Kneecap Legal case: Funding refusal ‘attack on culture’
The west Belfast rap group Kneecap has secured High Court permission to take legal action against the UK Government for blocking them from receiving a £15,000 funding award.
Full Article available on the BBC here.
The band has been granted leave to seek a judicial review into claims that denying the grant discriminates against them on grounds of nationality and political opinion.
A judge agreed to list the case for a full hearing in November, after the group returns from a series of gigs in the United States.
Outside court, band member DJ Próvaí said the legal action was not about the money.
“This is an attack on artistic culture, an attack on the Good Friday Agreement and an attack on us and our way of expressing ourselves,” he said.
In December, Kneecap applied for a grant allocated to support UK-registered artists in global markets.
The rappers’ application for the Music Export Growth Scheme (MEGS) was said to have been shortlisted and approved by a British Phonographic Industry (BPI) panel.
However, the initiative is overseen by the Department for Business and Trade, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster, and UK Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch decided to refuse the funding.
Kneecap claimed that a provocative poster for their 2019 Farewell to the Union tour had angered the Conservative Party.
At the time a government spokesperson said it fully supported freedom of speech, but that it was “hardly surprising” that it did not want to hand out UK taxpayers’ money to those opposed to the United Kingdom.
The BPI expressed disappointment over the blocking of the grant.
Lawyers for the group contend that Ms Badenoch abused her power for an unlawful purpose.
Following the hearing, DJ Próvaí claimed Ms Badenoch had “overreached” by denying the grant.
“We are paying taxes and surely we have a right to the benefit of those taxes, regardless of our political beliefs,” he said.
Kneecap’s solicitor Darragh Mackin of Phoenix Law claimed Ms Badenoch’s decision was an attack on identity, freedom of expression and the fundamentals of the Good Friday Agreement.
“The underpinning discrimination is hiding in plain sight,” he alleged.
“The secretary of state has now conceded that she has a case to answer, and we welcome the court’s indication that this case will be heard early in the new term.”