Page 6 | JK Rowling and chamber of the new Scottish Laws

ChedderGorgeous · 2024-04-02T17:02:14+00:00

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 ?

Rainbowshit · 03/04/2024 17:45

No NCHI is to be recorded. 🤭

JK Rowling and chamber of the new Scottish Laws

TheEyesOfLucyJordon · 03/04/2024 18:19

FairCat · 02/04/2024 18:34

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?

No. But the statement that "Trans Women are Men" is neither a belief, nor a subjective judgement: it's a biological fact.

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 19:49

RedToothBrush · 03/04/2024 17:28

I beg to differ about the 'wrong side of the law'.

The law is fundamentally on her side and always has been. The problem has been the undermining of existing law and the removal of rights which protect as well as incoherent poorly written law which is requiring women to go to court to demonstrate they are on the right side of the law.

Her argument on this has always been that this new law was unworkable and incompatible with existing law. And that if it was ever taken to court on this specific points it would either totally fall apart or undermine the very tennants of liberalism which protect us all - including those who are trans.

If you undermine those principles you ultimately put the rights of everyone at risk from the state and abuses of power in the long run.

It's like libel law: the argument is that the only people who really have protection from libel laws are those who are super rich and have the ability to fund a libel case. The situation here was increasingly putting the burden on individuals - particularly women - against the state or a large and powerful organisation.

This is what the ECHR was ultimately about - prevention of the exploitation of vulnerable individuals by the state.

Or in short it is the essence of liberalism against authoritarianism.

If you don't understand the point that the law is on the side of women and it's the misrepresentation by the likes of Stonewall which is undermining women's existing rights and their plan to THEN fix this in law against women, then youve never understood what JKR has said and you have bought into the propaganda against her.

The whole façade to present JKR as 'anti-trans' is part of this. She never has been. She's always been about upholding the rights of women against a system which means anyone without power and money is unable to stand up and challenge unlawful behaviour on the part of companies and organisations.

It's a total smear.

JKR is totally consistent with liberal values in believing in free speech. Free speech is about the ability to speak the truth to power. Free speech does not allow for the harassment of others or threats to others. That's actually covered by existing laws too. Free speech is about the right to challenge ideas and sometimes to voice inconvenient truths. Sometimes people say things they believe to be true which aren't but that's the point - free speech stops those people taking control and becoming the censors themselves.

Censorship is a power. We shouldn't just hand it over because who makes the decisions? The Scottish government have handed this to the Scottish police. They have said it's not a crime but under some pressure not to cause a ridiculous show trial they know wouldn't play out well in terms of public interest. But if things gift in 20 years that power is now with the police - who is to say we won't head towards a police state. It's unlikely but it's not a given unless you protect the tennants and principles of a liberal democracy.

Democracies have fallen in the past and they will again in the future. The US is very much at risk of this right now.

Show quote history

Excellent post. We already have appropriate laws* - they just aren't being enforced. Whether deliberately or erroneously the laws are being enforced "according to Stonewall", not according to the legislation itself.

*though a definition of "woman" and "man" would not go amiss.

Datun · 03/04/2024 22:57

Rainbowshit · 03/04/2024 17:45

No NCHI is to be recorded. 🤭

sometimes I have to catch myself, because I realise that the absolute batshit is being normalised.

The fucking police have had to make a statement that a woman calling a bunch of men, men, will not have her name and details written down on a list held by them, in case a criminal pattern develops. They've had to meet, talk, decide, then choose what to say and who says it.

And the public are having to pay them to do so.

It's utterly crazy.

CantDealwithChristmas · 04/04/2024 09:15

Datun · 03/04/2024 22:57

sometimes I have to catch myself, because I realise that the absolute batshit is being normalised.

The fucking police have had to make a statement that a woman calling a bunch of men, men, will not have her name and details written down on a list held by them, in case a criminal pattern develops. They've had to meet, talk, decide, then choose what to say and who says it.

And the public are having to pay them to do so.

It's utterly crazy.

Show quote history

Agreed. Crime in Scotland has risen 16% in the decade from 2013 to 2023 and I feel genuinely sorry for Police Scotland and the Scottish public for having valuable crime investigatory time wasted on this purely at the behest of vindictive and vexatious TRA individuals.

Emotionalsupportviper · 04/04/2024 09:39

TBH if I were Scottish police I'd put every complaint into a "pending" tray, and assign a single hobby bobby to go through them one at a time, when s/he isn't busy with anything else, with instructions to make a judgement and then put the ones to get further investigation into a "to do" tray which would be attended to after the "pending" was finished. And then start sorting the "to do's" after that. With 3,000+ complaints on the first day alone it should take a little while. Then there's the "to do's" to further refine before we even get on to "Maebbe tek action - what dae ye think, Shug?" tray, until they whittle them down to really serious stuff that they ought to look into.

It's one thing to investigate every complaint. It doesn't have to be now.

RedToothBrush · 04/04/2024 10:02

Emotionalsupportviper · 04/04/2024 09:39

TBH if I were Scottish police I'd put every complaint into a "pending" tray, and assign a single hobby bobby to go through them one at a time, when s/he isn't busy with anything else, with instructions to make a judgement and then put the ones to get further investigation into a "to do" tray which would be attended to after the "pending" was finished. And then start sorting the "to do's" after that. With 3,000+ complaints on the first day alone it should take a little while. Then there's the "to do's" to further refine before we even get on to "Maebbe tek action - what dae ye think, Shug?" tray, until they whittle them down to really serious stuff that they ought to look into.

