When will angry men learn not to pillory JK Rowling?
Serial court-case loser Jolyon Maugham tried it. He called her 'anti-trans', 'amoral' and a 'bigot'. Big mistake. In the tweeting equivalent of a surgical strike, Rowling did to Maugham's reputation what he did to that unfortunate fox while wearing his wife's kimono on Boxing Day 2019.
Don't make me sue you, she said, not least because it would be a terrible waste of taxpayers' money to 'have to construct a courtroom large enough to accommodate your ego'.
Next up was ex-pop star Boy George. He branded her a 'rich bored bully'. Bully? That's rich, she quipped, from someone who was 'given 15 months for handcuffing a man to a wall and beating him with a chain'. And now we have Owen Jones. Yes, completing the trifecta of gender-crank Rowling botherers, the Guardian's pipsqueak Leftist has come out swinging for the woman who dares to believe in biology.
He seems to be upset because she had a chuckle about his erratic behaviour on Piers Morgan Uncensored last week. In response to an X user who wondered if Jones might have partaken of the white stuff before fidgeting and gurning his way through Morgan's show, Rowling tweeted: 'Well, he is known as Talcum X.'
Jones is hopping mad. He's even written a 1,300-word screed on what a rotter Rowling is, which I'm sure we can all agree is a perfectly normal response to a woman making a joke. His line of attack is that Rowling has been shamefully silent on the suffering of Palestinians. She claims to stand up for women, he says, yet she's schtum on what is happening to women in Gaza.
His Rowlingphobic diatribe drips with haughty sexism. He bemoans her 'useless obsessions', by which he presumably means her valiant defence of the reality of sex and her financial backing of women and homosexuals who have been persecuted for their beliefs by either their bosses or the state. Sounds pretty useful to me, Owen.
He commands her: 'End your silence.' Maybe he didn't get the memo – men don't get to tell women what to do anymore. Women are free to think and say whatever they please. Radical, I know!
But it's the disingenuousness of his blokeish moan that is most striking. He accuses Rowling of only caring about certain women. Yet as you read this rant from one of Britain's noisiest Israeliphobes, you realise that is far truer of Jones and his fellow woke bros than it is of Rowling.
Rowling's big issue is the gender madness. She has made it abundantly clear that she thinks every woman, regardless of age, background or station, deserves dignity and liberty. No woman, she says, should be made to undress with or compete against men who masquerade as women. In both word and deed, she's been admirably consistent in her defence of the truth of womanhood and the rights of women.
The same cannot be said for Jones and the other digital windbags of the 21st-century Left. Indeed, Jones' grossly inappropriate moral preening over how much he cares for Palestinian women instantly raises the question of why other women caught up in awful conflicts rarely seem to prick his conscience.
Rowling's bold defiance of the gender cult is a strike for the autonomy of all women. In contrast, the myopic Israelophobia of the whackjob Left fashions a ruthless hierarchy in which the pain of Palestinians counts for more than the pain of anyone else on earth.
What's more, these faux-feminists zip their lips when women are being oppressed by Islamists. They cosplay as feminists at home, holding forth on the gender pay gap and whatnot. Yet they fall silent in the face of the Iranian regime's mass murder of women who want more rights or the Taliban's medieval subjugation of its female population.
They're so antsy about 'Islamophobia' that they will happily turn a blind eye to Islamism's truly brutish crushing of female freedom. Here's my question for Jones: why do you get so much angrier over conflicts involving the Jewish nation than you do over any other war? What explains that glaring disparity?
