JKR vs Police Scotland?

[IcakethereforeIam]

Tras are trying to get JKR arrested.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/10/trans-activists-scottish-police-arrest-jk-rowling-crime/

https://archive.ph/5TEU4 highland fling yourself over the paywall, cos Scottish!

Thought to give IW a break.

The Hate Crime...crime(?) comes into force on 1st April, according to the article. The SNP has not engaged with any of the organisations who have expressed concerns and no-one knows what, if any, training the Police have been given.

This whole situation in a wider context suggests that we are no longer living in a democracy. It bears most of the traits of a totalitarian state - forcible control, coercion, repression, a growing ideology, replacing social and traditional norms with others, dissent crushed and demonised. I don't think this is too extreme a viewpoint, not now. I wish I was joking too, Arabella, but it worries me.

Surely two can play at that game. Who is to stop a GC reporting IW’s many hateful utterances? Is trying to prevent my lawful expression of my GC views hateful under the law if it is hateful to me?

lechiffre55 · Today 10:29

One woman wrote her protest request in icing on a cake, and the police had no choice to process it.

That reminds me of the person in Newcastle, who wrote their Poll Tax cheque on a banana, the council initially refused to accept it, but received legal advice that they had to.

It went off, by the time they'd come to bank it!

Brendan O'Neill's written an article about the shitshow in Canada, which is further down the road than Scotland and looks set to go further

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/10/how-canada-became-a-cauldron-of-authoritarianism/

I think 'having fathered children' would rather cast doubt on the uncervixable nature of IW's cervix anyway.

Poor old unworthy cervix.

That’s a great read I can see scotland rushing there as well- from article below

Let’s be clear: the Western elites’ war on ‘hate’ is a war on freedom. From Canada to Ireland to Scotland, and all over Europe, laws are being enacted or proposed that would punish what is fundamentally an emotion, a thought, a feeling: hate. My view is that no emotion or thought or utterance should ever be punished – only action; only actual behaviour that harms person or property. I’m with Émile Zola. ‘Hatred is sacred’, he wrote. ‘It is the indignation of strong and powerful hearts, and the militant scorn of those who are angered by stupidity and mediocrity.’ ‘There is no crime in having one’s own opinion, and the freedom to express it should be absolute’, Zola said. Can someone tweet that at Justin Trudeau? Not a Canadian citizen, ideally – we wouldn’t want you to be arrested.

I'm sure this will work perfectly, just so long as we don't have any police with a grudge, or misogynist police.*

It's very clear who this law will protect and who it will threaten.

*I say 'police'; it's unclear whether third party reporting centres, such as libraries, community centres etc and their staff will have similar powers to record crimes as Hate Crimes as police.

Another Spiked article, from Richard Dawkins, on 'phobia', and how rational fears are being turned into irrational 'phobias' and criminalised:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/04/some-fears-about-islam-are-entirely-rational/

Everyone should report and tie the police in knots.

This police Scotland- how can’t any women trust them - from Sunday post yesterday

He said: “The relentless ­campaign led by the Sunday Post to expose the appalling failures in cases like the murder of Louise Aitchison and Adrienne McCartney, the abused mother driven to take her own life after police and the justice system failed her, highlighted the same patterns of officer behaviour that was prevalent when Emma was murdered.
“When the Sunday Post went on to further expose the bullying and misogyny directed at so many female officers that they were quitting the force, like Gemma MacRae, the then Chief Constable Iain Livingstone finally had to admit what everyone else could see – Police Scotland is sexist and misogynistic.
“For a Chief Constable to have to make that statement was an astonishing moment in time. It was inevitable when Livingstone then stepped away, he was replaced by a woman, Chief Constable Joanna Farrell.
“But the sexism and ­misogyny didn’t disappear overnight.
“No matter how many ‘new’ initiatives and protestations there have been, my work representing women like Adrienne McCartney shows the culture of not properly dealing with abused women continues.
“There were countless women reporting being attacked and raped by Emma’s killer, Iain Packer, who saw no action by police because they were sex workers and, as a result, many opportunities to jail a dangerous predator were lost.
“Much of that same type of attitude towards women ­continues today.

I'm not a PR specialist but I imagine being in the headlines for letting a misogynistic murderer and serial rapist roam free to commit crimes for years and then redirecting your efforts to arresting the world's most famous living author for failing to lie is not a great move. I mean, heavens forfend if I come over all a bit Daily Mail and everything, but could they not go and arrest a few burglars?

