R4 Front Row - Eric Gill + JK Rowling

I hope that JKR's lawyers are listening closely to see exactly how he justifies comparing her to R Kelly, Gill and Hitler.

Yes, high handed is his automatic mode! At least he has agreed to appear though. Well done to Kittenkong and Polyanthus2 for complaining.

If Sutcliffe's response is anything other than high-handed I'll be very surprised.

Tom Sutcliffe is going to be interviewed about his comments on Feedback this afternoon on Radio 4 at 16.30.

What those men did was criminal, disgusting and appalling. What JKR has said is truthful and factual.

I really don't see the issue.

There is a group of people who have really felt that they want to keep JKRs works even though they object to her views. They have been really public about this, enough so that a fair number of people are aware of the controversy.

You don't have to agree with them to use it as an example in a discussion of the topic about artists vs their works. In some ways it could be especially useful to mention because most people don't actually think JKR is wrong, whereas they are likely to have more of an emotional response to someone like Gill who really was quite awful.

I’m going to respond when I have time to write something ‘properly’

So basically they acknowledge that Tom's language inferred that JKR was morally objectionable for discussing Women's current rights under existing law?

How's that going for BBC's famous "impartiality"?

Are you going to respond @KittenKong, and force them to escalate further? I hear the writer has written previously that he finds JKR objectionable and wouldn't let his kids read her books, so this wasn't some random philosophical discussion.

Seems targeted.

Ok here it is.

Thank you getting in touch about last week’s discussion of cancel culture on Front Row which I appreciate you were not happy with.

As you know, Tom Sutcliffe was interviewing a philosopher of art called Erich Hatala Matthes who has written a book on this subject. We chose three examples to discuss, one that isn’t in the book but relates directly to the BBC and an ongoing news story (Eric Gill) and two who are cited in the book (R Kelly and JK Rowling).

It is a matter of public record that JK Rowling has been the subject of criticism from some quarters over her views on the trans debate. Tom pointed this out with no agenda.

Tom specifically drew the distinction between people who have committed crimes (Gill and Kelly) and people whose views some people find objectionable, and questioned whether those two groups should receive the same treatment. The conclusion was that they shouldn’t. When it came to describing the reaction to JK Rowling’s opinions, Tom was impartially reporting the views of some others, rather than expressing a view he himself or the BBC holds. However we acknowledge that some of the language Tom used on this point could have been clearer in this nuanced conversation. (my bold)

Finally thank you again for taking the trouble to get in touch. Maintaining a dialogue with our listeners is important to us and I do hope you will continue to give your valued attention to the programme.

I emailed them the day it was aired. Had a holding email - we’ll see.

Glad I saw this as I'd thought I was listening to the media show but it was Front Row.
I also didn't know who Eric Gill was - OMG a paediophile to his own daughters - here being compared to JKR.
Unbelievable.
Emailing now.
They give a contact of www.twitter.com/bbcfrontrow
Unfortunately I'm not on twitter.
Will email here instead [email protected]

The Beeb should do a better job of discerning the difference between FACT and OPINION.

Stop demonising a Woman who has withstood an incredible amount of vitriol and harassment for voicing her opinion on Women discussing their current legal protections under the existing law

Utterly ridiculous and worth a complaint. It's clear the programme set out to attack JK Rowling personally and undermine her credibility, by inferring that viewers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour, because of her legitimate views on a complex issue involving competing rights by two separate demographics.

Offensive and wrong comparisons of JK Rowling, a celebrated children's author and a dedicated philanthropist, to people such as Eric Gill (serial rapist including of his daughters), R Kelly (child abuser) and Hitler - a genocidal maniac, who was praised by the Nazis for his antisemitic and racist views. FFS!

It reminds me of when MRAs shout about "not all men are rapists" and then follow it up with "women can be rapists too" and then have to scratch around to find an example (Hint: it's always Rose West or Myra Hindley). If the worst examples you can find of immorality in female artists are JKR and Highsmith (and you can't then cite any instances of them actually, you know, doing something immoral), it should tell you something about how flawed your basic premise (i.e. women are as bad as men) actually is..

I cannot believe, cannot believe this, but I just went and listened and yes, they went there. Disgraceful.

