Petition to Society of Authors re their chair

[beastlyslumber]

The chair of SoA is Joanne Harris, a TRA. Over the years she has tweeted some nasty things to and about other authors. After the attack on Salman Rushdie, JKR tweeted and received death threats. JH's response was a sarcastic tweet.

There's now been a petition organised to ask the SoA to consider whether their chair can be considered to be defending authors' rights in the light of her activism.

I'm an author, and as much as I find JH's activism unpleasant, I'm not convinced that a petition isn't just more cancel culture. I want to see evidence that what she's doing on twitter is affecting the work of the SoA - I think she is damaging the perception of the organisation, for sure. But she is an unlikeable person and it's hard for me to separate these things out. I don't want to sign the petition just because I dislike her. Any other authors who've signed it or are considering doing so?

@beastlyslumber have you read the thread below?

Mid way in covers some if the issues writers other than JKR had with SoA/JH.
With twitter links to authors threads.

Plus some of JH's own twitter activity in the links

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4610967-jkr-receiving-death-threats-for-supporting-salman-rushdie?page=1

But suggest that I don’t share her beliefs, and she comes up with the bizarre conclusion that I must hate millions of people worldwide.

Yes, the problem is that gender activists have as part of their agenda trying to force everyone else to agree with them. When that doesn't happen, they claim it's about hate, rather than, you know, people being allowed to have their own opinions based on facts and logic. It's so pathetic and childish.

Don't believe in transubstantiation? - "you hate christians!"

Don't think star signs are really a thing? - "you want all astrologers to DIE!"

These examples are ridiculous and no one would take them seriously, yet they're still spouting this bollocks about "anti-trans" and "denying our existence!!!".

It's whether or not JH is letting her personal opinions get in the way of doing her job, which I understand is to support all authors, regardless of their opinions / beliefs.

Yes. I suspect that she may be letting her opinions get in the way. However, she did tweet out recently a list of (unnamed) authors that the SoA supported and helped, despite JH personally not agreeing with their opinions. If that's true, then I feel like she's doing what she's supposed to be doing.

I definitely think she needs to separate her activism from her role as chair of the SoA. If nothing else, it is muddying the water and leaving her vulnerable to these accusations.

However, even if the SoA technically supports writers on an individual case basis, if Harris is still undermining that with her personal tweets (like praising tweets that depict people being stabbed) then it’s still a really serious issue.

The SoA's mission is to defend freedom of speech for all members. The claim is that Harris conspicuously does not do so, and that she supports and denigrates according to her personal feelings about the individual concerned.
She is not employed as Chair - it's an unpaid position, so her income is not being targeted.
Also her tweets are childish and thoroughly unprofessional and for that alone, frankly, I think she is unsuitable for the post of Chairwoman.
This is not just about JK - it's really about women members like Rachel Rooney, Amanda Craig and Gillian Philip whose careers have been terminated and livelihoods almost destroyed.

The way I see it, her position is comparable to Speaker of the House of Commons. Above all, she must be impartial, respect the values of her institution and fight for the betterment of all members.

@beastlyslumber
One of the writers that JH claims to have helped insists she had nothing to do with it, so...

I do understand your reluctance, though. I think the best thing would have been to put the information in the public domain and leave it at that.

Yep, if I were a member of the SoA, I'd definitely be complaining as it sounds like she's not fulfilling her role.

I think it's the public aspect of it that I'm also uncomfortable with.

It is really serious. I guess part of my reluctance is the whole back and forth - there's a petition against JH, a petition in support of her, a statement in support of the first petition... and so on. It's started to feel like a playground fight.

That doesn't totally surprise me.

Honestly, I think it would do JH good to step down. She seems to have lost her grip on her SoA role. It must be very difficult to be in her position with a trans-identified daughter. I imagine she feels under a huge amount of pressure.

I know that's not the point and it's about the SoA doing its job properly. But I wonder if the petition{s} have trivialised the issues somewhat.

@beastlyslumber

Maybe someone should suggest peace talks? Everyone sensible accepts GC views are protected. It might be time to get people round a table to actually hammer out a policy.

It's started to feel like a playground fight.

Yes I agree and part of why I don't want to get involved. I would like, in theory, to make the point that the chair should be impartial and should not be swayed by an ideology to undermine particular members who disagree.

But it wouldn't be seen as that. It just looks like picking a side in a brawl - on top of which, because I'd opposing JH staying as chair, I'll just get accused of transphobia which a load of idiots will believe.

Maybe a better plan would be an individual letter to the SOA, to the effect that I'll
withdraw my membership if I can't rely on the chair to support me simply because I base my views on science, logic and feminism.

