JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.
The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.
Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.
…
Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.
Can we just hold one big public figure accountable to the law? Please?
Please do. She may see herself as some kind of martyr, but everyone else just sees her as an idiot.
I may not have the whole facts and information, but to me, it is beginning to sound more like a witch-hunt. Just let her have her opinions and move forward
How’s telling her that she has shitty opinion a witch hunt, but her using her fame and wealth to spread her shitty opinion way beyond what a normal random person could ever do, isn’t?
As mentioned, I do not have all the details. I have heard some of her ideas, but I don’t follow her that closely. Many famous people have terrible ideas and many fans to spread their ideas to. To me it mostly looks like people being hurt even more by JK, because they like the universe that she has created but her ideology does not fit their own.
It’s fair to feel like this, but she is just one person sharing her ideas. Nobody goes like: “JK is against trans people, so I am too”. At least they shouldn’t and at least we should expect most people don’t. Just let her have her opinions and leave it at that
Her opinion on trans folks is shit, but people should not go to jail for shit opinions. Broken clock and stuff.
She grossly misinterprets what the law is meant to achieve. It’s not for somebody who dead names a trans person or calls a trans woman he or him. It’s when someone Tweets out “Who will rid me of this troublesome trans person?” and then their one or more of their followers goes out and beats or murders that person.
You should maybe read the law.
Part 2 Section 3, 32: […] It provides that it is an offence for a person to behave in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
It’s talking about likely consequence not after a crime has been committed. Also:
Part 2 Section 5, 47: Section 5(1) creates an offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. It provides that it is an offence for a person to have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is likely that, if the material were communicated, hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
Which makes possession of inflammatory material an offence. Which is rather murky on it’s own, but even more so in digital age.
Later it quite literally defines on which terms it’s permissive to discuss sexual orientation or religion.
To be fair, maybe I missed something so feel free to correct me:
I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same. If you use a public platform to intentionally cause harm to another person by way of their race, nationality, sexual identity, or other specificity then you have committed a crime.
What you clearly missed was the point of the law. Hate speech isn’t about saying what you want about another person, it’s about using your speech to directly or indirectly harm another person or group of people.
Lots of people just don’t know what freedom is speech actually means. Speech isn’t a crime, but crimes can be committed by speaking.
If you kill someone with a hammer, you aren’t charged with possession of hammer - you’re charged with murder. If you hire a hitman to do the killing instead, you aren’t charged with “using speech.”
When that theoretical person is arrested for “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” they aren’t actually being arrested for their speech or their words, but for a separate crime that uses speech as a mechanism.
Speech is a marvelous thing that should be protected, but freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of using speech to commit other crimes.
Agreed. It just becomes problematic when speech itself is redefined as crime, that is what I’m arguing against. And the the line with the consequences is not that clear either. Someone could read a book and go an kill someone. I personally think it’s a hard thing to really understand consequences of words.
Where you draw the line? And who is drawing it? Will you be equally happy when conservatives will use the same tools against opinions they see as dangerous?
Slippery slope fallacy “You’re okay with the government saying certain ingredients can’t go in food? Where does that stop? Will you be equally happy when a government you disagree with uses the same tools to dictate everything that goes in your food?”
“You’re okay with the government saying certain areas are off limits to the general public? Where do you draw the line? Will you be equally happy when a different government uses the same tools to forbid you from leaving your home?”
Is this specific step reasonable? Then it’s okay. When they try to take an unreasonable step then it is appropriate to do something about it.
“But what if conservatives ape what you’re doing and make shit up?” is an all-purpose argument against doing anything.
“But what if conservatives call you a terrorist?” is both a real problem that happened to people, and an obviously shite reason to say “therefore let’s not fight terrorism.”
