I have come to realise that there might be nothing more cringe-inducing than a millionaire celebrity who pokes their nose into social affairs and current politics. Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but too many stars trip over themselves in their sorry attempts to seem relatable and stay relevant.
For reference, cast your mind back to March 18th 2020, when multi-millionaire Gal Gadot and her famous friends gave us their rendition of John Lennon’s ‘Imagine,’ from their Hollywood mansions. Sometimes, it’s okay to just keep your thoughts to yourself.
Quite possibly nobody has elbowed their way into current year politics like the once- child stars of Harry Potter, who were quick to distance themselves from JK Rowling when she began to share her views on transgender people. Her views, which are more pro-women than anti-trans, include such controversial statements as ‘sleep with any consenting adult who will have you.’ This month, Rowling said she would ‘happily do two years in prison,’ if a future Labour government were to make misgendering a hate crime. She tweeted that the alternative is ‘compelled speech and forced denial of reality.’ If you want to see a defender of free speech, look no further.
Radcliff, Watson, and Grint were quick to assure the world that ‘trans women are women,’ and that they did not share Rowling’s views on transgenderism. Radcliff even went so far as to team up with The Trevor Project, an organisation that provides support to LGBTQ+ youth, and released a video promoting the gender transition of children.
The three were recently blasted by Father Ted and IT Crowd writer Graham Linehan. In his new book ‘Tough Crowd,’ he wrote that the Harry Potter stars ‘deserve to be remembered as symbols of the most remarkable arrogance, cowardice, and ingratitude.’
I'll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex. Bring on the court case, I say. It'll be more fun than I've ever had on a red carpet.
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) October 17, 2023
I couldn’t agree more. The three stars were not necessarily destined to be nobodies- Radcliff had already acted in BBC’s David Copperfield- but their massive success, fame, and fortune is intrinsically linked to the works of JK Rowling, making their dismissal of her everything Linehan has labelled it and more.
Emma Watson’s betrayal of JK Rowling is particularly surprising, given Watson’s long fought fight for women’s rights. She worked closely with the gender equality organisation HeForShe, and in a BBC interview said, ‘Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality.’ Often, the fight for transgender rights disregards that same choice, freedom, and liberation. Being made to share sports, bathrooms, and single sex spaces with a biological man does not exactly scream ‘equality.’ In the eyes of many, including sometimes myself, Rowling is the true feminist here, and Watson has beaten her- not with the stick of feminism- but with the hammer of new age gender ideology.
It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with Rowling- we are all in trouble if we are beholden to the views of those who gave us our break- but it is also possible to disagree with grace and with gratitude. Rupert Grint proved that, and he is the star to whom I genuinely relate. Much like his character Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter films, he has been sorely overlooked in the JK Rowling discussion. Grint said that he views Rowling ‘as an auntie,’ that he disagrees with, and that his relationship with her is ‘tricky.’
I would like to commend Rupert Grint here on his honesty and common sense. Right or left, pro- trans or not, we could probably all do with taking this stance now and again. It acknowledges that you can have a relationship with someone which has room for both respect and disagreement. It’s almost as if nuance exists. I think I can safely say that we have all experienced sitting across from a relative at dinner, knowing full well that we disagree politically, while managing to uphold a loving relationship anyway. Grint’s acknowledgement of Rowling as an important figure in his life, rather than a total dismissal of her, leaves him unscathed in the debate, as far as I can see. If only the same thing could be said for Radcliff and Watson.
The final instalment of Harry Potter sees Harry save his long-time nemesis, Draco Malfoy, from burning to death. The message was clear- rather than disregarding Malfoy, our story’s hero was willing to put ideological differences aside and do the right thing.
In reality, Rowling has been demonised as much as the fictional Malfoy. Unfortunately, her message didn’t seem to rub off on Radcliff and Watson, who have chosen ideology over doing the right thing. Rather than disagree but stand together, they have let Rowling metaphorically burn, and it is this choice that makes them the cowards Linehan labelled them as.