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
You must log in or # to comment.
What a sad life this woman leads. All the money in the world and she can’t find a semblance of purpose.
deleted by creator
Hopefully the cops oblige her, but I’m pretty sure she’s too rich to actually experience any consequences.
They’ve already said it doesn’t meet the criminal threshold and they will not be arresting her.
Bitter old troll still got her 15 minutes of fame I guess.
Just because they refuse to even prosecute Rowling, it doesn’t mean she hasn’t broken the law.
The wording of the actual law is so loose and woolly that I would absolutely include Rowling under it. She’s definitely been abusive/threatening to trans-people, and definitely been stirring up hatred. I think a reasonable person would agree. She should at least be prosecuted.
The problem is that the law doesn’t explicitly specify a severity threshold of said abuse, and the real reason they won’t arrest Rowling is that it would cause way too much hassle for the government and expose how shit the law is, as she actually has enough money and lawyers to fight it.
Imagine a few years down the line when a properly fascist government gets hold of this. The Tories are already looking for a way to arrest pro-Palestine protesters.
This article has more info and what the law actually says https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68703684
Thanks!
She got more than enough fame already.
Ah, figures. Thanks for the source!
Hopefully it’s only a matter of time she does something that’ll cross the threshold.
Pull a switcharoo and arrest her for wasting police time.
Woulda cost her nothing to just not say anything.
Do it.
Nah, wait till she decides she is properly untouchable and definitely crosses the line and the case is a slam dunk.
Do you really want to live in a police state where they do this?
Prevent hate speech? Yes, desperately
Wait you think arresting her is proportionate?
If she sows hate speech? Yes.
Quote exactly some hate speech by her which is deserving of being locked up and link sources
Not stuff which is considered offensive, but quotes which genuinely deserve jail time
A proportionate response is banning of her social media accounts and any of her products which create revenue, not FUCKING JAIL.
So please, quote away.
if
That’s a quote from my comment that you replied to.
Holy shit really? You’re going with that?
You just turned the conversation on its head and then accused me of doing the same? hypocritical behaviour
Wait you think arresting her is proportionate?
If she sows hate speech? Yes.
What you really meant to say is: “no, arresting her isn’t proportionate, but she should be arrested if she does something she hasn’t done”
The woman has appeared in parliament to advocate for laws that will kill children. Yes, she deserves to go to prison.
Can you link me a source, I’ve never heard about this and don’t know the details and validity of these laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_rights
In March 2022, Rowling criticised Labour party leader Keir Starmer who said “trans women are women” in his personal opinion and according to British law. She accused him of misrepresenting the law and said “the Labour Party can no longer be counted on to defend women’s rights”
In October 2022, Rowling voiced opposition to the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill aimed at expanding the rights of trans people, calling Nicola Sturgeon a “destroyer of women’s rights”
In February 2024, Rowling donated £70,000 to a crowd-funding appeal by For Women Scotland in support of their legal case challenging the definition of “woman”. The appeal was started after the UK Supreme Court decided to grant the case a judicial review.[101][102][103] The case is one of many through which For Women Scotland are seeking to overturn the inclusion of trans women with gender recognition certificates in the legal definition of “woman” in some laws in Scotland.
On 13 March 2024, Rowling dismissed the fact that the Nazis burned books on early transgender healthcare during their raids on the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft as “a fever dream” on Twitter. Rowling went on to quote tweet another user’s tweet which claimed trans people weren’t targeted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Her comments received widespread criticism, including from Alejandra Caraballo. Some, such as The Mary Sue, accused Rowling of Holocaust denial.
Not all of these are relevant to your question but they seem like the kind of thing you oughtta know
You’re right, none of those “advocate for laws which kill children”.
Weird take
I know she’s said some outrageous things but nothing in the above is deserving of jail time. Proportionality is completely lost on social media
Ugh this is sea lioning. Do you or do you not think JKR is transphobic? And do you or do you not think that trans rights are human rights?
Yes water is wet however thats importantly not what I’m discussing. I’m asking for sources about the previous claim that she’s advocating for British laws which kill children.
People really love twisting conversations comment by comment. Let’s stay on track here
Every single victim of a hate crime now wants you dead.