Stop treating “but who decides?” like a table-slapping counterargument. Every law has a line. Unless you’re an outright anarchist, someone has to draw a line, somewhere, and choosing not to draw a sensible one never seems to stop assholes from drawing an unreasonable one. I mean for fuck’s sake, have you seen American states censoring school libraries for fear of acknowledging queer people? That’s not some backlash or ironic reversal. They’re just bastards. The fact they’ll latch onto whatever we’re doing, as an excuse, doesn’t make us responsible for their bastardry.
I think the line is being drawn at “don’t sympathize with terrorist groups an opressive theocratic government” (publicly stating “at least the taliban know what a woman is”) and “don’t directly fund hate groups”.
(Edited, see comment below)
Have as many opinions as you want, but if you spread shit like “we should exterminate the lesser races” and “trans people are rapists” you earn a vacation at the greybar hotel for abusing your right of free speech to infringe on other people’s rights.
The question is where the line is drawn and how to make sure the state is not abusing those powers to suppress opinions that it sees dangerous. A good example are cases when protecting the children is used as argument for more surveillance. This seems foelr me to go along the same lines.
he question is where the line is drawn
[Calling for the extermination of people based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/disability]
[Discrimination based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/disability]
|||||||||| THE LINE ||||||||||
.
.
[Literally 1984]
Most sane countries don’t have a lot trouble with this.
Sometimes the question of “Where do we draw the line” is an important, valid question that must be considered. Sometimes, the answer to that question can also be “I don’t know precisely, but this is damn well over it.”
I’m not saying that hack writer is necessarily to that stage, but we absolutely should not allow “But where do you draw the line” to turn into “Everything is permitted because what about splitting hairs.”
It’s more complicated than that. Like saying there is a fire in a theatre when there is none, saying transgender are undercover perverts and a danger to society when it’s not supported by evidence will get people killed. Freedom of speech is great and all but when your lie and put people in danger there should be consequences.
And just for the record, this is not a theory. People HAVE been murdered.
Sick people are inspired to violence by all kind of thing, are we going to outlaw Catcher in the Rye?
People shouldn’t go to jail for shit opinions, I agree. That changes when their opinions become more than opinions.
Hasn’t she literally been banned from Germany for publicly denying the holocaust?
I did not find any source about her being banned from Germany, I only saw some controversy about some tweets that some people call holocaust denial.
Not only some people. The German law book is very clear about what constitutes holocaust denying and what now. Diminishing parts of the holocausts, such as claiming one group wasn’t targeted or wasn’t targeted as much is holocaust denial under that law.
Thanks for the specification. That said, what’s wrong with “some people”? It’s the second comment that jumps on that word as if it diminishes the argument. “Some” is purely a quantifier which I used because clearly not everyone is calling her like that, and this was - in fact - a niche news that a few articles spoke about.
Does the German law even applies here? Is there some formal recognition that can be used instead of relying on people’s opinion? I didn’t find anything, but if that were the case then she would be recognized by the German court/state as such.
Rowling quote from the article:
Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls.
It’s difficult to accept that someone I used to respect could say such hateful things about people like me. I’m not gonna lie, it hurts to read. What the fuck, Joanne? Is that all I am to you… just a man “performing” my idea of femaleness? Well, fuck you, then. Should I wish for you to feel the same pain you’ve inflicted on others? To be honest, judging by your “performance” in the media the past several years, I don’t think you’re resilient enough to survive it.
I am not sure she entirelly referes to you. It refers to people abusing transexuality to achieve other dreams or more dreams than just being themselves. At least this is how I understand her argumentations.
Fuck that shit. She doesn’t make any such distinction in her hate tirades. It’s very easy to find many tweets and similar quotes of her speaking about transsexual people as a whole. So yeah, she very much has spoken about OP as well. And she’s a freaking author, she doesn’t get any excuses for not knowing how to write more specifically. She knows very well what she says and who it will affect when she generalises all transsexual people. And it for damn sure isn’t some imaginary group or predators willing to go through all the hassle of being trans to prey on women but the trans community as a whole.
