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!"

This is just Julie Burchill doing what she always does. She's a provocateur, always has been, always will be. She is quite obviously doing this to get a rise out of Ash Sarkar and comrades and they've walked straight into it, and now they're furious because Julie Burchill just doesn't do contrition.

cateycloggs

Full comments from Liddle. Liddle's article ends by raising the subject of organised child abuse in Rotherham.

archive.is/ERYnv

Pants. Posted too soon. I suspect the way People She Already Disliked on twitter focused their attention on the top half of that column, and not on the bottom half, caught Julie Burchill's attention.

I have to admit, Julie has always scared the crap out of me.

Rod Liddle's article is 12 years old. It does not remotely endorse paedophilia (and the posters on here saying it does are ever bit as silly as Ash Sarkar) It's typical of Liddle's style where he often paints himself as a being of very character. It is clearly not meant to be taken literally.

Presumably Sarkar's attention span is so limited she couldn't manage to read to the end. But why bring up and twist a 12 year old article? Was she trawling through everything by Liddle looking for something to discredit him and the search engine found this ?

It's typical of Liddle's style where he often paints himself as a being of very bad character

Those saying JB might get a publisher with backbone next time, and that Twitter spats shouldn’t lead to cancellation etc - LittleBrown are JK Rowling’s publishers. They’ll stand up and take the heat for a) commercial interests and b) reasoned, defensive positions.

But JB’s is neither and you can’t really expect them to take the heat on every ill-judged controversy. Better they save standing up for the things that actually are worth it, like the ill-reasoned misogyny directed at JKR, than dilute their position to influence by blindly supporting someone who’s fucked up invoking religion in a row about paedophilia.

Authors know Twitter is the shop front. Agents know it, publishers know it. You simply cannot divorce the social media opinions of an individual from their published works now. And that’s fair if you also want to use social media to promote and sell.

I like JB - she gives no fucks, she’s done amazing work, she’s direct and principled. But she doesn’t deserve lauding for this, it’s beneath her.

Sarkar deserved to be taken to task for dredging up a 12 year old article and misrepresenting what it said in an attempt to smear Rod Liddle.

I'm sure Liddle is big enough to stand up for himself and I'm equally sure that fans of Liddle will see being attacked by Sarkar as a vindication not an attack. I would certainly take Liddle's side over Sarkar.

Equally I'm sure even Liddle would appreciate someone taking his side when he isn't in the wrong but this was not the way to do it.

The Quran does not mention the Prophet Mohammad's wife Aisha’s age. She was the only virgin he married.

The Prophets favourite wife was his first wife Khadeeja, she was 40 to his 25 when they married.
Aisha is quoted as saying she was the only one of his wives of whom she was jealous.

@DidoLamenting it's because he wrote an article in the Sun tearing into teachers this week.

[quote IHeartKingThistle]@DidoLamenting it's because he wrote an article in the Sun tearing into teachers this week.
[/quote]
Then criticise him for that; not a 12 year old article which she either didn't read or understand.

@DidoLamenting yeah I don't disagree with you, I was just answering your question!

The original article (not the shagging teenagers one, the one slating teachers from this week) is foul. I don't agree with what JB said but I kind of wish Liddle wasn't dodging getting taken to pieces about what he's said about my profession this week by the attention being taken off him. It's the kind of article I'd have laughed off in the past but at the end of this term, with everything we've gone through, it made me cry with frustration and exhaustion. The JB issue, while important, has overshadowed this and it kind of feels like teacher bashing is yet again being swept under her carpet and normalised. Rod Liddle isn't going to get dropped by anyone, is he?

I hope no one jumps on me for that BTW - I think JB was out of order but I also wish people knew about the article that sparked it.

Sorry IHeartKingThistle thanks for explaining the background.

Your second post is interesting. Sarkar is clearly a twerp since not only has she, quite viciously, misrepresented Liddle's 12 year old article but has diverted attention from a justified criticism of him.

They’ve all made bananas of themselves over this, haven’t they? Ash is a nob, Julie could start a fight in a phone box and Rod is a dick (Julie and Rod both make me laugh though, and they’re both good writers, while Ash is utterly humourless and not so great with the writing).

I can’t imagine getting in sillyTwitter spats does anything for your well being.

Someone was beheaded in France for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons which shows how dangerous criticism or satire around this religion has become. I regard that as more worthy of outrage than a spat on Twitter full of confected hyperbole.

The Times reports:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/julie-burchills-book-is-ditched-by-publisher-after-her-comments-on-islam-8s6v8nvj5?fbclid=IwAR1n3KSPiyfEzN-FN8VfXSffWuOMPEHMABMsst4R6yaDzoXxGXqT7GkjYbk

Rod Liddell surely overrates his attractiveness.
All of these people seem to be fairly vile.

DidoLamenting: you keep saying that Liddle's article is 12 years old. It's not - it's eight years old. I think if you're going to berate other people for misinterpreting what he said, at least get the basics right!

Sophocles I thought your post was spot on.

@MsSafina

Someone was beheaded in France for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons which shows how dangerous criticism or satire around this religion has become. I regard that as more worthy of outrage than a spat on Twitter full of confected hyperbole.

Exactly. I had to evacuate a library due to bomb threats over Satanic Verses. I would have staffed that library single handed rather than take that book off the shelves. People should get a sense of proportion, being rude or unpleasant, goady, sarcastic, etc is human not a crime. We really are back in the middle ages - bring in the stocks for anyone who doesn't submit - there will be consequences, you have been warned. I can't stand Ash but I'd never try to stop her being published. If you don't believe in the police being involved in 'hate incidents' surely you don't support these hate speech vigilantes.

Would anyone have an issue with catholic phobia if julie had said the equivalent to a someone of the catholic faith? Eg regarding paedophilia in the catholic church. Its not phobic, just goady. All religions are inherently mosogynistic and abusive towards women and children. The scripts were written by men for benefit of men. We should point that out to expose hypocrisy

Ooh, so the article is only nearly a decade old rather than just over a decade old. Well, that makes all the difference...

Ooh, so the article is only nearly a decade old rather than just over a decade old. Well, that makes all the difference...

It does make a difference if you're going to lecture other people about accuracy.

King John did not marry a 9 year old! Isabella of Angouleme was aged 12-14..historians are not sure on her actual year of birth but it was no later than 1188. Being married at that age was bad enough though.

I had the title change but not to Islamophobia. I really don't believe in this stupid "-phobia" suffix. Hate speech seems more accurate.

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?

True. And when the average life-span was about 40 years or less, people were in a hurry.
Besides, early marriage doesn't necessarily equate to pedophilia. In Hindu culture at least, a girl might be married off as a child but she lived with her parents until puberty (ie menses, which came later then than it does now). I knew an old Hindu woman who was officially married at the age of 13 but only went to stay with her husband .several years later.