The once-beloved children’s author is working herself up over Scotland’s new bias law.

The once-beloved children’s author is working herself up over Scotland’s new bias law.

U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has jumped to defend J.K. Rowling, who is once again using her one wild and precious life to post obsessively about transgender women instead of doing literally anything else with her hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Harry Potter author took to X, formerly Twitter, on April 1 to share her thoughts on Scotland’s new Hate Crime Act, which went into effect the same day. The law criminalizes “stirring up hatred” related to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trans identity, or being intersex, as the BBC reported. “Stirring up hatred” is further defined as communicating or behaving in a way “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive” against a protected group. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine, or both.

In response to the legislation, Rowling posted a long thread naming several prominent trans women in the U.K., including Mridul Wadhwa, the CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, and activist Munroe Bergdorf. Since it was April Fool’s day, Rowling decided to commemorate it by sarcastically affirming the womanhood of all the people she named in her thread. In the same breath that she said that a convicted child predator was “rightly sent to a women’s prison,” she also called out a number of trans women making anodyne comments about inclusion, seemingly implying that trans identity is inherently predatory.

read more: https://www.them.us/story/jk-rowling-rishi-sunak-social-media-trans

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
    233·
    6 months ago

    Because it sounds like it can be applied to any political view or person. It is just plain censorship. At the end of the day democracy depends on everyone having a voice, even if you find what they have to say hateful.

    I don’t support hate speech but trying to ban it is very problematic

    • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      42·
      6 months ago

      The law criminalizes “stirring up hatred” related to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trans identity, or being intersex, as the BBC reported. “Stirring up hatred” is further defined as communicating or behaving in a way “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive” against a protected group.

      There’s a difference between saying what you think and being “threatening or abusive”. Note that nothing JK has done so far actually qualifies.

      If she directed her audience to harass the ones she mocked that would be different. At a certain point that shouldn’t be allowed, no?

      • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?

        It is illegal already, she can’t make comments to her weirdly large base that have the same effect of causing violence or panic or fear thereof.

        Hilarious that a chick who made her money off witchcraft and mildly pedophilic children’s stories takes issues with morality of all things.

          • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            I upvoted you, as the other guy was not reading your post, but disagree with the general stance. What is “reasonable” is still somewhat defined by the current political climate, even if it’s not defined by a single person.

            The UK government is currently very pro-Israel, and could easily use this to prosecute pro-Palestine/ceasefire protesters (assuming the existing anti-protest laws don’t get them).

            It massively limits the rights of minority political opinions.