Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

JKR exposing Scottish hate crime laws for what they are

1000 replies

LargeSquareRock · 01/04/2024 12:14

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1774747068944265615?s=61&t=NHDSDk1MaF98_GOtcuLi0Q

OP posts:
Thread gallery
91
Chersfrozenface · 03/04/2024 11:15

Does the / any Scottish legislation define "religious organisation" in "(b) membership of or adherence to a church or religious organisation"?

Can a group establish their own "religion" such as the witchy one above or Pastafarianism, and be covered by the legislation?

I note that the Charity Commission has opined that Jediism is not a recognised religion, but in light of the article I linked to earlier, I'm not sure how much the Commission's arguments would stand up to a challenge

Keeprejoining · 03/04/2024 11:21

Asking for a friend, I see Humza has been reported multiple times under the new hate crime law.
if one was to report Nicola Sturgeon for mis gendering Isla Byson , I believe she said she was rapist gender, would my friend put her address down as the Scottish Parliament.?

Cantseethewoodforthetrees44 · 03/04/2024 11:26

On the subject of unisex toilets. My worst experience was a last minute dash to unisex toilets during an interval at the theatre. I was washing my hands in the sinks opposite the cubicles. A man walked in and started to unzip his trousers before entering the cubicle. I will say it felt extremely uncomfortable & actually gave me quite a shock. The man also in a rush to get back to his seat was probably just acting the way he would when entering a men only toilet but that's the point. Women shouldn't be subjected to this, or have the fear of being subjected to it.

SerendipityJane · 03/04/2024 11:26

Chersfrozenface · 03/04/2024 11:15

Does the / any Scottish legislation define "religious organisation" in "(b) membership of or adherence to a church or religious organisation"?

Can a group establish their own "religion" such as the witchy one above or Pastafarianism, and be covered by the legislation?

I note that the Charity Commission has opined that Jediism is not a recognised religion, but in light of the article I linked to earlier, I'm not sure how much the Commission's arguments would stand up to a challenge

Religion.
Life.
Intelligence;.

All things which defy definition in any other terms but their own.

This isn't a criticism. Merely an observation. It means that there is no settled science on any of them. There may be some sort of consensus. But it is not definitive. Which means if you press hard enough (and believe me, I have) you eventually meet that brick wall of "because we say so".

This matters, because as this thread shows, we live in a world where people can make shit up and [try to] require the rest of use to live by it.

KellieJaysLapdog · 03/04/2024 11:28

Keeprejoining · 03/04/2024 11:21

Asking for a friend, I see Humza has been reported multiple times under the new hate crime law.
if one was to report Nicola Sturgeon for mis gendering Isla Byson , I believe she said she was rapist gender, would my friend put her address down as the Scottish Parliament.?

Seems like a good idea.

Your friend should probably consider using a VPN when filling out the form.

Thread 2 anyone?

Chersfrozenface · 03/04/2024 11:35

Keeprejoining · 03/04/2024 11:21

Asking for a friend, I see Humza has been reported multiple times under the new hate crime law.
if one was to report Nicola Sturgeon for mis gendering Isla Byson , I believe she said she was rapist gender, would my friend put her address down as the Scottish Parliament.?

Your friend could start with the Scottish Parliament's website, where there is an alphabetical lust of MSPs, with contact details.
https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 11:36

ErrolTheDragon · 03/04/2024 09:34

I hadn't noticed. Shit... that's quite sinister.
Hm, inclined to think that may be more (or at least double whammy) of making this a blasphemy law. Protecting religion rather than 'religion or belief' sounds like privileging religious people and discrimination against atheists/anyone without an actual religious affiliation.

I'd like to see a high profile non-religious person or two following JKRs example to test this.

I agree that it seems a way of sneaking a blasphemy law in undercover, too, in the same way that it is slipping "gender-identity protection" , but not "sex protection".

Some religious affiliations are more sensitive to criticism - or even comment - than others.

Personally I agree with Ricky Gervais on this - nothing and no-one should be above valid criticism, debate, or indeed, mockery. The first things any dictator imposes are restrictions on the truth, and a ban on humour criticising the regime, and that's what we are seeing creeping in here. Every faith or belief, and indeed, every lack of faith or belief, should be subject to scrutiny, debate and having the piss taken out of it.