It almost feels like that given people’s comments on this site. Clearly I need to hang for being devils advocate
Reconsider.
What about my trans children? Who will look after them? JK Rowling?
Scotland should really leave the shithole that is U.K. It would be better off in every way having its own policies.
Scotland is worse for this kind of shit than the rest of the UK. They arrested and convicted a guy over a skit where his pug did a ‘nazi salute’ to the audio of a Hitler speech
Good. People who make jokes about shit have been proven time and time again to secretly believe it themselves. Nazi down.
…the joke was the ridiculousness of the concept of a pug getting radicalised in a ‘whats the worst he’s gonna do?’ way. It wasn’t any sort of commentary on Nazis other than the fact that they’re extremist.
You can make jokes about Nazis without supporting them. Many people do. Nazis are an effective short-hand for extremism and many comedy skits, including the ‘nazi pug’, use it as such so they don’t have to over explain shit.
If they used, for example, the British National Party instead, the joke wouldn’t work as well because no one outside of the UK even know who the fuck the BNP are.
Do you agree with this new UK law at least? Scotland should be independent if they desire as I support any nation or group who decides this is right for them by vote, but surely they would include laws to protect all citizens too. This law is not oppressive like some that benefit one side. It is a reasonable and fair law as all members of society should be protected.
The law mentioned is specifically a Scottish law. The UK allows Scotland and Northern Ireland to implement certain different laws (until it doesn’t).
Wales is a bit different because it doesn’t really exist, it’s part of England officially (OK they renamed it “England and Wales”) so its national assembly has to ask for laws in the “England and Wales” jurisdiction that say “In Wales they can have a little coal as a treat”.
Dedicated her life to drumming up transphobic hate. Pathetic
The rich have far too much power in the world.
This bitch is fucking nuts
deleted by creator
That law sounds terrible.
Because you don’t like how it’s being implemented or because you just straight up like hatred?
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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
This man trained his girlfriend’s dog to give a Nazi salute to some offensive phrases as a joke. Shared it with a few friends on social media.
It was then leaked and the offensive joke that went viral and got 3 million views on YouTube.
Then because of the criminal case for hate speech the EDL (English Defence League) were able to bandwagon on the news cycle and spread some real hate.
So the law meant to prevent hate speech instead platformed a hate group and spread the original joke further to the point where it probably did cause offence. Because if you don’t know the person making the joke, you don’t know what they intend.
All because a Scottish judge was allowed and chose to ignore all context around the actual content.
It is a bad law.
I’m not one of the “can’t say anything these days” crowd, and in general I think there can be limitations on speech that have a positive affect on society.
But the law in Scotland specifically is absolutely trash in stating absolutes about speech when speech is always subjective and always surrounded by context.
That case is bullshit, yes. But still, if you had Rowling’s wealth and influence and wanted to enact policy change, would this be your approach?
If I had her wealth no one would ever see or hear from me again.
deleted by creator
Not everything I disagree with has to be illegal.
Especially when there are already consequences.
-
Rowling will face social consequences for her speech. It doesn’t have to be illegal.
-
Problems with the law usually affect those who do things people or governments don’t like. Not with conforming behaviour.
Clamping down on one freedom to protect another is ultimately harmful.
Usually it’s “to protect the children” which has obviously had a negative effect on the trans community in several countries.
In this case it’s “to protect minorities” and the actual law will punish jokes at the expense of bigots as much as bigotry.
It’s unlikely to be prosecuted but quoting Rowling’s hate speech to draw attention to it in a negative light is just as illegal as saying it in the first place. The law is once again only helping to turn her hate into a news story where she gets cast as the victim rather than the perpetrator.
-
That case is ridiculous, but that’s what the law was like before this new bill. The new bill makes it even less well defined
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?
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.
Hate to ask, but I don’t want to google it, can you elaborate on that last bit?
Think about the plot of the books and get back to me on that one.
An abused boy becomes magical jesus and constantly fights magical hitler while attending magic school… I’m not getting the pedophilic bits unless you think children merely existing equates to pedophilia
What you said offends me. You should got to jail for spreading hate speech
You know how people sometimes talk about not interacting in good faith?
