She is becoming something of a caricature of herself, isn't she... When your most vocal "opposition" is the likes of a self-serving, self indulgent fool like India Willoughby, it really should be a slam dunk, but JKR is in grave danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm sure she's absolutely terrified a small gaggle of middle class pretend lefty poshos aren't fully in agreement with her approach while she defends women's sex-based rights.
The longer she stays unarrested, the more it proves the point that the Scottish legislation is not intended to, and does not, criminalise legitimate debate.
When your most vocal "opposition" is the likes of a self-serving, self indulgent fool like India Willoughby
How can you even have been paying even mild attention if you think that Jonathan is the "most vocal opposition"?
What about UK Government Ministers and HMG's opposition front bench members saying variously that babies are born "without a sex" or that men can gain a cervix "with the appropriate treatment"? Or that women can have penises?
And what about the Scottish Government's attempt to reform the GRA and remove sex-based rights through self-ID? Or indeed the new "hate" laws which came into effect today?
And what about the institutional capture of most Government departments and quangos and large corporates at Stonewall's behest in pursuit of rainbow washing?
As if Jonathan - who has BTW said that he has changed sex - is even remotely the most vocal critic FFS.
The longer she stays unarrested, the more it proves the point that the Scottish legislation is not intended to, and does not, criminalise legitimate debate.
Pretty mad as someone claiming to be a lawyer claims that either an arrest, or a non-arrest, proves anything, rather than the first conviction or appelate decision.
The legislation does contain the requirement for intent to stir up hatred. Hopefully that will result in anyone saying men are men not being arrested or charged.
IMO, the liklehood of there being no spurious arrests, seizure of property (to establsh intent) and ridiculous convictions is nil.
I'm just glad the Scotch are making all these stupid mistakes now to show Starmer what not to do, even if he can.
You said lack of an arrest. Singular. Not arresting Joanne Rowling doesn't prove anything. It will be the arrests of those not in high-progile positions and who lack resources which will be telling.
“The legislation does contain the requirement for intent to stir up hatred.”
Well quite, which is why whatever you think of JK’s beliefs or indeed the legislation itself, it’s kind of bananas she thinks actively goading the police into arresting her for what she’s saying isn’t just doing a great disservice to her arguments (never mind playing directly into the hands of her critics who believe she is only doing it to stir up hatred against trans people)
By which I mean, again putting aside the merits of her position, it’s not a good look to be saying “Look at me, stirring up hatred over here, what are you going to do, arrest me?”
As I understand it her position is that she isn’t trying to stir up hatred against anyone (and so wouldn’t be caught be the legislation anyway)?
Are you asserting someone couldn’t be arrested based on facts which could be criminal, subject to establishing intent, with a view to establishing intent through evidence gathered after arrest?
Her argument is that the legislation is ridiculous and invidious and she’s prepared to say whatever she wants, particularly when the things she says are factual, and she’s prepared to be arrested ahead of other people who won’t be able to defend themselves properly.
I’m not a criminal lawyer Face and so am not asserting anything.
There’s obviously a discussion over whether hate speech, or crimes generally, should be subject to their own area of law, but given that as a society we seem to have decided they are, the solution seems to be erm not to say or do hateful stuff against minorities (whatever your beliefs).
This is not a difficult concept to grasp and getting extremely het up about it is a bad look.
If what she’s saying on twitter or whatever isn’t hateful, there’s no issue.
Do you think calling a trans-identified male male is hateful? Or “deadnaming” him is hateful? Or maintaining that single-sex spaces, services and activities should exist is hateful? Or that “misgendering” someone is hateful?
Well, I guess it can be or not depending on the circumstances. We’ve had hate crime legislation for decades, so presumably there’s case law on how and when intent can be evidenced.
Anyway I don’t think this is going to be productive so will leave you to your own opinions.
We haven’t had any when on their effective date another group sharing a protected characteristic under the same legislation doesn’t know whether stating facts will subject them to a potential 7 year prison sentence.
Sorry if you’ve not been paying attention properly.
@ Linorder: Jonathan Rowling is the name assigned at birth to the trans writer “Joanne” K Rowling a.k.a. Roberta Galbraith (writing as “Robert Galbraith”)
The longer she stays unarrested, the more it proves the point that the Scottish legislation is not intended to, and does not, criminalise legitimate debat
she has clearly not done or said anything that would break this law and the same would be equally clear had all the exact same things been said by someone penniless
the women-as-permanent-victims movement has nothing to fear from this law
Scottish prosecutor disagrees with you Laz, so there’s at least a suggestion you’re wrong. I know you boss everything you try, hence the Olympic cycling title and front bench political career, but maybe you’re not the expert on how this brand new law will be applied
Conspiracist, probable narcissist, disinformation super-spreader, useful idiot for authoritarians and almost certainly providing Putin, amongst others, with a golden opportunity to engage in online manipulation
She's showing up the ludicrousness of the new law and also helping to define parameters for its application (if she is not arrested for misgendering for her X post yesterday, that should provide cover for those speaking the truth in future).
