Peter Myers Digest: Oscars winner likens Nazi Holocaust to Gaza Genocide; Hollywood Jews divided

(1) Oscars winner Jonathan Glazer likens Nazi Holocaust to Gaza
Genocide; Hollywood Jews divided

From: Analitykiem <analitykiem@icloud.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:22:27 -0400

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/open-letter-condemning-jonathan-glazer-zone-of-interest-speech-1235855216/

Open Letter Condemning Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Zone of Interest’ Oscars
Speech Garners Over 450 Signatures

The signing group consists of Jewish actors, executives, directors,
creators, producers and representatives.

BY ZOE G PHILLIPS

MARCH 18, 2024 4:11PM

An open letter condemning
<https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t/jonathan-glazer/> Jonathan Glazer’s
Zone of Interest <https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t/oscars/> Oscars
acceptance speech has been signed by more than 450 Jewish Hollywood
professionals.

The group consists of actors, executives, directors, creators, producers
and representatives denouncing Glazer’s
<https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/zone-of-interest-jonathan-glazer-2024-oscar-speech-israel-gaza-conflict-1235848917/>
controversial comments made when accepting the Academy Award for best
international film on March 10.

“We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a
moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a
race of people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own
extermination,” the letter reads.

In his acceptance at the 2024 Oscars, Glazer read from a prepared speech
to thank his partners and then make a statement addressing the current
Israel-Gaza conflict.

“All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present,
not to say, ‘Look what they did then’; rather, ‘what we do now,’” Glazer
said. “Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It’s
shaped all of our past and present.”

Glazer, who is Jewish, added: “Right now, we stand here as men who
refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an
occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people,”
Glazer said, pausing briefly due to applause.

He continued, “Whether the victims of Oct. 7 in Israel or the ongoing
attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”
The open letter this week continued: “The use of words like ‘occupation’
to describe an indigenous Jewish people defending a homeland that dates
back thousands of years, and has been recognized as a state by the
United Nations, distorts history. ”

“It gives credence to the modern blood libel that fuels a growing
anti-Jewish hatred around the world, in the United States, and in
Hollywood.  The current climate of growing antisemitism only underscores
the need for the Jewish State of Israel, a place which will always take
us in, as no state did during the Holocaust depicted in Mr. Glazer’s film.”

A24, the film’s producer, declined to comment. Glazer’s representative
did not immediately respond.

The full letter and a list of co-signees follows.

We are Jewish creatives, executives and Hollywood professionals.

We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a
moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a
race of people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own
extermination.

Every civilian death in Gaza is tragic. Israel is not targeting
civilians. It is targeting Hamas. The moment Hamas releases the hostages
and surrenders, is the moment this heartbreaking war ends. This has been
true since the Hamas attacks of October 7th.

The use of words like “occupation” to describe an indigenous Jewish
people defending a homeland that dates back thousands of years, and has
been recognized as a state by the United Nations, distorts history.

It gives credence to the modern blood libel that fuels a growing
anti-Jewish hatred around the world, in the United States, and in
Hollywood.  The current climate of growing antisemitism only underscores
the need for the Jewish State of Israel, a place which will always take
us in, as no state did during the Holocaust depicted in Mr. Glazer’s film.

Signed, […]

(2) Commentary & ADL attack Jonathan Glazer for likening Gaza to Auschwitz

https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/glazer-zone-interest-backlash-letter/

MARCH 22, 2024

Hit Dogs Holler: What the Backlash Against Jonathan Glazer Says About
Israel’s Defenders

The Zone of Interest was never a film of purely historical relevance.
But when the director made that obvious in his Oscar acceptance,
supporters of Israel’s war in Gaza erupted.

DAVID KLION

When director Jonathan Glazer won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film for
The Zone of Interest earlier this month, he used his acceptance speech
to deliver the night’s sole statement on the war in Gaza in front of a
global audience. After noting that his film—which depicts the quotidian
life of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss and his wife and children in
their home outside the gates of the concentration camp—is intended to be
as much about the present as the past, Glazer, trembling, said this:
“Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the
Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for
so many innocent people.”

Though many viewers misunderstood the awkwardly worded statement—some
innocently, others deliberately—its plain meaning was that Glazer and
the other predominantly Jewish men involved in producing The Zone of
Interest were speaking out against Israel’s assault on Gaza, and were
doing so as Jews. Far from refuting their Jewishness—as some of their
critics <https://twitter.com/bungarsargon/status/1767002321051955202>
would claim—Glazer was rather speaking againt the abuse of Jewish
identity in the service of a brutal war against Palestinian civilians.

