The [Queer] Politics of Eurovision

In 2013, Russia introduced an anti-gay  propaganda law which alleged to protect kids from homosexuality. Seemingly  in response to this, bearded drag queen Conchita Wurst was chosen to represent  Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Russia's entry that year were basically kids  themselves, teenage twins the Tolmachevy Sisters, who themselves hadn't said anything  homophobic, but became a target for the audience's anger towards Russia. They  booed the girls while cheering Conchita. [audie

nce boos] [audience cheers] Despite this, the Russian twins actually found themselves leading the  scoreboard, at least to begin with. Conchita began to gradually  make her way up the scoreboard, gaining points from all over Europe, including  Russia itself, until finally it became clear, before the last points had even been  given, that no one could overtake her. [host offscreen] “It’s no longer  possible for any other country to catch up! We’re ready to announce  the winner! The winner is … AU

STRIA!” Conchita Wurst had won the  Eurovision Song Contest, the first drag queen and the first  openly gay man to win the show. “This night is dedicated to everyone  who believes in a future of peace and freedom. You know who you are. We  are a unity and we are unstoppable!” Conchita performed her song again, but this time, the lyrics took on a whole new meaning.  She changed the words at the last minute, to say, rather than “I will rise  up,” that "WE" will rise up. ♪ "We're gonna fly" ♪ And w

e all knew that this wasn't just a victory  for Austria, this wasn't just a victory for Conchita, but for queer people everywhere,  for gender nonconforming people, it was a victory for liberation and freedom, a slap in  the face for Russia and their homophobic law. And they say Eurovision’s not political… ♪ [“Te Deum” by Charpentier aka  the Eurovision intro song] ♪ The Eurovision Song Contest is commonly  considered to be very very gay, at least it has been for the last few decades. We’ve had 

a gay winner, a trans winner, bi winners, lesbian winners. But Eurovision actually has a secret gay  history which goes back to the very beginning. Even when it was impossible for  contestants to be out in the 50s and 60s, it was well understood that there  were gay performances happening; the gay fans knew who was gay and  which gay people were producing songs. The winning song in 1961 was about  a gay relationship and the struggle of being together in a homophobic  world… except the lyrics we

re all made gender neutral to disguise the true  meaning. But gay fans knew. They knew. Eurovision is also famous for its campness,  and the gays do love a bit o’ camp. But the challenge of bringing visible queerness  to Eurovision took a surprisingly long time. The first out gay contestant wasn’t until 1997, and yet his act is very heterosexual for  one that simultaneously looks so gay. Trans singer Dana International  won for Israel in 1998. In 2000, the Israeli band Ping Pong brought  both Is

raeli and Syrian flags on stage as a message of peace, which enraged the Israeli  broadcaster so much they disowned them and said that Ping Pong would have to cover  all of the Eurovision expenses on their own. All the drama around flags kind of  overshadowed the fact that Ping Pong also gave us the first Eurovision gay kiss. It  was just a little peck, but it’s there! And that would be both the first and last  gay kiss at Eurovision for a long time. A fun Slovenian drag act brightened up 2002, 

but 2003 was when the real controversy began. Young people won’t remember that Russia was  once notorious for its supposedly lesbian teen pop duo t.A.T.u., who took the world  by storm by pretending to be girlfriends. I know it's hard to imagine now, but this was  a time when Russia’s biggest cultural export was probably this supposed pair of teenage  lesbians. Russia was hoping that the global popularity of these girls would finally  bring them their first Eurovision victory, meaning Eurovisio

n would then be  hosted in Russia the following year. The girls were notorious for being provocative and sexy and had suggested their Eurovision  act would include some of said sexiness. But the Eurovision showrunners said that a backup  recording of their dress rehearsal would be made just in case the girls kissed so it could be  censored. This was a family show, they said, and a lesbian kiss would be inappropriate  and would lead to a disqualification. Oh yes, such a family show Eurovision  is

