Bristol-based street artist, Banksy, recently revealed his newest piece of art; a striking commentary on the state of politics and justice in the UK.
An image of a judge, adorned in the traditional wig and gown, was painted onto the wall of the Royal Courts of Justice in London, using a gavel to strike down a protester who lay on the ground holding a bloodied placard. Once discovered, it was hastily covered with sheets of metal, reported to the police as criminal damage, and scrubbed away, albeit unsuccessfully.
It comes at a time when the UK government is under intense scrutiny over their treatment of the publicâs rights to freedom of assembly following their condemnation of pro-Palestine protests, with the European Council of Human Rights even warning that the new public order laws are imposing âexcessive limitsâ on this right. As pro-Palestine rhetoric increases, so do questions surrounding the validity of these rights in practice, as Banksy demonstrates here. Banksyâs art is frequently politically charged, so it is not coincidental that this piece appeared two days after the arrest of 857 peaceful Palestine Action protestors, especially considering that this is not the first time Banksy has shown distaste for Israelâs occupation of Palestine. The âScar of Bethlehemâ, featured in a Hotel in the West Bank of Bethlehem, depicted a nativity scene, incorporating the Israel Separation Border (a border that has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice) as a background, where the star was replaced by a bullet hole, is a previous example of Banksyâs political commentary on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Banksy is making his political opinion incredibly clear, the governmentâs treatment of pro-Palestinian protests is a violation of rights, protestors are being silenced and the courts are enabling this. Ironically, the attempt to scrub the work away only emphasises his message further, and although the colour has been removed, the silhouette, the judge, the gavel and the protestor are all still visible, as is its implication. This work was a form of protest; protest that has also been silenced. But Banksy would have anticipated this, he would have foreseen its removal, and known that the ghostly footprint left behind would serve as a stark reminder of the threat of censorship looming over the United Kingdom. However, the piece would be better placed on the walls of Westminster Palace; it risks misdirecting attention to the courts rather than to the ones that are really passing the laws. Judges are employed to interpret and uphold the law, not create it, and although they have the ability to declare if a law contravenes a human right, these declarations have no practical effect. Parliament benefits from continual sovereignty to pass any law they please, and if our rights to protest are becoming infringed, it is government that are to blame, not the courts.
The placement being on the side of the courts, however, still holds weight, it adds to the irony Banksy portrays. By attempting to remove the art, the courts become complicit in the censorship of Banksyâs protest, in a similar way to their complicity in the censorship of pro-Palestinian protests and infringements on the right to assembly.
Overall, regardless of whether Banksyâs criticism was directed at the right institution, a point was made, and it was made successfully. His questioning and dislike for the treatment of protestors in the UK is clear, and the work highlighted the looming threat of censorship facing the UK, both in its own right and through the attempt to remove it. Banksy is no stranger to commentary on political controversy, and it is very unlikely that we wonât see another piece in the future, but it will be interesting to see if his next piece will also be removed, and the lasting impact that might have.