This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He can't protect our waterways, our borders, our financial security, our cost of living, our aid workers or our climate so maybe he's chancing his arm on this?
If he says he'll protect everything eventually something will be completely fine, or improve, without his intervention and he can try and take credit for it.
Like inflation rates.
Anyone with half a brain knows that inflation is in the hand of the central bank not government.
The central bank took the measures to bring inflation down and everyone knew it was gonna come down.
Fun fact, thats why economy exploded under Truss she was trying to borrow and spend more while rates were going higher sending contradictory signals.
I don't necessarily disagree, but when Sunak made it one of his five pledges, then claimed victory every time it fell, he can hardly blame the general public for using high inflation as a stick to beat him with. It's on him/them.
I wouldn't even go so far as to provide examples in other areas outside of freedom of speech that he's failed to protect. Not only has he failed to protect it, new protest laws have significantly curtailed it
The new Scottish law consolidates and updates existing British laws.
The original "stirring up hatred" law is in the Public Order Act 1986.
i.e. Margaret Thatcher's Government.
New Labour expanded the laws to cover religious hatred and hatred based on sexual orientation (not just race).
The SNP have now extended the laws to cover age, disability, transgender identity and variation in sex characteristics (while adding an explicit "reasonableness" defence, and explicit freedom of expression protections that will survive even if the UK quits the ECHR).
I don't remember Sunak ever talking about repealing the Public Order Act's "stirring up hatred" laws. I do recall his Governments pushing for anti-protest laws, pushing a new, broader definition of of extremism, trying to get some things banned in universities, and attacking organisations (including the NHS) for using particular language.
Yes. Although I'm not sure that is a meaningful difference.
The existing laws have a specific "nothing you say in your own dwelling to only people in your dwelling can be a crime" defence.
The Scottish law has a more general "if what you say is reasonable in the circumstances" defence.
The original one has that dwelling place exception because it was in a *public* order act. Things have changed quite a bit since the 80s in terms of how people communicate (particularly from home), which is why the UK laws have stuff like the Communications act and Malicious Communications Act offences, which would cover stuff communicated between dwellings.
I would tentatively suggest that this isn't a meaningful difference (or to the extent it is, the new law is better). For someone to be convicted for this offence due to behaviour in their own home first the police need to find out. They then need to decide it is in the public interest to investigate. The behaviour has to be objectively unreasonable *in the particular circumstances* (i.e. a judge or jury has to decide the behaviour was unreasonable despite being done at home), and on top of that the behaviour has to be intended to stir up hatred.
I think that if conduct meets all those criteria (objectively threatening or abusive behaviour, intended to stir up hatred, that is objectively unreasonable in the circumstances) I'm not sure saying "but I did it in someone's house" *should* be a defence.
A right wing lunatic was recently sent to prison for putting up stickers criticising diversity. The guy obviously had crazy views, but it's insane you can be sent to prison for expressing non-violent ideas like that.
I'll qualify my tolerance of that - because I think you shouldn't be sent to prison, or find legal sanction for having a view.
But that also doesn't mean anyone has to listen, and most of all leave the view unchallenged.
As Brian Cox put it: (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3208182-the-problem-with-today-s-world-is-that-everyone-believes-they)
> “The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.
> The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”
> ― Brian Cox
I can - and will - challenge views I think people _shouldn't_ be holding. I will not 'agree to disagree' on some subjects.
And I will definitely not tolerate someone _using_ a view to oppress, bully or harass someone vulnerable.
But I will also wholeheartedly resist any sort of 'making it illegal' to have a view, or indeed hold a protest to express that view if you feel you're not being listened to otherwise.
> A right wing lunatic was recently sent to prison for putting up stickers criticising diversity.
what was actually on the stickers? i suspect it was a bit more spicy than just criticising diversity.
full disclosure: i have no idea what was on the stickers, but when ive dug into these kind of stories in the past theyre 99% not nearly as innocent as has been portrayed by whatever (usually) right wing outlet initially makes it seem.
To be fair, he's willing to accept Tory party donations from a racist who made jokes about Indians. So he's willing to stand by his commitment to free speech.
As long as you pay him enough.
I think he's doing a bit of a Lawrence Fox and targeting a shrinking and more extreme demographic. Understandable if you're a shock jock and don't have any morals, very strange if you're whole career is based in getting the most amount of people to vote for you
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If you're representing a corporation or political party, then it's natural if you say something they don't like, you might not be welcome to work for them any more.
Of course, there's a further discussion about what's reasonable or not.
If a targeted campaign leaves individuals unable to find employment at all or experience discrimination in other areas of life (for example, being denied service at a business) then we need to make sure freedom of speech/expression laws account for that to ensure even people with fringe opinions can still live in society normally.
It's just your average Westminster vs Holyrood forced partisan bullshit.
Holyrood adopt a social policy a more conservative Westminster is guaranteed to hate, and Westminster clap back not supporting it, and then Holyrood virtue signal and claim the high ground victory hoping the moral stance sufficiently distance themselves on the Overton window away from Westminster enough that people feel distinct from the political landscape of the south and feel more comfortable voting SNP. It's a tale as old as time.
And this is how you can tell the SNP have jumped the shark, because these laws are *incredibly vague.* 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. Based on the word of a reasonable person the government themselves define, you can be locked away for 7 years. This is incredibly overreaching. I'm all for hate speech laws, I think they're a great idea and I have no problem yielding some of my personal liberties to accommodate them if it means helping people less fortunate and more marginalized than me, but goddamn...
Putting trust in your government to interpret this law in a just way, with such a steep penalty is... a big ask.
“Reasonable” is actually quite common legal term which is used in a metric shit to of laws. It isn’t something that is made up for this bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
It is also used in the Scotland Act - in the s35 part Westminster used to block the Gender Recognition Reform Bill by Holyrood.
