JKR's tweet may soon be criminalised

[Nicetoolshed]

www.heraldscotland.com/news/18552926.agenda-proposed-new-law-make-jk-rowling-criminal/

Siablue, that is a very good question.

As we're all doing the dreaded homeschooling at the moment, I was listening into my DD's science lesson. She's 12 and in year 7.

The lesson was variations - environmental vs hereditary - and the science teacher VERY clearly distinguished between biological sex - male and female - and gender.

I tell you, it was music to my ears - I'm so sick of reading the rebuttals to JRK's tweets, where they all waffle on about sex being spectrum, or worse still, say biological sex doesn't exist.

I mean, where can this end? Are they ACTUALLY going to start interfering with science lessons with their gender woo-woo? They can't... can they? What about when it's more advanced - A level? They can't start teaching "sex is a spectrum" then - because it just isn't.

If it's still part of academic science, and science lessons - how can a woman be imprisoned, or threatened with prison for saying it?

Jesus, what next? Are we all going to be made to carve 'I must not tell lies' into the backs of our hands?

I don't think all these people trying to cancel JKR actually understood Harry Potter when they read it. They'd all be jumping up and down volunteering for Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad...

There’s one interesting point on this new Bill that I haven’t yet seen any press comment on ( and which could be productive of some amusement). The Bill also protects nationality and national origins so all the anti-English rhetoric beloved by some elements of the Nationalist lobby may be problematic....the law of unintended consequences

Well, they can stimulate their post-Covid economy building lots of new courtrooms and prisons; they're going to need them!

Not yet the law, this merely an opinion piece written by a legal analyst about the proposed new Hate Crime Bill.

There is yet another consultation going on about it, and there will be several stages for the Bill to go through parliament afterwards. At each stage, MSPs get to vote yay or nay to the proposal.

FAOD there are a lot of issues with the proposal, not just about the recent women's rights debate all of which are rooted in the refusal to specify an objective way of weighing up the offense and in the way that it seems to go beyond the existing principle of "there can be no hate crime without a crime" which would indeed interfere with people's freedoms of expression and belief.

Ironically, the proposal seeks to repeal an existing blasphemy law while introducing a de facto new one.

@Roomba

Jesus, what next? Are we all going to be made to carve 'I must not tell lies' into the backs of our hands?

I don't think all these people trying to cancel JKR actually understood Harry Potter when they read it. They'd all be jumping up and down volunteering for Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad...

I laughed at this, but it's true.

I also don't understand that if this is hate speech, why the abuse she received isn't.

Because sex is not a protected characteristic under the proposal. I was at one of the engagement sessions organised by the Scottish Government about the proposed Hate Crime Bill and it was clear that sex is going to be omitted because hate crime against women and girls is arguably the most common hate crime in the country and the police have made it clear that all of their time would go into dealing with crimes motivated or exacerbated by hatred against the female sex. Can't have that, can we?

I did wonder at the time if anyone would dare express this view about any other protected group. We know the answer is no, of course.

I don't think all these people trying to cancel JKR actually understood Harry Potter when they read it. They'd all be jumping up and down volunteering for Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad...

I think you're right!

I keep reading the tweets of people saying JKR has "ruined their childhoods" and how she "created a magical world where everyone could be themselves" - they missed the central theme of the books, which was anti-authoritarianism.

I've rarely seen a more authoritarian movement that the extreme transactivists who are going after her - telling people what they must think, what they are allowed to say, and shouting "heresy" at those who resist.

@Siablue

How can we teach biology if we are not allowed to talk about? Is science going to be a crime.

Ask Clarence Darrow ?

I don't understand what is deemed to be 'stirring up hate' in these tweets

There isn't anything. It literally is just that she does not agree with every single article of faith and she said so.

They label this "hate".

What really blows my mind is the failure of those in authority (and those from whom you'd expect some intelligence, clear thought and awareness of things like biology, history and psychology, like scientists, writers, journalists) to swat this BS down with the contempt it deserves. Instead, they wibble and quail and just... go along with it.

With every step the SNP takes the likelihood of my ever moving back to Scotland decreases. Took me a while to get why my dad can't stand them, but I get it now.