At least some in the ceremony’s audience of Hollywood A-listers
applauded Glazer, but the subsequent backlash has been louder. On social
media, the reaction from right-wing supporters of Israel was perhaps
best summed up by Commentary editor in chief John Podhoretz, who
<https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/1766983555291193813> tweeted,
“Jonathan Glazer, you can go fuck yourself and stuff your Oscar up your
ass.” To Podhoretz and his neoconservative ilk, Glazer instantly became
the most prominent example of what Commentary contributor Eli Lake
<https://www.commentary.org/john-podhoretz/joe-balaam/> recently
<https://www.commentary.org/articles/eli-lake/asajew-brief-history/>
termed an “AsAJew”—that is, a Jew who weaponizes their Jewish identity
to criticize Israel and Zionism. The slur, which Lake has also directed
against Peter Beinart, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Norman Finkelstein,
is essentially an updated version of the older terms “self-hating Jew”
and “kapo.” Writing in The New York Times this week, Bret Stephens
<https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/19/opinion/thepoint#oscars-glazer-holocaust-israel>
called Lake’s “AsAJew” essay “brilliant” and added, in reference to
Glazer, “Having once had a bar or bat mitzvah does not make one a
spokesperson for Jews, much less an authority on the Middle East.”

Yet it’s clear Glazer’s remarks struck a nerve. Earlier this week, over
1,000 Jewish creatives in the film industry
<https://variety.com/2024/film/news/jonathan-glazer-oscar-speech-zone-of-interest-open-letter-1235944880/>
signed an open letter denouncing his remarks and denying the very
existence of an “occupation.” While the list of signers included a
handful of notable names like Debra Messing, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and
Tovah Feldshuh, it’s remarkable how many prominent Jews in Hollywood
didn’t sign; several, including
<https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/podcasts/2024-03-20/ty-article-podcast/tony-kushner-israels-gaza-war-looks-a-lot-like-ethnic-cleansing-to-me/0000018e-5cbb-d3c4-a7cf-7dffbba50000>
Tony Kushner and
<https://variety.com/2024/film/awards/zone-of-interest-director-jonathan-glazer-oscar-speech-israel-hamas-war-gaza-controversy-1235940637/>
Jesse Peretz, have defended Glazer. The speech has also prompted some
incoherent reconsideration of The Zone of Interest itself, which was
made entirely before the war in Gaza and has only retroactively come to
be associated with it. On Tuesday, CNN
<https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/opinions/zone-of-interest-holocaust-movie-rutland/index.html>
published a piece by Peter Rutland, a professor of government at
Wesleyan, arguing that “in some important respects, the film is even
more troubling than Glazer’s speech.” Rutland went on to demonstrate a
basic lack of understanding of both The Zone of Interest and of Hannah
Arendt’s concept of “the banality of evil,” which the film clearly draws
upon. “Arendt was wrong,” Rutland wrote, adding, “Höss was not just a
bored bureaucrat and family man. He was a fanatical Nazi.”

It’s telling that Rutland sees any contradiction there. Höss, as
portrayed in the film, is indeed a bored bureaucrat, a family man—and a
fanatical Nazi all at once. His wife, Hedwig, is likewise a typical
hausfrau and a fanatical Nazi. The Zone of Interest makes a lot of
critics uncomfortable because it dares to suggest that ordinary people
can be actively, willfully complicit in genocide. Arendt’s own famous
reporting on Adolf Eichmann’s trial is often misunderstood in this exact
way; it was Eichmann himself who disingenuously maintained that he was
just following orders by way of defense. “The banality of evil” doesn’t
mean that bored bureaucrats follow genocidal orders unthinkingly, and
doesn’t preclude their agreeing with the substance of those orders.

Glazer’s artistic intent with The Zone of Interest clearly flew right
over the head of, for instance, New York Times film critic Manohla
Dargis, who began
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/movies/the-zone-of-interest-review.html>
her review by asking, “What is the point of ‘The Zone of Interest’?” and
later calls it “a blunt, obvious movie.” Others, like former
Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman,
<https://twitter.com/FoxmanAbraham/status/1766998200135651487> seemed
initially to appreciate the film as a commemoration of the
Holocaust—then balked at Glazer’s connecting the Holocaust to the war in
Gaza. But, as I wrote in an
<https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/08/opinion/zone-of-interest-complicity.html>
essay for the Times ahead of the Oscars, The Zone of Interest “demands
that we reflect not only on the Holocaust but also on our own degrees of
complicity in the horrors that we know are being carried out on the
other sides of figurative and literal walls today.”

