Tommy Robinson
Rose Morelli / Flickr

Music holds a certain sanctity, acting as both a moral agent and a driving force in the mainstream. A single song can unite people and spark action, even without the performer present—all it takes is a speaker and the right moment. Football anthems prove this power: tracks never written for stadiums, like Neil Diamond's 'Sweet Caroline' or Gala's 'Freed From Desire,' have become fixtures of sporting culture. But in the case of Labi Siffre, the use of his music at a Tommy Robinson rally led to a cease-and-desist, raising the question: where does the right to use an artist's work begin, and where should it end?

Labi Siffre, now 80, is a British folk singer of Nigerian and Bajan-English roots. His music, shaped by his experiences as a gay Black man in the UK, has long explored themes of identity, love, and social injustice. The gospel-inflected chorus of his anthem '(Something Inside) So Strong' echoes the deep resilience and enduring hope found in both Siffre's life and the communities he represents.

Written Against Apartheid, Not for Hate

This adds an extra layer of irony when the song surfaced at a Tommy Robinson rally. Robinson, best known for his anti-immigrant stance, draws support from a movement often hostile to the very communities Siffre has spent his life defending. Unsurprisingly, Siffre rejected the co-option of his work, issuing Robinson a cease-and-desist to reclaim the song's integrity.

'(Something Inside) So Strong' was written as a response to apartheid in South Africa — a far cry from the politics of Robinson's movement. In an interview with The Guardian, Siffre admitted the irony of his song being used in that context, but stressed that his patience had run out, bluntly stating that Robinson was 'breaking all sorts of copyright'. Siffre likely invoked both performance rights and moral rights of his work. Performance rights protect the usage of a song in public, while moral rights concern the protection of a creator's reputation and the integrity of their work. This makes it clear that the misuse of his song infringes upon both these legal protections.

When Artists Confront Political Misuse

Robinson's use of Siffre's music is not unprecedented; political figures around the world have long faced backlash for playing copyrighted songs at rallies or in campaign material without the artist's consent. From The Rolling Stones versus Trump to Bruce Springsteen versus Reagan, progressive musicians have spent decades calling out conservative politicians for co-opting their work. What makes Siffre's response distinct is his decision to escalate with a formal cease-and-desist — a move that could mark a new era in which artists defend not only the rights to their songs, but also the moral integrity of their music.

Protest Anthems That Fuel Movements

When protest anthems align with a songwriter's intent, they can help ignite entire movements. Kendrick Lamar's 'Alright' and Childish Gambino's 'This Is America' became rallying cries for the Black Lives Matter movement, amplifying its message and embedding it in popular culture. Similarly, Bob Dylan's 'Blowin' in the Wind' gave voice to the anti-war movement of 1960s America, reinforcing its cause through song.

History shows that music, when used as intended, can be a catalyst for social change. Which is precisely why, when a liberation anthem like Siffre's was repurposed in stark opposition to its meaning, he fought back to protect not just his work, but the principles it embodies.

In an age of endless playlists and algorithmic soundtracks, it's easy to treat songs as background noise. But music is never neutral. Robinson may have reached for Siffre's work without a second thought, yet Siffre has never had the privilege of detaching his art from politics. His refusal to let his song be co-opted was more than bold — it was a boundary that sets a precedent. It reminds us that music carries the weight of its history, and those in power cannot simply strip it of meaning for their own ends.