Scotland’s has passed a bonkers hate crime law that went into effect this week. It makes it a crime potentially punishable by up to seven years in prison to “stir up hatred” regarding age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and “variations in sex characteristics.” The law would be such a flagrant violation of the First Amendment in the U.S. that even Democrats would be embarrassed to vote for it, but Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, has been hit particularly hard by The Great Stupid. (This would be a propitious time to say a silent but heartfelt “Thanks, guys!” to Tom, Ben, George, John and the rest of the much maligned Founders.)
Being is an especially good position to do so, J.K. Rowling, the “Harry Potter” author, has decided to lead the principled opposition to the unethical law. Yesterday, as the crime of “stirring up hatred” went into force, Rowling publicly defied it by listing a convicted rapist, several ex abusers and trans activists in a post on Twitter/”X,” asserting that they were all, in her view, men.
“In passing the Scottish Hate Crime Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls,” she wrote in the post. “For several years now, Scottish women have been pressured by their government and members of the police force to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears, repudiate biological facts and embrace a neo-religious concept of gender that is unprovable and untestable. The re-definition of ‘woman’ to include every man who declares himself one has already had serious consequences for women’s and girls’ rights and safety in Scotland, with the strongest impact felt, as ever, by the most vulnerable, including female prisoners and rape survivors.” She concluded, “I’m currently out of the country, but if what I’ve written here qualifies as an (offense) under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.”
Oooo, pop that popcorn! Also, brava! This is exactly how civil disobedience is supposed to work, calling attention to an unjust law by violating it and accepting the proscribed punishment to dramatize the injustice. Rich, accomplished and popular celebrities are the ideal vessels for civil disobedience, and they also are better able to handle the consequences of their defiant acts.
One of the transgendered mentioned by Rowling in her tweet, India Willoughby, Britain’s first transgender broadcaster (which I regard as approximately as notable as being Britain’s first broadcaster with six toes on one foot, was outraged that why anyone would “publicly denigrate and mock” trans people. She obviously doesn’t get that civil disobedience thingy. “What a sad pathetic sight. The best-known author in the world sitting up all night to write a mega-long troll post about me, because she’s consumed by a hatred of trans people. Completely deranged,” Willoughby said on X. Willoughby likes having the government prosecute people who say things she doesn’t like, and reported the Rowling to U.K. law enforcement for “misgendering” her.
Asshole. Meanwhile Rowling is not backing down, and has the rhetorical skills to make her point with brio. In a subsequent exchange on Twitter/”X”, this fatuous post directed at Rowling…
…received this brilliantly pointed response:
Oh, good show! Rowling is a brave, ethically-astute, formidable woman.
Ethics Alarms 
It would be nice if she could sue King Charles. One of his titles is ‘Defender of the Faith’ and he is the head of the Anglican Church. He (and the queen before him) steadfastly refused to defend Christianity against its foes and have sided with those foes. It would be nice if you could sue to demand that the crown uphold the duties of the monarchy. Of course, it would be nice to be able to sue the Supreme Court for removing parts of the Constitution as well…(the Origination Clause).
“The King can do no wrong”!
Implement order 1776!
OUTSTANDING!!!
I’m not so sure democrats would be all that embarrassed to vote for such a thing.
I’d prefer not to believe that….
They would label it ‘hate speech’ and ‘misinformation’. Almost all major universities in the US have been doing this for 30 years, so I doubt the younger Democrats would blink before voting for it. This has been a stated desire for decades in the gay rights movement. In addition to Scotland, the Polish government is close to passing a law that imposes 3 years in prison for insulting an LGBTQ person and 5 years for anything viewed as threatening. The EU parliament is urging the EU to add ‘hate speech’ to the international crimes, putting in the same category as terrorism and human trafficking.
“It makes it a crime potentially punishable by up to seven years in prison to “stir up hatred” regarding age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and “variations in sex characteristics.”
I have a question. Regarding stirring up hatred regarding religion, what are the parameters surrounding that?
For example, most certainly any mention that a so-called trans-woman is actually a man would be considered “stirring up hatred” under this legislation, right? Would it be considered stirring up hatred to call Muslims derogatory names? Probably.
Would it be considered stirring up hatred to criticize Hamas for its attacks on Israeli citizens?
How about posting about the Catholic Church molestation scandal?
How about saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah but just a regular guy? That the Bible is just a book?
I honestly don’t know how they would determine, in all fairness, what constitutes stirring up hatred of a religion.
Which is why I think that fairness wouldn’t play into it, at all.
Update: They aren’t charging her.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68712471
Looks like Scotland blinked.
jvb
I reckon they blinked because she is who she is. Let’s see what happens when some nobody makes an equivalent statement. I suspect they’ll find some way to make it “different” and arrest the nobody.
That’s how these things usually go. The Left intends to police speech like Rowling’s, but… baby steps!
Yeah, I don’t know how they can enforce that law if what Rowling wrote gets no response. Unless they official adopt #11, The Kings Pass, as policy. Then again, it is the UK, after all.
What an unbelievably stupid law.
More than stupid — dangerous.
Scotland clearly is making its own version of Sharia law; only the favored ideas are different.
Having a lot of money tends to be a great safety net if one engages in such defiance. For the rest of us, well, my suggestion is that “normal” Scottish people need to inundate their local constabularies with complaints against anyone who denigrates their heritage, religion, orientation etc etc etc. This, of course, would include all Scottish politicians, media talking heads, spotlight hogging activists et al. Bury the law under the weight of its own stupidity.
Never got around to finish her anthology, as both my sons did, but i d like her Tweets
Ok, the law is WORSE now. They have told Rowling that she won’t be arrested because of her PROMINENCE. So, the ‘little people’ aren’t so lucky. It looks like 4000 complaints rolled in the first day alone. Scottish police have already said they are going to stop investigating burglaries an thefts so they can spend time on these.
I keep expecting The Great Stupid to collapse under its own weight, like the Great Tulip Craze, or Joe McCarthy, or Andrew Dice Clay, or people saying “Waasup?” and thinking it’s hilarious, when everyone suddenly slaps their foreheads and says, “What the hell have I been thinking?” Surely that has to happen soon. Doesn’t it? Please?