Yes. Woman not important in Scotland. Can’t have the police protecting women can we

After all my country s history in burning witches is very impressive was the most in Europe

So here we are again

Uppity women

And sturgeon the most committed feminist ever 😂😂😂😂

It would be ironic if JKR removed herself from Scotland, maybe even to somewhere outside the UK due to laws restricting her freedom of speech when she has made much of being happy to stay and pay her taxes.

Her children must be heading to leaving home age, her husband might be approaching retirement age, she would be free to upsticks and flounce. Obviously I don't think she's a flouncer but it would certainly make a point and deprive Scotland of probably its biggest taxpayer.

There was more than one place where witches were burned or otherwise tortured within walking distance of my high school. Seems like some of my countrymen are still looking around eagerly for witches to burn.

The cold gets harder to tolerate as you get older. Rowling should move someplace nice and warm where she can say whatever she likes.

I think Lois McLatchie who wrote the article knew what she was doing when she set that piece out. I hope more public writers are able to stick their neck out too.

I don’t know if people have just gone completely bonkers or we are missing something huge it just doesn’t make sense. Who is writing these laws in? Who is so big that they can force international companies to kowtow? Who is behind the curtain^?

She who also intends to make single sex spaces mixed-sex and obliterate ‘sex’ as a political and biological class and remove it as a demographic for government policy
I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for Nicola.

I wonder why politicians are so bad at maths. Women make up 50% of the population, most are just ordinary non woke folk because we, as a group of nation, hate extremes. Why would the SNP hang itself, or does it believe a law like this would enhance its cause for independence. Think again Nicola...

There is a Scot.gov “information note” on sex/gender. Basically says the Bill includes an enabling power to add ‘sex’ to its lists of characteristics. “This could be done at a later date, by regulations, once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and attained Royal Assent.”
It’s not explained why ‘sex’ is deferred- and it’s very tentative (‘if’, ‘could’ etc)

The Times had a few articles about this as well recently.
Here is Lois McLatchie's comment from yesterday:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3381be18-bb18-11ea-82eb-1588bf47a52f?shareToken=fde85eec04f6131bb3ace5565498d54d

and here is one about the justice secretary being accused of not understanding his proposed law:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/810c0eb0-b666-11ea-b6a1-482b5c73d91f?shareToken=b98feb24f2c1b38e096099b6d00f453c

I just did a Panelbase survey which was mostly about independence but it also had a question about the Scottish government proposing to change the definition of the word "woman" and if I'm in support of it or not.

and here is one about the justice secretary being accused of not understanding his proposed law:
How do these ineffectual numb skulls keep their jobs, never mind get them in the first place??

@peadarm

There is a Scot.gov “information note” on sex/gender. Basically says the Bill includes an enabling power to add ‘sex’ to its lists of characteristics. “This could be done at a later date, by regulations, once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and attained Royal Assent.” It’s not explained why ‘sex’ is deferred- and it’s very tentative (‘if’, ‘could’ etc)

peadarm I believe the reason for deferring the characteristic of 'sex' is due to lobbying by Engender, who claim to be a feminist organisation and to represent the voices of women in Scotland. During the government consultation, they recommended that a separate standalone offence of misogyny be created at a later date.

Since Engender are fully on board with TWAW mantra, and because the term woman is being redefined wholesale to include males... What would effectively happen is that trans women would be protected in hate crime laws (while women have no protection from hate crimes such as those inspired by incel ideology), while also enabling trans women to claim protection under the standalone misogyny legislation (trans activists talk a lot about 'transmisogyny' whatever that means).
I have no doubt a standalone offence of misogyny would be used by some trans activists against feminists - any criticism or opposition would be labelled as either a hate crime or misogynistic offence.

Sex must be included in the list of characteristics in the proposed Bill now, not later.

Oh, come ON, Scotland. FFS.

I just did a Panelbase survey which was mostly about independence but it also had a question about the Scottish government proposing to change the definition of the word "woman" and if I'm in support of it or not.

I wonder if that was Wings Over Scotland, who has done various surveys on this issue.

The TRAs wouldn't admit to changing the definition, so I think unlikely to be trans lobby.