That is what actually prevents "hate"- when people can make their feelings and fears known to others and have them taken seriously and considered. When people are stopped from speaking, and especially when they are fed a diet of lies and half-truths, as so many dysphoric children are, then it becomes a press cooker of emotion, leaving people frightened and angry.

There is a huge difference between "I don't believe that anyone can change sex, but if you want to dress a particular way, then go ahead", and whipping up a wave of violence against transpeople.

And pretending that not acknowledging someone's "preferred pronouns" is more brutal than a 20-something man punching a 70 year-old woman in the face is farcical.

Edit spelling. I've probably missed other spellings too. Apologies

borntobequiet · 03/04/2024 11:36

Chersfrozenface · 03/04/2024 11:15

Does the / any Scottish legislation define "religious organisation" in "(b) membership of or adherence to a church or religious organisation"?

Can a group establish their own "religion" such as the witchy one above or Pastafarianism, and be covered by the legislation?

I note that the Charity Commission has opined that Jediism is not a recognised religion, but in light of the article I linked to earlier, I'm not sure how much the Commission's arguments would stand up to a challenge

When a petition was submitted to Parliament to make paganism a recognised religion in 2021, it was rejected for being too vague, but with this comment:

People who identify as pagans can already enter paganism as their religion on the census and be counted as such, for example. Further, pagans are protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because they are of a particular religion.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/596667

Petition: To make paganism a recognised religion in the UK. & legalise pagan weddings ect.

We would like the UK government to recognise & accept paganism as a religion. We also urge the UK government to strongly consider accepting/legalising pagan marriages, hand fasting ceremonies, rituals ect We would also like some sacred grounds to perfo...

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/596667

Chersfrozenface · 03/04/2024 11:41

borntobequiet · 03/04/2024 11:36

When a petition was submitted to Parliament to make paganism a recognised religion in 2021, it was rejected for being too vague, but with this comment:

People who identify as pagans can already enter paganism as their religion on the census and be counted as such, for example. Further, pagans are protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because they are of a particular religion.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/596667

Paganism is not a religion but pagans are protected from discrimination since it's illegal to discriminate against someone because they are of a particular religion.

No logic fail at all. FFS.

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 11:42

Boiledbeetle · 03/04/2024 10:15

So, on a different thread about our Queen NitroNine wrote:

With apologies to, er, JKR &, um, anyone who happens to have eyes:

Rowling is our Queen,
Rowling is our Queen,
She didn't let the Bad Law win
Rowling is our Queen.

Rowling thinks of ev’rything,
Her plans are all-encompassing,
That's why FWR all sing:
Rowling is our Queen.

Having fed it into the AI it has come up with the following

https://app.suno.ai/song/ebe15fd4-5654-4e2e-98db-e781e6a819c7

Very nice - but not rousing enough for me to envisage the Spanish Foreign Legion marching in double-time (with a goat, and possibly carrying Jesus) to it.

For heaven's sake- help an old wumman with her fantasies, will you?

(You get some nice album covers, mind)Grin

SerendipityJane · 03/04/2024 11:43

an alphabetical lust of MSPs

Some typos really do suggest a divine intelligence ....

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 11:45

SerendipityJane · 03/04/2024 10:38

Meanwhile, this tickled me

Amid reports that more than 3,000 complaints have been received so far, the minister also revealed a false complaint had been made in her name.

Ms Brown said she had been “surprised” to receive a call from Police Scotland about a complaint she was said to have made on Monday, the day the legislation came into force.
Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme on Wednesday, she said: “Obviously this was a fake complaint that someone had done anonymously in my name and gave my office number.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/jk-rowling-minister-police-scotland-ally-mccoist-community-b2522560.html

Someone has fibbed?

<shocked gasp>. 😮

Who could have possibly seen that coming?

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 11:48

KellieJaysLapdog · 03/04/2024 10:42

A group of lesbian feminists formed a church in the US - I wonder if we can join them from here?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2018/08/03/lesbians-want-a-church-of-their-own-and-irs-approves/

Edited

Sadly, it seems irreconcilable with my own, solid, CofE beliefs, otherwise I would be there in a heartbeat.