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.
People can’t be trusted to not be assholes with their freedom.
Then go live in China or Russia
deleted by creator
behaving in a way that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive
This is no way to legislate. What is a reasonable person?
It is actually a very specific legal standard. If you like podcasts, one of the early episodes of More Perfect has a good segment on the reasonableness standard. The case is one about police violence and it is fairly emotional, so just keep that in mind for if you want to listen.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/mr-graham-and-reasonable-man
Especially since just asking genuine and reasonable questions gets you labeled as a bigot these days.
I have not once had this experience. Could you share some examples of such questions? I’m curious,
https://lemmy.world/comment/6049113
There are several instances just in that sub-thread of that post.
4 months ago
If I had come accross that thread then I would have tried to answer in a friendlier tone. Sure your question was kind of based on a false premise, but did you know that at the time? Probably not. I would have assumed ignorance based on subconscious biases, rather than malice. But there are always going to be some reactionaries on all sides calling people shit. It’s the internet.
You sound like a reasonable person then, and an ally to progress and education. That’s just the most immediate example I could think of that I was readily able to access to share with you. This is a common reaction that I’ve seen becoming more common over the last few years, across a number of social issues that a lot of people require more information to fully understand. But they’re not asking questions to get the information because when they do, they get shouted down and accused of bigotry. I’ve seen the same thing when it comes to people trying to understand trans issues. Trying to understand gender pronouns. Trying to understand new attitudes towards racism or social equality. The people who think they’re helping through some sort of twisted interpretation of “silence is violence” are very much hurting these movements by being so loose and free with their accusations of bigotry. They’re pushing people away, and making enemies of potential allies.
I make my best effort to be, thank you. Maybe we need a community somewhere for those questions then. Maybe create it? I’d subscribe and do it my best to answer questions. I understand everyone comes from completely different worlds. So many factors in my life made understanding these issues easier. I can understand how someone else could struggle with some of it.
I think it would be plagued with the same problem that probably led to the hostility from the person in the comment I linked to, bad actors. I recognize that there are a lot of bad actors that enter these conversations and pose “questions” that are really just preludes to attacks, or often intentionally engineered to stoke hostility. I think the solution might be simple, give people the benefit of the doubt until they show they don’t deserve it. But our different perspectives are becoming so tribalistic that opposing views, or even just ignorance of a specific view is viewed as an outright enemy. That has led to people being dismissive of everyone that doesn’t immediately identify themselves as part of the in-group.
I don’t really see how we will ever build a world that is beneficial for everyone if we’re all committed to an “us vs them” perspective. Even without that perspective, IDK how to build that world because it seems now that different groups have drastically different ideas of how things should be. It used to feel like we all kind of wanted the same things, but just disagreed on how to get there. Now it feels like there are groups who want dramatically different outcomes. How does one resolve that type of scenario? Anyways, now I’m getting pretty far off topic. I’ll just stop there.
Maybe a community like you proposed would be a great bridge between groups. It would be so cool if that worked. I know I don’t have the time or patience to run such a group though. Everything online is such a challenge to moderate these days with State level psychological cyber warfare as prevalent as it is now.
Or for that matter having a different belief than the status quo
Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you get to censor and arrest them
Right? This could definitely be the first step towards State sanctioned group-think, and the loss of freedom of speech. I’m just as opposed to hate speech as any other progressive individual, but I do not trust these types of laws in the hands of governments that are moving rapidly towards fascism.
I hate that we keep having to give attention to this dumb bitch
She got the money. No jailtime for her. If she was poor she would already br in jail by now.
You have to wonder how a guy named Rishi Sunak justifies supporting her.
But I guess it’s done so that people hate on trans people instead of people with a similar name or skin color as his. When in reality everyone just hates him because of his politics and personality
His ethnicity is “billionaire”.
she knows this will not happen
You can’t arrest someone for being an idiot usually
Sure you can. Manslaughter, reckless endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. All have a component of “sure you didn’t do this maliciously, but FUCK you should have known better, moron”
Quick, somebody go back in time and convince JK Rowling to write about a raccoon who shoots rainbow sparkles out of his butt!
