi-interview (accessed 10 January 2026).
33. J. Prinsley, ‘Two Jewish shows pulled by Fringe venue over ‘safety concerns’, The Jewish Chronicle, 27 July 2025 https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/two-jewish-shows-pulled-by-fringe-venue-over-safety-concerns-s8p77lp4 (accessed 9 January 2026).
34. N. Khomami, ‘UK’s Royal Ballet and Opera withdraws Tosca production in Tel Aviv’, The Guardian, 4 August 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/04/uk-royal-ballet-and-opera-withdraw-tosca-tel-aviv-israel-gaza (accessed 9 January 2026).
35. ‘Courage and Care: Guidelines on confronting antisemitism and censorship in the arts’, Jewish Artists UK, https://www.jewishartists.uk (accessed 10 January 2026).
36. D. Fahmy, R. Kay, J. Phoenix, ‘Afraid of Speak Freely’, Freedom In the Arts, 2025, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64a6f863d07ed962ae999ae0/t/6819e95bfa65874ec0ef22a2/1746528604026/FITA+Speak+Freely.pdf (accessed 10 January 2026).
37. ‘Let’s Create Change: Artistic Freedom in a Time of Genocide and Rising Fascism’, QUEERCIRCLE, 2025 https://queercircle.org/lets-create-change/ (accessed 5 January 2026).

Published in Freemuse’s State of Artistic Freedom 2026 report.