, nothing sexy or naughty here, nope nothing to see here folks, we all  just pray to Jesus during the ad breaks. Effectively, gay kissing had  been banned at Eurovision. In the end, Russia didn’t win and t.A.T.u. didn’t  even attempt a kiss, nor did they attempt a kiss when Russia finally did host in 2009, and t.A.T.u.  reprised their performance with a military choir and flowery tanks. Wow, thank you, Russia,  that was so totally normal of you. Good job. But this was 2009, and by now  queerness

at Eurovision was becoming increasingly more visible and accepted. Serbian lesbian Marija Šerifović won in 2007  with “Molitva,” (she wasn’t out at the time but it’s pretty clear what’s happening here),  with Verka Serduchka’s drag act coming in second place above a slew of other queer and camp  performances (though certainly no gay kisses). When Serbia hosted in 2008, they really  leaned into the lesbian aesthetic of Molitva, with a full on lesbian wedding. They were like,  yes yes, lesbians,

lesbians, work that gender. So when Eurovision went to Russia in 2009,  local LGBT activists wanted to leverage the international attention of Eurovision to  organise a pride parade in Moscow on the day of the Eurovision final, despite the fact that the  mayor had actually banned pride, as he had in the previous years. The parade was broken up by the  police and at least 40 protestors were arrested. Sadly, Tatu’s flower tanks didn’t do much  to advance gay rights in Russia that year. That year’s

winner Alexander  Rybak said after the show, “It’s a little bit sad that they  chose to have that parade today because the biggest gay parade in  the world was tonight, you know.” 2013 saw a particularly misogynist song  about being a submissive wife to your husband ♪ “I’m your slave and you’re my master” ♪ suddenly reveal a surprise gay ending! Oh I seeeee! She’s a submissive wife  to her WIIIIIFE! Wow, what a twist. The performer Krista Siegfrids  stated that the kiss was as a message urging

her country Finland to  legalise same sex marriage. Now, Eurovision is technically supposed to  be apolitical, they’re very clear about that. “Please remember that our  motto is building bridges and music should stand over politics tonight.” Yet, somehow, these gay marriage  messages just keep getting through… So at this point there seems to have been a  precedent set by performances like Seigfrids’ and Ping Pong’s that gay kisses in Eurovision  don’t usually come from queer performers, but are

rather used for political and showbiz  purposes. They tend to have this vibe of like, “aw look it's so heterosexual and  wholesome, BOOM it’s gay, gotcha! heheheh” In fact, as far as we can find, gay  kisses in a Eurovision entry have only been performed by straight people,  or at least not anyone who is out. This means that the only known queer performer who considered a gay kiss on stage,  t.A.T.u. member Julia Volkova, who actually turned out to be bisexual for  real, was told no by Eurovisio

n producers. Obviously t.A.T.u.’s kiss wasn’t  going to be genuine or wholesome, and really would’ve been as much  for the shock value as Ping Pong’s, but how wild is it that Eurovision banned a gay  kiss from Russia that was completely apolitical. But then again, I suppose we saw things  differently back in the 2000s. Such as Terry Wogan with his UK commentary, when  he saw Serbia’s very lesbian performance, ♪ “ime tvoje moja molitvaaaaaaa” ♪ could only bring himself to constantly remark  on ho

w unattractive he found Marija Šerifović. [Wogan’s voice] “Now this Marija  is a homely looking girl.” “You see, looks aren’t everything.” “It’s that little… [chuckle]  strange looking girl.” The UK’s act that year was a pandering  camp song full of innuendo and European flags cause surely that’s enough to get every  country to vote for you, just wave their little flags and they’ll say “Oh, that’s me! That’s  me! I’ll vote for you UK, I’ll vote for you!” ♪ [performer seductively] “Pull firmly on

the red cord and blow into the mouthpiece.” ♪ I understand the “pull on the red cord  and blow into the mouthpiece” is meant to be suggestive, but that’s one of the  most upsetting innuendos I’ve ever heard. Wogan was convinced as people voted for Šerifović  and ignored the UK’s beautiful pantomime that it must be an Eastern Bloc conspiracy!  The communists taking over Eurovision! [Wogan’s voice] “We’re going  to have to build a wall.” It seems like Eastern Europe  was too uncultured to see the

heart and soul that went into the UK’s song. ♪ “Some salted nuts, sir?” ♪ I think what the UK doesn't understand is that  whenever Brits threaten to come to another country, people assume they’re either going  to try to invade and colonise or, more likely, get drunk and make a mess, neither of which  isn’t particularly fun for anyone else. Western Europe felt the Eastern countries must  be discriminating against them because the former commies didn’t understand normal things  like democracy and

meritocracy and objectivity; they’re corrupt and conniving, you see,  as you would expect a communist to be. This had to be true, rather than the idea  that they were just sending good stuff. Where Western European artists would  avoid something as tacky as Eurovision, Eastern artists were excited to go, sending the  biggest, most popular stars in their regions! While Western Europe was sending… camp  flight attendants and turkey puppets. And it seems like the reason Western  artists saw Eurovi

