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.
OR, and hear me out, you could just not be a total asshole? Maybe have a baseline of tolerance and respect for the people who made you a billionaire? No? Then fuck right off and accept the consequences of your hatred.
So you would like it to be enshrined in law that it is acceptable for whoever holds power to arrest people whom they believe to be assholes?
No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime. Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society. They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice. Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.
I’m not sure there is a difference with this law.
I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.
What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.
Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn’t be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.
We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant, they refuse to abide by the mutual contract of tolerance so they don’t deserve the protections of a tolerant society.
JKR isn’t just doing a little bit of free speech she is a billionaire advocating for hate on a massive platform and donating to hate groups, she has influence and power. She is absolutely advocating for the restriction on trans peoples rights, that is violence. Especially in a time when anti trans hate is on the rise we should be even more skeptical of claims of free speech, right now across the world hate crimes against trans people are going up and our rights are being stripped away.
Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread. Stop defending hate.
Until the intolerance of the intolerant is applied to not tolerate you… You see hate crime laws being used to defend religions from criticism for example.
Oh my what ever might that be like, having to deal with intolerance. I never have to deal with that nope. Nope it’s definitely not a daily occurrence for pretty much all trans people.
But the transphobes get to advocate for my erasure and that’s just free speech… yep makes sense… totally fair and balanced
What? I think you missed what I was saying. For example they could argue criticism of their religion is itself intolerant and should therefore be illegal.
So… we should just let bigots get their way and let them continue to successfully advocate for the rights of trans people and other minorities to be stripped away because they might also try to do a religious theocracy?