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.

Jack 'Grifter' Monroe and Billy 'Antisemitic Misogynist' Bragg have both tweeted in support of her, whilst getting the details wrong of course. They can keep that kind of fake 'goodness'.

She keeps on reiterating the straw man argument that gc women wanted her to side with them and defend their views. No, she was just required to defend the principle of free speech for writers.

And I had no idea she'd been so disparaging about Caroline Criado-Perez, after the latter received a campaign of rape and death threats. She seems to have a real problem with feminism and strong women, which would explain a lot.

Calling another author “nuts” must surely be against their code of conduct?

Meanwhile , many debut authors are quietly thinking ‘WTF?’ and choosing to go union free.

Christ, she tweeted on a thread joking about Rushdie’s stabbing AGAIN. This time some sort of parody of Rowling/Stock, but using what happened to SR in this context (and joining in with it) is utterly reprehensible. Surely people who are defending her don’t think this is humorous?

Screenshots:

Really bloody awful.

Levins Solicitors takes apart that letter in support of Harris

This is incorrect:
'It is also worth noting that English law recognises demonstrated hostility against, or motivated by, transgender identity as a hate crime, according to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020.'
t.co/GQ0RWMqoxD
1/5

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 literally doesn't have a word to say about transgender identity. It created racially and religiously aggravated forms of assault, criminal damage, harassment and public order offences.
t.co/0NHfspeh1n
2/5

S. 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 does provide that 'hostility related to transgender identity' must be treated as an aggravating factor on sentencing. It applies to all offences except those under ss. 29-32 of the 1998 Act (to prevent double-counting).
t.co/xGbGh8X9Di
3/5

This is not the same thing at all as criminalising mere hostility, which would represent an extraordinary extension of the criminal law. The prosecution must prove that an offence (e.g. assault) has been committed and that it was aggravated by hostility.
4/5

People may say all manner of rude, hostile or offensive things in relation to trans identity and the other characteristics protected by s. 66 that will fall far short of the standard for criminal liability.
5/5

Follow ups to the initial tweet explain that they're predicating their statement on the behaviour being trolling sufficient to meet the standard of malicious communication, and therefore the hostility making the offence a hate crime.

But that's clearly not what the letter says

Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. The govt is currently in the process of attempting to repeal the much-criticised Malicious Communications Act 1988. In the meantime, the right to freedom of expression under A10 ECHR is relevant:
t.co/e0gqBAP5pq

juliebindel.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-society-of

I know that Julie Bindel's open letter has been mentioned already but I thought I'd post the link because anyone can sign.

There's an extra section for people who aren't authors or connected with the publishing industry.

The link is on the letter and you just have to send a quick email asking for your name to be added.

Please sign and share as widely as possible.

I don’t even get it. I certainly don’t get why Mary Shelly has been brought into it (has she been transed yet btw?)

There’s an article in the Times today about JKR and J Harris which mentions Philip Gwyn Jones ex Picador publisher. He criticised the increasing censorship and retribution came fast.
‘He was soon forced to apologise, Maoist-style, on Twitter: “I now understand I must use my privileged position as a white middle-class gatekeeper with more awareness to promote diversity, equity, inclusivity, as all UK publishing strives to put right decades of structural inequality. I believe in the necessity of this change.” He is no longer Picador’s publishing director’

There have been quite a few comments saying how sinister this is and it would be interesting to know who forced the apology and under what threats.
He lost his job so the apology didn’t do him any good.

Pathetic response from the Society of Authors (they are getting slammed in the comments and being shown up as liars).

A response and call for unity.

t.co/x10bBxZ5ij

societyofauthors.org/News/News/2022/August/A-response-and-call-for-unity

A Response and Call for Unity

19 August 2022

We have watched with concern the allegations about the Society of Authors and its Chair, Joanne Harris, in an open letter from Julie Bindel (‘An Open Letter to the Society of Authors re Joanne Harris’, 16 August 2022).

In our own statement (‘The SoA view — on hate, harassment and personal attacks on authors’, 17 August 2022) we did not respond directly to the allegations because, as we said:

Following the attempted murder of Sir Salman Rushdie on 12 August 2022, it is more important than ever that authors find ways to cooperate, regardless of their views, to protect the fragile freedom of expression that we all depend on.

We again call on all authors to converse with dignity and respect and to unite to work together on the issues which affect us all.

The allegations
Nevertheless, following the publication of a second open letter, also from Bindel (‘To those defending Joanne Harris’, 18 August 2022), we must refute the allegations of unfairness to those who hold particular views and specifically the women named.

So far as is possible when only vague details have been given, we have investigated the allegations that we have failed to support the authors in question.