sion as tacky and bad for their careers was at least in part  because Terry Wogan made Eurovision into a jokee. In Eastern Europe it's a more serious  contest, so they just send better content. But Wogan wasn’t totally wrong about  bloc voting, it IS a thing - countries commonly vote for their neighbours, but  it’s not really for political reasons, and certainly not for the sake of communism,  but just because they share languages and culture and music markets. Singers popular  in Serbia will al

so be popular in Croatia, while singers popular in the UK  will also be popular in Ireland. In fact, Wogan didn’t seem to have a  problem with the fact that the only countries giving the UK any points that year  were the ones UK had previously colonised. [Wogan’s voice] “AHA! You see,  you can always rely on the Irish!” If bloc voting were a real problem, the same  countries would be winning every year. Eastern European countries just weren’t winning  disproportionately, they didn’t even win hal

f the time and yet the West was convinced  a great injustice was happening to them. That same year, in 2007, Austria complained  that the contest had become politicised and they felt so victimised by Eastern  Europe’s success that they quit and didn’t come back for another 3 years,  ignoring their own history of political choices. Austria’s song that very  year was an activist anthem created for an HIV fundraiser but I guess in their  eyes that didn’t count as politicising the contest and yet Ma

rija Šerifović’s love  song did cause I guess… she… is Serbian. A year after that Terry Wogan was  so convinced that his Eastern Bloc conspiracy was true that he quit his  job as UK Eurovision commentator. To try to appease the tantruming Western  countries Eurovision introduced juries to counterweight alleged block voting via the  opinions of music industry professionals. So juries were literally introduced to Eurovision  because of the prejudice towards Eastern Europe. Ironically, while the ju

ries were supposed to  make Eurovision more fair and meritocratic, they actually just ended up making it more  corrupt. There have always been attempts to cheat at Eurovision, but trying to influence  the televote is complicated and costly, whereas bribing a five member jury  is much easier and much cheaper. There have been countless instances of  juries being caught cheating over the years, as well as just not doing their job  properly. In 2016, a live stream by a Russian jury member showed jur

ors on their  phones, not paying attention to the acts, and a juror stating she would vote for  Armenia because her husband was Armenian. And this panic over Eastern Europe dominating  televote was all a bit pointless anyway. In the last 13 years Eastern Europe has only  won the televote twice which means that even without the new jury system Eastern  Europe would not have dominated Eurovision. Because Eurovision now included so many countries,  they introduced a preselection process - later bec

oming the two semi-finals - so that only  the best of them would perform at the actual Eurovision finale. The first time Germany didn’t  make it they felt incredibly victimised and the EBU got a bit worried about the countries paying  most for the contest not making it to the final so Eurovision ended up introducing the Big Five  system which grants these five large Western countries a direct entry into the final without  having to compete in semis to get there first. So today, despite being mor

e  inclusive of Eastern Europe, the whole of Eurovision is structured around  giving big Western countries a special advantage, whether they actually send  good performances or not. ….they still don’t win, but… you know,  they could! In theory! They do their best… Not going to the semi finals means they often show up to the final with a song that they  don’t know if Europe is actually going to like or not and end up humiliated  with nul points in front of everyone. “And the United Kingdom gets…

Zero points.” It's strange to think that back in 2007,  the narrative seemed to be that the West was being victimised by this Serbian  lesbian and her little love song, when nowadays, Eurovision has really built  up this impression of a progressive Western Europe fighting for gay rights against  the backwards primitive Eastern Europe. You saw it in Sweden’s portrayal of themselves  in 2013, praising their own progressive attitudes towards gay rights, you saw it in the constant  booing of Russia

in the following years. Graham Norton, the UK’s current commentator tends to be shocked - shocked! - when Eastern  Europe votes for something queer. [Norton’s voice] "She’s not going to get twelves,  I think, from Ukraine or Georgia or Slovenia." Oh yes of course, Graham, those  countries aren’t as advanced as the UK, even though Slovenia did send  drag queens 12 years earlier, and Ukraine did 7 years earlier, but  let’s see what they did give Conchita. “Austria!” [Norton’s voice] “I’m amazed Uk

