She may have constructed a magical wizarding world, but J.K. Rowling wants to bring you back down to earth.

In a powerful speech made at the 2016 PEN Literary Awards Gala on Monday night, Rowling called out presidential candidate Donald Trump for intolerance and hateful speech.

"I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable," Rowling said. "I consider him offensive and bigoted."

But Rowling's speech wasn't so much a take down of Trump as much as it was a lambast against those who would silence him.

"But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there," addressing a petition started to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK.

Rowling then clarified, "If my offended feelings can constitute a travel ban on Donald Trump, I have no moral grounds on which to argue that those offended by feminism or the fight for transgender rights or universal suffrage should not oppress campaigners for those causes. If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed a line to stand along tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification."

"If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed a line to stand along tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification."

Rowling concluded her speech by invoking the words of Tal al-Mallohi, an 18-year-old Syrian blogger imprisoned for her writing.

"'All you and I have to do is respect each other, tolerate the views of your opponents coolly and patiently. While listening to them, do not think to respond without listening to all opposing opinions.'"

Rowling's speech was not the first time in the night that the evening veered toward politics.

"We have a presidential candidate who deploys insults and unapologetic lies to consolidate his power," said PEN President Andrew Solomon during the gala's opening speech. "We face a larger political establishment that has deliberated escalated xenophobia, frightening everyone so much that many Americans won't leave their country nor rise to welcome those who knock on our door."

And earlier in the year, at the PEN Literary Awards Ceremony, Brooklyn Poet Laureate Tina Chang remarked, "Taking my [family] background into consideration, we would be most unpopular with certain presidential candidates...I think we need fewer walls and more book awards."

While Chang did not call out Trump by name at the ceremony, she did clarify at a reception afterward, "I think we all knew who I was talking about."

Rowling's own remarks were delivered during her acceptance speech for the 2016 PEN/Allen Foundation Literary Service Award, an annual award conferred to a critically acclaimed author whose work embodies PEN's mission to oppose repression in any form and champion the best of humanity. Past winners have included playwright Tom Stoppard, Salman Rushdie and Phillip Roth.

You can watch Rowling's speech here and check out the full text of the speech below.

Firstly, I want like to say thank you very, very much for this huge honor, given as it is by an organization that I have admired very, very deeply for many, many years. It’s also been an absolute privilege to share the stage tonight with your previous honorees. PEN’s campaigns on behalf of imprisoned writers are essential and inspirational, though it is sad to reflect needed your defense of writers continues to be today.

Speaking personally, I have very little to complain about, where my freedom of expression is concerned. I was once confronted by a Christian fundamentalist in a toy shop here in New York. I had no idea the phrase, “I’m praying for you” could sound so intimidating. A bomb threat was once made to a store where I was appearing. The premise was searched, nothing was found, the event went ahead. And the Harry Potter books have figured frequently on lists of the most banned. But as such lists feature many of my favorite writers, I’ve always been flattered to be included.

Of course, I can afford to take these things lightly, protected as I am by citizenship of a liberal nation where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. My critics are at liberty to claim that I’m trying to convert children to Satanism. And I am free to explain human nature and morality. Or to say, “You’re an idiot,” depending on which side of the bed I got out of that day.

However, I’ve never taken these freedoms for granted. In my twenties, I worked for Amnesty International where I learned how exactly how high a price people across the world have paid and continue to pay for freedoms that we in the west sometimes take for granted. In fact, I worry that we maybe in danger of allowing their erosion though sheer complacency.

The tides of populism and nationalism currently sweeping many developed countries have been accompanied by demands that unwelcome or inconvenient voices be removed from public discourse. Mainstream media has become a term of abuse in some quarters. It seems that unless a commentator or television channel or newspaper reflects exactly the complainers worldview, it must be guilty of bias or corruption.

Intolerance of alternative viewpoints is spreading to places that make me, a moderate and a liberal, must uncomfortable. Only last year we saw an online petition to ban Donald trump from entry into the UK. It garnered half a million signatures. Now, I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there.

His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot. His freedom guarantees mine. Unless we take that absolute position without caveats or apologies, we have set foot upon a road with only one destination.

If my offended feelings can constitute a travel ban on Donald Trump, I have no moral grounds on which to argue that those offended by feminism or the right for transgender rights or universal suffrage should not oppress campaigners for those causes. If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed a line to stand along tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.

I’d like to conclude these remarks by reading you two short passages from the blog of a teenage girl. In 2009, Tal al-Mallohi became one of the youngest prisoners of conscious in the world when she was taken from her home by Syrian security forces. She was 18 years old. Her friends and family had to wait 11 months to find that she had been charged with giving aid to a foreign country. Her parents had been permitted to see her only once. There were fears that she may have been tortured.

This is some of the material that was considered so dangerous and inflammatory that she remains incarcerated:

“'I do not like the words of the poet Rudyard Kipling ‘The East is East and the West is West and never the twain shall meet.’ Instead, I promote the union of the East and West. They meet somewhere. With rational thought, two great souls from here and from there can agree with each other, irrespective of the vast separation of time and space. Oh my brother human, if I disagree with you in thoughts, principles and beliefs, does this deny the fact that we are both human. All you and I have to do is respect each other, tolerate the views of your opponents coolly and patiently. While listening to them, do not think to respond without listening to all opposing opinions.'"

I repeat that beautiful plea for plurality, tolerance and the important of rational discourse in the hope that Tal al-Mallohi will soon be freed. In the meantime, long may PEN continue to fight for her, for the freedoms on which a liberal society rests, on without which no literature can have value. Thank you very much indeed.

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.