Our thanks to Ken for this. Women’s greed following divorce knows no limits. Any man in the UK – and many other developed countries – who marries a woman today (and indeed for many years past) is, in my view, clinically insane.

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

The Scottish feminist barrister Helena Kennedy, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws has been chairing the Scottish government’s Working Group on Misogyny. Our thanks to Len for sending us this link to Chapter 4 of the related CONsultation document. He writes:

This consultation finishes next Thursday night. You will need to check if any J4MB communications could fall foul of the legislation, which has long prison sentences attached (and if necessary, respond to the consultation and raise awareness of the legislation being drafted). [J4MB – we shall not be checking anything in relation to this ludicrous initiative, and responding to government CONsulations are always an exercise in utter futility.] Of particular interest to website and Twitter users are the proposed ‘stirring up’ offences. Not least because of the seven-year prison sentences attached to the proposed offence. There are some free speech provisions in the proposals,  but activists need to be sure these are sufficient, and the legislation could become more restrictive with passage through the Scottish Assembly. All of the proposals are of concern because they propose it would be legal for one gender to say or communicate something about the other, which would be illegal the other way around (gender exclusive legal protection) and some of the provisions are widely drafted, and ambiguous in application. I’ve had a quick look at the consultation document, there are four questions for respondents:

1. Do you agree there should be an offence?
2. Do you agree it should be committed where a person behaves in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicates threatening or abusive material?
3. Do you have any comments on freedom of expression?
4. Do you have any other comments on the draft offence?

I’m having a brief look now at Chapter 4 of the consultation, which discusses this offence, but please don’t disregard the other three offences, each of which had its own chapter in the consultation paper.

From the document, the entirety of Chapter 4, with my emphases and comments:

Recommendation: An offence of Stirring Up Hatred Against Women and Girls At the end of the chapter, there is a draft provision indicating how the Scottish Government have developed the recommendation into draft law. The text below provides a summary of what the report recommended, key issues in the development of the draft provision and questions. Readers may wish to consider the text below in conjunction with the draft provision before considering the questions.

What the report recommends

The report recommends that an offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls should be created. It proposes that it should criminalise engaging in threatening or abusive behaviour, or communicating threatening or abusive material, with the intention of stirring up hatred towards women and girls. The report notes that the offence should not require there to be a specific victim and as such the question of whether any individual targeted by a perpetrator is or is not a woman or girl is not relevant as the offence relates to stirring up hatred of women as a group. [J4MB emphasis] The report notes that freedom of expression must be considered in determining whether the behaviour or communication was reasonable, but that no one should enjoy the freedom to stir up hatred towards women. [J4MB emphasis]