raine  have given her that many points!” [Norton’s voice] “Now this  is extraordinary, that was a country I really didn’t think  would give her a big vote.” “Congratulations, Conchita - Austria 12 points.” Slovenia and Georgia actually gave Conchita  more points in the televote than the UK did. And the UK gave Conchita the same  number of televote points as Russia! Of course, in reality some of the biggest  queer and gender brnding acts have come from Central and Eastern Europe, including  Serbi

a, Ukraine, Slovenia, Russia, Lithuania… Same as the Eastern bloc voting accusations,  this dichotomy of gay friendly Western Europe and backwards homophobic Eastern Europe doesn’t  hold quite as much water as we like to think. We like to interpret the gay scandals  of Eurovision as a West vs East thing, with enlightened countries like the UK  and Sweden being grand protectors of all gay kind and evil communist Eastern  Europe as the homophobic villain. But really this is a conflict  within ever

y country. While UK current commentator Graham  Norton was happy about Conchita’s win, even crying about it, his predecessor Terry Wogan  called Conchita’s performance a “freak show.” Here’s Russia’s 2021 entry praising trans icon  NikkiTutorials during a Eurovision interview. “You are sexiest woman I ever know,  really talented and very very brave.” “Well, that’s a way to start! Hello, welcome.” When Conchita’s act was internally  selected, it was a scandal in Austria, there was a huge number o

f Austrians who  didn’t want to be represented by a bearded drag queen but nobody interpreted that as  Austria being an evil homophobic country. On the other hand, when Slovenia sent a  drag act to Eurovision 12 years earlier, and some Slovenians protested that, their  protests were discussed in the EU parliament as proof that maybe Slovenia is  too regressive to join the EU. When Russia introduced their anti-gay legislation  in 2014, there were a number of Russian citizens and organisations who

publicly protested it,  including Russian Eurovision winner Dima Bilan. But that’s not the fun narrative, we enjoy a good West vs East, a good democracy  vs the evils of communism battle. And this goes back to the origins of Eurovision.  The show was developed by an organisation called the European Broadcasting Union, aka the EBU.  Now, when the EBU was founded there was an anxiety that Eastern Europe would dominate the  broadcasting unions bringing together European TV stations. There’s just t

oo many of them,  and that’s way too many Eastern European votes. So the EBU was founded by Western countries,  such as the UK, France, Switzerland, and a distrust of the Eastern countries was  officially baked into the fabric of the EBU. Of course Eurovision was created to bring Europe together, to unite us through  the universal language of music… “This competition was created in 1956  to unify a continent torn apart by war.” But the first Eurovision was all Western  Europe. Eastern Europe gra

dually joined over the coming decades, but the  tension never really went away. During the cold war Eastern Europe wanted  to create a joint contest but the EBU was like … “No, thank you. You should  totally make your own Eurovision, though! Aw, how fun would that  be! Easterneuropeanvision! Yay, ra-ra-Rasputin!” And they did! It was called  Intervision and unlike Eurovision, it opened its doors to all of Europe in  1968. So the first Eurovision that truly brought together Eastern, Western and 

non-aligned countries wasn’t Eurovision, it was Intervision. Intervision didn’t  actually last very long but it was a thing. Eurovision’s attitude finally changed after the  fall of the Berlin wall. Suddenly the vibe was all about uniting Europe, with a song with the chorus  “unite unite, Europe” actually winning in 1990. ♪ “Unite unite, Europe” ♪ So finally Eastern European countries were in! Which was so great, until… Eastern  Europe won the contest a few times and that just made Western  Euro

pe really uncomfortable. The animosity towards Eastern Europe goes  way back, as far as the Enlightenment, when Western Europe developed an image of  itself as uniquely civilised and special. “Eastern Europe” as a backwards barbaric  neighbour was conceptualised in contrast. Eastern Europe was a scary place of poverty  and superstition and rude, savage people, while Western Europe was a shining  beacon of civilization and development. So Eurovision actually gave Eastern European  countries an op

portunity to prove to the West that they were just alike, just as modern  and cultured, that we were all the same. When Ukraine last hosted, while stalling  for a performer who had just run off, one of the hosts accidentally  admitted to this directly, “We’re tolerant, modern and very open country.” And you could see in their hosting, how they  tried to convey the modernity of their Eurovision. When Serbia hosted in 2008 after Marija’s  win, the organisers said Eurovision would help change the s

