Delingpole: Publisher Cancels Anti-Cancel Culture Book over ‘Islamophobic’ Tweets

Breitbart ^ | 12/17/2020 | James Delingpole

[xomething]

...

Sarkar’s boast about her sexual prowess has since been toned down to the more vanilla “Literature bore. Anarcho-fabulous. Muslim. THFC. Kebab aficionado. Luxury communism now!”

It was the ‘Muslim’ element which sparked the row leading to Burchill’s cancellation.

As the Mail reports, the fight kicked off when Sarkar decided to engage in some offence archaeology by claiming to take umbrage at an obviously jocular eight-year-old article in the Spectator, Britain’s oldest conservative journal, by its house provocateur Rod Liddle:

Liddle wrote: “The only thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids. We’re talking secondary level here, by the way – and even then I don’t think I’d have dabbled much below year ten, as it is now called.”

Posting a portion of the piece, Sarkar commented: “It’s astonishing that both he and his editor thought guffawing about hypothetically being a paedophile made for a good article.”

In response, Burchill said: “Can you please remind me of the age of the Prophet Mohammad’s first wife? Thank you in anticipation.”

She later added: “I don’t WORSHIP a paedophile. If Aisha was nine, YOU do. Lecturer, lecture thyself!”

Sarkar subsequently accused Burchill of Islamophobia, with the exchange shared widely on social media.

...

“We believe passionately in freedom of speech at Little, Brown and we have always published authors with controversial or challenging perspectives – and we will continue to do so.

“While there is no legal definition of hate speech in the UK, we believe that Julie’s comments on Islam are not defensible from a moral or intellectual standpoint, that they crossed a line with regard to race and religion, and that her book has now become inextricably linked with those views.”

...

[alexander_busek]

“While there is no legal definition of hate speech in the UK, we believe that Julie’s comments on Islam are not defensible from a moral or intellectual standpoint, that they crossed a line with regard to race and religion, and that her book has now become inextricably linked with those views.”

We are all still waiting for the publisher (Little, Brown) to actually substantiate that bold claim.

To wit:

What, precisely, is factually incorrect about Julie's comments?

hat, precisely, is morally indefensible about Julie's comments?

Where, exactly, does this "line with regard to race and religion" lie? Would - for instance - a book (cough-cough - The Koran - cough-cough) describing how a grown man marries a 6-year-old girl, then waits a scant four years before deflorating her, qualify as "crossing" that "line?"

Regards,

[sauropod]

.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

The prophet’s first wife was Khadija, who was 40 years old when she married the then 25 year old Mo.

Sarky obviously isn’t a very good Muslim if she managed to overlook something so obvious to anyone with at least a basic knowledge of Islamic theology.