Discussion

The report recommends that an offence of stirring up of hatred of against women and girls should be created to address: “a rapidly growing culture, with far reaching impacts, of stirring up hatred towards women…which causes women, as a group, to feel vulnerable and excluded” [J4MB emphasis. Got it. The whole driver of this legislation is one of countless feminist myths.] The report cites examples of how the offence may be committed such as an ‘incel’ who encourages his social media followers to assault women who refuse to have sex with men who have taken them on a date, and an extremist religious preacher who advocates physical punishment of women who have sex outside of marriage. The 2021 Act will, when it comes into effect, provide for offences of ‘stirring up hatred’. The offences cover stirring up hatred on grounds of race, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics. In the 2021 Act, the test used for the offence covering all characteristics except race^[1] is as follows. This offence is committed where a person behaves in a manner, or communicates material to another person, that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and, in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on their membership of a group defined by one of these listed characteristics. [J4MB emphasis] It may be worth noting that the number of prosecutions for existing ‘stirring up hatred’ offences in different jurisdictions across the UK is very low (typically between 5 and 15 across the whole of the UK per year) and it is reasonable to expect that this will also be the case for the offence of stirring up hatred of women and girls. It is possible that behaviour which amounts to the stirring up of hatred against women and girls may often take a slightly different form from the stirring up of hatred against groups covered by the existing offences. The report notes that “often this stirring up of hatred presents as being hatred of a particular type of woman – a noisy woman, a successful woman, an opinionated woman. But the crime is about female identity. It is no defence to say “I only hate certain kinds of woman – feminists, fat women or unfeminine women…” [J4MB emphasis. This is priceless, and of course most feminists are fat and unfeminine too. But since when was it a crime to hate people of different political persuasions to yourself? I’m reminded of the quotation usually wrongly attributed to Voltaire, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”] This may contrast with stirring up of hatred against groups defined by their racial or religious identity or sexual orientation, where, for the most part, people who stir up hatred against these groups target the group in its entirety, rather than stirring up hatred against, for example, people of a particular racial identity who dress in a certain way, people of a particular religious faith who hold certain opinions, or people of a particular sexual orientation who are ‘too loud’. However, the ‘stirring up hatred’ offence in the 2021 Act is wide enough to criminalise stirring up of hatred that takes this form, providing the stirring up of hatred relates specifically to the members of one of the protected groups. The draft offence of stirring up of hatred against women and girls works in the same way. There is likely to be a degree of overlap between the types of behaviour that amount to an offence of ‘stirring up hatred of women and girls’ and the proposed offences of ‘misogynistic harassment’ and ‘misogynistic behaviour’ discussed earlier in the consultation. However, there is nonetheless a good case for legislating for a stirring up hatred against women and girls offence. [J4MB emphasis] The offences of misogynistic harassment and misogynistic behaviour are concerned with the direct effect of behaviour on women and girls towards whom it is directed, or who may see or hear it. By contrast, behaviour intended to stir up hatred against women and girls may take place in all-male spaces, either on or off-line and is concerned with the effect that the behaviour has on the (probably male) people in whom the perpetrator is seeking to stir up hatred of women and girls. [J4MB emphasis] There is acute societal concern about online content, in particular, which glorifies the abuse of women and which the existing law is unable to deal with effectively. This behaviour may not amount to misogynistic harassment offence or misogynistic behaviour offence if there are no women or girls present who may be directly harmed by it. As such, the stirring up hatred offence is focused on behaviour that seeks to stir up hatred in others against women and girls rather than any behaviour that is necessarily directed at, or takes place in the vicinity of, women and girls. In this regard, it is worth noting that the 2021 Act provides for both an offence of stirring up racial hatred and a separate offence of racially aggravated harassment which demonstrates the different policy aims of stirring up hatred offences and offences concerned with e.g. harassment or abusive behaviour more generally type which is directly experienced by its victims. Question: Do you agree with the report’s recommendation that there should be an offence of stirring up hatred of women and girls?

The behaviour to be covered by the offence – section 1(1)

The report recommends adopting the approach taken for the general stirring up of hatred offence contained in the 2021 Act. The ‘stirring up of hatred of women and girls’ offence has been drafted on this basis. What this means is that the offence of stirring up hatred of women and girls is committed where the accused behaves in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicates threatening or abusive material, and, in either case, has the intention of stirring up hatred against women and girls. A ‘reasonableness’ defence modelled on that contained in the 2021 Act has also been provided for. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is 7 years imprisonment, in line with the offences of stirring up hatred in the 2021 Act. [J4MB emphasis] Question: Do you agree with the report’s recommendation that the offence should be committed where a person behaves in a threatening or abusive manner or communicates threatening or abusive material, with the intention of stirring up hatred of women and girls?