Today, a report was released detailing the horrific sexual violence Hamas meted out on 7 October 2023 as part of its 'genocidal strategy'. I look forward to Jones' commentary on it. Wait – you do care about Jewish women, right?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Forbes was the voice of moderate SNP politics...but they treated her like an embarrassment
The decision by to stand down at next year's Holyrood elections is a personal one and reflects her wishes for her family life. But it also marks the final nail in the coffin of SNP centrism. The Deputy First Minister was the last woman standing for anyone who hoped the Nationalists could cut a more moderate path on the economy, social issues and the constitution. Forbes entered the Scottish Parliament just nine years ago, young and idealistic about independence. Yet she brought a maturity that many political old-timers in the SNP could not match. When she spoke, she understood that her audience was not the flag-waving faithful but the electorate at large, with its doubters and undecideds and people far too busy to have given much consideration to the great issues of the day. Nothing demonstrated that maturity like her handling of the 2020 Budget. With just hours to go before the annual costs were placed before Holyrood, finance secretary Derek Mackay abruptly resigned over text messages to a 16 year old. Forbes, his deputy, stepped up instantly and won plaudits for the aplomb with which she delivered a speech she had barely had a chance to read. Taking over for Mackay, she proved herself to be disciplined, rigorous and determined to strike a balance between growing the economy and redistributing resources to alleviate poverty. For this sensible, middle-ground approach to politics, she was branded a right-winger, an indication of just how out of touch the Scottish parliament is with the nation it theoretically represents. But what truly put Forbes beyond the pale were her devoutly held Christian beliefs. In an age in which tolerance is on everyone's lips, there was little shown for Forbes's Free Presbyterian faith. When she contested the leadership in 2023, following the abrupt resignation of Nicola Sturgeon, there was a concerted effort to make the entire contest about her suitability for office given her Christian principles. It was an outrageous exercise in bias and prejudice that, had it been applied to any other religion, would have been readily acknowledged as such. Christians, however, are fair game, especially if they believe in such heresies as biological sex. The Deputy First Minister signalled early on that she disbelieved in the gender identity ideology, and even though she was on maternity leave when Holyrood was voting through the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, she made clear during her joust with Humza Yousaf for the Nationalist crown that she rejected the notion that a man could 'self-identify' himself as a woman and that the law should change to reflect this. She was right, as a series of legal cases, culminating in the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland, would go on to verify. Had Sturgeon and Yousaf listened to her, a great deal of division could have been avoided, not to mention costly legal fees. As well as canny discernment, she earned a reputation for cutting putdowns that lingered on opponents. She branded Yousaf the 'continuity candidate' and told him during one TV debate: 'You were a transport minister and the trains were never on time, when you were justice secretary the police were stretched to breaking point, and now as health minister we've got record high waiting times.' Yousaf may have defeated her for the leadership, but he wasn't able to emerge from the shadow of those barbs. That John Swinney chose her as his deputy first minister speaks volumes about her significance as a voice of moderate SNP politics. She stressed that wealth redistribution was only possible if first there was wealth generation. She urged fellow Nationalists to stop hectoring the public on independence and try to persuade them instead. Neither counsel was taken on board and the SNP remains distant from the aspirational, sceptical voters it would need to secure and make a success of independence. For advocating for Scotland in Europe and for Scotland to be in Europe, Winnie Ewing, an earlier figure on the mainstream wing of the SNP, was dubbed 'Madame Ecosse'. Forbes, who advocated for the Nationalists among the Don't Knows, the Unionists and even the Tories, is the SNP's Ms Middle Scotland. An opportunity to bring in voters who would never before have considered a vote for the Nationalists. Voters who might even be willing to listen on independence. And they treated her as an embarrassment, that is when some weren't trying to push her out of the party altogether. Sometimes — oftentimes — politicians are the most clueless practitioners of politics. Forbes's exit clears the way for Stephen Flynn, the SNP's Westminster leader, to become John Swinney's heir apparent. A blokey, lefty, loudmouth who would drag Scotland back to rancorous divisions over independence. With Forbes going, he will be the future now. She would have made the better first minister for Scotland, he would push all the right buttons to get the party faithful cheering. Was there ever any doubt which would prosper in the SNP? Forbes says she is standing down because she wants to see her children grow up. We should also think about that. If our politics makes it impossible to be a parent and a parliamentarian, then our politics are broken. Do we want a Holyrood stuffed with MSPs who have no first-hand knowledge of raising children? Because that's the way we're heading unless things change. Kate Forbes's choice should be a wake-up call for the SNP, but not only the SNP.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The VAT raid on private schools continues to unravel
Punishing parents for paying for their children's education was never going to end well for Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary. Few policies have been so speedily exposed as vindictive and counterproductive as Labour's imposition of VAT on school fees. At least 10,000 pupils have been forced to move out of independent schools and have thus become a burden on the Exchequer. Some 50 schools have already closed and more will surely follow. The state sector has yet to see the much-vaunted 6,000 extra teachers. One of the perverse effects of this experiment in class warfare has been to penalise poorer families. The genuinely affluent are able to pay their fees years in advance. As The Telegraph today reveals, many thousands have done just that, potentially avoiding the VAT that was imposed from this January onwards. The top 50 independent schools held £515m in advance fees last year, up from £121m in 2023. This may have cost the Treasury over £100m in VAT it would otherwise have received. But parents with more modest means cannot afford to do this. Many have been forced to take their children out of private education, thereby turning schools that had catered for a broad range of backgrounds into a closer approximation of what the Left stigmatise them for being: the preserve of the wealthy. As if this mean-spirited fiscal assault on education had not done enough damage, Lord Kinnock has now proposed to extend the principle to health as well. The former Labour leader – now enjoying a comfortable retirement thanks to years on the Brussels gravy train – is all for charging VAT on private health care too. Those who remember the days when Margaret Thatcher used to bat such daft Labour proposals back across the Despatch Box will doubtless recall that fees for private health were then tax-deductible. Now, there is an idea that the Conservatives should seriously consider reviving.