Current Issue

March 2024 Issue

The most urgent such horrors at the moment are in Gaza, and it’s not a
coincidence that so many of Glazer’s critics are also fervent defenders
of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign against the crowded
Palestinian enclave over the past five months. Before Glazer’s Oscar
speech, they might have interpreted The Zone of Interest to be saying
merely that the Nazis were bad people, a point that a critic like Dargis
might find dull and unnecessary in 2024. But since the Oscars, everyone
understands that the film is making a broader argument, and that its
portrayal of the Hösses is in some sense an indictment of ordinary
people who would champion the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Those
who feel most directly indicted are lashing out; hit dogs holler.

For those of us who appreciate The Zone of Interest in the spirit Glazer
in which intended it, and who share his basic perspective on Gaza,
what’s additionally striking is how measured his remarks were. Glazer
did not demand a free Palestine from the river to the sea, did not
comment on whether Zionism is inherently racist, and did not deny the
suffering of Israelis on October 7 (in fact, he cast them as victims of
the occupation, just as Palestinians are). All he did was attempt to
reclaim Jewish identity and Holocaust memory from their propagandistic
use in the service of Israel’s military campaign, and to suggest that
the lessons of the Holocaust might apply to atrocities committed by Jews
and not only those committed against Jews. The ferocious response
suggests that Glazer’s critics now recognize themselves in Rudolf and
Hedwig Höss, and they’ll never forgive Glazer for that.

(3) High-profile stars showed support for Glazer, following the backlash

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/jonathan-glazer-oscars-speech-zone-of-interest-b2515520.html

Jonathan Glazer: The stars defending Zone of Interest director from
Oscars speech backlash

‘Zone of Interest’ director faced backlash after he spoke out against
Israel’s occupation in Gaza during his Oscars speech

Ellie Muir

March 21, 2024

She Said actor Zoe Kazan, the band Massive Attack and I’m a Virgo
creator Boots Riley are among the stars showing support for director
Jonathan Glazer, following the backlash he received for his Oscars speech.

Glazer brought some audience members to tears while accepting the Best
International Film award.

He won the gong for The Zone of Interest, his movie following the
domestic aspirations of an Auschwitz officer and his wife living on the
outskirts of the concentration camp.

“Our film shows where dehumanisation leads at its worst,” the Jewish
director said in his acceptance speech.

“Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the
Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for
so many innocent people – whether the victims of October the 7th in
Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza – all the victims of this
dehumanisation … how do we resist?”

“Alexandria, the girl who glows in the film as she did in life, chose
to. I dedicate this to her memory and her resistance. Thank you.”

The speech has since drawn backlash from Hollywood actors, creatives and
executives, including more than 1,000 industry names who signed an open
letter condemning the speech.

But some in the entertainment industry have spoken out in support of Glazer.

Among them were Zoe Kazan, who shared a series of tweets that said she
was shocked that people who had seen Glazer’s film were surprised by his
message.

“Kind of shocked that anyone who saw zone of interest could be shocked
by what glazer said at the Oscars… a movie so rigorously intent on not
allowing its audience escape into sentiment or self-congratulation, that
turns a mirror instead, asking us to look at ourselves and think… that
the person who made that film might ask the same of us while accepting
an award for his work,” she wrote.

“It makes me so sad that this could even be considered a political
stance….i think part of the horror of the film is that it makes us
face that face that the people on both sides of the wall are human. it
might be easier (on ourselves) to think that they are not.”

At the Oscars, Poor Things actor Mark Ruffalo was seen clapping in
response to Glazer’s speech while German actor and Zone of Interest star
Sandra Hüller was moved to tears.

After the ceremony, Scream actor Melissa Barrera wrote on her Instagram
Stories: “What Glazer actually said is much clearer: He and his
collaborators reject that Jewishness and the Holocaust are being used to
justify the ongoing military offensive in Gaza.”

“This sentiment is one held by many Jewish people. Like Glazer, Jews
around the world have spoken out about how they perceive their identity
to have been co-oped by the extremist Israeli government and its allies
in pursuit of a fully repressed Palestine state.”

The British band Massive Attack also posted on X/Twitter, writing that
they stood in solidarity with Glazer, who they called “a filmmaker of
the highest integrity, craft & bravery.”