We have found no evidence that either the unanimously appointed Chair of our democratically elected Management Committee or the SoA staff team have failed to act even-handedly, nor have we found any cases where members asking for help in dealing with publishers or requesting advice were refused.

We have dealt consistently with cases in line with the five principles listed in our statement.

These include decrying personal attacks, not making individual statements of support and not getting involved in debates between writers. If this is the support the named writers asked for, it would indeed have been refused.

Sadly, there has been an escalation in personal attacks on authors on social media, including for their beliefs, their race, and their gender. We condemn all such attacks unequivocally, but we do not have the resources to condemn each individually and we do not believe that it would be helpful to do so. Clearly there is little the SoA can do to stop such attacks other than continue with our policy work on Freedom of Expression and by directing people to our dignity and respect policies and resources for dealing with personal attacks and bullying.

We note that Amanda Craig confirms that she contacted the SoA and was advised on her dispute with Mslexia. She does not mention that SoA chief executive Nicola Solomon spoke to Mslexia and helped secure the payment on her behalf. This is a good example of the type of advice and assistance SoA staff deal with every day: vetting housands of contracts and assisting with author queries and concerns.

That work is carried out by trained staff members, not by the Chair of the Management Committee. The Management Committee are the volunteer board of directors, providing strategic leadership and direction on behalf of our 12,000 members. Those members hold a multiplicity of views and the staff and Management Committee carry out their work for members, whatever views they hold.

We are pleased to note that in the latest Open Letter it is acknowledged that the Chair and Management Committee of the SoA are entitled to hold their own personal opinions and express them on social media.

The allegations against Joanne Harris as Chair seem to be that she has failed to engage with authors, has joined in smear campaigns against them and has been unwilling to represent their interests. This is not a fair representation of the engaged and passionate Chair that the Management Committee and members see, as exemplified in Melinda Salisbury’s open letter of support for Joanne Harris (‘An Open Letter to the Society of Authors, regarding Joanne Harris’, 16 August 2022), not to mention the many private messages of support that the SoA has received.

The SoA view on gender criticism?
The SoA does not hold or express any view on gender criticism, although that seems to be the main basis of these complaints.

We are surprised at the claims that gender critical women are treated any differently from other SoA members. We repeat that we have investigated the files of the named women and see no basis for complaint. Any complaints that appropriate assistance was refused or that they were treated in any way outside our stated guidelines are unfounded.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary we invite them to write to us at the SoA with specific examples and we will investigate.
In the meantime, we will continue to welcome and work for all authors whatever their ideology or beliefs and at every stage in their careers.

@AmandaPCraig did, in fact, mention Solomon's aid. t.co/NEPDpKh40n

.

Erm why did they ask her “to keep it discreet”? Because they didn’t want it known that they’d assisted a “terf”?

I think so, Signalbox!

Joanne Harris still acting like a bratty teenager:

"Here’s what happened with the
Chair of @SocofAuthors yesterday. Its chair retweeted in disgust a quote of mine out of context, but saying that the charity did great work and gave away £1m last year and it was atrocious that a junior member of staff had to read this. /"

twitter.com/PhilipHensher/status/1561283103489986560?t=qsqVyiEILUK9GrMkx7ywxw&s=19

"2/ In other words you can’t criticise Joanne because that’s bullying and you can’t criticise the organisation because someone has to receive that and might be upset by it./"

"3/ Two hours go by.
2 hostile tweets are sent me directly after the event. The pile-on is not a success. But what business does the chair of the @SocofAuthors have, drawing attention to a long-standing and respectable author to incite abuse? (Spoiler alert: nobody cared)."

"4/ I don’t see how I can recommend my students to join the @SocofAuthors if they find that their opinions are going to be vetted or if they will be held up to ridicule. And I stand by what I said. An organisation of writers must not be lectured on unity."

"5/ We are utterly diverse. To talk about unity as an ideal as if we were working towards some ideal sameness, rather than enabling diverse and unfashionable and heretical views - that is fucking nuts."

"6/ Here’s what the @SocofAuthors said, dismissing the claim against Harris. "https://t.co/Yrg62tWoQJ

"7. In my case, she failed to engage with an author. She tweeted something about me and then blocked me. 2. She didn’t join a smear campaign: she attempted to start one, with a tweet that clearly intended to start a pile-on. 3. How has she represented my interests?"

Kathleen Stock:

"I'll tell you what, people who think I should get lighten up about jokes involving words "Kathleen Stock: I got stabbed". Give me a) your real name and b) a photo. I'll circulate both in conjunction with hysterical distortions of your views. Then let's make that joke about you."

