'The Anglosphere’s far-Left has neatly pivoted from the infantilisation of black people to the Palestinian cause' (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Another day, another opportunity for huffy, hypocritical “progressive” posturing. PEN America has now been forced to cancel its World Voices literary festival in New York and LA, on the heels of also cancelling its 2024 awards ceremony. Too many authors had withdrawn from both events to make going ahead with staging either practicable. The reason for so many writers flouncing from these programmes? PEN’s failure to publicly denounce Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza. But you had probably guessed the point of indignation already, because as of October 2023, the Anglosphere’s far-Left has neatly pivoted from the infantilisation of black people to the Palestinian cause with the coordinated grace of a synchronised swimmer.
To clarify: the purpose of PEN is to defend freedom of speech and to protect writers from political oppression and persecution. It makes perfect sense, therefore, that a significant cadre of its membership would seek to stifle freedom of speech and engage in political oppression and persecution. Or: we’re all for free speech so long as you say what we tell you. These folks are athletes. It requires considerable intellectual acrobatics for Writers Against the War on Gaza to regard the shutting down of events to advance free expression as “a win for free expression”. Presumably, the fact that a number of withdrawals from both occasions were motivated by fear of being attacked by a mob of pro-Palestinian zealots is also “a win for free expression”. PEN itself stated its concern “about any circumstance in which writers tell us they feel shut down, or that speaking their minds bears too much risk”.
PEN is by its nature a big tent. It represents not only Muslim writers but Jewish ones too, some of whom might just support the existence of Israel, might just regard Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza as justified, and might just find alliance with genuinely genocidal terrorists whose unembarrassed aim is to wipe Israel and the Jewish people off the map as a teeny tiny bit obnoxious. While one PEN member decries the non-profit’s “both-sidesing”, the truth is that PEN has no business taking a position on this issue whatsoever.
Unfortunately, the Left has successfully installed the expectation that, regardless of their established purpose, all institutions — companies, museums, theatres, universities, charities, you name it — must proclaim their fealty to the “right” (which is to say Left) position on a host of inflammatory issues of the day. This hyper-politicisation of entities that ought sensibly to remain politically neutral has been systematically debauching everything from the National Trust to the NHS, from Anheuser-Busch to the Chicago Art Museum. First, all such outfits were required to fly Black Lives Matter flags, then garishly incoherent Pride flags, and now these banners have all to be swapped out for Palestinian flags, never mind what constituency or customer base might be alienated by this gratuitously partisan branding. Thus, an organisation established for the defence of free speech of every sort — including the overtly Zionist kind — is necessarily obliged to openly advocate for Hamas, a murderous, cheerfully antisemitic cult whose interest in free speech on its home turf would fit in a thimble.
Of course, PEN’s membership has form when it comes to hypocrisy. In 2015, under armed security, PEN awarded its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Six writers withdrew from participating in the proceedings to protest the magazine’s ostensibly offensive printing of cartoons that depicted Mohammed. Yet funnily enough, what your average normal person found offensive was the vicious massacre of 12 of the publication’s employees, most of them journalists, for neglecting to adhere to one religion’s hysterical blasphemy laws in a secular country that famously celebrates “liberté”. Yet over 200 writers — including, to my astonishment, the likes of Joyce Carol Oates — signed an open letter to PEN criticising the Charlie Hebdo award. For these authors, defence of free speech, promotion of tolerance, and opposition to violent political oppression — the very purpose of PEN — counted for nothing when weighed against any injury to the delicate feelings of fundamentalist Muslims.
Much has been written about the unholy and in some ways hilarious alliance developing between the progressive Left and Islam (Lesbians for Palestine, etc). But for Western writers to embrace a restrictive, prescriptive, and stifling culture isn’t merely ironic or comical; it’s self-defeating. One needn’t consult a professor of Middle Eastern Studies to conclude that these fair-weather friends in Gaza may welcome useful idiocy, but the permissive ethos of the Anglo-Left is diametrically at odds with despotic Islamic theology. Moreover, for American writers to express increasingly shrill and little-disguised hostility to Jews is to disavow a substantial chunk of the country’s distinguished literary canon: Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Bernard Malamud, and Elie Weisel just for starters.
But then, the past 15 years have demonstrated with depressing clarity that writers, along with artists of every stripe, aren’t special. Although our occupation is more at risk from censorship than most, we’re all too capable of perversely embracing suppressive viewpoints that violate our own interest. We’re paid not only to write but to think, yet we don’t think; we listen keenly for whatever tune is playing in our fellow travellers’ AirPods and whistle along. Apparently, we’re no more creative than the average bear, and as soon as the memo goes out, we’ll chant along with the kiddies camped at Columbia University, “From the river to the sea!” whatever that means. We’ll obediently switch out one cause for another whenever we’re told, as nimbly as using “find and replace” in Microsoft Word.
We’re cowards, conformists, and copycats. Real freedom of expression is too scary; we’d rather hide in a crowd whose keffiyeh-masked members all shout the same thing. PEN has a laudable history of advocating for writers who’ve been persecuted for their opinions in repressive polities — polities much like the contemporary United States. But too many of its members would have the non-profit corrupt its global mission to protect free speech across the board so long as they can bully its leadership into pointless partisan posturing for progressives’ acrid flavour of the month.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribethey have descended into self-parody.
That happened a long time ago. No sensible person pays any attention to PETA. The media does because they are good for a laugh.
I was walking along a footpath a couple of weeks ago and a big dog jumped up at me. The owner said to the dog, “You silly girl, what have I told you about jumping up at people?” Should she have said ‘girl’? Surely, ‘b****’ was more appropriate?