Freedom of expression (section 2)

The report states that “Freedom of expression must be considered in determining whether the behaviour or communication was reasonable e.g. arguing against feminism, but no-one should enjoy freedom to stir up hatred towards women.” [J4MB emphasis. Arguing against feminism will inevitably stir up hatred of feminists in some, and not unreasonably, given the destruction feminists have created and sustain.] It is a defence to the stirring up hatred offences contained in the 2021 Act for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. This was included as a safeguard, albeit as regards the offences requiring an intent to stir up hatred, it is difficult to envisage when the accused’s actions would ever be reasonable. The stirring up offence is limited to behaviour or communications which are threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred of women and girls. The purpose of the offence is not to interfere with a person’s ability to freely debate issues concerning, or relating to, women and girls. [JMB emphasis. Orwellian doublespeak. The offence IS designed to interfere with a person’s ability to…] In light of concerns raised during the passage of the 2021 Act, we have included a provision to address this which is similar to that contained within section 9 of the 2021 Act. This provision makes clear the following: For the avoidance of doubt, behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism of issues relating to women and girls. This ensures, for the avoidance of doubt, that discussion or criticism of, for example, equal pay for women or the right to maternity leave would not, in and of itself, be considered to be (threatening or) abusive. Something more is required for any such discussion or criticism to be taken to be threatening or abusive. For example, if it were proved that a reasonable person would consider that the criticism was expressed in a threatening or abusive way, or the material containing the criticism also included other threatening or abusive comments, it could still be taken to be behaviour or material that is threatening or abusive and therefore satisfy the first element of the offence. For the offence to be committed, however, the second element (i.e., the intention to stir up hatred) would also have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Question: Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to freedom of expression set out in the draft provisions? Question: Do you have any other comments on the draft offence of stirring up hatred of women and girls?

Draft Provision

1 Offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls

(1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against women and girls. (2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (4) For the purposes of subsection 1(a)(i), a person’s behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind, and in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (6) A person who commits an offence under this section if liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both). (7) In this section— “material” means anything that is capable of being looked at, read, watched or listened to, either directly or after conversion from data stored in another form, “women and girls” includes women or girls (or both)— (a) of a particular description or who are members of a particular group, (b) who are presumed by the offender to be of a particular description or members of a particular group.

2 Protection of freedom of expression for the purposes of the offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls

For the purposes of section 1, behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism of matters relating to women and girls.

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

We’re linking daily to selected audio / video files from our YouTube channel. Today’s file is here (video, 45:16).

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

Our thanks to Mike P for this.

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

Our thanks to Jeff for this.

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

Our thanks to Jeff for this.

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

Interesting.

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

We’re linking daily to selected audio / video files from our YouTube channel. Today’s file is here (video, 39:11).

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

Dear Mike Buchanan,

Welcome to the FSU’s weekly newsletter, our round-up of the free speech news of the week. As with all our work, this newsletter depends on the support of our members and donors, so if you’re not already a paying member please sign up today or encourage a friend to join and help turn the tide against cancel culture. You can share our newsletters on social media with the buttons at the bottom of this email. If someone has shared this newsletter with you and you’d like to join the FSU, you can find our website here.

Free speech fightback underway at Oxford over Kathleen Stock event

There was news of a heartening free speech fightback at Oxford University, as attempts by censorious student activists to no-platform gender critical philosopher Dr Kathleen Stock, and punish the society that invited her to speak on campus were thwarted (Times, Telegraph).

That’s thanks in part to the FSU – over the last two weeks we’ve kept up the pressure on senior administrators at the University, pointing out to them that a minority of student activists shouldn’t get to silence dissenting views for everyone else, and that many of those activists have in fact breached the University’s rules protecting free speech, as well as its Code of Practice on Meetings and Events.

In a letter to the Telegraph, over 100 Oxford students condemned the harassment, bullying and threats made against the Oxford Union debating society for inviting Dr Stock to speak and declared: those at the university who wish to silence free speech “do not speak for us” (Telegraph).

Forty-four Oxford dons also bravely put their heads above the parapet this week to write an open letter in support of Dr Stock’s right to express her views. The academics, ranging from well-known professors such as Richard Dawkins to younger lecturers who have recently graduated, are united by the belief that the right to free speech is sacred and has to be defended (Times).

