JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    OR, and hear me out, you could just not be a total asshole? Maybe have a baseline of tolerance and respect for the people who made you a billionaire? No? Then fuck right off and accept the consequences of your hatred.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It seems billionaires have really wacked out midlife crises. Instead of buying expensive cars and cheating on their partners, they come out as terfy nazis, build hate platforms, and crash companies. I mean to be fair, at this point the sample size is only two, JKKK Rowling and Musk, but it’s still surprising that it’d happen twice.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Bill Gates started a charity.

        Steve Jobs killed himself because he thought he knew better than his doctors. Well, that’s wacked out too, but at least it’s not being a Nazi…

      • thyme@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I think a factor with some of them, probably both the ones you mentioned, is that they can’t handle criticism. So when they get any push back they double down. Then they get drawn into conservative nonsense that reinforces their beliefs. Then it’s a downward spiral as they get radicalized far beyond their original positions.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          To be fair, you just described my mother to a tee. She’s a narcissist and has managed to alienate everyone from her life.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      So you would like it to be enshrined in law that it is acceptable for whoever holds power to arrest people whom they believe to be assholes?

      • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime. Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society. They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice. Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime.

          I’m not sure there is a difference with this law.

          Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society.

          I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.

          They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice.

          What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.

          Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.

          Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn’t be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.

          A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive,” with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.

          • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant, they refuse to abide by the mutual contract of tolerance so they don’t deserve the protections of a tolerant society.

            JKR isn’t just doing a little bit of free speech she is a billionaire advocating for hate on a massive platform and donating to hate groups, she has influence and power. She is absolutely advocating for the restriction on trans peoples rights, that is violence. Especially in a time when anti trans hate is on the rise we should be even more skeptical of claims of free speech, right now across the world hate crimes against trans people are going up and our rights are being stripped away.

            Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread. Stop defending hate.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Until the intolerance of the intolerant is applied to not tolerate you… You see hate crime laws being used to defend religions from criticism for example.

              • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                Fulfulde
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Oh my what ever might that be like, having to deal with intolerance. I never have to deal with that nope. Nope it’s definitely not a daily occurrence for pretty much all trans people.

                But the transphobes get to advocate for my erasure and that’s just free speech… yep makes sense… totally fair and balanced

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  What? I think you missed what I was saying. For example they could argue criticism of their religion is itself intolerant and should therefore be illegal.

                  • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    Fulfulde
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    So… we should just let bigots get their way and let them continue to successfully advocate for the rights of trans people and other minorities to be stripped away because they might also try to do a religious theocracy?