It's one thing to investigate every complaint. It doesn't have to be now.

As long as that pending tray looks like an industrial shredding bin , I'm happy tbh.

Emotionalsupportviper · 04/04/2024 10:04

RedToothBrush · 04/04/2024 10:02

As long as that pending tray looks like an industrial shredding bin , I'm happy tbh.

Show quote history

That's the "Maebbe tek action - what dae ye think, Shug?" tray.

borntobequiet · 04/04/2024 10:37

Now most of my knowledge of policing in Scotland comes from reading the works of Ian Rankin, Stuart MacBride and so on. But I’m sure they contain genuine truths and insights. Anyway, in these books, the main protagonist is often under investigation by internal disciplinary teams for some foolishness or misdemeanour. Perhaps this could provide such people with suitable tasks to do until the issue is resolved.

WickedSerious · 04/04/2024 12:48

borntobequiet · 04/04/2024 10:37

Now most of my knowledge of policing in Scotland comes from reading the works of Ian Rankin, Stuart MacBride and so on. But I’m sure they contain genuine truths and insights. Anyway, in these books, the main protagonist is often under investigation by internal disciplinary teams for some foolishness or misdemeanour. Perhaps this could provide such people with suitable tasks to do until the issue is resolved.

It would certainly keep them off the streets for a year or two.

AlecTrevelyan006 · 04/04/2024 18:30

Jonathan Pie's take: "the wording of this law is committing its own crime" :)

s

Sickofatrocity · 04/04/2024 18:32

The law is there to stop hate crime. Rowling is blowing it up into something it is not. This is a non-issue.

Arraminta · 04/04/2024 18:35

I love JKR. And I can only pleasurably imagine what bad ass barristers she could afford to demonstrate what absolute nonsense this all is.

Brefugee · 04/04/2024 18:37

Sickofatrocity · 04/04/2024 18:32

The law is there to stop hate crime. Rowling is blowing it up into something it is not. This is a non-issue.

it isn't a non-issue. But what JKR did from the absolute start of this is make it very clear what could and couldn't be said online, and what would and wouldn't provoke a visit from the plod.

She has done the Scottish government and this law a great favour in getting this all cleared up very quickly and efficiently.

Jux · 04/04/2024 18:41

Every time she comes under fire like this I buy another of her books.

AlecTrevelyan006 · 04/04/2024 18:42

Sickofatrocity · 04/04/2024 18:32

The law is there to stop hate crime. Rowling is blowing it up into something it is not. This is a non-issue.

whatever anyone's views on gender identity/ideology the Hate Crime Bill is a terribly bad piece of legislation. It is ill-conceived, poorly written and is already completely ineffective. Any with half a brain should have been able to se that it was destined to fail.

ArabellaScott · 04/04/2024 18:58

AlecTrevelyan006 · 04/04/2024 18:30

Jonathan Pie's take: "the wording of this law is committing its own crime" :)

s

Edited

It's not quite accurate: that's from the police scotland hate monster campaign.

Vod · 04/04/2024 19:22

Sickofatrocity · 04/04/2024 18:32

The law is there to stop hate crime. Rowling is blowing it up into something it is not. This is a non-issue.

Whatever else this might be, it's not a non-issue. The implementation and enforcement of this law are both of clear legal and political significance, as is the clarification she's been able to force.

RedToothBrush · 04/04/2024 19:36

Vod · 04/04/2024 19:22

Whatever else this might be, it's not a non-issue. The implementation and enforcement of this law are both of clear legal and political significance, as is the clarification she's been able to force.

Show quote history

If it was a non-issue why was anyone worried about it and why did it need clarification to say that It wasn't a hate crime, a non-hate crime log wouldn't be made and that the same applies to Humza too?!!

Arraminta · 04/04/2024 19:44

Jux · 04/04/2024 18:41

Every time she comes under fire like this I buy another of her books.

Me too! I now have everything she has ever written and in hardback. She's worth every penny.

Datun · 04/04/2024 23:48

Sickofatrocity · 04/04/2024 18:32

The law is there to stop hate crime. Rowling is blowing it up into something it is not. This is a non-issue.

Rowling didn't do anything. It was in India Willoughby who reported Rowling's words to the police.

Claiming Rolling's tweets had stirred up a massive amount of hate, two days before the 'stirring up hate' bill was implemented.

Someone was blowing it up into something it isn't, but it wasn't JK Rowling.

I know some people think that women should just lie down when men try to have them arrested for stating reality, but they don't normally advertise themselves on a site read by hundreds of thousands of those women.

Witcheroo · 05/04/2024 16:38

I actually can't stand Harry Potter fantasy nonsense, but I've bought every book of hers in the last few years.

Wonderful woman.

Rainbowshit · 05/04/2024 17:54

Sickofatrocity · 04/04/2024 18:32

The law is there to stop hate crime. Rowling is blowing it up into something it is not. This is a non-issue.

JKR is far from the only person saying it's a threat to free speech.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 05/04/2024 18:12

Witcheroo · 05/04/2024 16:38

I actually can't stand Harry Potter fantasy nonsense, but I've bought every book of hers in the last few years.

Wonderful woman.

If you want to support her but don't particularly like her books, why not donate to Lumos instead? Or is the idea to boost sales figures of her books to counteract the narrative that she has been cancelled?

Undertherockpool · 05/04/2024 18:34

What does this act aim to achieve that the laws that stood previously could not?

i have yet to find anyone able to answer this question.