There has so far been no climbdown by the union, which has pointed those who are concerned to an FAQ section on its website. There you’ll find such assertions as “Equity isn’t a non-political union” and “Equity’s rules oblige us to stand up for artists who are suffering around the world”, sidestepping the fact that, besides a statement on Burma in February, it has, in the past, only intermittently waded in on major international conflicts and concerns.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Equity refused to let its members work appear in apartheid South Africa. In the last year or so its activities have included lobbying the French government to support French actors, and responding to the George Floyd killing. But Lipman’s list – “Where is Maureen Beattie on the Uyghurs, Rohingyas, the Sudanese, the Yemenites?” could be levelled at the union itself – there is a perception of inconsistency of outrage.
In principle each of these unhappy incidents should be regarded in isolation, and I’m as wary as anyone about connecting disparate episodes to form a thesis. Yet the cumulative impression isn’t just of an organisation at sea, but one in the grip of modish ideological zeal.
The popular perception is growing that Equity is shifting focus away from domestic bread and butter issues like sorting out wage deals and heading up woke creek without a paddle. Lipman’s statement – “You don’t dictate to artists what they believe in” – should be printed on its banners, going forward. No union should be a closed shop in matters of debate.
It would be terrible if the conclusion to draw was that Equity has erred towards deciding what its members (and others) should think, what causes they should support and shun. In this, though, it would be marching in worrying step with an industry that is ever more in thrall to a prescriptive agenda.
It’s not up to me to lay down rules for the organisation, but I would urge it to ensure it abides by a definition of ‘equity’ as “being fair and impartial”. Proactive in a professional capacity is fine, political activism that only vaguely concerns members (and actively alarms some) far less so. If it fails to do this, it bodes ill for inclusion and cohesion in the industry – and diversity of thought in the arts.
