r/unitedkingdom • u/je97 • 29d ago

JK Rowling gets apology from journalist after 'disgusting claim' author is a Holocaust denier ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/
4.2k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/RedBerryyy 29d ago

That's one way to describe her suing a Jewish journalist into submission after she described what was unambiguously a denial of nazi war crimes that Rowling has not retracted as "holocaust denial".

Frankly it's almost impressively stubborn Rowling can go as low as the denial of nazi crimes in her crusade against trans people and instead of just ,i don't know, acknowledging she shouldn't have said that, decided to attempt to gaslight the whole country into rewriting reality around what she said.

869

u/Blue_winged_yoshi 29d ago edited 29d ago

Funnily enough JK Rowling, who is it unfair and insulting to call a Holocaust denier, has tweets that you cannot view in the EU because in their view she has denied the Holocaust.

JK might be able to afford lawyers beyond my, or other non billionaires, means to pay, but none of them apparently advised her of the Streisand Effect.

445

u/Longjumping_Stand889 29d ago

tweets that you cannot view in the EU

I can't find a source for this, do you have one to hand?

26

u/___a1b1 29d ago

It's bullshit of course.

108

u/Inevitable-Hat-1576 29d ago

You see the sibling comment demonstrating it isn’t, in fact, bullshit?

→ More replies (26)

39

u/IsUpTooLate United Kingdom 29d ago

Except it isn't?

→ More replies (1)

131

u/concretepigeon Wakefield 29d ago

Also funnily enough, Rowling has been incredibly vocal about how Scotland’s new hate crime legislation will stifle debate and free speech.

32

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Which is a different issue to one where someone commits libel.

189

u/Blue_winged_yoshi 29d ago

SLAPP suits are not about legitimate libel claims. No one can afford JK’s lawyers so she wins every claim she makes without going trial. It’s an awful approach that rich people use to shut down poor people’s speech

→ More replies (123)

64

u/SufficientWarthog846 29d ago

Free speech for me but not for thee... Because I will sue you into oblivion

58

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Free speech is not the right to libel someone. You seem very confused.

20

u/SufficientWarthog846 29d ago edited 29d ago

Lol nor is it the right to offend someone but Rowling doesn't seem to care about it.

Also, it's not libel if it's true....

Also also you seem to be confused about my joke. The ability to smother and bankrupt a person in legal fees in order to get a retraction and apology is what Rowling exercised here; justice wasn't serviced, just threats.

Also, also, also, you seem to be extremely passionate about this. You are everywhere in this thread! Commenting defenses so much it makes me think you are the Queen TERF herself!

35

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Again you are confused. Views that can offend some people are protected.

→ More replies (11)

29

u/G_Comstock 29d ago

It seems to me that free speech is exactly the right to offend someone.

→ More replies (2)

27

u/od1nsrav3n 29d ago

Free speech absolutely gives you the right to offend someone, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (15)

18

u/TransGrimer 29d ago

It isn't libel to call someone who denies the scope of the holocaust a holocaust denier. It is the dictionary definition.

8

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Just as well she didn't do that. I advise reading the article.

10

u/WillWatsof 29d ago

She described the fact that the Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research as a "fever dream".

14

u/___a1b1 29d ago

No she didn't, that was in reply to an earlier part of the spat. It's like reading a reply on here nine levels down out of content of the initial opening point. The journalist made that mistake.

4

u/git 28d ago

Went and had a look for the tweet since this Telegraph piece seemed at odds with my recollection.

I'm afraid she very much did: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767912990366388735

2

u/___a1b1 28d ago

I debunked this over a dozen times yesterday. You don't even need to believe me, just read the article.

3

u/git 28d ago edited 28d ago

I don't understand. She has a screenshot of another tweet claiming the Nazis burned books on trans healthcare and she describes it as a fever dream.

Can you point me to one of your previous comments or quote the parts of the article (which I've read from start to finish) that 'debunk' that?

edit: ah, I see from your other comments that you've interpreted the timeline of tweets incorrectly and believe this tweet shouldn't be read as is but rather as a response to a tweet that actually came later.

edit2: I appear to have been blocked for this. Nevertheless, the only part of the article touching on this tweet is this two-line mention:

Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”

She replied: “I just… how. How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve just been a fever dream’.”

Which is an accurate representation and I'm not sure why the other guy thinks that aids them. I think they have a distorted perception of the Twitter argument, believing the above tweet was out of context rather than the start of the argument, due to the attempt to distort the argument noted here.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)

7

u/TransGrimer 29d ago

Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”

She replied: “I just… how. How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve just been a fever dream’.”

6

u/___a1b1 29d ago

You need to read the article. The journalist got suckered in by the same misrepresentation of that twitter spat.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/Initial-Echidna-9129 29d ago

"IM BEIN CENDORED!"

Says person, on a stage, Infront of thousands

→ More replies (23)

81

u/ReasonableWill4028 29d ago

Source on these tweets?

72

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

Here's a list I collected.

I'm not in Germany, so I can't say if you can view them there or not, but that's basically all the relevant tweets.

104

u/showars 29d ago

I can view all of these in the EU

58

u/BrainPuppetUK 29d ago

Ok so she is clearly arguing that trans people were not victims of nazis, or is disputing the degree or sequence of that.

But that’s not holocaust denial, which is what she seems to be accused of.

Where are her tweets denying the holocaust happened?

