JK Rowling and chamber of the new Scottish Laws

Since when has India Willoughby ever been known for measured, considered responses to anything?

Can't comment on Katie Neeves because I honestly have no idea who they are, but I'm familiar enough with Willoughby to know they are someone who it's best not to take seriously.

this tweet perfectly sums up the genius of JKR:
https://twitter.com/Rob_ThaBuilder/status/1774959860502708291

It's hard to overstate how important - and strategically brilliant - @jk_rowling's power move was today, a first-move checkmate that effectively
neutered Scotland's dangerous new #HateCrimeBill. By openly and unambiguously breaking this law - on a massive public platform - on its very first day, she has in effect nullified the law by forcing the authorities in Scotland into a corner where they only have two options, both of which will be this laws downfall. They can:

Option 1) Enforce the law as it's written, arrest Ms Rowling, creating the world's greatest Streisand Effect and put this law under the kind of extreme scrutiny it was never designed to withstand. Her arrest and trial would be in many ways the biggest media event in years and give the deep-pocketed Rowling the world's biggest stage with which to our transgenderism on trial. Anybody regularly involved in this debate knows the massive, enormous flaws in the logic that underpins gender ideology, and instinctively understands a trial of this magnitude would be a death blow both for this law in particular, and gender ideology in general. Personally, although I don't know what's going on inside Ms Rowling's head, I suspect this route is her preferred option. I think she wants this fight. Her taunting responses all day to the smooth brained pearl-clutchers whining about her thread suggests she's run out of fucks to give and wants to have this battle out in a real forum. And what better forum than a court of law?

Option 2) They DONT enforce the law (precisely BECAUSE they know it would kick off a humiliating battle they cannot win, and would galvanize such strong public support against the law that the SNP would likely suffer catastrophic political consequences) and the Elephant In The Room of having such a massive public personality so openly break the law without any consequences effectively renders the law null and void for anybody charged with it who ISN'T JK Rowling. All anybody charged with this law would have to do would be introduce Rowling's tweet thread in court and make the extremely persuasive argument that it is being selectively and arbitrarily enforced. After all, if such a massive public voice isn't charged under this law, clearly the law is unenforceable on anyone else. In effect, Rowling has created a shield for anyone WITHOUT her massive platform and deep pockets with her thread that - so long as it remains public on @X and she remains uncharged - effectively gives anyone else a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Either way, the law is cooked: either they charge Rowling and the resulting massive scrutiny of the law will inevitably result in it's repeal OR they don't charge her and the law is in effect utterly nullified.

Heads she wins, tails they lose. This is about as close to a chess match being lost on the first move as you're ever going to see.

TRA's who clearly didn't understand that "misgendering" was not a hate crime prior to 01/04, and that nothing included in the new Bill in any way alters that fact.

Again, I can't see where there was ever any ambiguity in the Bill, and I do not believe JKR would have knowingly tweeted something she herself thought likely to result in a prosecution, so to some extent at least even she is confident in exactly what the Bill is and is not, so why such a clamour over the past few weeks and months to hype it up as something it is not?

What, precisely, is it that people in Scotland think they could have said with impunity prior to 01/04 that they can not say now? That's what I keep wondering.

It's very interesting that TRAs and their supporters are now pivoting to "misgendering isn't hate speech anyway so not sure why anyone thought gender critical women would be targeted!" Pull the other one.

The women can just identify as men and keep their jobs.

She is an absolute fucking QUEEN.

She’s made it clear that if the police go after any other woman for expressing similar sentiments to hers - i.e. they target women who are less able to afford lawyers - she will repeat the same words and ask the police to prosecute them both together, thus protecting women.

The police are left trying to implement a terrible piece of legislation enacted by Holyrood, and she’s highlighted just how bad it is. Heads she wins, tails they lose.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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?

Seventh dimension chess. That is all.

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.

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

Off you go then.

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.

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

Exactly. The crucial point is evidence.

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.

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.

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”.

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.