She also made me actually LOL with her "last, but least" tweet.
There’s a good article in the Guardian around the legislative overreach of the new Scottish law - it’s not through the lens of the trans thing (thank fook) but raises concerns around criminalising “likely to cause offence” across a broad range of controversial topics - essentially stultifying debate in institutions where such debate should be taking place and replacing social censure with the blunt arm of the law - it’s not necessarily about actual charging either but the requirement to record various things as hate crimes, the impact police interaction will have on schools, unis, churches etc and chilling impact it may have on the quality of debate.
It’s like dropping insults from a section 5 public order offence - this is a good thing as groups with fundamentally different views should be allowed to insult with wide latitude, subject to certain limits (harassment, threats, workplace discrimination etc)
A more detailed thread showing why the English and Welsh hate laws are not the correct comparator and why the Law Commission advised against extending them to gender identity without a safeguard which doesn’t exist in the Scottish legislation
The problem with unlawful harassment, Bigbadbilly, is that it doesn’t require intent on the part of the harasser, as long as their words have the cause or effect of humiliating etc the recipient. If “misgendering” is found to have the purpose or effect of humiliating a trans-identified male, then a gender-critical person cannot express their protected philosophical belief. This would be entirely different to - for example - an atheist being permitted to say, respectfully, that they don’t believe in God, in the same way gender-critical don’t believe in gender identities
3
4
I cannot define a woman, but I can define a massive pain in the hole.
0
7
She is becoming something of a caricature of herself, isn't she... When your most vocal "opposition" is the likes of a self-serving, self indulgent fool like India Willoughby, it really should be a slam dunk, but JKR is in grave danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
4
4
I'm sure she's absolutely terrified a small gaggle of middle class pretend lefty poshos aren't fully in agreement with her approach while she defends women's sex-based rights.
2
3
The longer she stays unarrested, the more it proves the point that the Scottish legislation is not intended to, and does not, criminalise legitimate debate.
3
3
How can you even have been paying even mild attention if you think that Jonathan is the "most vocal opposition"?
What about UK Government Ministers and HMG's opposition front bench members saying variously that babies are born "without a sex" or that men can gain a cervix "with the appropriate treatment"? Or that women can have penises?
And what about the Scottish Government's attempt to reform the GRA and remove sex-based rights through self-ID? Or indeed the new "hate" laws which came into effect today?
And what about the institutional capture of most Government departments and quangos and large corporates at Stonewall's behest in pursuit of rainbow washing?
As if Jonathan - who has BTW said that he has changed sex - is even remotely the most vocal critic FFS.
1
4
Pretty mad as someone claiming to be a lawyer claims that either an arrest, or a non-arrest, proves anything, rather than the first conviction or appelate decision.
The legislation does contain the requirement for intent to stir up hatred. Hopefully that will result in anyone saying men are men not being arrested or charged.
IMO, the liklehood of there being no spurious arrests, seizure of property (to establsh intent) and ridiculous convictions is nil.
I'm just glad the Scotch are making all these stupid mistakes now to show Starmer what not to do, even if he can.
0
3
No, incorrect. A lack of arrests does demonstrate that a law is not in fact being used to oppress.
1
2
You said lack of an arrest. Singular. Not arresting Joanne Rowling doesn't prove anything. It will be the arrests of those not in high-progile positions and who lack resources which will be telling.
0
3
or lack of
1
1
Who is Jonathan?
0
1
“The legislation does contain the requirement for intent to stir up hatred.”
Well quite, which is why whatever you think of JK’s beliefs or indeed the legislation itself, it’s kind of bananas she thinks actively goading the police into arresting her for what she’s saying isn’t just doing a great disservice to her arguments (never mind playing directly into the hands of her critics who believe she is only doing it to stir up hatred against trans people)
0
1
Why is she doing any disservice to her arguments?
Also maybe if you can’t finish a paragraph you’re not in much of a position to criticise other people making a very clear fooking point.
0
2
Because they couldn’t arrest her without the intent to stir up hatred. You said it yourself.
0
1
By which I mean, again putting aside the merits of her position, it’s not a good look to be saying “Look at me, stirring up hatred over here, what are you going to do, arrest me?”
As I understand it her position is that she isn’t trying to stir up hatred against anyone (and so wouldn’t be caught be the legislation anyway)?
0
1
Are you asserting someone couldn’t be arrested based on facts which could be criminal, subject to establishing intent, with a view to establishing intent through evidence gathered after arrest?
5
2
Her argument is that the legislation is ridiculous and invidious and she’s prepared to say whatever she wants, particularly when the things she says are factual, and she’s prepared to be arrested ahead of other people who won’t be able to defend themselves properly.
0
2
I’m not a criminal lawyer Face and so am not asserting anything.
There’s obviously a discussion over whether hate speech, or crimes generally, should be subject to their own area of law, but given that as a society we seem to have decided they are, the solution seems to be erm not to say or do hateful stuff against minorities (whatever your beliefs).
