Chocolat author survives vote to oust her from writers’ union after row over ‘trivialising’ JK Rowling death threat

  • Joanne Harris accused of being unfit to chair Society of Authors and faced vote
  • Chocolat author was accused of trivialising a death threat against JK Rowling
  • Ran poll asking if writers received ‘credible death threats’ after Salman Rushdie stabbing
  • It was branded a ‘sideswipe’ at Miss Rowling – something Miss Harris denies 

The chairman of the UK’s largest trade union for writers last night survived a bid to force her out – despite being accused of trivialising a death threat against Harry Potter author JK Rowling.

Chocolat author Joanne Harris had been accused of being unfit to chair the Society of Authors and faced a vote at its online annual general meeting.

The vote was sparked by a resolution calling on Miss Harris to stand down, which referred to ‘comments which are not compatible with the society’s goals of protecting free expression and their policy of dignity and respect’. There were 143 votes in favour and 608 against it.

Earlier this year Miss Harris was accused of downplaying death threats Miss Rowling received after supporting stabbed writer Sir Salman Rushdie. 

Miss Harris ran a poll asking writers if they’d received ‘credible’ death threats, branded a ‘sideswipe’ at Miss Rowling. Insisting her online poll ‘had nothing to do with JK Rowling’, Miss Harris later deleted and reposted it without the word ‘credible’.

She also said she had got the ‘tone’ of her tweet wrong and has condemned ‘threats of any kind to anyone’.

Chocolat author Joanne Harris (pictured) last night survived a bid to force her out as chairman of the UK’s largest trade union  – despite being accused of trivialising a death threat against Harry Potter author JK Rowling

Last night Julia Williams, another of the resolution’s proposers, told the meeting it was brought as a ‘last resort’ and only after ‘many complaints’ had been submitted to the society, many of which pre-dated the ‘flippant’ poll on death threats and had been brushed aside.

She also accused Miss Harris of contributing to a ‘climate of fear’ via her strong following on social media. She has more than 100,000 followers on Twitter.

Miss Harris told the meeting there were ‘too many accusations’ in Miss Williams’ speech which she disagreed with and considered ‘untrue’ for her to address them all individually.

A supporter of trans rights, she said she had become a ‘target’ for various political and personal opinions despite making it clear on her Twitter account that it is a personal account, and that she only tweets on behalf of the society when she makes it clear that she is doing so.

She added: ‘What it boils down to is some people don’t like me. My personality and image don’t fittheir opinion of what the society chair should be.’

Miss Harris was elected chairman in 2020. She began her second term at the beginning of this year and it is due to run until 2024.

After the result of the vote, at least one attendee told the meeting they would be resigning their membership of the society.

Earlier this year Miss Harris was accused of downplaying death threats Miss Rowling (pictured) received after supporting stabbed writer Sir Salman Rushdie. Miss Harris ran a poll asking writers if they’d received ‘credible’ death threats, branded a ‘sideswipe’ at Miss Rowling

Supporters of Miss Harris rejected the idea that when she tweets, people think she is speaking on behalf of the society.

Earlier this year Miss Harris revealed that her son is transgender.

Earlier this week the poet and author Kate Clanchy wrote an article headlined ‘Why Joanne Harris must go’ for the online publication UnHerd.

In it, she said Miss Harris ‘has some pretty profound disagreements with Rowling about gender ideology’ and that ‘hundreds of members of the society have made their feelings clear that Harris’s outspoken stance creates a chilling effect for free speech.’

Miss Harris hit back on Twitter saying: ‘My use of free speech on Twitter means that somehow I must be ‘against’ free speech, which means that I must be made to shut up INSTANTLY. Well, that made sense.’

Source: Read Full Article