I think that Joanne Harris has a conflict of interest where she is allowing her loyalty to a family member to sway her judgement on decisions affecting members of the society and as such must stand down.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/conflicts-of-interest-a-guide-for-charity-trustees-cc29/conflicts-of-interest-a-guide-for-charity-trustees#identifying-conflicts-of-interest-legal-requirement

Remember that Joanne Harris doesn't think cancelling people is a bad thing. She says that we cancel things that are unwanted all the time, so presumably she'll be fine if it happens to her. (It won't, because she cheerleads the orthodoxy.)

The issue isn't her opinions, it's her unwillingness to champion the principle of free speech.

The SoA already has a policy on freedom of expression. It's also meant to represent authors equally, without fear or favour. But since JH has been chair, there's some... lack of clarity about whether this has been happening.

Maybe a better plan would be an individual letter to the SOA, to the effect that I'll withdraw my membership if I can't rely on the chair to support me simply because I base my views on science, logic and feminism.

I think this is a good compromise position. I think that's what I'll do, too. Thank you!

I'm not a writer and therefore not a member, therefore I won't be signing. I don't think it's for me to interfere in the running of the SoA. It's not my union/union-adjacent organisation or my onion. For all I know, the majority of gender-critical authors and members may have faith that JH will represent their interests, regardless of personal ideological differences. I wouldn't know how JH behaves when Chairing the SoA, because I don't see any of its activities from inside. You might say that I think it's presumptuous for outsiders and non-writers to expect a voice in decision-making processes in the author-only space!

That said, although JH may be capable of separating personal views and professional responsibilities, the tenor of JH's typical social media activity doesn't evidence it to an outsider.

So if you handed me a publishing contract for my unfinished NaNoWriMo project, it would require high pressure selling to persuade me to spend any of my advance on SoA membership!

I await further developments with interest.

Surely part of a union's responsibility is to speak to outsiders: hence the pressure to make a statement condemning the attack on Rushdie. If a union can't publicly support its members, is it doing its job? Authors are dependent on the reading public who have a personal connection with the members through purchasing their work. Readers seek out authors by name. In the same way that the public can support nurses or teachers, why not advocate for authors? Labour and unions are losing women because of gender identity politics. To silence women advocating free speech because they are supporting authors who disagree with the orthodoxy is to deny the value and importance of public advocacy.

Not interested in JH's opinions. Within an organisation an individual is employed to do a job. If personal opinions get in the way of that, they should do the honourable thing and stand down. Writers operate (in the main) independently, that independence comes with a great deal of personal sacrifice. The job of the SoA is to offer a degree of protection to those who choose the courageous path of operating outside of the mainstream. If JH cannot do this, the SoA is pointless.

Hello OP. Another author here. I signed the Julie Bindel open letter to the SOA. I didn't use my real name as I don't want to run the risk of attracting trans activists' aggression. I resigned my SOA membership last year, partly because I had begun to feel uncomfortable with the use of pronouns and other signs of an organisation in thrall to gender ideology. I noticed how they hadn't supported authors like Gillian Philip and I felt I would never be able to express my gender critical views. In short, I felt they were more likely to stab me in the back than have my back! My impression of the SOA has been influenced by Joanne Harris' behaviour on Twitter. When I followed her, maybe 3 years ago, she used to tweet interesting snippets about the life of a writer and she was quite good on getting authors to value themselves and not work for free. I get a lot of requests to do things for free. I call them honour gigs - good for your profile but borderline exploitative. It seems a lot of British cultural life is based on honour gigs! However over the last year or so I've noticed how deeply unpleasant she is - nasty, aggressive, up herself, so I had to unfollow her. She is a malign influence, certainly not impartial and until she goes, I would not trust the SOA to support me as an author. Shame really because their contracts dept has been helpful in the past and has meant that I've been able to operate without an agent.

Did anyone else notice Tim Lott from the Guardian asking how to add his name in the comments?

I agree. If the chair of the Society of Authors doesn’t passionately support free speech and oppose attacks on authors, she should not hold that position.

Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right!

Maybe a better plan would be an individual letter to the SOA, to the effect that I'll withdraw my membership if I can't rely on the chair to support me simply because I base my views on science, logic and feminism.

That's a good idea. I might write and say that I am put off joining because of the current chair.

That is a good plan. I like that. I will write and suggest the SoA needs to make clear how they will support gender critical authors.

No that makes sense. And yes, you can and should be fired for your opinions are preventing you doing your job properly.

I'm not arguing that Joanne Harris should be cancelled, I'm arguing that she should lose this particular position because she has failed in it. As I said, it's not about her opinions.