RedToothBrush · 03/04/2024 11:49

BackToLurk · 03/04/2024 11:02

The Scottish act defines the characteristic

(a)religious belief or lack of religious belief,

(b)membership of or adherence to a church or religious organisation,

(c)support for the culture or traditions of a church or religious organisation,

(d)participation in activities associated with such a culture or such traditions.

If we can define that gender identity is, in effect, a religious belief then by default we also define being gender critical as, in effect, a lack of that religious belief.

This would actually then protect anyone who did not follow Gender Identity Religion.

Given the very concept of 'being born in the wrong body' and the idea that its not a medical issue and that you don't have to have a god to be religion, and it being at odds with biology and scientific findings a good lawyer could argue the case on these terms too FOR being Gender Critical.

But the point is you have to get to the lawyer stage (where costs and stress are involved) to demonstrate this and have it legally set out in precedent.

Ironically it would be to the BENEFIT of those who are Gender Critical to essentially have this done in the long run to head off all the subsequent ongoing threats of 'you are committing a hate crime' to have gender critical beliefs protected in law in various different ways because it stops Stonewall Law AND it also raises serious questions about the logging of hate non-crimes (which probably breach GDPR anyway because what is the legitimate purpose and aim of storing information about someone's religious / non religious views if they are perfectly legal? The only purpose they can be used for is for discriminatory ones) AND it raises questions about vexatious and malicious reporting of Gender Critical women as a form of harassment, coercion and intimidation (which arguably it is - and we can see from the use of language from certain penatrative useful idiots and their friends).

The more publicity JKR can generate the more women are protected without the benefit of a Show Trial. Its one of those 'no such thing as bad publicity' scenarios.

JKR has stopped someone else being the victim of the much wanted Show Trial. But the outcome of a Show Trial was probably always likely to be in favour of GC Women anyway. The benefit of a Show Trial probably wasn't ever going to be establish Trans Gender Rights in the way activists hope. They didn't want a Show Trial. They wanted an easy target who would struggle to defend themselves legally and it would be the silencing effect of process and public humilation that was the aim. The whole 'under the radar' approach we've seen repeated. Stick a person who has the ability to defend themselves well, using the actual law in the dock and the whole thing falls apart.

The dynamics themselves well illustrate the issues of abuse of power by the state and various powerful institutions against the individual and why we have the ECHR and the Human Rights Act (which is all about combatting abuses of power) and why the traditions of British Media have been all about holding power to account through effectively whistleblowing.

The second you say, 'you can't say that' and kill the concept of 'in the public interest' you have killed ALL human rights protections and ALL whistleblowing protections because you had ALL power to those who make law and enforce law (this includes by social pressure to conform as well as actual law and abuse of law).

I'm NOT a lawyer nor have I studied law but understanding these concepts about power dynamics are a crucial part of studying media. If you study media you should be looking at the workings of liberal democracy to a decent level. I know that I covered the Three Pillars before University too.

(The Three Pillars are the Justice System, the Media and the Elected State where the other two always hold the third to account in terms of power in a liberal democracy - there are massive issues with this balance being off in various Western Democracies at the moment - in part because of a technology change in communication. The last big technology change coincided with the French Revolution and US War of Independence. Misinformation was a HUGE part of the propaganda for both and it took time for this to settle into an situation where the law caught up with the abuses of power from this. But it did. We are seeing similar now).

Look at the media backgrounds to MN's founders. It will tell you everything you need to know. They got this all along too imho.

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 11:53

Datun · 03/04/2024 10:49

In making very loud noises about in the public interest, JKR enlists/conscripts the media on the subject - the media CANNOT standby and allow it to pass without comment because it has massive implications for that.

I didn't know that.

The podcast about her, The Witch Trials of J. K. Rowling was very interesting. Even before this all started, she was an apparently, one of the most, if not the most banned author in history, on the grounds of promoting witchcraft, or something.

And she was unprepared for her influence and how profound it became. And felt incredibly responsible for how youngsters were viewing her. She would go onto fan sites, anonymously, and listen to what they were saying and interact. She became friends with quite a few of them.

I should imagine her legal team is huge, and diverse. It will have to deal with so many different aspects of law.

So I can easily imagine them giving her all the possible ways she could deal with this, including, as you say, the defence of in the public interest, in order to pull the media along with her.