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
SNP accused of 'betraying' victims of crime as they wait three years for justice
Exclusive by Michael Blackley Victims of crime are now having to wait nearly three years to get justice in the most serious cases, including murder and rape. Growing backlogs of cases in the High Court have resulted in a sharp rise in the time taken to proceed from offence to verdict. Scheduled High Court trials have soared amid rising pressure on the justice system, which has failed to recover from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Official figures reveal the median time from offence to verdict in the High Court has risen to 1,032 days, almost double the 520 days recorded in the year before the Covid pandemic. New data also shows scheduled High Court trials reached 743 in March and climbed to 818 by June - compared to 390 trials originally projected for the end of 2024/25 by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service when it carried out modelling in 2021. Liam Kerr, Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, said: 'These damning figures highlight that the SNP is miserably failing to clear the horrendous backlogs in Scotland's courts. 'Thanks to the Nationalists' chronic mismanagement of Scotland's courts, we are still miles away from hitting pre-pandemic backlog levels, despite what was predicted during the Covid period. 'SNP cuts to the justice budget and its failure to get funding to the front line are inevitably leading to mounting backlogs in the system - and that's a shameful betrayal of victims, because justice delayed is justice denied. 'Even victims of the most serious crimes are being betrayed by SNP ministers, as they now have to wait over 1,000 days on average for a verdict in High Court cases.' The figures, revealed by 1919 magazine, show that the median time from offence to verdict in the High Court was 1,032 days in 2023/24, compared to 520 days in 2019/20. In Sheriff Court cases, the median time from offence to verdict in 2023/24 was 564 days, compared to 283 days in 2019/20. Modelling from the SCTS published in March 2021 found that there was expected to be 390 trials scheduled in the High Court and 500 trials scheduled in Sheriff Solemn Courts by March 2025. But the new data shows there were actually 743 scheduled trials in the High Court and 1,004 in Sheriff Solemn Courts, which cover serious crimes like assault and drug offences, at this point. Summary cases, including common assault, domestic abuse, crimes of dishonesty and motoring offences, are also facing delays. Figures from March this year show more than 20,600 cases still waiting, nearly 50 per cent higher than predicted in 2021. The Scottish Police Federation has warned that delays and collapsed trials are wasting valuable resources and draining frontline capacity. An SCTS spokesman said: 'We remain conscious of the impact delays in the criminal justice system have on victims and witnesses. 'That is why our focus has been on striving to reduce the number of cases in the system and the length of time people wait for the outcome of a case. 'SCTS advised the criminal justice committee in December 2021 that we anticipated the backlog created by the Covid-19 pandemic would be cleared by 2026. 'Since then, and through our strong criminal court recovery programme, the number of scheduled trials has reduced from over 43,000 in January 2022 to under 18,000 at the end of June 2025. That is the fewest number of planned scheduled trials since 2018/19. 'However we are now dealing with a substantial increase in High Court business - the most serious criminal cases - which places pressure on a system with finite capacity. 'High Court scheduled trials at the end of June 2025 number 818, far higher than the pre pandemic position of 390. This means maintaining increased capacity is essential to prevent delays for all who use the system.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'Scotland is the only part of the UK to have successfully brought court backlog levels back down to below Covid levels - a testament to our comprehensive approach and substantial investment in recovery funding of over £201 million since 2021, which includes £20.3 million to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in 2025/26. 'This trend is continuing and we remain committed to supporting justice partners to maintain this progress.'
