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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The difference is that your examples are beliefs, based in bigotry, whereas gender critical feminists are merely stating facts.

For me, the problematic part of the judgment in the Maya Forstater case was that gender critical feminist views were characterised as beliefs. Protected beliefs, yes. Beliefs we are entitled to hold, and to express. Fine, whatever. But this shouldn't need to be protected, any more than expressing one's "belief" in gravity should need to be protected.

If anything, the belief that male people can become women is a belief that should be protected in law, in the sense that you shouldn't be discriminated against for holding it, the same way you should not be discriminated against for believing in God. But not being discriminated against for believing in God does not mean you get to force other people to believe in God. The same should be true of gender identity theory.

We should not even be having a debate about whether it's OK to say that trans women are male, or humans can't change sex. It isn't bigoted to state the truth, or acknowledge biological reality. (If it were, the Equality Act itself would be a bigoted piece of legislation.)

When politicians start trying to criminalise the speaking of truth, we truly are in 1984 territory.

This jaw droppingly insane piece of legislation needed shooting down in flames at the first opportunity. JK Rowling has proven herself more than equal to the task, and made the Scottish government look very stupid indeed.

The laws are a terrible idea, I find them quite sinister. It will stifle free speech- people are likely to simply stay silent because of it for fear that someone may make a complaint and what could happen if that happens. An investigation like this, even if spurious, could have significant social and professional consequences, even though they have not done anything wrong. People will be intimidated. A complaint can be made anonymously, after all, and remain so until point of charge.

I think it highly likely that there will be a lot of petty and vindictive complaints made- in particular from certain particularly aggressive activists. A vast amount of police/cps etc time will be wasted. We already have legislation to protect people, it wasn’t necessary.

Not only that but should a complaint be made and investigated, but no case to answer/does not meet the threshold for prosecution, your details can still be held ok file. There will be some sort of record/list held centrally. It is not clear why such a “list” is required, what they plan to do with the information and how it can be used (e.g. is it going to show in PVG certification?).

@FairCat Your erm “legal analysis” is so off it requires correction. Recent judgements (i assume you are referring to Forstarter et al) established that a belief described as critical of gender ideology is a a protected belief, as long as that belief is not expressed in such a way as to disadvantage a person who falls within the protected characteristic of being transgendered.

that is by no means a license to discriminate against anybody with a protected characteristic so you are wrong, legally speaking.

I personally stand by freedom of speech so you can insult, upset, and offend anyone.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Perhaps you can't see it because you're not very well informed about what's been said about it in various quarters.

She did tweet something that she thought might be used to prosecute her, she said she would ahead of time. She's also said that if Police Scotland try to prosecute someone else, she will say the same words as that woman so they can both be charged together.

Willoughby already reported her to police, and tried again today. TRA Katie Neeves gave a radio 4 interview saying that JK had committed a hate crime and KN was thinking of reporting.

Sophie Sparkles, the male TRA partner of male Scottish TRA Heather Herbert also reported Glinner and Wings Over Scotland and received a visit, in which Sophie claims they said nothing could be done.

Unfortunately IW is (or was) taken seriously enough to be wheeled out repeatedly on media outlets that should have known better, and encouraged to air his views.

Some English police forces (without even the backing of this new Scottish law) have been known to tweet - completely erroneously - that misgendering is a hate crime.

JKR is a national treasure

She's also said that if Police Scotland try to prosecute someone else, she will say the same words as that woman so they can both be charged together

Is she talking in absolute terms here?

Willoughby already reported her to police, and tried again today. TRA Katie Neeves gave a radio 4 interview saying that JK had committed a hate crime and KN was thinking of reporting

Willoughby diving right in was an inevitability. I think this is as much a barometer for the Bill as anything, because it ably demonstrates that things which were not Hate Crimes prior to 01/04, for example IW's recent complaint about being misgendered, are still not Hate Crimes, as was evident to anyone who had been paying attention.

Sophie Sparkles, the male TRA partner of male Scottish TRA Heather Herbert also reported Glinner and Wings Over Scotland and received a visit, in which Sophie claims they said nothing could be done.

More evidence the law is working as intended then.

Then of course they needed corrected, especially since the HCB brings Scots approach to HC broadly in line with that of England.

They were corrected. But the fact that they said it at all shows that there is plenty of ambiguity over this issue. Mainly thanks to Stonewall being paid to train every Tom, Dick and Harry about equality law and teaching them the Stonewall version of the law rather than the actual law.

Exactly. Women in England have had the police at their door to 'check their thinking' for questioning gender ideology. Or for taking a photo of a sticker. Or for 'being untoward about paedophiles'. Or had their tech seized and been taken away by the police in front of their children and subjected to Draconian restrictions, because a TRA accused them of being a poster they aren't on a website. And all of these things happened in England, where we don't even have this law.

Anyone who thinks this law wouldn't have any effect either isn't paying attention or isn't being truthful. The chilling effect of the police overreach in parts of the UK where we don't have this law has been stunning enough, let alone what could have happened in Scotland had JKR not been mistress of the situation.

This is hilarious.

You think people ever stopped discriminating against and persecuting women?! If you honestly believe women are less effective than men in your industry then go ahead and so, all the men there are already saying it I promise you.

54,000 women a year are forced out of their job because of pregnancy discrimination, and one in five mothers are harassed at work because of their pregnancy.

Less than 1% of rapes result in a conviction. 3 women are killed each week by a man in the UK. 1 in 4 UK women are raped or sexually assaulted.

I really don’t think JKR standing up for women is going to make things worse for women 😂

More evidence the law is working as intended then.

It's been demonstrated that the kind of things many TRAs see as hate crimes don't meet the criteria. All to the good, I'd say.

Anyone who thinks this law wouldn't have any effect either isn't paying attention or isn't being truthful. The chilling effect of the police overreach in parts of the UK where we don't have this law has been stunning enough, let alone what could have happened in Scotland had JKR not been mistress of the situation.

This.

But I don't think that was what the lawmakers intended. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Exactly.

Ambiguity within English police forces perhaps, which still doesn't explain the constant narrative North of the border for the past few months that Police Scotland would be marching off people left and right come 01/04.

It wasn't happening in England despite that ambiguity, wasn't happening in Scotland prior to 01/04, so why would it happen after a Bill that changes nothing about that particular aspect of HC law came into force?

Thank you for the full and interesting replies but they miss the point. I was inviting you to consider how these 'victories for free speech' will feel when they are turned on you, as inevitably they will.

This whole sorry barrage of hate-filled spite, on all sides, is recent, an invention of the American evangelical right who deliver their agenda by whipping up division. The same organisations are rolling back women's rights across America, using the exact same playbook.

You can choose to play their game, or not. Be careful what you wish for

I think if the intent of the HCB was to criminalise misgendering, then it would have surely included legislation that made it abundantly clear misgendering constituted a Hate Crime?