I thought the hatred was in the eye of the reporting person, rather than that there would be an assessment of hate by the allegedly objective policeman with his rainbow lanyard..?

Has IW thought this through? The law (if it does apply to this situation) won't just apply to JKR, it will apply to everyone in Scotland. If enough people have a "I am Spartacus" moment and tweet the prohibited assertion, Police Scotland could become paralysed with tens of thousands of hate crimes to investigate. Plus it would be the Streisand Effect for IW, drawing attention to something IW doesn't want people to acknowledge.

This would be HILARIOUS

My bad, arabella is right, the wording seems to be as below, so I guess our rainbow lanyarded policeman will be deciding whether it’s reasonable to find something abusive or insulting:

i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be
threatening, abusive or insulting

I think most of us could lay claim to cross dressing and therefore be protected under this? I for one buy men's slippers as women's are too small. My steel toecap boots are also from the men's section. As Pips Bunce shows, you don't have to be doing it full time...

I wear trousers pretty much all the time, am I trans then? News to me.

As I've said before many times, identifying as "non binary" requires zero effort.

'K. So while the SNP run around re enacting The Death of Stalin, let's those of us watching in bafflement that somehow these absolute muppets got into positions of responsibility instead of being guided to the sun room with a nice magazine, reflect for a moment.

How do we think this is going to affect policing by consent, boys, girls, theys and others? Respect for the police and the law? How about positive relationships between groups?

What happens generally, historically speaking, when you push a captive population too far and they lose patience with you?

Terrified compliance is generally a very short lived point between 'peaceful society' and 'totally fucked off and done with it'.

This could really be hard on the Police. Imagine they arrest a person with a protected characteristic. That person, some random passing stranger, anyone who learns about it could allege that the arrest, the complaint that led to the arrest was motivated in part by hatred.

I think ScotGov is relying too much on people being reasonable. The emotionally incontinent, the most victimised, mischief makers and grifters aren't reasonable but they can fake it.

Fortunately for them Tiffany Scott (Gawd rest his soul) is no longer with us. He'd have had such fun with this!

Taking the complaint, deciding it's not reasonable. Telling the complainant it's not reasonable, dealing with that. Dealing with appeals. These all take time. Even if it's initially deal with by some sort of call centre triage, this has to be staffed and paid for. And in all this noise there will be genuine, serious cases that will be lost. Not to mention other crimes that will inevitably be neglected.

Wonder how this sits with Sunak's comment about mob rule over taking democratic rule?

Which has happened, in part, because of the abject failure of the sitting government to prevent or face up to, never mind deal with, political capture. And policy and law actually being re written by political lobby groups and sold as the truth without this being really criticised or challenged at all, let alone dealt with.

I just bought a new black jumper from the Men's section of Zara so I guess I'm a cross-dresser too

I mean, ffs

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

cross-dresser
noun
noun: crossdresser

1. a person who wears clothing typical of the other sex.

This IS the definition.

There must be a massively significant percentage of women who fit it.

And, just like non-binary, you can acquire it whenever you like. It doesn't say you always have to wear those clothes.

Did you ever buy a men's shirt? Bingo! You've got the protected characteristic in terms of hate crime.

Meet Jane Fonda - famous cross-dresser.

I think most of us could lay claim to cross dressing and therefore be protected under this? I for one buy men's slippers as women's are too small. My steel toecap boots are also from the men's section. As Pips Bunce shows, you don't have to be doing it full time...
Honestly, if this all goes really badly wrong, this would be my defence. I'm a cross dressing non binary. Please prove I'm not you hateful police officer bigot (since they are the ones who ultimately decide whether to hand it to cps).

Useless said (according to the bbc)

He said: "To those who think they may accidentally somehow fall foul of the law... because they believe sex is immutable, or they believe an adult man cannot become a female or they campaign for the rights of Palestinians... or those that proselytise that same-sex relationships are sinful, none of these people would fall foul of the stirring up of hatred offence for solely stating their belief - even if they did so in a robust manner.
"Why? Because solely stating any belief, which I accept may be offensive to some, is not breaching the criminal threshold.

JKR could have a fun time quoting useless to the plod.

I'd love to hear the howls of ourage if JKR said she was non binary on twitter.
After all, no one is allowed to question identity for ANY reason.