Trans-row Harry Potter author signs open letter condemning 'intolerant' cancel culture

Trans-row Harry Potter author signs open letter condemning 'intolerant' cancel culture
News
Posted on 8 Jul 2020

Under-fire JK Rowling has put her name to an open letter denouncing so-called cancel culture.


The Harry Potter author has been at the centre of an ongoing row about the transgender community. 

As recently as last weekend, she wrote on Twitter: "Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function.”


The open letter, which has been signed by 150 writers, academics and activists - including Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood and Martin Amis - was published yesterday in Harper's Magazine.
‘Cancel culture’ is a term used to describe the online shaming of individuals who cause offence.

The letter reads: “Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion - which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.


“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

“This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.”
 


 

HAVE YOUR SAY

Tell us what you think below...

Join our Newsletter today!

More from News...

Most Popular Stories

  • Sense prevails: Birmingham City Council green-lights Hurst Street weekend traffic closure News

    Sense prevails: Birmingham City Council green-lights Hurst Street weekend traffic closure

    More
  • Rainbow road: Birmingham’s Hurst Street gets its very own Pride crossing News

    Rainbow road: Birmingham’s Hurst Street gets its very own Pride crossing

    More
  • New Midlands LGBT radio station prepares to take to the airwaves News

    New Midlands LGBT radio station prepares to take to the airwaves

    More
  • Birmingham-produced show’s actor to star as gay Todd Grimshaw in Coronation Street News

    Birmingham-produced show’s actor to star as gay Todd Grimshaw in Coronation Street

    More
  • Wolverhampton gay nightclub hosts Game Of Thrones star’s trans and non-binary yoga class News

    Wolverhampton gay nightclub hosts Game Of Thrones star’s trans and non-binary yoga class

    More
  • Gay village venues hoping for bumper weekend of business after council’s green light News

    Gay village venues hoping for bumper weekend of business after council’s green light

    More
  • Proud Geek: New Birmingham-based LGBT specialist retailer launches website News

    Proud Geek: New Birmingham-based LGBT specialist retailer launches website

    More