The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men in a series of social media posts.

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.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    0·
    7 months ago

    She grossly misinterprets what the law is meant to achieve. It’s not for somebody who dead names a trans person or calls a trans woman he or him. It’s when someone Tweets out “Who will rid me of this troublesome trans person?” and then their one or more of their followers goes out and beats or murders that person.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      0·
      7 months ago

      You should maybe read the law.

      Part 2 Section 3, 32: […] It provides that it is an offence for a person to behave in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.

      It’s talking about likely consequence not after a crime has been committed. Also:

      Part 2 Section 5, 47: Section 5(1) creates an offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. It provides that it is an offence for a person to have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is likely that, if the material were communicated, hatred will be stirred up against such a group.

      Which makes possession of inflammatory material an offence. Which is rather murky on it’s own, but even more so in digital age.

      Later it quite literally defines on which terms it’s permissive to discuss sexual orientation or religion.

      To be fair, maybe I missed something so feel free to correct me:

      https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/explanatory-notes-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        0·
        7 months ago

        I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same. If you use a public platform to intentionally cause harm to another person by way of their race, nationality, sexual identity, or other specificity then you have committed a crime.

        What you clearly missed was the point of the law. Hate speech isn’t about saying what you want about another person, it’s about using your speech to directly or indirectly harm another person or group of people.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          0·
          7 months ago

          I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same.

          Sorry I’m bad at reading facial expression over the internet. My mistake.

          What you clearly missed was the point of the law.

          I literally quoted the law: “where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.”

          That goes beyond what you claim. While even a possession of such speech would be an offence.