And yes - Patricia Highsmith? WTAF?

(A reminder that it wasn't just paedophile rapist/commiter of incest and bestiality Gill and convicted sex offender R Kelly they were weighing up in the same breath as JKR and Highsmith, it was mass murdering dictator and one-time dabbler in art A. Hitler. I mean.........WHAT?????)

Coincidentally I am reading Highsmith's Diaries and Notebooks just at the moment; it is possible that she considered herself a psychopath and she certainly was a tormented, clinically depressed person with severe mental health (and other health) issues. She was also, by all accounts, sometimes an extremely unpleasant person. Extremely unpleasant, however, is by no means identical to immoral. So far as I can tell, apart from being someone you really wouldn't want to invite to a dinner party, she wasn't actually Tom Ripley. Towards the end of her life, particularly, she was racist and antisemitic. But socially unacceptable behaviour, self-hatred and misanthropy is not the same as grooming and raping stables of underage girls, or raping your own daughters.

JKR is, as we all know, an absolute saint amongst women. But just because Highsmith was a horrifically damaged and damaging individual does not qualify her, either, to be tarred with the same brush as Kelly and Gill, and only extremely sloppy scholarship would lump them together in this deliberately misleading fashion.

Side note I don't understand how Polanski has escaped criticism. His behaviour was far worse than the unproven allegations against Spacey.

It baffles me too and I've pondered it many times. I think part of the answer is that a successful director (who creates jobs for the rest of Hollywood through his films) is granted "artistic licence", especially if he has experienced huge personal tragedy before that. Spacey is mostly just a very successful, fellow actor, so if he becomes unemployable, someone else (maybe you or a friend) can be cast instead of him?

The other factor I've identified is that Spacey's downfall began when Anthony Rapp came forward. Polanski vs a 13-year old model with little social power? Hollywood and public side with Polanski.

But Rapp made his allegations as an established actor in his 40s, with his own fanbase, when he'd attained as much credibility as he was realistically going to get.

Side note I don't understand how Polanski has escaped criticism. His behaviour was far worse than the unproven allegations against Spacey.

So they are saying a woman who campaigns to protect women's boundaries BECAUSE OF THE FACT MEN ABUSE is comparable to... A MAN WHO WAS A PAEDOPHILE AND A MAN WHO IS A SEX OFFENDER.

This is the purest misogyny.

“Not saying her views are illegal or anything, they’re just unpopular with some people. So they’re perfect to discuss alongside the question of separating the dreadful crimes of men from their art. Definitely no inferences will be drawn about her views being as bad as the deeds of those men.”
Ugh.

Why not include Philip Pullman if it’s just about “views that are unpopular with some people”? His particular brand of atheism is hugely unpopular with lots of people, after all…

The most obvious candidates for this type of discussion are Roman Polanski and Kevin Spacey.

Yes, these would have been better comparisons with the others.

That a woman knows what sex is and that it matters is considered controversial by the BBC, when it's the view of the vast majority globally, shows the extent of the ideological capture and where the BBC places itself with regard to the lessers.

As I say, disappointing but not surprising.

Disgraceful of them, I didn't hear it but if ever there was a reason to not pay the licence fee. (And there's many reasons). Hit them where it hurts.

Their bullying tactics over licensing payments put many people off getting rid of it sadly.

Outrageous. JKR should take legal action.

I didn’t hear that differentiation Carpetssss. It was a very smooth segue from RK and AG and all under the same banner of “transgressions”.

And by what measure are her views “unpopular”? With whom?

And, being really picky here, but I’m really angry and had enough,, is expressing a view about sex-based language and rights actually “political”? If I were to argue with someone of the RC religion that strict adherence to a contraception ban is harmful to women, is that a “political” view?

The word “political” suits the anti-sex matters lobby because it makes it easier to perpetuate the lie that belief in the importance of biological reality is allied to the right and therefore regressive.

To paraphrase JKRs message, but for MRAs…. Do what the fuck you want, to whoever the fuck you like, whether or not they are underage or blood relatives, the harshest you’ll be judged is alongside one of the most successful writers and generous philanthropists of our age.