Ed Sheeran Has The Right To Remain Silent

We should be appalled by a culture that makes dishonesty – to ourselves and our politics – the safest course.

Until now, Ed Sheeran has been an uncontroversial figure. Whether you like or dislike his particular brand of everyman pop, it’s hard to dislike the man behind it. Unless, that is, you are among the pro-Gaza activists who have spent the last two weeks bullying Sheeran and trying to wreck his tour. All for the crime of… wanting to keep his politics private.

The controversy began when support act Macklemore used his appearances at Sheeran’s gigs to deliver pro-Palestinian speeches and to display footage of the conflict in Gaza. Stadium owners objected, and the tour promoters subsequently axed him from the tour.

Activists then demanded that Sheeran reinstate the rapper or cancel the rest of his performances, urging fans and artists to boycott the shows. They hurled accusations of complicity at Sheeran as if silence made the pop star somehow responsible for a conflict in the Middle East. On Saturday night, Sheeran apologised and called the situation in Gaza “unjustifiable”. But it should never have come to this.

People’s political views should be their own, and we should all be entitled to decide whether and when we want to share them publicly. Whatever good these activists think will come from pressuring Sheeran, no artist owes them their voice, whatever their privately held views. Sheeran said as much last week, pointing out that he makes a deliberate point of keeping politics out of his day job. Choosing to stay out of this debate is just that: a choice. And it shouldn’t be read as some secret endorsement of any political viewpoint.

The response from the activists shows they were never going to accept even sincerely held neutrality anyway. After much pressure, Sheeran did issue a statement calling for peace, but this failed to pass the Gaza purity test, and the artist was attacked for failing to call for “justice”. Simply caring about the suffering of your fellow humans isn’t enough for these people; you have to speak in their terms, or you’re considered guilty of some crime of morality.

The campaigners would, presumably, argue that the matter of Gaza is so important that such pressure is justified. But we could have no expectation of freedom of conscience if we needed to suspend it every time some activists are sure of themselves. Every movement believes its cause is the most important one. If that permits their supporters to bully people into public shows of faith, then there is scarcely a matter on which anybody can keep their own counsel.

It’s important we condemn this kind of pressure because it bleeds into politics at large. If we treat silence as complicity, then anyone with any cause has an excuse to demand public allegiance. People with doubts or who just aren’t well-informed enough to pass judgment are encouraged to say whatever will spare them the abuse of a mass-cancelling. This makes a mockery of our discourse. If people only adopt opinions because they’re forced to, then politics ceases to mean anything at all.

Macklemore is, of course, entitled to his views too, and his fans are perfectly within their rights to express their disagreement with his removal from the tour. The promoters, too, are not immune from criticism. But Sheeran’s decision to keep his politics private should be no offence to anybody, and trying to wreck his tour over it should be called out for the vindictiveness it represents.

This affects those in front of the stage as well. If the boycotters get their way, then we will no longer be able to enjoy music – or much else – together with other people unless we agree with their politics. If Sheeran is such an awful person for keeping his views private, then what does that say about somebody paying to see his gig?

People who profoundly disagree about Gaza and whatever else can still find pleasure in the same performance, and that is something worth protecting in a divided society. Boycotts like this pressure us to give up those experiences so that we too can display somebody else’s idea of moral purity. And if you don’t want to go and see Ed Sheeran because of his silence, that is your right. But society would be a better place if more of us pointed out just how silly such decisions are.

Freedom of conscience means accepting that not everybody wants to join our cause, even those dearest to our hearts. Whatever your view on the situation in the Middle East, Ed Sheeran is not responsible for resolving it. He should not be obliged to surrender his tour to those who wish to use him as a vessel for their message.

The pressure on Sheeran shows what other public figures can expect if they try to keep their views to themselves. If we don’t call this out, then artists will continue to issue whatever statements protect their careers. Those who insist on speaking their true beliefs or just keeping them to themselves will be exposed to abuse and lose work. And people will be forced to adapt their innocuous music tastes to avoid social stigma. We should be appalled by a culture that makes dishonesty – to ourselves and our politics – the safest course.

Jack Rowlett is a political commentator and the Head of Operations for Buffering Britain. He writes at Build Vector, applying Enlightenment values to the 21st Century’s biggest problems, and can be followed on X through @Jack_Nostalgic.