The fallout from a controversial performance by British punk-rap duo Bob Vylan continues to reverberate across Europe and the United States, after their frontman’s onstage comments about the recent assassination of US right-wing activist Charlie Kirk led to the cancellation of their scheduled show in Tilburg, Netherlands. The incident has ignited a fierce debate about the boundaries of artistic expression, the politics of protest music, and the raw nerves exposed by political violence.
It all began on Saturday, September 13, 2025, when Bob Vylan performed at Amsterdam’s Paradiso club. During the set, frontman Bobby Vylan—whose real name is reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster—dedicated a song to Charlie Kirk, who had been shot dead just days earlier at a Utah Valley University event in the US. Addressing the crowd, Bobby Vylan declared, “I want to dedicate this next one to an absolute piece of shit of a human being. The pronouns was/were. Cause if you chat shit you will get banged. Rest in peace Charlie Kirk, you piece of shit.” The comments, caught on video and widely circulated on social media, quickly drew outrage from audiences and commentators on both sides of the Atlantic (as reported by The Independent and Sky News).
Kirk, a polarizing figure known for his hard-right stances on immigration, gun control, and women’s rights, had become a lightning rod in American politics. His death at age 31, in what authorities described as a political assassination, prompted hundreds to attend a vigil in London, where he was hailed as a “Christian martyr” and calls were made for a “war on evil” (according to Press Association).
The immediate backlash to Bob Vylan’s remarks was swift. The 013 venue in Tilburg, where the band was slated to perform on Tuesday, September 16, announced the cancellation of the show. In a statement posted to their website on September 15, the venue explained, “While we understand that these statements were made in the context of punk and activism, and that the reporting on them is sometimes less nuanced than what actually happened, we still believe these new statements go too far. They no longer fall within the scope of what we can offer a platform.” The venue acknowledged having previously allowed the performance despite controversy from the band’s Glastonbury appearance earlier in the summer, but said the latest comments had “clearly crossed a line” and accused the band of “trivialising political murder” (DutchNews.nl).
The Amsterdam show was not the first time Bob Vylan had attracted controversy. At Glastonbury Festival in June 2025, the duo led chants of “death to the IDF”—a reference to the Israel Defense Forces—in a performance that was broadcast live on the BBC. The chant sparked nearly 3,400 complaints, an apology from the BBC, and an ongoing criminal investigation by Avon and Somerset Police. The band’s agency dropped them, their US visas were revoked, and the fallout from the performance continues to haunt their career. BBC director general Tim Davie called the Glastonbury set “antisemitic” and “deeply disturbing” during a parliamentary committee hearing, and the corporation later apologized to viewers and the Jewish community. For their part, Bob Vylan insisted, “there was nothing antisemitic or criminal about anything I said at Glastonbury,” and described the slogan as “not an antisemitic slogan, but rather criticism of the Israeli army.”
Following the uproar over the Amsterdam performance, Bobby Vylan took to social media to address the mounting accusations that he had celebrated Kirk’s death. In a video posted on September 14, he stated, “At no point during yesterday’s show was Charlie Kirk’s death celebrated. At no point whatsoever did we celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. I did call him a piece of shit, that much is true, but at no point was his death celebrated. If it was, go find me a quote… you’re not going to find it, because it didn’t happen.” He further alleged that a reporter had misconstrued his words, adding, “Not a celebration, isn’t a celebration, wasn’t a celebration. Calm down.”
The video response, which quickly garnered more than 25,000 comments, drew sharp criticism from figures such as former New York mayor and Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, who called the band “irresponsible and dangerous.” The Dutch-Jewish research institute CIDI urged concertgoers to file police complaints, and Dutch authorities confirmed they would consult with the public prosecution service to determine whether any criminal charges should be brought.
Amsterdam mayor Femke Halsema weighed in on the controversy, emphasizing the delicate balance between artistic freedom and public safety. “Artistic freedom doesn’t mean that concert-goers or Amsterdammers should ever be threatened or face calls to hatred or violence,” she stated on September 14. Meanwhile, the management of Paradiso, the Amsterdam venue, defended the right of artists to express anger and discontent, noting, “Music, and punk in particular, has traditionally been a form of art that amplifies anger, discontent, and injustice without filter. That is part of artistic expression, but not automatically language that we as a venue endorse.”
The consequences for Bob Vylan have been immediate and severe. Beyond the cancelled Tilburg show, their future bookings in the Netherlands are under review. The manager of Doornroosje, where the band is still scheduled to perform, said, “We can’t simply let the show go ahead, but I don’t want to cancel it either. That’s too easy. Glorifying a political murder is unacceptable.”
The band’s supporters argue that Bob Vylan’s provocative language is in keeping with punk’s tradition of challenging authority and confronting uncomfortable truths. They point out that the duo has repeatedly clarified their intent: their controversial Glastonbury chant was, in their words, a call to “dismantle a violent military machine,” not an incitement to violence against any group. Detractors, however, see a pattern of reckless rhetoric that crosses the line into hate speech and the trivialization of political violence.
The debate has also reignited broader questions about the role of protest music in polarized times. In an era when political violence feels all too real, where should the line be drawn between artistic expression and incitement? Is it possible for artists to channel rage without fueling division, or does the very nature of protest music demand the risk of offense?
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the controversy surrounding Bob Vylan’s words and the reaction they provoked is a stark reminder of the power—and peril—of speaking out in a world where the boundaries of free expression are constantly being tested.
The band’s next steps remain uncertain, but the questions raised by their recent performances will likely echo far beyond the punk scene, challenging audiences, venues, and artists alike to grapple with the meaning and limits of dissent in the public square.