tereotypical image of Serbia,  and they used Eurovision to prove to the West, as CNN put it, that Serbia was  a "normal European nation". So branding is definitely a big part of what  it means to host Eurovision, and sometimes that branding can be used to cover up the… less  palatable aspects of a country’s reputation. The 2012 Eurovision was hosted by Azerbaijan, notorious for its poor record when it  comes to democracy and media freedom. International observers have  suggested that Azerbaijan

had not had a free and fair election in three decades. They won the previous year with a song which  sounds uncomfortably like a cry for help. ♪ “I’m running, I’m scared tonight,  I’m running, I’m scared of life.” ♪ And Azerbaijan already had a bad track record  when it came to Eurovision. A few years earlier, due to a territorial dispute with Armenia,  authorities had interrogated anyone in Azerbaijan who voted for Armenia’s Eurovision  song, saying it was a matter of national security. ♪ “Ever

ybody, move your body” ♪ What are you, some kind of  move-your-body sympathiser? 2012 was the most expensive Eurovision of  all time. Azerbaijan bulldozed housing, with people literally still inside the buildings,  to make way for their new Eurovision arena. And then of course they basically turned  their Eurovision into a tourist campaign. Eurovision has an enormous potential  to increase tourism in the region. Some countries will take the opportunity  of hosting to basically turn the whole of

Eurovision into an ad for tourism; they even  get funding from tourism boards or governments. So becoming aware of the human rights issues,  the Swedish contestant that year, Loreen, met with human rights activists in Azerbaijan,  but when she was asked about it during a press conference, the organisers cut her off,  suggesting such questions were inappropriate. There were several peaceful  protests before Eurovision, but the authorities broke them up, allegedly  at one protest also assaulting t

he protestors. But in the end… the branding worked! Eurovision  helped to improve Azerbaijan’s international image, even among those who didn’t  watch it, just based on media coverage. It was all pretty disturbing. Luckily,  Azerbaijan did not win again that year, interestingly Loreen did, meaning the next  Eurovision would be hosted in… Sweden! ♪ “Justice and peace and liberty” ♪ And Sweden went all out to portray themselves  as basically the opposite of Azerbaijan. They were fun and progressiv

e, and they  made a big deal about how they recycle, and they love immigrants, and they have  gender equality and love LGBT people. “The Swedes are extremely independent,  and yet at the same time extremely tolerant.” But while definitely better than Azerbaijan in  many ways, branding can still be misleading. Sweden doesn’t recycle any more than for example  the UK does, they just burn huge amounts of trash, including plastic, which is a whole new  problem in and of itself. They are also not an

immigrant utopia - literally a day  after the Swedish Eurovision final there were riots due to the economic inequality  and social exclusion of immigrants. And at the time they hosted, Sweden was  actually sterilising transgender people, not allowing them to transition  unless they agreed to be sterilised. Sweden also neglected to mention that the  telecommunications company which allegedly spied on the people of Azerbaijan like those who  voted for Armenia in Eurovision, was owned by the Swedis

h government, and that that company was  also the main sponsor of the Swedish Eurovision. But that’s not what we remember  when we look back on Eurovision 2013. We remember the great progressive  Swedish Eurovision following Azerbaijan, with Petra performing a pretend gay  marriage on stage and pushing around recycle bins. We don’t remember Sweden, we  remember the Eurovision branding of Sweden. Now of course it’s great when countries  are dedicated to upholding LGBT rights but that’s different

from turning it into  branding which is when it becomes a problem, like with Sweden which has a history  of turning its progressivism into a patriotic trait, into a symbol of what  makes them exceptional and superior. This sort of branding is called homonationalism. And homonationalism can be used as a justification  for all kinds of things. Maybe the government wants to keep immigrants out of their  country. So suddenly the narrative becomes: well, those Eastern Europeans or those Middle  Easte

rners, they’re awfully homophobic now, don’t you think, we should really try to keep them  out of our country. Our just and noble government must protect the poor vulnerable gays, so maybe  there’s a good reason to increase police and military power, so the gays can still enjoy grindr  and Her. I’m just kidding, no one’s enjoying Her. So while Eurovision was telling us this: “We’re not just smörgåsbord and social  democrats, we also love a catchy tune.” The third biggest party in the Swedish  pa

rliament was an Islamophobic far-right party with Nazi roots, one of whose members  was at the time organising pride parades in immigrant neighbourhoods to portray  immigrants as inherently homophobic and thus fundamentally a threat to  white, civilised, gay loving Sweden. So this was literally the far right using  homonationalism to demonise immigrants. Homonationalism is so ingrained in  global politics that we’re currently seeing Ukrainans having to appeal to it in  order to secure Western sy