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1561295241528975362?t=zES4Sj_un91pAtDeoKRa9A&s=19

...and it was atrocious that a junior member of staff had to read this. /"

I note the original tweet by PH was deleted.

But why are we to believe that the public spokesperson for an organisation currently under intense public scrutiny and public pressure is still a low paid employee?

Why have the senior management choosen to leave it to a junior member of staff?

Sorry no, if the excuse is that its left to a lowly staff member that choice to delegate is by senior management.

Another author speaks out;

Tweet thread - my complaint last year to @SocofAuthors about the behaviour of their Twitter account and the behaviour of Joanne Harris.

Monday 26th September 2021
Dear Nicola Solomon and The Society of Authors,

Thank you for the work you do on behalf of authors, much of which is admirable.

However, I’d like to complain about the activities of one of your elected members, Joanne Harris, who is Chair of the Management Committee, and also about the ‘official’ SoA account on Twitter.

On the 19th of September, someone drew my attention to the fact that Joanne Harris had retweeted something by a 'canine' account on Twitter which – while claiming to encourage only love and positivity - exists simply to create abusive mob pile-ons. See here: t.co/4Iq7P6bC9r

It seems odd for Joanne to suddenly retweet something that was originally posted in July.

However, it’s not hard to work out that her intended recipient of the pile-on was me, because it is to me that Philip Pullman is replying with his double 'how dare you' (his response to being challenged by a mere woman).

Once I'd pointed out publicly, on Twitter, what JH had done (the retweeting), she quietly deleted her retweet. However, her actions had the effect she desired and my account was soon bombarded by Joanne’s associates e.g. incels farting into their phones...

...general abuse from Men’s Rights Activists and trolls like Aidan Comerford, all encouraging more of a pile-on...

...to the extent that I had to temporarily lock my account because I got fed up blocking these nuisances (who are mostly misogynists that use the ‘trans’ issue as a way of venting their rage at women).

Personally, I am immune to such attempts at intimidation as I’m not in the least daunted by bullies like Joanne (who seems to have turned your organisation into her own personal ideological fiefdom). But why would she have provoked this pile-on?

In fact, her deliberate, calculated retweet followed a Twitter exchange between her and myself, in which she had, it would seem, misrepresented the truth. See this thread: t.co/USEy0A7tIG

And particularly the following post in which Joanne seems to be, at best, disingenuous about her role at the SoA: t.co/BotX0X3OdZ

In fact, the SoA account itself has ‘liked’ the following post which is, effectively, a rallying cry, for incels, misogynists, homophobes and gender idealogues - Joanne’s fellow activists - to barrage me, an individual author, with abuse...

...(despite the disingenuous instruction to not engage with gender critical individuals like myself). t.co/iqI84SG7gQ

Who runs this SoA account and who are they accountable to? Here are a few other posts that I’ve been sent screenshots of which the SoA account has apparently ‘liked’, all of which encourage a mob pile-on and include words like ‘transphobia’ and ‘bampots’. t.co/Yu2eyxzXBQ

Indeed, the post from Sam Missingham (who I had occasion to block, long ago) calls me a ‘TERF’, implies that my perfectly rational political opinions are ‘madness’ and suggests that I should be neither published nor represented...

...In essence, it is a call for my ‘cancellation’, the end of my writing career. t.co/9cOImtpsL4

Calling women who advocate for the protection of women’s sex-based rights ‘TERFs’ is abusive & derisive. And yet, the SoA have given tacit approbation to this malicious tweet by ‘liking’ the associated approving post. Is this really appropriate behaviour for the SoA to be seen...

to be calling for the ‘cancellation’ of individual writers who disagree with the politics of those of your staff members who are gender idealogues like Joanne Harris? I’m not sure how all of this sits alongside your claims, as an organisation, to advocate for free speech...

...and freedom of expression. Clearly, there's a political division between someone like myself - who believes that biological sex is real, important, immutable, and not to be conflated with ‘gender identity’ - & someone who believes there's such a thing as a ‘female penis’.

But that is, simply, a political disagreement and a question of belief. My belief is rational and legal. All this being the case, do you condone your elected officials acting in such an underhand and malevolent way, with Joanne Harris encouraging her friend Comerford and...

...their mob of activists to monster and ‘dogpile’ individual authors on social media platforms in order to get revenge for being challenged and exposed as duplicitous? Is it right that the Twitter account of your organisation operates in a similar way?

(My complaint continued, but that's enough for a thread).

Reader, can you guess what happened as a result of my complaint?

twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1561377961693044737?t=N1R5fJwjfe8uMkeorNEmpg&s=19