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 ?

I don't see what JK Rowling has said that could possibly be considered hate speech. She holds the position that biological sex can't be changed which is hardly controversial, even if some disagree. She supports the rights of transpeople to live as they choose and to not be discriminated against. She cautions against irreversible medical treatments in children.

Everything she says seems measured, calm, well thought out.

If I am wrong perhaps someone can provide evidence. All I see is people claiming she said things such as advocating discrimination or inciting hatred, which I can't find any evidence for.

I think if that was not their intention, they would have clarified that it was not their intention when they were specifically asked to do so. Instead, they refused.

Ah yes, of course.

The idea that women should be allowed to have some spaces for themselves and a word for themselves and generally the right to say no to penis people is not one that would ever have occurred to us had we not been radicalised by the American evangelical right.

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.

You weren't, you were badly misunderstanding the Forstater judgment.

It wasn't happening in England despite that ambiguity

If you think it's the same law, you don't understand it.

I have few heroes. JK Rowling is one.

UK is bizarre these days.

The ambiguity arises because the Scottish government can't decide if misgendering stirs up hate or describes reality.

This is Siobhan Brown, a government minister doing a fine job of yeah, but no, but yeahing.

Pressed by BBC Radio 4’s Today programme whether misgendering was a crime, Ms Brown said no,

Also

Ms Brown said it would be “an operational decision” and “it would not be for me as a minister to dictate what the police” did.

And

Siobhian Brown, the SNP’s community safety minister, initially stated that misgendering – for example calling a trans woman “he” – would “not at all” fall foul of the legislation.

But then again.

“It could be reported and it could be investigated. Whether or not the police would think it was criminal is up to Police Scotland for that.”

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?

The intent was to create a chilling effect. As pp said, they repeatedly refused to clarify or ring fence gender critical belief.

Plus the SNP promised that all complaints would be investigated.

And the person complaining needs neither proof nor evidence. It doesn't even have to have happened to them personally. It doesn't even have to have upset or even been noticed by the person to whom it did happen.

Still gets investigated.

In terms of how chilling that is, I don't think any one would call it ambiguous.

Except that arguably the whole point of this law was to exclude any protections for women….

Firstly no protection for women within the main protected strands named in the bill - Sex is a noteable exclusion. Secondly no protection for free speech relating to one of the protected strands. Would anyone like to guess which one?

It turns out that during the passage of this bill, senior Scottish judge Lord Bracadale carried out a review and made recommendations to explicitly protect free speech in each of the protected strands.

This was implemented in all except one. The ‘Gender Identity’ strand. This law explicitly does not protect free speech, mainly affecting women, when it comes to advocating for our rights for single sex spaces and services. We now have to establish the boundaries for free speech in this area for ourselves.

So your point is moot I think @FairCat.

If you honestly believe that women in your industry are less productive than men then you should say so. You'd need to prove it before that changed anything, but it's not discrimination to point out facts. Your little fantasy there was you punishing the women based on your feelz which is different.

Illegal Discrimination is when there's no basis for it and you deprive someone of something on the basis of an irrational belief about a whole group.

Speech is not Discrimination in itself and we already have laws against harassment.

At least 60 reports per hour have been received by officers, according to police sources. Calum Steele, the former general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, the union that represents rank-and-file officers, said the true figure could be as high as 3,600.
Police Scotland said they would investigate every report made under the law, which became active at midnight on April 1.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dabc6455-cec5-42f4-8360-6c99836e369b?shareToken=9007deb9a11beccffdc7bc56f581836a

It's also an absolutely HUGE waste of police resources and taxpayer money.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

"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."

Unfortunately it was the only way to plead the case. There is no law that protects your right to state an immutable fact, other than freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act. Its bonkers isn't it, that you have to frame it as a philosophical belief to be able to say that a man in a dress is a man in a dress? I guess the legislators didn't forsee that we would be subject to discrimination for stating immutable facts. It's like being discriminated against for saying that the earth isn't flat.

Indeed.

The Act rests on perception and intent. It's not about a specific action or certain words.

It's down to the feelings of the person reporting.

This would fall in court, very likely, so most cases won't result in convictions. However there is a very real risk that the HCA will be weaponised by both activists, malicious or misguided, and possibly police with an axe to grind.

The chilling effect is already in action.

Yes the very process of being accused, investigated and your reputation (amd possibly career etc) tarnished is the punishment.

And don't forget you could be in the privacy of your own home, talking to your mate or other half, overheard by a neighbour who reports you. And it has to be investigated.

That is crazy!! So in 24 hours the police now have an additional 3,600 alleged incidents to investigate? How could anyone think this is a good use of public resources?

...reported in the local sex shop which has been designated one of the reporting centres, by the way. Along with a mushroom farm and a hairdressers.

Your neighbours could report you for hate speech, whilst buying tons of porn depicting abuse against women.

Or replenishing their shiitake and getting a shampoo and set, of course.

Research into the effectiveness of employees by sex, age and other characteristics does go on, so it’s clearly not an area that is in some way banned. But that doesn’t mean the courts would protect you if your employer fired you for setting up a campaign group at work to advocate for pay disparities because the protection you refer to is only conferred on honestly held beliefs that are worthy of respect in a democratic society.

The courts decided that acknowledgement of sex as an immutable characteristic (as already reflected in our clumsily worded the laws) was worthy of respect. That people are entitled to organize and fight for rights on the basis of their sex. They did not find that it was vilification of a demographic, nor an attempt to exclude a demographic from society. Those things have not been given free rein at all.

Ch Supt Rob Hay of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS), which represents senior officers, said there was the potential for a "huge uplift" in complaints about social media posts.

Mr Hay said his central concern was that Police Scotland "haven't been provided with any additional resources in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation."

Just last month the national force said it was no longer able to investigate every "low level" crime, including some cases of theft and criminal damage.

It has, however, pledged to investigate every hate crime complaint it receives.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68703684.amp

So if someone steals your car or smashes up your house don't expect the police to do anything about it. But if you call a man a man on social media you can expect to be investigated.

This.

I love her.

So if someone steals your car or smashes up your house don't expect the police to do anything about it. But if you call a man a man on social media you can expect to be investigated.

You have to wonder what was quite so bloody important about getting this ludicrous law off the ground that they were prepared to make themselves into national laughing stocks.

Hahahaha lols. The gaslighting is incredible.