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!"

Did she actually defend Liddle?

Pointing out that anyone marrying a 9 year old is also dodgy is not defending him.

That's a fair point.

Great post royalcorgi

These people who say dodgy things for deadline money really are a waste of oxygen.

Feel free to try and persuade me otherwise, but I think that once you support pulling a book because of a writer's behaviour then you are on seriously shaky ground.

Feel free to try and persuade me otherwise, but I think that once you support pulling a book because of a writer's behaviour then you are on seriously shaky ground.

I wish they hadn't pulled the book. I was looking forward to reading it, and if she finds another publisher, I will definitely buy it.

I have some slight sympathy with the publisher because publishing is a commercial operation, and ultimately they don't want to damage their bottom line. I doubt that they've made the decision not to publish because they care about whether she's Islamophobic. I think they've made it because they can foresee the almighty shitstorm coming their way if they do publish it. Arguably they should have thought about this earlier - you only have to read Julie's output over the last few years to know that she expresses her views on Islam in, shall we say, robust terms. Take these excerpts from her book "Unchosen"

“It’s like even then I knew that if a Mohammedan is searching for one’s clitoris, it’s probably not in order to give a girl some fun, but rather in order to chop it off.”

“It won’t do any favors for the Mohammedan gene pool that an unusually high number of Muslim converts are convicts, or mentally ill, or ex-addicts and alcoholics.”

(Quoted in this article: www.timesofisrael.com/a-lush-lunch-with-philo-semite-julie-burchill/)

I think they've made it because they can foresee the almighty shitstorm coming their way if they do publish it.
I agree. And that, for me, is the overriding concern.

Defending Free Speech is not the same as defending the content of that speech: that’s the whole point.

Yep. And her publishers are idiots if they thought Julie Burchill would be an uncontroversial author.

**"She expresses her views on Islam in robust terms."
We don't have a blasphemy law so it is not illegal to do so. Nobody holds back on what Catholic priests have done in Ireland.

We don't have a blasphemy law so it is not illegal to do so.

No, of course not. I'm just making the point that, from the publisher's point of view, Muslims are not a group you particularly want to antagonise. Even as someone who's not a fan of Islam, I think those two quotes from Julie are gratuitously offensive. I completely defend her right to make those remarks, but if I was a publisher I probably wouldn't want to risk the aggro that might come my way.

It's maybe a free speech issue itself, where Islam has it's own standard of protection greater than other religions, because a publisher etc. understands that they are in potential danger from members of the religion of peace.

Yeah, you might get away with being more offensive about Catholic priests. That's because Catholics will not turn up at your office to murder you over it.

"She isn’t ‘criticising Islam’, she is attacking a Muslim because she is a Muslim. Can people really not see the difference? Of course people should be allowed to hold whatever views they want about religion. That doesn’t extend to laying into someone and calling them a pedophilia-apologist because they are Muslim."

I can understand people saying it was a cheap or rude comment in this particular case; however I would completely disagree with the principle you seem to be advocating.

The fact is, is that many Muslims will automatically defend everything in the quran, and all (or most) of the behaviour of the early Muslims as described in the hadith and other early sources. (Yes, conservative Christians will behave in a similar way when they defend everything in the Old Testament.)

Can you be attacked for that behaviour? Why on earth not? If you're defending the sex slavery and murder and jihad warfare of the original Muslims (either admitting they did it and trying to justify it, or alternatively trying to cover it up) then yes, it's a character flaw. Yes, religious people can be apologists for evil.

@aliasundercover

Julie needs to apologize for this

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

Which is one of the reason I love her!

@Zinco

It's maybe a free speech issue itself, where Islam has it's own standard of protection greater than other religions, because a publisher etc. understands that they are in potential danger from members of the religion of peace.

Yeah, you might get away with being more offensive about Catholic priests. That's because Catholics will not turn up at your office to murder you over it.

Exactly this.