Her trajectory so far has been fairly faultless. Once she decided to go for it, she picked her words incredibly carefully. I don't think there's been a single misstep.

And she's now taking on an entire government.

As an addendum to her story The Witch Trials of J K Rowling, taking on the Scottish government seems like a strangely inevitable part of that journey.

I don't think I've ever anticipated the next chapter more.

As stories go, it's an absolute page turner.

Edited

I would add that one of the signs of great intelligence is being aware of one's own shortcomings/lack of knowledge, and consulting people who DO have the appropriate skills, not just thinking "I are a Grate Brane - I do this by Self" as many of our politicians, and others in the public gaze seem to do.

JKR knows when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em. And she knows when to consult and who to consult, and isn't too arrogant to do the necessary.

Boiledbeetle · 03/04/2024 11:56

Before this thread ends I would just like to say:

JKR exposing Scottish hate crime laws for what they are
Ohyoudodoyou · 03/04/2024 11:59

I'm openly all over social media now with this and so many people are supportive. Fantastic result for the Marvel that is JKR. Since she laid her first big fat egg of solid fuck (thank you Malcolm Tucker) things have become fun for us again!

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 12:00

SerendipityJane · 03/04/2024 11:07

Oh I see. Well I guess the legislation would protect beliefs which are officially recognised as a religion. Probably characterised by things like having religious texts, places of worship, rituals etc.

So why isn't Jedi a religion ?

By all means, let's have "state approved religions". At least there would be some honesty about the charade.

However the starting point is that all religions are madey uppy. Any attempt to live otherwise is going to end in tears, if not centuries of senseless violence, persecution and oppression,.

So why isn't Jedi a religion ?

Many have tried it.

I think it falls down on the religious texts etc stuff. Also I doubt that any of the "adherents" are prepared to follow the strict physical and mental training required to discipline the mind enough to move solid objects by use of the Force alone.

Maybe if they were able to do that they'd have more credence.

Other religions don't expect you to be able to throttle a space Admiral by twiddling your fingers at him from across the room, so I expect these less strict criteria make the requirements easier to adhere to.

RedToothBrush · 03/04/2024 12:01

Keeprejoining · 03/04/2024 11:21

Asking for a friend, I see Humza has been reported multiple times under the new hate crime law.
if one was to report Nicola Sturgeon for mis gendering Isla Byson , I believe she said she was rapist gender, would my friend put her address down as the Scottish Parliament.?

Heres a thing.

If he has been reported, the non-crime report in theory should appear on any enhanced DBS he has hence forward.

If it DOES comes up on his enhanced DBS its potentially a problem for security clearance working in sensitive areas. If all cases are treated the same and all people are equal thats one thing... If he is treated differently from others for committing a non-crime and is allowed to work when others are barred from work for committing a non-crime is it discriminatory or an abuse of power?

If its not coming up on his DBS and non-crimes come up on other people's DBS's is he abusing his position of privilege and power and is this making a mockery of the concept of everyone being treated as equal in the eyes of the law. Why are his being disregarded but others stay as a matter of record? Is it because some are being treated as malicious and vexatious? And if this is the case, why don't we see some prosecutions for wasting police time? (Or could it be because the whole system of reporting is a fucking farce because the police can't trace anyone?) If some are being treated as malicious and vexatious, why aren't others? Particularly if those who fall foul of it, share a protected characteristic in anyway. It may count as either discrimination or indirect discrimination.

Theres a whole PILE of issues with non-crime recording and data retention here that is just waiting for a legal case to blow a bomb through it as being unlawful.

But yes. Until then.

The law is an ass.

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 12:03

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 03/04/2024 11:07

I binge listened to that podcast, and I think I will probably have to listen to it a second time.

I actually found the first two episodes the most interesting, because they covered a lot of material and perspectives I was previously unaware of, whereas I am now very familiar with her stance on women's rights vs trans rights, as well as the various opposing viewpoints.

I thought it was very clever the way those first two episodes, without really focusing directly on the trans debate, lay the foundations for the curious listener to ask themselves some difficult questions later on.

