If someone told you they were “serving kant,” you wouldn’t think they were saying “singing” in Maltese.
While that seems obvious — at least to me — it is nonetheless Malta’s argument for why their entry, “Kant” by Miriana Conte, should not be banned from this year’s Eurovision Song Contest.
No other words in the song are in Maltese. It is playing on a slang term — “serving c**t” — which has become a popular phrase over the last year or two. She sings “kant” with a hard “u.” There is no doubt as to what she is saying — the entire song hinges on the audience knowing she’s getting away with saying a word she wouldn’t otherwise be allowed to say.
Somehow, the European Broadcasting Union’s (EBU) decision — made on Tuesday — to ban the song in its current format has generated significant controversy. Somehow, I get it — at least some of it.
Malta’s Conte released “Kant” on January 8. One month (to the day) later, it won the creatively named “Malta Eurovision Song Contest 2025,” giving it the right to represent the country at the real Eurovision Song Contest.
After two days as the country’s entry, it should already have been clear where this was heading when BBC Radio host Scott Mills said “We can’t talk about Malta’s one at all; we definitely can’t play a clip of it, ever, on the BBC.”
Sure enough, Kant is out. Reportedly, the BBC filed a complaint with the EBU in order to comply with the UK’s Office of Communication restrictions which ban the word from broadcasting pre-watershed (9 p.m.) and require “clear editorial justification” post-watershed. The BBC declined to confirm or deny those reports’ veracity in response to requests from BBC Newsnight.
This was always going to happen. It is the correct decision. In no world should it have taken a month.
It’s not as though vulgarity is normally allowed in Eurovision. Just last year, German entry ISAAK had to censor the line “No one gives a shit about what’s soon to come” in his song “Always on the Run.” The 2021 Latvian entry “Eat Your Salad,” by Citi Zēni was likewise forced to open their song with the line “Instead of meat, I eat veggies and,” allowing the audience to fill in the blank. Austria was permitted their 2022 entry “Who the Hell Is Edgar?” by TEYA & SALENA but that’s about as explicit as the competition allows.
At least, that is, in English.
Last year’s Spanish entry, “Zorra,” translates to “bitch” or “slut” and is used as such, although the duo, Nebulossa, argued it meant “vixen.”
Italy has had multiple similar quandaries. Marco Mengoni’s 2023 entry, “Due Vite,” featured the line “E ci siamo fottuti ancora una notte fuori un locale,” in the chorus, which translates to “and we fucked one more night out at a club.” It was not censored. Mahmood’s 2019 entry, “Soldi,” featured a the line “Dimmi se ti manco o te ne fotti, fotti,” which seems to mean anything from “Tell me if you miss me or you don’t care, you don’t care” to “Tell me if you miss me or don’t give a fuck, fuck.”
One could argue those instances of permitted swearing should allow “Kant” to remain as is, but realistically, it’s only likely to lead to more bleeping, not less. It also ignores that neither Italian nor Spanish is the lingua franca of the competition. At least 17 songs this year are at least partially in English — the first year with fewer than 20 such entries since 2002, when there were only 24 total entries — whereas only four songs feature any Italian or Spanish this year.
Others have argued overtly sexual entries like Australia’s “Milkshake Man,” by Go-Jo should be banned since that could be similarly offensive and that the U.K.’s entry last year, “Dizzy,” by Olly Alexander included simulated gay sex in its performance. This argument, however, seems more aimed at denigrating songs they already do not like. Finland’s entry, “Ich Komme,” (German for “I’m coming”) by Erika Vikman, has rarely been mentioned in the same way and has shown significant crossover appeal with “Kant.”
This is the issue the EBU has made: the disqualification was fine, but they gave every indication beforehand Conte would be allowed to participate with “Kant.” When the official Eurovision YouTube channel posted her National Final performance — something not done until the artist has confirmed they will be participating in Eurovision — they titled the song “Kant (‘singing’)” to the song title, appearing to accept the delegation’s explanation for the song’s meaning. They announced Conte as the country’s representative, they posted a video Conte filmed from the stage saying she was excited to go to Basel. According to Conte, they even approved the chorus before the BBC reportedly objected.
These are the mistakes the EBU made. All of the confirmation allowed fans to get attached to the song in its current state (or at least close to it — a revamp had already been announced). There was every indication the song was not viable. If the EBU had made this decision the first time around, there would have been far less anger. Those who became attached to the song during the four-day-long Maltese contest may have been disappointed, but there would have been a single, clear, concise message: “We know what you’re doing, no one is fooled.”
It is this attachment that is leading to increasingly spurious arguments bordering on willfully obtuse — from the aforementioned overtly sexual entries to ignoring any semblance of context. Whether its maintaining “kant” just means “singing,” asking if the U.K. teaches about philosopher Immanuel Kant, ignoring that “Kant” is the only Maltese word in the song and saying words or phrases in past songs entirely in another language sound vulgar and must be banned accordingly or just ignoring the point entirely, Kant’s defenders are not choosing strong arguments.
Ultimately, the song’s supporters make the argument for banning the song better than its detractors tend to — they like the song because she’s saying the word. If she wasn’t saying it, they wouldn’t be angry with the EBU’s decision. If she were subtle about it, they wouldn’t be angry with the EBU’s decision.
The brash, obvious disregard for regulations is the appeal of the song. The singer who reacted to her car crash by saying “diva down” is not singing about “serving singing.” I respect the audacity to claim otherwise, but the closest “serving kant” has ever come to meaning “serving singing” is when the country’s culture minister, Owen Bonnici, said “We are all committed to supporting Malta’s Eurovision entry and the team. Whatever they throw at us, let’s serve some Kant.” Even then, I’m far from convinced.
Times of Malta reported Malta’s delegation will be taking the word “kant” out of the song entirely and are potentially changing the title to “Conte,” the singer’s last name. Where “kant” was once sung, “will likely be left without a lyrical replacement. A sound might be included instead.”
This is a highly imperfect solution to a difficult situation, but it is largely a situation of Malta and Conte’s own making. They knew what they were doing. The EBU made the right decision this time. The moment the BBC challenged Kant’s legality, the song was dead in the water.
That this was inevitable does not excuse that this was a reversal of a previous decision.
The rules remain far less clear than they should be. This was able to be controversial because of the EBU’s inconsistencies. With their regulations coming under fire in consecutive years, the EBU must take a long look at clarifying the rulebook ahead of next year’s contest.