mpathy and support. “Ukraine is a free, safe, modern, and  democratic country. Ukraine respects the rights of the LGBT community. We are one.  Please donate. Ukraine needs your support.” Homonationalism sees the West as evolved, and  any homophobia is just an individual problem, not a systemic one. But those Other people  in the East, on the other hand, they’re not individuals with different perspectives,  their homophobia is inherent to their culture, and therefore systemic. They’re forever stu

ck  in the past, where the West is sort of… well, done already. We finished feminism, we  actually fixed homophobia ages ago, so, yeah. And that’s kinda what you get from  Sweden’s Eurovision, a very depoliticised, homonationalist gayness, a defanged gayness  which isn’t going to contradict the message of how great and friendly their military is.  When Sweden hosted in 2016, the original rules said that rainbow flags would only be tolerated  in the audience as long as they were apolitical. So an

yway… Israel's 2019 Eurovision  prominently featured drag queens, a gay host talking about his husband  and grindr, opening with a performance from trans winner Dana International. Israel  definitely leaned heavily into gay branding. And this was important because Israel really  had something to prove. Their branding was in response to accusations that Israel is a settler  colonial state on Palestinian land, that Israel is apartheid, treating Palestinians as second class  people, reminiscent of

South African apartheid. Palestinians were effectively  erased from Israel's Eurovision. The Palestinian flag was banned,  and Palestinians kinda were too. Palestinians from the blockaded West Bank  and Gaza, including queer Palestinians, are effectively banned from attending  Eurovision. Activists who support Palestinians have also been told they  will not be allowed into the country. So for example, former Swedish Eurovision  contestant Eric Saade, who is half Palestinian, may have himself hav

e had trouble getting into  the country via the airport because Palestinians and people of Palestinian origin are subject to  extended, sometimes hostile questioning and often just refused entry into the country and sent  back. When Saade delivered the jury votes from Sweden that year, he made an ambiguous remark  about not being able to be in Israel this year. “Thank you for a great show, I really wish  I was there, but I’m not, maybe next year.” So Israel's branding needed to  be clear: Israel

is not colonial, it’s not like South Africa was,  it is a “normal European nation”, as CNN might put it. And one great way to do that  is homonationalism, to brand the country as a gay haven, civilised, modern. And grindr jokes are  actually quite good for that, to be honest. And this isn’t just a Eurovision tactic; Israel  has an official campaign called Brand Israel which has invested $90 million into specifically  marketing Israel as a gay tourist destination, depicting it as modern and prog

ressive in  contrast with its Middle Eastern neighbours. Don’t look at Eric Saade being unable to  enter Israel to come to Eurovision because of his ethnic background, please watch these  fun drag queens and relax and have a good time! In response to all this, that year's Icelandic  act Hatari snuck in Palestinian flags in protest, and Madonna's interval performance  included a dancer wearing an Israeli flag and a dancer wearing a Palestinian  flag embracing, as a symbol of peace. This was not w

elcomed by the organisers,  and Hatari were actually fined 5000 euros for just holding up flags, and Madonna was  apparently scolded for her performance. Because Eurovision is meant  to be apolitical… right? Well, in theory any sort of politicisation  or instrumentalisation of Eurovision is banned. But in practice, the EBU seems  to distinguish between two different kinds of politics at Eurovision, one of  which is acceptable and the other is not. “State politics” are unacceptable. For  example,

in 2009, the EBU rejected Georgia’s entry for being a barely-concealed  dig at Russia’s president Putin. ♪ “We don’t wanna put it” ♪ But on the other hand, “values politics”  are just fine and dandy. Everyone loves a vague song about peace and love and  freedom; they are just about values! ♪ “Peace peace, love love -  and a man in a hamster wheel” ♪ Humanitarian messages are also allowed, such  as the French song Mercy which was about a real baby girl born on a refugee rescue boat after her  pr

egnant mum was saved from a dangerous dinghy. So if peaceful humanitarian messages are  considered values politics, and therefore allowed, you would think that peace with Palestine would  count as a basic humanitarian message, right? “Israel and the Eurovision Song  Contest have proven once more that prejudice, hate, racism, sexism,  exclusion do not stand a chance.” But in reality, any reference to Palestine  or Palestinians seems to have been banned from the competition, messages of peace  inc