“A filmmaker who researches his subject matter painstakingly, & weighs
his artistic judgements with high care & deep humanity. That care,
judgement & humanity led to the conclusions of his speech. Solidarity.”

Among the others showing support for Glazer was I’m a Virgo creator
Boots Riley, who wrote: “Salute to Jonathan Glazer,” on X/Twitter. He
praised Glazer for “speaking out against the atrocities in Gaza & saying
that his movie is about the present day.”

The backlash to Glazer’s words began quickly after he gave his speech,
when the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called it “morally reprehensible.”

The Zone of Interest’s executive producer, Danny Cohen, said he
“fundamentally disagreed” with Glazer on the issue.

The Holocaust Survivors Foundation called the speech “morally
indefensible” and “disgraceful.”

In an open letter posted on the foundation’s website, the group’s
94-year-old president, David Schaecter, wrote: “I watched in anguish
Sunday night when I heard you use the platform of the Oscars ceremony
[to] equate Hamas’s maniacal brutality against innocent Israelis with
Israel’s difficult but necessary self-defense in the face of Hamas’s
ongoing barbarity.”

Days later, more than 1,000 Jewish people working in Hollywood,
including The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel creator Amy Sherman-Palladino, Venom
producer Amy Pascal and actor Jennifer Jason Leigh, signed an open
statement criticising Glazer’s speech. The number of signatories later
rose to over 1,000.

Their statement reads in full:

“We are Jewish creatives, executives and Hollywood professionals. We
refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a moral
equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a race of
people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination.

“Every civilian death in Gaza is tragic. But Israel is not targeting
civilians. It is targeting Hamas. The moment Hamas releases the hostages
and surrenders is the moment this heartbreaking war ends. This has been
true since the Hamas attacks of October 7th.

“The use of words like ‘occupation’ to describe an indigenous Jewish
people defending a homeland that dates back thousands of years, and has
been recognized as a state by the United Nations, distorts history.

“It gives credence to the modern blood libel that fuels a growing
anti-Jewish hatred around the world, in the United States, and in
Hollywood. The current climate of growing antisemitism only underscores
the need for the Jewish State of Israel, a place which will always take
us in, as no state did during the Holocaust depicted in Mr. Glazer’s film.”

But Auschwitz Memorial director Dr Piotr MA Cywin’ski said on that
organisation’s official X/Twitter page that Glazer’s speech issued a
“universal moral warning against dehumanisation.”

“In his Oscar acceptance speech, Jonathan Glazer issued a universal
moral warning against dehumanisation,” his statement began.

“His aim was not to descend to the level of political discourse. Critics
who expected a clear political stance or a film solely about genocide
did not grasp the depth of his message. The Zone of Interest is not a
film about the Shoah. It is primarily a profound warning about humanity
and its nature.”

Cywin’ski’s post prompted backlash for its support of Glazer, and he
later clarified that “Glazer’s brief, emotional, and widely criticised
Oscar acceptance speech is open for interpretation… I never wanted to
cause any hurt or anger.”

“My goal was to remind us that the role of memory is to confront every
one of us with the most uncomfortable ethical and moral questions.”

(4) Breach of Contract

By Peter Gerard Myers, March 23, 2024

David Lloyd George, PM during WW1, wrote that the Balfour Declaration
was “a contract with Jewry” (meaning the Jewish Lobby; other Jews did
not support Zionism).

It stipulates that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil
and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

Netanyahu has invoked the Amalek genocide of 1 Samuel 3, implying
genocidal intent in Gaza and perhaps the West Bank too.

Would there be a court at which a Breach of Contract claim could be brought?

(5) New NZ Government abandons Hate Speech law

www.theepochtimes.com/world/work-on-hate-speech-law-to-stop-nz-government-announces-5611670

Work on Hate Speech Law to Stop, NZ Government Announces

In a decision likely to upset a myriad of groups representing minorities
and possibly the Human Rights Commission, there will be no new hate
speech legislation.

By Rex Widerstrom

March 21, 2024

The New Zealand coalition government has put an end to work on hate
speech laws started under Labour. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith
announced on X (formerly Twitter) that he had instructed the Law
Commission to abandon the project.

This is despite a
<https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/509717/rise-in-hate-incidents-reported-to-police>12
percent rise in what NZ Police term “hate incidents” reported to them
between 2022 and 2023, to 9,351. The majority were racial abuse (83
percent) followed by incidents targeting people’s sexual orientation
(9.7 percent), and people of a certain faith (5.8 percent).

