Longer online version: sub-edited for print here

Authors vote to remain silent on Gaza

WHAT DOES the Society of Authors (SoA) have to say about the situation in Gaza?

Not a lot, apparently.

The question was raised at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Society on 2 May.

As a rather inactive SoA member I've always been aware that, mostly, the Society doesn't really "do" politics – except in areas such as copyright, and in providing grants and courses and legal advice. It is a trade union, but it is not part of the TUC (Trades Union Congress).

At the 2 May meeting, held online, and to which all members were invited, following resolutions on responses to "artificial intelligence" and for "a responsible end to fossil fuel investment in the books industry," there was one on Gaza.

Proposed by more than 60 members, it listed atrocities and called on the Society: "To issue a public statement condemning the targeting of Palestinian writers and journalists by the Israeli government."

That emphasis on writers should, one might think, be a basis for writers' organisation to say something publicly about the issue.

After all, the Society recently managed to steel itself to make a statement about the war in Ukraine (We #StandWithUkraine, 25 February 2022).

Nevertheless, the Society's leadership, in the form of its Management Committee (NEC equivalent) opposed the resolution: "We do not comment on areas outside our remit."

At least, not in this case, apparently.

The SoA is very much a "top down" organisation. Members of the Management Committee are directly elected by the entire membership: they don't have individual constituencies. They have considerable influence. In this case, they used it to set out a preamble to the Gaza resolution, urging us to vote against it. There was no "for" equivalent. As for discussing the issue beforehand with the membership, the Committee clearly saw no need for this:

… [it] has been discussed carefully, at length and revisited several times by the SoA's board (Management Committee) … with the decision each time that the SoA should not make a statement.

It held on to the view that:

… we try to ensure that we comment only on issues that are within our mission, and where we are informed and can make a positive difference. We do not comment on areas outside our remit…

It rounded off its arguments thus:

The SoA should not publish a statement and, in doing so, incorporate our individual members' voices into an assumed consensus … where we have no mandate from our membership. Accordingly, the Management Committee opposes this Resolution.

The resolution was defeated, with 786 votes for and 883 against.

There is an obvious argument that, of course, had the motion been passed, there would in fact have been a mandate, and the arguments preceding were designed to stop there ever being one. Also, that presenting a resolution like this raises some questions about democracy.

But all is not lost, we are reminded.

The Committee tells us:

While we mourn the shocking and tragic deaths of journalists, poets, and other media workers, these issues are more appropriately a matter for organisations such as the NUJ and PEN with a view to their wider roles. We would urge concerned members who have not done so already, to add their voices to support the campaigning of these organisations.

So that's all right, then.