luded. Surely that banning in and of itself would count as state politics, and  state politics are not allowed, right? During Israel's postcards for each song they  showed footage of Israel, but sometimes illegally occupied land which under international law is  not recognised as being part of Israel. The United Nations has suggested that Israeli settlements in  occupied territories should be considered a war crime. So the show was literally using the tourism  branding of Eurovision to tell the

world, "Hey, this land belongs to us; please gays, come and  spend your holiday money here. We have Grindr!” “A certain app that is on fire right now because  of all the handsome tourists in Tel Aviv.” In fact when Israel won the previous year, there  had been hopes to host Eurovision in Jerusalem. “Next time in Jerusalem!” Except Jerusalem is a contested city, also claimed  by Palestine. To host in Jerusalem would have been a bold political move. So I guess they just  settled for bold political

postcards instead. Which makes sense, because those postcards serve  as tourism ads for Israel. And Israel was already listing Airbnb and other tourist services  in their illegally occupied territories. The year following Israel's  Eurovision saw a huge tourism boom, as you’d expect after a country hosts Eurovision. So given that Israel instrumentalised  Eurovision as propaganda and a tourist ad for illegally occupied territories,  why were Hatari and Madonna the ones to get in trouble with the

EBU? Did Madonna  really say much more than “peace peace, love love”? Which one of these is state  politics here and which is values politics? The DVD version of Eurovision excludes Madonna  entirely and also cuts out the clip of Hatari with the Palestinian flag, but keeps in all of  the postcards of illegally occupied territory, effectively endorsing Israel's political message  and completely erasing Palestine from Eurovision. Was this really the apolitical way to deal  with the issue of Israe

l and Palestine? But this isn’t the first time Eurovision’s  policy has seemed contradictory. We told you about the Mercy  refugee song, which was allowed. And Sweden in 2016 actually had an  interval performance about refugees, trying to draw attention to their struggles. But the following year, when soon-to-be-winner  Salvador Sobral wore an SOS Refugees jumper to a press conference, the EBU asked him to stop  wearing it because they saw it as political. [Sobral] “Make no mistake, these  peopl

e are not immigrants, you know, they’re refugees, running away from death.” So which is it, is caring about  refugees values politics and allowed or is it state politics and  forbidden? Maybe Sobral was just too open about how governments can be at  fault for how refugees are treated. But then why is gay marriage always allowed  at Eurovision, going back to 2008? Siegfrids in 2013 said specifically her performance was  about legalising same sex marriage in Finland, which is clearly state politic

s and much  more tangible than anything Sobral said. So what are the politics of Eurovision? It  clearly has a political agenda. Maybe that agenda is simply to unite Europe - that’s  what it was created for, after all, right? “This competition was created in 1956  to unify a continent torn apart by war.” Well, not exactly. I mean  not at all actually. In fact, we’ve been lying to you. But only  ‘cause Eurovision did it first… The EBU comes from a long legacy of  unions managing European telegrap

h and radio connections. They’re a  pragmatic, technical organisation. And in the 1950s it was their job  to come up with content for this new television technology which  was taking off across Europe. So they came up with this idea for  a European song contest; a quick, cheap and easy broadcast, an hour and  twenty minutes, they didn’t even plan on doing a second one. It would be in  the same vein as like the football cup, a cool exercise in this new fangled  concept of international tv broadca

sting. After all, it’s cheaper to create one TV programme  and show it in a bunch of different countries than it is to create a bunch of TV programmes  all over the place, so this seemed perfect. The truth is, there was no romantic vision of  bringing Europe together through the power of music after Europe was torn apart by war…it was  just a cheap and easy way to make a tv show. And the project actually had to  remain apolitical because…that’s the most efficient way to get shit done.  They woul

d never meddle with governments or the EU because that would only hold  them back, overly complicate things. But they also understood the power of television, that it can “be a deadly weapon of  propaganda and controlled information” and the EBU wanted to avoid all of  that in their little song competition. But easier said than done. Countries  understood immediately that Eurovision was a great way to brand themselves. From  Germany sending a holocaust survivor and an American to the very first

contest in  1956 to Franco’s Spain in the following two decades using Eurovision to gloss over its  fascist dictatorship and promote its tourism, countries have always known how to use  Eurovision to send political messages. And the EBU has always positioned itself  as “apolitical” and later reinforced that with rules keeping Eurovision songs  and artists in check. But being the arbiter of what counts as political  is - in itself - a political act. To decide Siegfrids’s gay  marriage act is apol

