JKR receiving death threats for supporting Salman Rushdie

[WandaWomblesaurus]

news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-working-with-police-over-death-threat-after-voicing-support-for-salman-rushdie-12672229

How fucking predictable.

Ah right! Yep it's confusing alright 😄

Harris is trending nationally. It must be horrible, but she’s brought it on herself with her strange partisanship and engaging in bullying pile ons.

Apparently Joanne Harris has a trans son. I was unaware of this. Explains a lot though.

hardly surprising. A generation of adults with children telling them what to believe.

Yes I only found out recently and it really does explain how personally invested she is & her inability to be remotely objective. It’s a shame she doesn’t have the self awareness to see it

juliebindel.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-society-of?r=7vxvx&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Happy to see Anne Fine on here. I loved her books as a kid.

Private Eye in 2020

All these Progressives tweeting - 'Course they're entitled to an opinion and it's wrong to kill people. But.....'

I think she just recently putnit in her twitter bio. I could speculate why.

And you’d be right. Not surprisingly.

Hummm
so .....
her female child is now her son and would like to be able to access male single sex spaces
Or
her male child is still her son and would like to be able to access female single sex spaces

It's becoming as clear as mud.

Cordelia Fine is Anne Fine's daughter so, while I have no idea of Anne Fine's views on gender ideology, I expect she is at least well up on the issues.

@SolasAnla adult child is FtM

Helen Joyce:

"Proud to have signed this open letter criticising the Society of Authors for its failures to stand up for authors’ freedom of speech. Other interested authors are invited to sign"

t.co/Iy6wzZ9ejJ

it's astonishing really. JH's books are so insightful about people

just goes to show how easy it is to be blinded

@Theeyeballsinthesky
Thanks

Joanne Harris is consistently dismissive while Rachel Rooney has grace

In the Times today.
Comment by Jawad Iqbal:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f0728f88-1d96-11ed-add4-d333562d46fb?shareToken=5ac5661b89ff0034e46c193dccf56f78

And article about JH saying her culture war with JKR is all fiction:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0be84d5c-1d8d-11ed-add4-d333562d46fb?shareToken=a40bbb469589b7ca5188b8f12b3d8b26

Harris is still at it. Now GC writers who believe there is a conflict of interest are very confused, because the SoA is just there to talk about “contracts and pay”. I have no idea if that’s true, but I thought they took a stance on free speech? The conflict of interest is Harris claiming to believe in free speech and to be prepared to defend it in her role, but actually treating writers who ask the SoA to stand up for their particular free speech rights against aggressive trans ideologists with hardly veiled contempt.

I have some sympathy for Harris because I understand why having a child who declares a trans identity might place you in a position where you felt you had to support them no matter what. I also think her child’s name and details should be kept out of any actual discussion. But it’s still relevant because (or it appears that) it’s the reason she has been unable to act objectively.

But you'd recognise that surely, and not act at all? Neutrality in a leading/figure head type post is acceptable surely? As in, not publicising your personal stance, but just making a 'threats are unacceptable in all circumstances, on all sides' type comment. That's not hard to see, is it?

@picklemewalnuts

I’d like to say no, it’s not hard, but I think for some people their self-image makes it hard. Harris has probably been accustomed to perceiving trans rights in such a way that it makes it a human rights issue, and so to criticise any aspect of the claims of trans ideology sits outside the parameters of acceptable free speech. So she sees her antipathy towards gender critical women as completely consistent with her support for free speech. She’s blinded by her own beliefs, and people who are blinded usually can’t see the bigger picture.

Now it is a human rights issue - people should be able to present in any way they want and they shouldn’t be discriminated against for it. But as usual, Harris has reversed the presumption of who is being discriminated against when a writer is ‘cancelled’ or threatened for not accepting (or even accepting without question) the self-perceptions of ‘trans’ people. It’s the writer.

Possibly the legal advice to the SoA has changed in the wake of the court victories this year. She hasn’t previously supported free speech, and now it looks like she’s going to be forced to choose between her free speech beliefs and her personal beliefs.

She hasn’t previously supported free speech, and now it looks like she’s going to be forced to choose between her free speech beliefs and her personal beliefs.

Good, she could do with being taken down a peg or two and start putting women first.

That’s a bizarre take. If a contract is terminated because a person is GC how can you support that person if you are not prepared to talk about their right to speak about their protected belief?