Something is rotten in the state of Britain. Well, many things actually. But the thing that’s taken center stage of late is the ongoing arrests of hundreds of people—mostly over sixty—for their support of the recently proscribed organization known as Palestine Action, founded in the apocalyptic year of 2020. Then again, every year since has felt pretty apocalyptic, with ‘25 being no exception. This year, among the most standout instances of end times is the continued violent infiltration of Gaza as governments and influential people alike stand aside and watch it happen. This is precisely why Sally Rooney’s announcement that she intends to financially support an organization the British government has deemed “terrorist” is so stunning to many (though not those who are well-aware of her politics). That someone who has it so cush in the literary world—no easy feat, mind you (and one that Rooney largely garnered thanks to the TV adaptations of her work)—should “dare” to actually do the thing that writers are supposed to (namely, use their voice to speak out against the ills of the world) has caused nothing short of a furor.
Mainly for the British government, who has found itself with no shortage of egg on its face in the weeks since over five hundred people were arrested at Parliament Square, roughly half of them falling into the senior citizen category. To be sure, it was precisely because of their age bracket that they chose to be lambs led to the slaughter. Deborah Hinton, an eighty-one-year-old former magistrate was just one such protester who knew that the simple act of holding up a sign that read “Palestine Action” would get her arrested. Even so, her take on the matter, as she told The Guardian, was this: “Young people are going to jeopardize their careers [if they do this]. They won’t get a visa to go to the States. They won’t get a visa to go to most other countries because they’ll have terrorism on their record. People like me, who are elderly, we can afford it. I’m very sorry not to go and be able to visit my niece in America but it’s not the end of the world. Young people shouldn’t be doing this, we should be doing this. We should be taking the responsibility.”
But Rooney, a young person herself (though the likes of Gen Z and Gen Alpha might not see thirty-four that way), is choosing to take the responsibility as well. Because her successful career, ergo her wealth, is pretty untouchable at this point. Which is what makes her the most dangerous challenger to UK authority thus far: she is a “millionaire Marxist,” as The Telegraph phrased it in their article about the situation. And the situation is this: on August 16th (a.k.a. the day Madonna turned sixty-seven), Rooney published an article in The Irish Times titled, “I support Palestine Action. If this makes me a ‘supporter of terror’ under UK law, so be it,” with the additionally shade-drenched sub-header, “I would happily publish this statement in a UK newspaper—but that would now be illegal.” Both of these statements are quotes from the article itself, with Rooney going all in on making her intentions known. And those intentions are to give some of her millions to support Palestine Action in a manner that’s financial rather than just ideological.
Since PA has now been slapped with the “terrorist organization” label, however, it puts Rooney and those institutions that also make money from her work (and, in turn, funnel money into Rooney’s bank account) in hot water. Especially since she calls some of those institutions out by name, tongue-in-cheekly commenting, “My books, at least for now, are still published in Britain, and are widely available in bookshops and even supermarkets. In recent years the UK’s state broadcaster has also televised two fine adaptations of my novels, and therefore regularly pays me residual fees. I want to be clear that I intend to use these proceeds of my work, as well as my public platform generally, to go on supporting Palestine Action and direct action against genocide in whatever way I can. If the British state considers this ‘terrorism,’ then perhaps it should investigate the shady organizations that continue to promote my work and fund my activities, such as WHSmith and the BBC.”
The reaction to this declaration was steadfast, with an official spokesperson for the UK prime minister commenting, “Support for a proscribed organization is an offense under the Terrorism Act and obviously the police will, as they have set out, they will obviously implement the law within the law as you’d expect.” A lot of doublespeak, as Orwell would expect. Rooney, on the other hand, minces no words in her damning article, condemning the UK government for “willingly strip[ing] its own citizens of basic rights and freedoms, including the right to express and read dissenting opinions, in order to protect its relationship with Israel.” Much the way that the UK child known as the US has done the same to protect its own relationship with Israel. This includes arresting pro-Palestinian protesters at the likes of Columbia University. Because, where once the college campus was a safe space for political expression, it has now become yet another nexus for oppression and stiflement. For, as Rooney so succinctly puts it, “Once the special word ‘terrorist’ is invoked, it seems, all laws melt into air and everything is permitted.”
And yes, many have seen this before. Particularly after 9/11, when such sweeping legislation as the “Patriot Act” was almost immediately passed, allowing the US federal government to engage in behavior that would otherwise be unconstitutional were it not for the so-called extraordinary circumstances that required Them to, among other things, expand surveillance without the person’s knowledge (how very Nixon) and magnify the criteria for what constituted “terrorist activity.” Very similar indeed. Thus, the reason why Rooney openly pronounced, “The present UK government has willingly stripped its own citizens of basic rights and freedoms… The ramifications for cultural and intellectual life in the UK—where the eminent poet Alice Oswald has already been arrested, and an increasing number of artists and writers can no longer safely travel to Britain to speak in public—are and will be profound.”
As for Rooney, at least part of her “boldness,” her willingness to speak out against that which she knows is patently wrong, stems from being Irish and living in Ireland. As to the former point, it’s no secret that Irish identity remains deeply rooted in being oppressed, therefore easily identifying with and recognizing other people who are as well. In terms of the latter point, Ireland (always determined to separate itself from its old foe, England) has not proscribed Palestine Action, which likely makes it feel slightly “safer” for Rooney to publicly express her support for the organization from within the geographical parameters of Éire.
What’s more, her “station in life” also makes it slightly safer for her to speak out as well (sort of like Greta Thunberg riding on an aid boat into Israel and effectively challenging that government to do to her what they would do to any non-famous person). Though some who have weighed in on the matter aren’t convinced she’ll get off totally scot-free. Case in point, literary agent David Godwin, who told The Telegraph, “When it comes to Palestine, publishers are much more frightened these days, and they are more inclined to stay far away from controversy. Publishing was once very individualistic and authors were left to say what they wanted, but things are more corporate now and people are conscious of what could create a backlash.” Not just more corporate, but more intertwined with “the corporation” in every way.
That the BBC, as Rooney mentioned, continues to give her royalties from the shows adapted from her work means that they’re going to be very spooked by the idea of being accused of “funding terrorism” as a result of simply giving Rooney the royalties she’s owed. Which is, of course, why corporations generally prefer “artists” of a milquetoast variety (with Coldplay recently managing to defy the belief that a milquetoast artist couldn’t possibly do damage to a corporation). This being the very antithesis of what an artist once represented in previous epochs during which overt crimes against humanity were being committed. Back then, of course, the internet didn’t make everything an artist said or did all the more damnable by those watching, documenting.
That Rooney also happens to be that extremely rare breed of artist—well-known and financially flush as a result of her work—only adds to the weight of the stand she’s taken. The baiting she’s engaged with. For not only is she essentially asking the question, “How far is the UK willing to take this outlawing of support for Palestine Action to prove their seriousness?,” but also, “Is wealth and prestige the only true protection a person can have from the consequences everyone else is made to suffer?” This in and of itself acting as a kind of performance art.
Would that the errant few other rich writers of the world (here’s looking at you, James Patterson, Dan Brown, Danielle Steel and Nora Roberts) were “ballsy” enough to make such a statement. But then, it just goes to show that the number of writers with the kind of money and prominence to feel secure enough in making such a statement is pretty much nil.