Of the racial incidents, more than a third were directed at people of
Asian descent. People of colour were the victims in 8.9 percent of
cases, and 7.2 percent were aimed at Ma¯ori.

I’ve instructed the Law Commission to stop all work on hate speech
legislation.

— Paul Goldsmith (@PaulGoldsmithMP)

<https://twitter.com/PaulGoldsmithMP/status/1770615446724915635?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>March
21, 2024

The previous Labour government initially had an ambitious plan to deal
with hate speech, but subsequently cut it back in the face of strong
criticism from free speech advocates and a pledge from the National
Party to repeal laws if it was elected.

The laws were part of the government’s response to recommendations from
the Royal Commission into the Christchurch attacks, in which an
Australian gunman killed 51 Muslim worshippers at two mosques.

Part of Labour’s problem was that it couldn’t agree on how the law would
operate and what it would cover, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and
Justice Minister Kris Faafoi
<https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/tova-o-brien-jacinda-ardern-has-misled-the-public-and-shut-down-debate-on-hate-speech-laws.html>
contradicting each other about what was proposed.

(6) US Embassies lose right to fly Rainbow Flag & BLM flag, in Congress
deal to fund US gov’t

https://www.rt.com/news/594695-rainbow-flag-embassy-ban/

22 Mar, 2024 16:46

US to ban LGBTQ flags from embassies – Bloomberg

The temporary measure was included in a massive government funding bill

File photo: A rainbow flag hangs under a US flag at the US embassy in
Berlin, Germany, 25 July 2019. ©  Jörg Carstensen/Getty Images

American embassies around the world will not be able to fly the rainbow,
Progress or Black Lives Matter banners this summer, Bloomberg has
reported. The White House agreed to the prohibition to get a $1.2
trillion spending bill through Congress.

The bill, passed on Friday morning, keeps the US government open through
September 30, the end of the 2024 fiscal year.

The spending deal has been heavily criticized by some Republican
legislators, who argued that it funds all of the ruling Democrats’
priorities and removes any policy leverage from the House of
Representatives.

House Speaker Mike Johnson – a Louisiana Republican – has presented the
flag amendment as a major victory. Meanwhile, the Democrats have used it
to accuse the GOP of being mean and “homophobic.”

“[The] Republican Party loves nothing more than to demagogue at the
expense of LGBTQ Americans,” Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York said
on Friday. “I support funding the federal government. So we’re held
hostage by the extremism of the Republican Party.”

<https://www.rt.com/russia/594682-lgbt-terrorism-russia-law/>

<https://www.rt.com/russia/594682-lgbt-terrorism-russia-law/>
Read more
‘LGBT movement’ added to Russia’s terrorist list

One Democrat familiar with the deal told Bloomberg that the ban applies
to any banners other than the national flag, exempts the POW-MIA banners
traditionally flown to commemorate missing prisoners from the Vietnam
War, and does not apply to “embassy officials’ personal use.” It would
also expire on September 30, along with the spending bill.

Washington’s embrace of the Pride flag dates back to the first term of
President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State
Department (2009-2013). The Trump administration (2017-2021) reserved
the official flagpoles for Old Glory alone, but did not stop embassies
from flying the rainbow banner as a provocation – in
<https://www.rt.com/russia/492941-us-embassy-moscow-rainbow-flag/>Moscow
in June 2020, for example.

Since 2021, however, the State Department has promoted both the Pride
flag and the Black Lives Matter
<https://www.rt.com/usa/525235-us-embassies-black-lives-matter/>banner,
both at embassies abroad and at its Washington
<https://www.rt.com/usa/527209-state-department-progress-pride-flag/>headquarters.

In May 2021, the Republicans proposed the ‘Stars and Stripes Act’ that
would ban any other flags from official embassy flagpoles. The following
month, the US embassy to the Vatican hung a
<https://www.rt.com/usa/525403-embassy-vatican-pride-flag/> massive
Pride flag on the outside of its building and boasted about it on social
media, insisting that “LGBTQI+ rights are human rights.”

(7) Saying ‘Trans Women’ Are Male Breaches BBC Guidelines

www.theepochtimes.com/world/saying-trans-women-are-male-breaches-guidelines-confirms-bbc-chief-5611048

Saying ‘Trans Women’ Are Male Breaches Guidelines, Confirms BBC Chief

Tim Davie also said that the BBC needs to be ‘kind and caring’ in the
gender debate ‘and listen to people. And be nice.’