Why did she call you people? Is your preferred pronoun they? ðŸ˜
Thank goodness for some reasoning power! Attributing human moral qualites to animals, like being a family lover to snakes is indeed ” a slippery slope”and displays the educational level of a child frankly. I suppose the meaning of the word “superior” is key here but yes – we are superior to animals, that is why we should not abuse them. We know better and we don’t need to. Speaking as a 30 year pescatarian.
While this may seem like a silly argument by PETA we do have to keep an eye out for possible (intended?) consequences. Just last year New Zealand granted ‘personhood’ to its Whanganui River, a landmark of tribal import. With the way things are going at the moment, is it not inconceivable that personhood eventually be extended to animals? This, of course, would tie in wonderfully with the aims of animal rights and vegan activists who no doubt would love to include the consumption of meat as one more item to add on the West’s rapidly growing list of ‘hate crimes’.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all.
“Calling someone an animal as an insult reinforces the myth that humans are superior to other animal” – that’s not a myth.
Reading through all of the responses to this, I am reminded of an event that I worked at the US Capital (yes, that one) on the west lawn, with 10s of thousands in attendance. It was a PETA rally in the late 90’s. Many famous actors and musicians were there, and some philosophically minded persons, who-I am not making this up-had a serious discussion from the podium regarding how a person is a “species-ist” if when noticing a drowning rat and drowning baby, they automatically dive in to save the baby. They also had shirts that read “fishing is murder”. This all pre-dates the woke, twitter, etc. These people have always been nuts.
I almost didn’t believe what you said about the drowning rat and the baby, but then I realised, you can’t make this stuff up.
God I love how formerly borderline but reasonable organizations like PETA have gone off the woke deep end. They are now hilarious parodies of themselves. Monty Python could never have been so funny! Amnesty International has gone off the woke deep end as well. Instead of protecting Saudi journalists (a noble cause) they are after the “inhumane” treatment of prisoners in places like Canada, where they have internet, TV, enough food to make them obese, and enough conjugal visits to produce a large new generation of prisoners. At least their craziness has narrowed down the choices of where to direct my charitable contributions.
This is how crackpot movements go mainstream. It just takes one or two journalists to start a discussion along the lines of “amusing and wacky but do they have a point?”.
The social media hordes who love to parade their humane and caring natures (preferably at no cost to themselves) will latch onto the latest opportunity for conspicuous goodness. Demands for changes in the law of the land will surely follow. A type of language casually used by the unthinking masses will be banned for its corrosive ability to ingrain prejudice.
The concern of PETA about calling humans by animal names is surely a joke? Must we also stop calling dogs by human names? Down Bruce, Charlie, boy, Skipper, etc. etc? Why does society tolerate these nutters, just for laughs, perhaps?
Other woke campaigns may have looked like a joke at first ““ until the fanatical righteousness of the campaigners turned the cause into a litmus test of a person’s moral worth. Laughter then becomes an offense.
PETA are deadly serious about this – and seriously stupid.
I see.
So calling a man a “pig” is an insult to….the animal, not a sexist term directed at men?
This is the logic of the terminally woke.
Tough luck, PETA, I don’t like it when people swear, either, but that’s their choice. Enough with people trying to compel (or repress) other people’s speech. As for the animal epithets, I give you William Shakespeare:
A pox o’ your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!
This makes me sound like one of the Woke brigade but they have a point. I have often wondered why we compare people to animals as an insult when the animals have done nothing to deserve it.
maybe we expect more out of people given humans’ ability to act beyond instinct. I suppose we could use “sub-human” for such individuals, but this mostly exposes the bankruptcy of various activist campaigns. If THIS is your hill to die on……..
While calling humans animal names can be insulting to animals there is some basis to it.When a man is as indescriminant as a dog about where he puts his d**k,,he’s a bit of a dog.
I am sure they are deeply offended
Certainly no surprise here: animals use “humans” as an insult.
You obviously got that straight from the horses mouth
(Mr Ed, perhaps?)
Peta has been around for decades. Nobody pays attention to what nonsense they say. Just desperate to get on the woke train… although that movement has lost its “luster”.
I’m sure PETA are pathetically grateful to Peter for being the only person on the planet to take them seriously.
What does PETA recommend as alternatives for “mink” and “vixen”?
Presumably, the notion that humans are supreme in relation to animals is used in the context of power and in particular the power to kill or imprison.
However, in terms of other abilities, humans are not always supreme and quite often are inferior especially when unassisted by technology.
On the animal name calling front, who actually uses those insults anymore.
Walking the Talk is more supreme than Talking the Walk whatever species you are. But it is funny how humans do seem to do a lot of the inferior option.
Not long before they’ll be banning James Cagney movies then.
This is a weird one I know. I eat meat. I buy from a local farm where animals are treated well, I pay a lot and I don’t have much. I don’t object to eating animals, it’s what animals do, but I do object to torturing animals of keeping them in cages. I loathe using the animals we eat as insults, cow, pig, chicken, sheep. It seems to demean them. Lots will say ‘if you’re eating them why does it matter?’ but I think animals eating animals is part of nature. Animals degrading animals isn’t.
That said I’m quite happy to call people snakes or lionhearted (that’s a compliment).
It might be pertinent to point out that humans are animals: Homo sapiens. Whether we are superior to all other animals perhaps depends upon ones definition of superiority.
When I was walking along and this big dog jumped up at me the owner said to the dog, “You silly girl, you know I’ve told you not to do that.” Surely she should have said ‘b***h’.
I also like the quote at the “the map is not the territory” and “the word is not the thing”. Shame he had to chuck in the dismissive Stop The Steal reference at the end for no good reason…🙄
I think it would be a mistake to assume that when PETA say something like this they are less than fully aware of the amount of publicity it generates for them and their cause.