I wouldn't want to risk the aggro that might come my way.

You have a point, given the beheading of a teacher and mass murder of Charlie Hebdo staff. Lest we forget, Salman Rushdie lived in fear of his life for years. If anything, it's a warning that offending this religion has serious consequences. That's why most of us are treading on eggshells around it.

Her publisher has paid her her agreed advance in full. As indeed it should. She is not "cashing in" as the headline states; she has fulfilled her part of a legal contract and so the publisher must fulfill its own.
But she gets the money and now gets to submit it elsewhere, and get a second advance.
THAT is cashing in!

order-order.com/2020/12/22/exclusive-julie-burchill-cashes-in-on-cancellation/?fbclid=IwAR3Zg73ol42ZBfEH76-KATlHKWk7Jj8BOIZejQ94XWB6PdkGhRJVmD-oXP0

Did anything happen to Rod Little?

For an 8 YO crass joke? I'm guessing not.

Rod Liddell surely overrates his attractiveness.

No idea how attractive he thinks he is, but the answer is still yes.

Was she trawling through everything by Liddle looking for something to discredit him and the search engine found this?

Isn't that Ash's entire means of supporting herself?

The whole thing reminds me of the spats my Y8s get into. If I ran twitter my response would be 'I don't care who started it, if it happens again you are all in detention'.

But the hadith do mention it, and she was 6 at the time of marriage, and 9 for sex....Then apparently Muhammad was into sucking the tongue of young boys.

There are 2-3 different ages given in hadith but they are all written at least 100 years after his death.

The evidence for the historical existence of Mohammed isn't conclusive- let alone there being anything like evidence of paedophilia.

Criticising Islam on the grounds that Mohammed might possibly have been dodgy is like your main complaint about the current government being it's transport policy.

The fact is, is that many Muslims will automatically defend everything in the quran, and all (or most) of the behaviour of the early Muslims as described in the hadith and other early sources.

Does AS do this? I doubt she's ever read the Quran- her other opinions are not burdened by excessive research. She self identifies as Muslim on the grounds that she thinks there is probably a God and she meditates. The comment was just prejudice.

Do people really think that stuff written in the holy books is true? I mean there’s stuff in the bible about people living 600 years and stuff.

Do people think that stuff written in the holy books is true?
Afraid so. They believe a virgin gave birth to a child after all. That's what we're celebrating this week.

@Livinginthecity

Do people think that stuff written in the holy books is true? Afraid so. They believe a virgin gave birth to a child after all. That's what we're celebrating this week.

😂 True, I guess

Do people think that stuff written in the holy books is true?

The Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan has said he believes that Muhammad rode to heaven on a flying horse. I used to think that these days most educated religious people took the stories in their holy books as metaphors rather than as accurate historical accounts, but digging deeper, I've found that not to be the case.

I used to think that these days most educated religious people took the stories in their holy books as metaphors rather than as accurate historical accounts,

So that's 20% accounted for. The other 80% aren't so educated. Go figure.

Religion has always been about (usually) mans attempts to control other men. Whose place it is to control women as a right.

There's very little in religious life of interest to anyone who believes in equality. Apart from stark warnings.

@Livinginthecity

Do people think that stuff written in the holy books is true? Afraid so. They believe a virgin gave birth to a child after all. That's what we're celebrating this week.

Most modern Christians do not take the Bible literally, including the virgin birth, the story of creation, etc. I don't know anyone who does - some do, I suppose.

Taken metaphorically, it's a very beautiful story, and even atheists should be able to recognise that. God as a man in heaven, angels, etc. are understood by educated Christians to be allegorical; simplified, almost childish language, to make faith approachable.

Taken metaphorically

Was a very good way to get killed ...

...but digging deeper, I've found that not to be the case.

What do you mean by "digging deeper*?

There's very little in religious life of interest to anyone who believes in equality.

Actually, there's a lot.