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.

  • BreakDecks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hateful ideas can be dangerous things. This is why insulting people in Germany can turn into a criminal offense. They know where that goes if left unchecked.

    Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail. It can just be a fine the first few times and jail only when you show no intent on ceasing what you’re doing.

    JKR is being hyperbolic with this “arrest me” thing. She’s playing the victim for her TERF followers.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail.

      If you’re poor and black, sure.

      Notice how many times Trump has flagrantly broken the law.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m from Germany, the only way insulting someone is going to be a criminal case is if you insult police. Otherwise it gets almost always dropped.

      So you want the government to decide which ideas are ok and which should be banned? How could this ever go wrong.

      • porous_grey_matter
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        The government deciding what ideas should be banned is pretty typical in Germany lol

          • porous_grey_matter
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ok, so which is it? I’m arguing it’s fine to ban ideas if they’re bad enough, like holocaust denial in Germany.

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              2 months ago

              And I’m arguing that it’s a bad idea. Germany is a good example, banning holocaust denial did not stop AFD from raising and getting political power. We were not even able to forbid the damn NDP.

              • porous_grey_matter
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                2 months ago

                That’s not a great argument, there is no evidence those things are somehow connected or not. For all you know it would have been straight back to fascism 60 years earlier if it wasn’t banned. The reason AfD has power is that the courts and government support them and let them get away with crime. If the law was actually applied it would have banned that party.

                • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  So it’s about how a law is applied. And you still don’t see the potential danger of a law regulating speech? Guess we won’t agree on this one.

                  I don’t really see a benefit in people being forced to phrase their hateful opinions in a way to circumvent laws. In the end, Rowling won’t stop spreading her bigoted hateful bullshit - in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.

                  • BreakDecks
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.

                    Look in the mirror. She is framing this issue in a hyperbolic way and you’re siding with her.