By Victoria Friedman

March 20, 2024

The director-general of the BBC has defended the corporation’s decision
to uphold an impartiality complaint against a Radio 4 presenter for
saying “trans women” are male.

Tim Davie made the remarks during a meeting of the Culture, Media, and
Sport Committee in the House of Commons on Wednesday, where he said that
Justin Webb using the phrase “trans women, in other words, males,” was a
breach of the BBC’s editorial guidelines.

In August 2023,
<https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/former-bbc-journalist-reveals-she-was-reprimanded-over-cisgender-post-5600866>
the corporation upheld the impartiality complaint against Mr. Webb, who
had made the comment during a discussion of the new guidelines by the
International Chess Federation on the “Today” programme. The federation
had introduced a ban on men who identify as women competing in
women-only events.

Conservative MP Damian Green put it to the BBC director-general that the
Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) upholding the complaint had signalled to
people that “this is a clear sign of institutional bias at the BBC.”

Mr. Davie replied, “I don’t think we suffer institutional bias in this
area.”

The BBC chief said that while the topic of gender identity was “an area
of controversy,” there are no “no-go areas” at the corporation.

(8) J.K. Rowling Reported to Police by Trans Activist India Willoughby
for “Misgendering”

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/07/j-k-rowling-reported-to-police-by-trans-activist-india-willoughby-for-misgendering/

BY WILL JONES

7 MARCH 2024

J.K. Rowling has been reported to the police by India Willoughby over
accusations the author allegedly “misgendered” the broadcaster. The Mail
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13169651/jk-rowling-trans-india-willoughby-reported-police.html>
has the story.

Willoughby, 58, a trans woman, claimed the Harry Potter writer called
[him] a “man” in a series of posts on social media.

On Sunday, Rowling posted a criticism of trans women being allowed into
women’s changing rooms on X/Twitter and in the thread she spoke about
Willoughby and said: “India didn’t become a woman. India is cosplaying a
misogynistic male fantasy of what a woman is.”

Willoughby, who is Britain’s first trans newsreader, claimed the
best-selling author had “definitely committed a crime” under the 2010
Equality Act.

However, Rowling, also 58, said there was no law which compelled her to
refer to Willoughby as female.

Speaking to Byline TV, Willoughby said: “J.K. Rowling has definitely
committed a crime.

“I’m legally a woman. She knows I’m a woman and she calls me a man. It’s
a protected characteristic.

“And that is a breach of both the Equality Act and the Gender
Recognition Act. She’s tweeted that out to 14 million followers.” …

Rowling also claimed she was advised previously that she had a legal
case against Willoughby for defamation. …

Rowling went on to say that Willoughby appeared to have forgotten the
Forstater ruling, which “established that gender critical views can be
protected in law”. …

A Northumbria Police spokesperson said: “On Monday, March 4th, we
received a complaint about a post on social media. We are currently
awaiting [sic] to speak to the complainant further.”

(9) Ex Qantas Captain Graham Hood’s Witness Stmt to Senate Committee, on
Vaccine Mandates

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 02:20:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: Alter Fritz <alter.fritz_88@yahoo.com>

{watch the video—this man was a senior airline PIlot; he soke out, on
behalf of other pilots, because he was near retirement age—Peter M.}

https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/ex-qantas-captain-graham-hoods-powerful-witness-statement/

Ex Qantas Captain, Graham Hood’s Powerful Witness Statement

Thank you Hoody for your courage in speaking the truth at the second
public hearing to set the Terms of Reference for a future Royal
Commission into COVID.

“I urge this Senate and I urge this government with these words:
Government you must listen. This country is in dire straits. The spirit
of this country has been systematically destroyed and I’ve witnessed it
firsthand. I’ve done what many of you don’t have the time to do. I’ve
been face to face with people who’ve lost loved ones that they know were
from vaccine injury. And I don’t know whether these excess deaths are
being caused by vaccines or ‘long COVID,’ or whatever else it might be.
It could be an additive in food. I don’t know, but nobody else seems to
know either and that’s why we must stop. We must investigate. We must do
a proper debriefing. We must apply proper human factors. And we must
bring the people that I mentioned that have been locked away with
censorship, back out of the dark with their data so that we can start
healing the people of this country. And if we don’t do that we have
neglected an opportunity that will go down in history as one of the
greatest human factor failures in the world.”