JK Rowling and chamber of the new Scottish Laws

[ChedderGorgeous]

Rowling has immediately made statements supporting freedom of speech and despite complaints, Scottish police have said there is nil to prosecute. AIBU that the new Scottish Law will have little material impact ?

She pulled a blinder with that move.

You can't legislate away valid criticism of an ideology that seeks to suppress the voices of women and womanhood, which is a tangible biological state of being, in favour of those whose word we have to take on how they feel, a demographic which is very much supported by the establishment and yet referred to as an "oppressed" minority.

By not challenging her, they have now provided a shield for all those who come after, imo. Good luck enforcing that law now - as you said, little material impact.

Hopefully she’s taken a chunk of gender critical speech off the table as cause to be investigated. You should be now able to point out that transwomen are men without being hassled by the police. If they do hassle women JKR has offered to repeat exactly what has been said so they would have to investigate her too. Stellar woman.

You are being reasonable but I think you underestimate the consequences of the law proving ineffective. Along with other recent judgements we now have legal precedent supporting the right to express discrimination, so long as it's an honestly held belief.

For example if I honestly believe that women in my industry are less productive than men I can now say so. I can set up a Female Critical Research Group to exchange information and justify pay disparity. I can campaign to have women excluded from roles I don't believe they can do well.

Protecting the right to vilify and exclude any demographic with impunity so long as it's 'ones belief' was history. Now it's back. Everyone OK with that?

Nothing has really changed for women in that they have a long history of being discriminated against - seen as second class citizens, had to fight for the fight to vote etc since time immemorial! Today they had the tide held back a little as men again tried to subjugate them, by claiming hurt feelings that they couldn't now get into their safe spaces.
I guess us women are used to fighting against misogyny, so whatever..

JKR has done an amazing job, but I still think this will have a chilling effect on people. I know people who work at Universities, charities and other sectors where gender ideology is accepted as fact, promoted and fiercely defended.

This is another reason for people with gender-critical beliefs to fear speaking up. Because even the suggestion of committing a hate crime could have devastating consequences

Well, I think that is quite reasonable. You should be allowed to do that.

You of course in that situation would need to be able to show that women are less productive etc. in order to be taken seriously. This was a battle feminists won, back when? The 70s? But you could try to re-fight it if you wanted to.

Good on her. I trust she can also see that disagreeing with her opinion on other subjects, should also not immediately be deemed "hate speech". Not saying she does this, but there can be a tendency.

I’m sure she wouldn’t characterise disagreement as hate speech. The hate speech would be the threats of sexual violence and death that she is subjected to - of which there is a “tendency”.

TRAs have been and continue to attack women with impunity. They are actively campaigning to exclude women. Not sure where the utopia you're describing is but it's definitely not the UK. If people set up any women research, that will be countered with words and evidence not rhetoric and misogyny.

you're saying she squeals "have speech" whenever anyone trolls her?

Au contraire, she did point out a few weeks ago that the number of tweets a TW had been directing at her could be considered harassment. As yet she's done nothing with that, but maybe if things escalate she will.

Exactly. The crucial point is evidence.

@Brefugee and @Maray1967
On other subjects, I said.

I'm not sure I understand your post.

Do you think stating facts is discriminatory? Is calling a man a man vilifying the demographic of men? Do you understand why women are dispensing with the courtesy of preferred pronouns when discussing this issue but wouldn't necessarily do that irl.

Your example is discriminatory. You could exclude a woman from a role you don't think she's suitable for on the basis that she's not suitable, not because she's a woman.

Off you go then.

I think she's amazing.
Maybe this was her true role, the famous train rides to Edinburgh, single mum, Harry Potter etc maybe her actual purpose was to become so rich and famous she was safe from the attacks to a degree.
She can certainly afford to say "arrest me" because she can afford the very best legal teams.
We desperately need her

I think the reaction to the police statement in some quarters is a bit bizarre. It was JKR and her supporters who have been adamant the Bill was going to result in mass arrests for nothing more than stating fact. This has been disputed all along by those responsible for the Bill, who highlighted that the threshold for "stirring up hatred" is extremely high, and that Police Scotland should not have any trouble determining where and when the new aspect of the Bill might come into play.

All that has happened today is that Police Scotland have demonstrated that having received a complaint, they have proven they are able to make an appropriate judgement that nothing that was tweeted in any way constitutes a hate crime or "stirring up hatred".

How this translates into a "win" for the Bill's critics when it demonstrably proves their claims were nonsense I do not know. Nothing that was tweeted would have been a crime prior to 01/04, and evidently nothing has changed, despite the claims the Bill would usher in a new era of suppression of free speech.

The Bill does not criminalise anything that was not previously a crime, with the exception that "stirring up hatred", which has always applied to race, now also applies to other protected characteristics. If the Bill was going to result in mass arrests for "thought crime", then I think it stands to reason that we should have been seeing mass arrests prior to 01/04 for "stirring up hatred" with regards to race, because there is plenty of racially-based hate around, yet the threshold for that has always been so high it's a rarity.

You are correct OP, in that I do not expect the Bill to have significant material impact, but that was never the claimed purpose of the Bill in the first place. The claims about over-reach, dire consequences, and mass arrests were being made by the Bill's critics, not it's proponents.

Seventh dimension chess. That is all.

For example if I honestly believe that women in my industry are less productive than men I can now say so. I can set up a Female Critical Research Group to exchange information and justify pay disparity. I can campaign to have women excluded from roles I don't believe they can do well.

No you can't. Why do you think that?

All that has happened today is that Police Scotland have demonstrated that having received a complaint, they have proven they are able to make an appropriate judgement that nothing that was tweeted in any way constitutes a hate crime or "stirring up hatred".

Yes, so she's demonstrated that "misgendering" isn't actually a hate crime. She called their bluff. Job done.

It didn't need "demonstrating", because there was never any ambiguity in the first place. This was an entirely confected problem.

I don't think your examples are equivalent, JK Rowling wasn't suggesting trans people should be paid less or removed from their jobs or are less good at their jobs. Also she was not wanting to villify or exclude anyone.

All of the above things would be illegal but she did not do any of them, did she?

It didn't need "demonstrating", because there was never any ambiguity in the first place. This was an entirely confected problem.

It wasn't, there were a whole host of TRAs champing at the bit to report these types of "hate crimes". They helpfully posted about it on social media in the weeks before. So it did need demonstrating. And has been. Win win!

there was never any ambiguity in the first place

There was, and still is, an absolute shit load of ambiguity! That's one of the main problems with the new law

The material impact will be more work for some in the legal profession, and more work for Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal.

I don't like vague laws regardless of intent.

India Willoughby and Katie Neeves both thought it was reportable hate crime.