itical, is a political choice - to decide that gay  rights are apolitical is political. To allow Israel's branding to include illegally  occupied territories is political. But what do you do when for example  a European country invades another European country? We’ve established before that  invading other countries outside of Europe is fine - the UK faced no consequences  for invading Iraq in 2003; Israel has faced no consequences regardless of whether  they’ve committed illegal acts or war cri

mes. So what about Russia after the  invasion of Ukraine? They got kicked out, right? Well, no, not to begin with. After the Russian invasion began, Ukraine  asked for Russia to be expelled from both the EBU and Eurovision and the EBU said  no, Russia would be allowed to stay. So why was Russia eventually expelled? Well… because in the end ten other countries  complained and some even threatened to withdraw from Eurovision if Russia was allowed to  compete. And suddenly, the EBU changed their mi

nd and said that "in light of the  unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year's Contest  would bring the competition into disrepute." That’s what it really comes down to:  “disrepute.” They’re not uniting Europe, they’re making a TV programme, and they  want the TV programme to avoid disrepute. Eurovision has always had a sizeable gay fandom, and especially now when gay rights are  so widely acceptable, perhaps it would bring Eurovision into disrepute to turn 

down a gay performance like Siegfrids’s, though apparently that wasn’t a concern back in  2003 when these topics were more controversial. The issues with Israel aren’t a real problem  because very few people in Europe care about them. An attempt at boycotting Israel’s  Eurovision in 2019 fell pretty flat, barely putting a dent in the viewing figures. But when Russia invaded Ukraine and  eleven countries were all complaining and some were threatening to leave  Eurovision… that was enough to put

the show in danger of disrepute  and force the EBU to respond. So no, Eurovision was not created to  bring Europe together, and even today, that’s not really the function, it’s  just cute branding. Eurovision is just a TV programme trying to put on a good show while  desperately trying to avoid any kind of political controversy. And avoiding controversy isn’t  necessarily about doing the apolitical thing. So Eurovision tends to be characterised by a hell  of a lot of politics both behind the sce

nes and on the stage while the EBU stands in front of it  saying, “hahaha nothing to see here folks, it's all just a normal song competition! Everything’s  fine, please don’t look at them doing this.” There are so many great things  about Eurovision. I love being exposed to cultures that otherwise  don't have a chance to compete with the American and Western music dominating  the global charts. For one week a year, music from Moldova and Latvia has the same  platform as music from the UK and Swe

den. It’s so incredible to get to hear songs in  languages like North Sámi and Sranan Tongo, such small languages which I’d never  had the opportunity to hear before. And it's so fun to look back on all these  historical milestones in Eurovision, the first openly gay artist, the first drag act, the first woman wearing trousers on Eurovision,  because yeah that was a thing back then! There is a reason Eurovision is one  of Europe’s most popular TV events. Unlike other international mega-events li

ke  the Olympics, Eurovision is a democracy, allowing the European audience to  have a voice and shape the outcome each year. Eurovision has launched  global stars and given us iconic songs. Its peculiar format has even helped  create a whole new music genre, Europop. Eurovision shows us a Europe that does right  by its minorities, be it ethnic or LGBT, a Europe that has atoned for its past,  where all countries have an equal chance regardless of their size, or history or  EU membership. Eurovis

ion shows us a very authentic European culture which is fun  and goofy and communicated in a mishmash of broken English and local languages. This  is the cosmopolitan, progressive and peace- loving Europe that we know and love, where  the villains are booed and the heroes win. But it’s… not real. This perfect Europe that  exists in Eurovision is an ideal, a utopia, a flattering image of how Europe wants to see  itself, not how it really is. And unless we’re aware of its artificial nature, those

dreams of  an equal, peaceful Europe, can be exploited to cover up its reality and minorities can be turned  into a symbol and a tool instead of actually being uplifted. We create the illusion that the  problem is other countries, other peoples, other ethnicities, different backgrounds.  But if we really want a better world then, as the Slovenians say, we gotta  sweep our own doorsteps first. There’s so much more to say about  Eurovision and we are going to be continuing the Eurovision conversat

ion over  on our Patreon because we did so much research and have so much more to say about it, so if  you wanna check out more Eurovision content and also support this channel, please  consider joining us over on the Patreon! Otherwise smash all those buttons, everything except the dislike please,  and you know, ring the little bell. Thank you so much to all our  patrons and a special thanks to…