Speaking to Arlene Foster on GB News, Toby Young pointed out that the best thing for student trans activists to do now would be to attend the event. “If you disagree with her, come and argue with her; come and discuss your disagreements in the debating chamber,” he said.

Let’s hope there’s an event for them to attend. The most pressing issue now is to make sure the event actually goes ahead, and that the protestors aren’t granted a heckler’s veto by security staff. According to reports, up to 1,000 protesters are now preparing a campus picket to protest the event on 30th May.

Sharron Davies MBE Book Launch – book your tickets here!

Of all the issues thrown up by the rise of gender ideology and the push for trans-inclusivity, safety and fairness in women’s sport is probably the one that has most grabbed mainstream public attention. And yet, too often, debate has been shut down and those who raise questions accused of ‘transphobia’. One of the most stalwart campaigners on the side of keeping women’s sports for women is British Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies MBE.

We are therefore delighted to have been asked to host the official launch of Sharron’s new book, Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport, on Wednesday 5th July. Join us online or in-person in central London to hear from Sharron about why she wrote the book and the struggles she’s faced to get her arguments heard.

We have brought together a superb panel to discuss the issues with Sharron, including Dr Emma Hilton, the award-winning development biologist who has advised various governing bodies on transgender policy in sport, including World Rugby, and Cathy Devine, an independent researcher who has published widely in the areas of sport policy, equality and human rights for girls and women over the last 15 years.

In the chair will be the FSU’s Education and Events Director, Dr Jan Macvarish.

There will be an audience Q&A and plenty of time to socialise afterwards over a complimentary glass of wine, courtesy of Swift Press. The book will also be on sale on the night and Sharron will be signing copies.

In-person tickets with a discount price for FSU members can be purchased here. Members who prefer to watch the event online can register to join free of charge here. And non-FSU members who prefer to watch online can pay £5 to register here.

FSU Summer Regional Speakeasy in Cambridge – tickets now available!

If you live in the Cambridge area, the first of our Summer Regional Speakeasies will take place there on Thursday 15th June. Journalist and writer Jane Robins will interview our General Secretary about his perspective on the battle for free speech, and much more. There will, of course, be plenty of time for socialising with fellow free speech supporters. FSU members can book tickets free of charge for themselves and their friends. Non-members pay £10. You can book your places here.

Equality watchdog head Baroness Falkner victim of civil service “witch hunt”

Trans activists and their allies in the (at least nominally) politically neutral civil service have been accused of participating in a “witch-hunt” (Mail), a “hatchet job” (Mail), or – for those who like their violence served with a veneer of post-enlightenment civility – a “coup d’état” (Mail) against the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Baroness Falkner, after the equalities watchdog recently advised the Government to change the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 to better protect women’s rights.

Activist employees at the EHRC are said to have compiled a dossier, setting out more than 40 complaints aimed at Baroness Falkner by a dozen current and former colleagues (Telegraph).

Staff relations at the equalities watchdog “are said to have soured”, as the Mail puts it, “after [Baroness Falkner] backed legal reforms guarding the rights of biological women in single-sex spaces such as hospital wards and toilets” in a move that “infuriated trans activists”.

The problem with well-meaning descriptions of this kind, in which Baroness Falkner is portrayed as having given her apparently unsolicited “backing” to legal reforms, or elsewhere as having “stood up to gender ideology” (Unherd), is that they overstate the case, positioning the EHRC’s Chair on one side of a complex, increasingly fractious public debate regarding the legal significance of biological sex. In so doing, they unwittingly cede too much ground to the trans activists.

It was the Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch, who earlier this year asked the EHRC for advice on whether the Act needed to be changed to make the law clearer. In a letter to Baroness Falkner, she raised concerns about the “increasing contestation of how the term sex is understood in law and practice” as well as “the consideration about whether the definition of ‘sex’ is sufficiently clear and strikes the appropriate balance of interests between different protected characteristics”.