This is not a difficult concept to grasp and getting extremely het up about it is a bad look.
If what she’s saying on twitter or whatever isn’t hateful, there’s no issue.
0
2
Here’s an investment opportunity for you, GG.
https://x.com/lucyhunterb/status/1774891656845591008?s=46
1
2
Are you really so stupid as to not understand that what qualifies as “hateful” is clearly contested?
1
1
Do you think calling a trans-identified male male is hateful? Or “deadnaming” him is hateful? Or maintaining that single-sex spaces, services and activities should exist is hateful? Or that “misgendering” someone is hateful?
0
2
Well, I guess it can be or not depending on the circumstances. We’ve had hate crime legislation for decades, so presumably there’s case law on how and when intent can be evidenced.
Anyway I don’t think this is going to be productive so will leave you to your own opinions.
1
1
We’ve had hate crime laws for decades, correct.
We haven’t had any when on their effective date another group sharing a protected characteristic under the same legislation doesn’t know whether stating facts will subject them to a potential 7 year prison sentence.
Sorry if you’ve not been paying attention properly.
0
1
Scottish prosecutor wades into the debate
https://x.com/lucyhunterb/status/1774933855771701710?s=46
0
1
@ Linorder: Jonathan Rowling is the name assigned at birth to the trans writer “Joanne” K Rowling a.k.a. Roberta Galbraith (writing as “Robert Galbraith”)
0
2
And of course when I say trans I mean they perform a non-traditional gender-liminal/ third gender non-binary spirit role
0
1
Sir Woke XR Remainer FBPE MBE01 Apr 24 23:00
The longer she stays unarrested, the more it proves the point that the Scottish legislation is not intended to, and does not, criminalise legitimate debat
___________________________________________________________________________________________
alternatively it could prove there is no Fiscal mad enough to drag this law through every court available to someone with exceedingly deep pockets
0
2
she has clearly not done or said anything that would break this law and the same would be equally clear had all the exact same things been said by someone penniless
the women-as-permanent-victims movement has nothing to fear from this law
0
2
0
1
Scottish prosecutor disagrees with you Laz, so there’s at least a suggestion you’re wrong. I know you boss everything you try, hence the Olympic cycling title and front bench political career, but maybe you’re not the expert on how this brand new law will be applied
0
1
Jonathan:
3
1
She is absolutely on the right side of this
0
2
Said nobody, ever, who had conclusively demonstrated their point.
0
1
I thought her kids and adults books were derivative and totally shit.
0
1
Conspiracist, probable narcissist, disinformation super-spreader, useful idiot for authoritarians and almost certainly providing Putin, amongst others, with a golden opportunity to engage in online manipulation
0
2
Oops. Now with links.
Conspiracist, probable narcissist, disinformation super-spreader, useful idiot for authoritarians and almost certainly providing Putin, amongst others, with a golden opportunity to engage in online manipulation.
2
1
Wot You WIth The Face said at 23:45.
She's showing up the ludicrousness of the new law and also helping to define parameters for its application (if she is not arrested for misgendering for her X post yesterday, that should provide cover for those speaking the truth in future).
She also made me actually LOL with her "last, but least" tweet.
3
1
There’s a good article in the Guardian around the legislative overreach of the new Scottish law - it’s not through the lens of the trans thing (thank fook) but raises concerns around criminalising “likely to cause offence” across a broad range of controversial topics - essentially stultifying debate in institutions where such debate should be taking place and replacing social censure with the blunt arm of the law - it’s not necessarily about actual charging either but the requirement to record various things as hate crimes, the impact police interaction will have on schools, unis, churches etc and chilling impact it may have on the quality of debate.
0
1
It’s like dropping insults from a section 5 public order offence - this is a good thing as groups with fundamentally different views should be allowed to insult with wide latitude, subject to certain limits (harassment, threats, workplace discrimination etc)
0
1
https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1775084470359486749?s=46
A more detailed thread showing why the English and Welsh hate laws are not the correct comparator and why the Law Commission advised against extending them to gender identity without a safeguard which doesn’t exist in the Scottish legislation
0
1
The problem with unlawful harassment, Bigbadbilly, is that it doesn’t require intent on the part of the harasser, as long as their words have the cause or effect of humiliating etc the recipient. If “misgendering” is found to have the purpose or effect of humiliating a trans-identified male, then a gender-critical person cannot express their protected philosophical belief. This would be entirely different to - for example - an atheist being permitted to say, respectfully, that they don’t believe in God, in the same way gender-critical don’t believe in gender identities
0
1
https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1775127086384009457?s=46
0
1
JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471
It’s almost as if she’s taken advice and knows what she’s talking about. Well, knock me down with a feather.
0
1
Scottish Police vs JK Rowling:
Ted 2 - Best Scene in Movie - Liam Neeson Buying a Box of Trix (youtube.com)
0
1
Not up to date on this.
So, is mis-gendering liz with intent to cause trivial bantz still ok?
Join the discussion