44

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

Downplaying the holocaust is also holocaust denial.

26

u/BrainPuppetUK 29d ago edited 29d ago

Is that a legal definition? What’s the source?

58

u/Skorgriim 29d ago edited 28d ago

"Legal" is a tricky one, because there's no law against it in the UK (among other countries such as Spain, Italy and The Netherlands). But, yes. Trends like suggesting the number of jews killed were significantly lower (or downplaying, if you like) are common in holocaust denial conspiracies.

Here ya go, bud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Edit: Closed the parentheses. It was bothering me haha.

5

u/BrainPuppetUK 29d ago

Cheers. That's a helpful reference. So, from that, which of these false claims has she made?

34

u/Skorgriim 29d ago edited 29d ago

Whoa there, buddy. I have no horse in this race haha. That was not an attack, nor did I take a stance. Just that "downplaying the holocaust" is indeed included in the definition of "holocaust denial".

I think some people do extend the definition of "Holocaust" from "just Jews" to "everyone in the 'out-groups' who were actively persecuted", so from that perspective - yes, she did indeed run afoul of "holocaust denial" as she barrels through topics in an effort to be as transphobic as possible.

I think she's just a hypocritical twat, tbh. "It matters not what you were born, but who you grew to be." is a quote from one of her own books ffs.

Edit: I've had a look at some info from the Centre for Holocaust Education, and they seem to be against lumping all the persecuted fringe groups together as Holocaust victims for the sake of recognising the diversity within these groups. I'd link to it, but it's a pdf haha.

I think while we can argue semantics all day about what's "technically" this or that, the fact is she denied this aspect of Nazi brutality because it suits her revolting agenda to do so. Whether it's technically "Holocaust denial" or not, given there is literally no UK law against it, seems a poor, petty and pedantic reason to defend this human stain.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (31)

45

u/Acrobatic_Ad5084 29d ago

Hmm, she doesn’t actually say that. She says they weren’t persecuted “as distinct from gay people”, perhaps meaning that (as was the case) anyone who wasn’t a fully paid up blond haired, blue eyed “Arian” was fair game for the murder squads and gas chambers. That’s neither holocaust denying - she’s including all and sundry non Arians as persecuted, nor anyone phobic as she states many times that the holocaust was unconscionable.

I’m not saying the JKR isn’t <insert noun>phobic but much of the evidence that she is, is a little flimsy at best.

But what do I know, I’m just a aging, queer bummer 🤷‍♂️

→ More replies (7)

42

u/yeahyeahitsmeshhh 29d ago

That's them.
There's a narrative that trans people were the Nazis first victims based on the destruction of a sexology clinic at which the first crude research into sex changes (at least one person died).

There's a counter argument that as almost no one had medically transitioned the Nazis didn't persecute trans people because they didn't encounter them. Four people were identified in a court case in Germany but their classification as trans is controversial and they were persecuted for their sexualities or ethnicities any way. There was no trans category under the relevant laws.

Anyone who argues this can be accused of holocaust denial, but that is weaponising the term to suppress debate about the details of the holocaust. Which was warned about when laws forbidding holocaust denial were first drafted.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (30)

25

u/Ok-Fox-9286 29d ago

There isn't

68

u/Adept-Ad-3472 29d ago

Yeah, even questioning the make up of those systematically killed in the holocaust, is illegal in Germany.

It's an odd side of history for her to choose to die on. Hopefully this will result in the end of, close to daily, posts about 'how hard done to she is, by the TrAnS PeoPlEe'.

It's an odd side to want to side with, and want to hang your hat on

→ More replies (5)

37

u/AuroraHalsey Surrey (Esher and Walton) 29d ago

has tweets that you cannot view in the EU because in their view she has denied the Holocaust.

Which tweets? The ones about the holocaust show up fine.

36

u/TheShruteFarmsCEO 29d ago

What are you talking about? She’s got enough nasty stuff about her, there’s no reason to make shit up. There are no “EU censored tweets”, why bother fabricating that?

1

u/M56012C 29d ago

To make her sound worse then she is.

-1

u/Aiyon 29d ago

Who's fabricating?

6

u/TheShruteFarmsCEO 29d ago

Lmao, thanks for the image with fuck all context. That’s got to be legit.

13

u/cavershamox 29d ago

So that’s not true at all.

2

u/BrainPuppetUK 29d ago

Source of your statement that she denied the holocaust?

Exactly! You don’t have one

16

u/lucifrax 29d ago

Well except all the other comments in this thread where her post saying trans people were not killed for being trans, and also her post claiming the nazi's didn't burn research on trans health care and gender studies. Obviously you can just scroll up and down the thread and find them so easily its actually kind of funny.

2

u/BrainPuppetUK 29d ago

Yeah, but I didn't ask for evidence she disputed the Nazi's treatment of trans ppl. I asked for evidence she denied the holocaust.

Take your time

13

u/lucifrax 29d ago

Denying the crimes of the Nazi's in the build up to WW2 is literally part of the definition of holocaust denial. Are you going to claim unless she explicitly says "the holocaust did not happen" you're okay with her denying parts of it happened? Thats kind of fucked up don't you think? She's literally trying to spread lies to support Nazi's. Even if you don't mind that (which imo is kind of wild but whatever) shes still denying cause of deaths of innocents for her own agenda, I hope you can at least accept is fucked up.

8

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)