Baroness Falkner replied to the minister in April, outlining not her own, but the EHRC board’s conclusions. “On balance,” the letter said, “we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in the Equality Act to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk [in certain areas]. It therefore merits further consideration.”

“There is no straightforward balance,” Baroness Falkner continued, “but we have come to the view that if ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, this would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas. These include pregnancy and maternity, freedom of association for lesbians and gay men, freedom of association for women and men, positive action, occupational requirements, single-sex and separate-sex services, sport and data collection.”

Writing in The Times, Baroness Falkner was quick to caution that although this change would bring clarity in a number of areas, it could also introduce “potential ambiguity” in others. The Government, she concluded, would need to do “further work” and “consider the potential implications” of a biological definition of sex for trans people before making changes to the law.

In other words, the Chair of the EHRC’s board acted with professionalism, impartiality and integrity throughout.

Not that any of that mattered to trans activists and their allies in the civil service. As Andrew Pierce notes, “the reaction from the well-funded trans lobby was co-ordinated and savage, with the flood of vitriol on social media particularly offensive” (Mail). There have also been several departmental leaks to left-leaning media outlets, branding Baroness Falkner a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and “transphobic”. According to one EHRC source, the civil servants doing the leaking are “young, liberal… often with different political world views [that] are used to being treated with kid gloves” (Telegraph).

Speaking of left-leaning media outlets, Channel 4 News recently broadcast what it said was evidence of a “toxic culture” at the EHRC and the “consternation” at Baroness Falkner’s leadership, claiming that one in four staff left the watchdog last year, including two in five LGBT employees.

Drawing on leaked documents and statements, the publicly-owned broadcaster quoted a number of current and former staff members, with one saying “staff were crying” on calls. One of these young ‘liberals’ alleged “there is a lack of psychological safety, i.e., the fear of who will be attacked next”, and that “unacceptable behaviour” by Baroness Falkner was “becoming normalised”. Another took issue with someone rolling their eyes.

More than 40 members of the House of Lords from across the political spectrum have now written to Ofcom to complain about Channel 4 News’s “one-sided” report (Mail).

In a move likely to cost taxpayers up to £120,000, the employment barrister, Gavin Mansfield KC, of Littleton Chambers, has now been drafted in by the activist employees to investigate the complaints (Times). Lady Falkner, meanwhile, is having to pay tens of thousands of pounds from her own pocket for her own KC.

The FSU has dealt with many vexatious, ideologically driven workplace harassment claims across numerous different sectors, where innocent people have faced targeted complaints designed to silence them because of their non-woke views. That’s why we stand in solidarity with Baroness Falkner. It’s time activist employees stopped weaponising anti-bullying and anti-harassment clauses in workplace codes of conduct to bully and harass colleagues whose views they disapprove of.

Latest episode of the FSU’s weekly podcast out now!

The latest episode of the FSU’s weekly podcast, That’s Debatable!, is out now. This week hosts Tom and Ben discuss, among other things, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which has now received Royal Assent, the FSU’s new Mactaggart Programme, which is already enabling individual groups to fight back against the nefarious soft cancellation tactics deployed both by protesters and university authorities, and Sir Salman Rushdie’s damning verdict on modern literary censorship.

You can download the episode in full by clicking here. And don’t forget to search for That’s Debatable! on your favourite podcasting app and hit ‘subscribe’ so you don’t miss next week’s episode.

Live event with Prof Matthew Goodwin – book your tickets here!

On Wednesday 7th June, we will be hosting “Whose values? Whose voices? Are we being silenced by a new elite?” featuring Professor Matthew Goodwin, a member of our Advisory Council.

We’ve brought together a great panel to discuss the book with Matt: Geoffrey Evans, Professor of the Sociology of Politics at Oxford University, Baroness Claire Fox and Telegraph columnist Sherelle Jacobs. FSU General Secretary Toby Young will be chairing the discussion.