So for example, in the first episode about the censorship of the Harry Potter books, there were two standout points for me. One was that the attorney who was hired by the parents who wanted the books banned fought that litigation without ever having read the books. He later read them, decided for himself that they were actually very good books and not at all promoting witchcraft or an evil agenda, and was glad that he had lost that case. Credit to him where it's due for admitting that he was wrong, but I still can't believe he took that case all the way to court without having even read the books. Especially since at the time only the first few books had been published, so it wouldn't have taken him more than a few days to read them. I think there's a strong parallel here with the people who denounce her for her transphobic views without actually having taken the time to read what she has said about the subject and decide for themselves. The other important point is that the people who were trying to have her books banned in the late 1990s are the very same people she is now being accused of being in league with. Religious conservatives. How likely is it, really, that JK Rowling is capable of being radicalised by the same people who tried and failed to have her cancelled 25 years ago for writing a book for children about witches and wizards?

Then in the second episode, about the early fandoms, I thought there was a lot of interesting content which goes some way towards explaining why the LGBTQ community is so disappointed in her. It explains that a lot of the most passionate Harry Potter fans in the early days were children who were abused at home or bullied at school and basically had very miserable childhoods, and many of whom grew up believing that they were different and didn't fit in, and later became gay or trans adults. It's not difficult to see why those people particularly identified with a series of books about a boy who was mistreated for his whole childhood until one day someone came along and told him he was special and whisked him off to a magical world where he was a hero who ended up saving the world for a second time. A lot of those kids saw themselves in Harry Potter, and appreciated the strong anti-bullying message in the books as well as the overall theme of good triumphing over evil. And they then "met" each other in these online chat rooms where they bonded with loads of other very similar kids and built a community together where they constructed a huge part of their own identities around these books. Then, years later, JK Rowling, their heroine, starts saying things about trans issues, which make her millennial LGBTQ fan base feel that she has completely invalidated their personal identities. That must have been incredibly painful for them. But at the same time, in the episode she alludes to the fact that she never expected or wanted to be put on a pedestal by these people simply for having written a series of books that they loved. When you are put on a pedestal like that you have a long way to fall. And frankly, the fact that they love her books shouldn't mean that she can no longer express her own opinions for fear of upsetting people who love her books but disagree with her opinions.

Anyway, this post was very long but hopefully I've sparked some interest in this podcast, which is really very, very good.

Edited

Really interesting and though-provoking post - thank you.

And I haven't listened to the podcasts, but I will now.

SerendipityJane · 03/04/2024 12:06

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 12:00

So why isn't Jedi a religion ?

Many have tried it.

I think it falls down on the religious texts etc stuff. Also I doubt that any of the "adherents" are prepared to follow the strict physical and mental training required to discipline the mind enough to move solid objects by use of the Force alone.

Maybe if they were able to do that they'd have more credence.

Other religions don't expect you to be able to throttle a space Admiral by twiddling your fingers at him from across the room, so I expect these less strict criteria make the requirements easier to adhere to.

You are falling into the trap of trying to compare two differing fairy stories and wondering why your TV won't work.

All religions are made up. No matter how old. How cute. How sensible. They are all just things that people made up over time.

You may as well ask "how can I tell a real psychic ?"

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 12:08

SerendipityJane · 03/04/2024 11:43

an alphabetical lust of MSPs

Some typos really do suggest a divine intelligence ....

😂😂😂

"The moving finger writes . . . "

(Well spotted! Serendipity)

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 03/04/2024 12:12

This thread is about to fill up. Thanks for the really interesting discussion, everyone!

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 12:15

SerendipityJane · 03/04/2024 12:06

You are falling into the trap of trying to compare two differing fairy stories and wondering why your TV won't work.

All religions are made up. No matter how old. How cute. How sensible. They are all just things that people made up over time.

You may as well ask "how can I tell a real psychic ?"

Well, it's pretty obvious to me that the Devil. is what buggered up my TV (and the washing machine, the bastard - I can forgive the telly, but . . . ).

Chersfrozenface · 03/04/2024 12:18

Emotionalsupportviper · 03/04/2024 12:08

😂😂😂

"The moving finger writes . . . "

(Well spotted! Serendipity)

Does that mean I am a conduit for automatic writing?

Hang on, isn't there a Spiritualist church? (some time later) Ooh, there's actually one in my city!

Are Spiritualists in the same position as Pagans i.e. their religion isn't recognised in law but they mustn't be discriminated against since it's illegal to discriminate against someone because they are of a particular religion?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.