Greta Thunberg, Hugh Bonneville sign letter defending Southbank Centre chair Misan Harriman – The Art Newspaper – International art news and events

Misan Harriman Backed by Petition as Southbank Centre Row Widens

A fast-moving dispute over Misan Harriman’s public comments has drawn in celebrities, politicians and tens of thousands of press complaints, turning a social media controversy into a broader argument about speech, politics and institutional responsibility in Britain’s cultural sector.

Harriman, the photographer and chair of the Southbank Centre in London, has been criticized in conservative UK media for remarks tied to two separate episodes: his response to the Golders Green knife attack on April 29 and an Instagram video posted after the UK’s local elections, in which he reflected on Reform’s gains. In that video, he cited a conversation between Kurt Vonnegut and Susan Sontag about the Holocaust, prompting allegations online and in the press that he had compared Reform’s rise to the Holocaust. Harriman has denied making that equivalence.

The reaction has been unusually broad. More than 15,000 people have signed a petition in support of Harriman, circulated by the Good Law Project and backed by figures including Greta Thunberg, Hugh Bonneville, Michael Rosen, Dianne Abbott and Mehdi Hasan. A parliamentary letter sent to culture minister Lisa Nandy on May 12 has also been signed by more than a dozen UK MPs.

At the same time, nearly 70,000 people filed complaints to editors through the Independent Press Standards Organisation, a campaign described as the largest in the body’s history. The complaints were directed at the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and other outlets that covered the allegations.

The Southbank Centre has sought to separate Harriman’s personal views from the institution, saying they do not represent the organization and condemning anti-Semitism, hatred and discrimination. That distinction has become central to the debate now unfolding around the role of cultural leaders in public life.

For Harriman, the episode has become a test case for how quickly online commentary can be reframed, amplified and turned into institutional pressure — and for how cultural organizations respond when their leaders become political targets.