There will also be an audience Q&A and plenty of time to socialise afterwards. So if you can get to London, it’s a great opportunity to meet the speakers, as well as the FSU’s staff and other members. There won’t be a Zoom link on this occasion, although the event will be recorded. We therefore encourage you to book tickets to the live event. Tickets can be purchased here.

Martin Amis, writer, 1949-2023

Sir Salman Rushdie has led the tributes to Martin Amis, who has died aged 73 following a battle with cancer.

The author redefined British fiction during the 1980s, pioneering “a high style for writing about low things – fast food, sex shows, nude mags”, as he put it in an interview with the New York Times Book Review in 1984 (or “breaking the rules, buggering about with the reader, drawing attention to himself”, as his father, the novelist Kingsley Amis once suggested). It was a style that reached its apogee in Money, the novel named by the Guardian’s Robert McCrum as among the 100 best novels written in English. “Even dirt,” as John Self, the novel’s narrator and protagonist, reminds us, “has its patterns and seeks its forms”.

Sir Salman paid tribute to Amis, telling the New Yorker: “He used to say that what he wanted to do was leave behind a shelf of books – to be able to say, ‘From here to here, it’s me.’ His voice is silent now. But we have the shelf.”

Amis’s UK editor, Michal Shavit, said: “He will be remembered as one of the greatest writers of his time and his books will stand the test of time alongside some of his favourite writers: Saul Bellow, John Updike and Vladimir Nabokov.”

It would be stretching the truth to portray him as a champion of freedom of expression in the mould of, say, Salman Rushdie or Susan Sontag. But he had his moments, and never more so than when it came to defending art from timebound politicised moralising.

There was, for instance, the dinner party contretemps with the then Prince of Wales over the latter’s refusal to support Salman Rushdie after the Ayatollah issued a fatwa against him in 1989. The Satanic Verses had insulted the deepest convictions of those who adhere to the Islamic faith, Charles said, and it followed that the author of such a book deserved very little sympathy. “A novel doesn’t set out to insult anyone,” Amis shot back. “It sets out to give pleasure to its readers. A novel is an essentially playful undertaking, and this is an exceedingly playful novel.”

Amis was also quick to defend Philip Larkin back in the 1990s, when the founding fathers of what we now call cancel culture were hellbent on posthumously cancelling the poet for alleged “racism”, “misogyny”, and “quasi-fascist views”. (The “really rather nasty” Larkin “seems to me more and more minor”, A.N. Wilson observed, in a piece titled: “Larkin: the old friend I never liked.”) “It sometimes seems,” Amis said, “that the basis of the vexation is that Larkin was born in 1922, rather than more recently.”

In 2020, Amis also joined other notable literary figures – including Margaret Attwood, Salman Rushdie and JK Rowling – in signing an open letter published in Harper’s Magazine that defended freedom of expression against the censorious woke mob.

The letter warned of an increasingly “intolerant climate” that was “stifling” the “free exchange of information and ideas” in liberal societies. “The way to defeat bad ideas,” the letter continued, “is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.”

The heated reaction to the letter among the puritanical commentariat was grimly predictable.

Neatly serving to prove the letter’s point, many rushed to assert that cancel culture didn’t exist, while at the same time implying that the letter’s signatories should now be, er, cancelled, for associating themselves with figures like JK Rowling – or, as Vox journalist Emily VanDerWerff put it, “anti trans voices”.

Would this backlash have surprised Martin Amis? It seems unlikely.

“What we eventually run up against,” he told his audience during a 1997 lecture on political correctness, “are the forces of humourlessness, and let me assure you that the humourless as a bunch don’t just not know what’s funny, they don’t know what’s serious. They have no common sense, either, and shouldn’t be trusted with anything.”

Rest in peace, Martin.

We’re linking daily to selected audio / video files from our YouTube channel. Today’s file is here (video, 44:19).

---

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.