Julie Burchill's book deal cancelled for hate speech *title edited by MNHQ at OP's request*

[Malahaha]

It's called Welcome to the Woke Trials and was due to be published in 2021.
I'm not sure who the publisher is; I'll update.
She says: "Reason was 'hate speech' to Ash Sarkar and 'crossing a line' - 'There was also a concern that the line might be crossed again during the promotion of the book.' I'LL SAY!"

What did JB write that was islamophobic? Seems to me she was having a go at the double standards of Sakar.
There’s a good article from Brendan O’Neil here www.spiked-online.com/2020/12/15/in-defence-of-julie-burchill/
It’s still cancel culture even when we don’t like the stuff that’s being cancelled.

Someone dug up an old Rod Liddle article for The Spectator where he said the only reason he didn't become a teacher was because he wouldn't be able to stop himself sagging the pupils.

Ash Sarkar called it out on Twitter.

Julie Burchill started Tweeting Ash asking about the age of Mohammad's first wife and calling her a hypocrite.

Jesus..if this is how it went down thats shocking and I am on Ash' side here like.

Not sure how the Mohammad comment and her book are linked really. But from what I read just now, Julie was very in the wrong.

Julie needs to apologize for this

I don’t think Julie has ever apologised for anything.

JB won't apologise but she was definitely in the wrong. Poor form.

Lordy, when O'Neill comes to your rescue you know you're in trouble.

My sympathies are with Little Brown. It was a really stupid thing to say, (not original and not showing much insight), and undercuts arguments that Little Brown might use to promote her book e.g. "yes she is controversial, but she has something original and insightful to say."

The reason the Rod Liddle article got dug up is because The Sun published this article by him this week.

Sadly I bet he is loving all this.

I know you can't zoom in to read it but it is horrible, incendiary, trolling bullshit.

It’s still cancel culture even when we don’t like the stuff that’s being cancelled.

I suspect this was more of an economic decision - How many books are likely to be sold, vs. how much money will LB have to spend mopping up after stupid tweets. Realistically the sums are probably different for Jordan Peterson and Julie Burchill.

I can't be arsed passing judgement on any of them except Liddle, and even in his case all I've got to say is "ugggggggghhhhhhhhhh 🤢🤢🤮"

But I am curious whether this is going to pay off for Burchill. It does seem like woke-poking is a great way to boost your book sales. But then, getting your publishing contract cancelled is presumably not a good outcome. But then again, will all the publicity enable her to sell the book to someone else for more money? Or maybe she can't do that even though Hachette have cancelled on her?

I hope it does pay off for Burchill. Yeah, she was rude but criticising religion shouldn't be off limits. And she's a much better writer than the others.

Think OP should get the title of this thread changed.

Book was cancelled for Islamaphobia.

Given that mumsnet is widely quoted doesn't do it / us much credit if facts are misrepresented. ie not recognising Islamaphobia.

And muddies the water for when there are cases of cancel culture due to perceived transphobia.

Agree with Stumbled, it would be good to get the title of the thread renamed.

Also, just to add that the Burchill remark was also trivialising adult men using a postion of power to abuse children.

Not that I would defend a way of life common in previous centuries when young girls were routinely married off once they reached puberty. But it was common across all cultures. So trying to present it as a specifically Muslim issue is beyond crass. Does anyone know how old the Virgin Mary was said to be?

What is so loathsome is in fact the goady mentality of tabloid journalists who have done more damage to people in this country and who are after all the role models for internet trolls.

And it is because newspapers editors and tv producers reward this type of click bait journalists that Rod Liddle and Julie Burchill get an audience. And imitators on SM.

Julie Burchill was blatantly Islamophobic and racism, not for the first time, in order to defend jokes about paedophilia.

It's great to see a publisher taking the stance that racism is not an 'opinion' it's simply an indefensible abhorrence.

@Pan2

Lordy, when O'Neill comes to your rescue you know you're in trouble.

I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but what do you mean?

Criticim of religion is a phobia now? Give your head a wobble...

Why cant we criticise one of the worlds major religions? What is the name for a 50 year old man who wants to marry pre-pubescent girls??

When Dr Adrian Harrop made a comment supporting the right of men to marry 12 year olds in other countries he was rightly condemed as a paedophile apologist.

Why cant we criticise religions and their awful treatment of women? How has this concdpt become so embedded into society?

Julie Burchill was blatantly Islamophobic

“Can you please remind me of the age of the Prophet Mohammad’s first wife? Thank you in anticipation!”

Again, I'd like to ask where the islamophobia is. I'm no fan of Liddle, Sakar, or Burchill, but as I said earlier it seems to me to be a comment about hypocrisy - Sakar is condemning behaviour in one person that but not condemning the same behaviour in another.

I don't like any sort of 'phobic' comments, and I'll happily change my mind if some can explain how this is one. I reckon it's a comment having a go at Sakar, not a a comment having a go at Islam. What have I missed?

It wasn't so much the 'criticism of religion' that was the problem, it was more that JB made a very tenuous link, for the sole reason to have a go at AS, and it also made it look like she was defending Rod Liddle's article in some way too.

At the same time, AS, like her friend Owen, only care about anything when it means scoring woke points, otherwise it is worthless to them.

I agree that Rod Liddle is probably absolutely loving this whole thing, utter prick that he is.

@aliasundercover I think you've missed the point that it's an utterly irrelevant thing to ask and clearly directed at someone because they are a Muslim. Rod Liddle was roundly criticised on Twitter by hundreds of people that day.

England's King John married a 9 year old. Why did no one think to use that to defend Rod Liddle? Because it's irrelevant.

Again, I'd like to ask where the islamophobia is. I'm no fan of Liddle, Sakar, or Burchill, but as I said earlier it seems to me to be a comment about hypocrisy - Sakar is condemning behaviour in one person that but not condemning the same behaviour in another.

Wasn't the Virgin Mary like, 12, when God decided to impregnate her. So does that mean that no Christian can ever say that paedophilia is wrong?

It was an unnecessary take from JB, and one she almost definitely wouldn't have gone with if Ash Sarkar was a white Christian.

Criticim of religion is a phobia now? Give your head a wobble...

There is a difference between have a discussion about theology and telling somebody who has a Muslim background that they can’t criticise a remark about attraction to underage girls.

I don’t know how religious AS is, but people who go to carol services aren’t generally assumed to approve of incest (many biblical examples) or cannibalism (Eucharist). The reason isn’t religious bias, it’s that we know those arguments would be stupid. JB’s remark was stupid.

There is not lower age limit for marriage in Islam. Do you think the fact that Muhammed married a 9 year old and consumated the marriage when she was 11 has anything to do with that?

islamqa.info/en/answers/146882/is-there-a-set-age-for-marriage-in-islam

11...let that sink in

The differnece is that the christian church does not currently condone cannibalism or incest.

This has real life impacts in young girls in the 21st century.

There is not lower age limit for marriage in Islam.

There is no lowers age limit for marriage in California now.

Hmm, I see where you're coming from, but I think Christians should be called out for some of the stuff in the bible, and I wouldn't call that "Christophobic" (is that what it's called?).

This is all interpretation of course, but I don't think Burchill was 'defending' Liddle, again I think she was pointing out a double-standard.

Anyway, I think we've probably all heard enough from me on this subject. Thanks everyone for engaging politely and honestly - this is what I like about mumsnet.