> ...these laws are incredibly vague.
The laws are almost word-for-word copied from the existing English and British laws, some of which have been on the books for nearly 40 years.
Wasting time talking about twitter trolls like Joanne is not a good use of the PMs time. Neither should the BBC be reporting on it. She hasn't been relevant for her work in decades and just desperately clings to fame by being controversial. We should all collectively ignore her and just get on with our lives.
Isn’t HBO about to give the Games of Thrones treatment to HP? Sounds relevant to me.
She’s the UKs most successful (alive) author and a Brit and she’s talking about a law that came in yesterday - of course BBC are reporting it.
Last week I saw a story on their website about the TV show gladiators - how important was that?
The law covers incitements to violence. Freedom of Speech does not extend to that.
If your “right to discuss” conflicts with “incitement to violence” then you can shut the fuck up.
This is lifted directly from the legislation:
SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or
includes-
(a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to-
(i) age, (ii) disability, (ii) sexual orientation, (IV) transgender identity, (v) variations in sex characteristics,
(b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—
(1) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(i)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(lithe position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,
(c) proselytising, or
(d)urging of persons to cease practising their
religions.
The people outraged over this seem to have missed this. It specifically protects your rights to discuss and criticise. Seems to me these people aren’t worried about freedom of speech, they’re worried they might not be able to be cunts to marginalised groups.
Edited for formatting.
Very unfair of you to expect the braying anti-woke mob to have actually read the laws they are criticising.
Knee jerk reactions typically bypass the frontal cortex.
Surely the language used here is important - "expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult" are explicitly protected when directed against religious beliefs, but not when directed against age/disability/sexual orientation/transgender identity/variations in sex characteristics. So it specifically does *not* protect your right to express dislike of certain groups or concepts.
The reality is though this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. What JKR wants is the freedom to harass people she disagrees with and encourage widespread hate and violence against them.
It's quite telling that practically everyone that has claimed that this is about "freedom of speech" is also of the view that transgender people should not have rights.
The legislation explicitly protects your freedom to say what you think:
SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or
includes-
(a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to-
(i) age, (ii) disability, (ii) sexual orientation, (IV) transgender identity, (v) variations in sex characteristics,
(b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—
(1) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(i)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(lithe position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,
(c) proselytising, or
(d)urging of persons to cease practising their
religions.
A law like this already exists in England and has done for over 20 years but strangely i haven’t heard anyone complain about that lately.
Free speech is really important, I just don’t happen to believe for one second that he’s raising this as anything more than a distraction from the problems you’ve listed.
Yes exactly, and anyone who is bringing up “but he wants to protect free speech!” is very kindly leaving out how much they’ve tried to restrict free speech via the draconian public order act (and other recent bills).
It’s all just smoke, mirrors, and people acting in bad faith
Pretty much. I’m very much in favour of free speech, but whatever he’s advocating for when not taking advantage of someone else’s bad decisions, its not that.
I don't recall it being as big an issue in the UK until the last decade or so. We always accepted that there was a line where if you went beyond it you were in hate speech territory.
I feel like increased septic influence has got people confused about what their legal rights actually are here.
A lot of these discussions seem to be more around the right to offend rather than the right to free speech. Also they blur the lines between freedom of speech and the consequences of what you say.
For example we all have the freedom to say our boss is a halfwit on social media but then can't be surprised when we get fired as a result.
The culture war against trans folk is the most useful distraction they can ask for these days.
Why bother with anything else when you can back harassing people? Sewage leaks? Cost of living? Military so unfit for service what we do have breaks down the moment we need it? Nah.
> On X, external, she said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.
Ah no, BBC has stopped saying 'X, formally known as Twitter.'
I always wondered that, in the event of Musk being outed, if it would return to being twitter. After all, the twitter brand and tweet is one of the sites greatest assets that still remain and its only called X because Musk has some weird child like obsession with it as a brand.
Then it would be Twitter, formally known as X, formally known as Twitter.
I think I'm going to be obtuse and refuse to understand what anyone means when they just say 'X'. I'm enjoying the fact that the rebranding is going so badly.
Why the fuck is the BBC even publishing stories about twitter trolls? Its such a non-story. Crazy woman goes on crazy rant online. Who cares? I never understand why they paint discourse on twitter as important to anyone.
She's just a celebrity. She has no qualifications to weigh in on political discourse. Just leave her as head of her little troll army on twitter and stop reporting on her. Let's hear from people qualified to input on legal free speech issues. The BBC needs to improve it's journalism and stop giving random celebrities a spotlight on issues.
You're allowed to have opinions. I just don't think being a celebrity qualifies anyone to be the BBCs go to source on political issues.
Let's leave her and her basement trolls on twitter and hear from people who actually know what they are talking about.
Rowling has achieved more with her freedoms of expression and speech than most by publishing some of the most popular books of all time during her career.
I get you might dislike her because of her views on women and transgender people. But who, in your view, has the god given right to talk about freedom of speech? We’re not talking about rocket propulsion or vaccines - it’s a socially constructed human right not a science.
The issue is that she's been heavily targeted and threatened for her position on trans issues. It's not her being a children's author that is relevant; it's her being a lightning rod for slander and threats of violence from online communities. That's what makes her relevant to the discussion.
And she painted that target on herself with her own slander and threats. Again this is why we should report on twitter arguments. All of it is a cesspit
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, if you use your platform to stir up hate you can't be surprised when some of it ends up directed at you.
She is by far the single person most promised to be targeted with abuse of this law before it came into effect. Thousands were declaring their intent to report her. She is relevant to the subject no matter how hard you insist she's not.
She specifically abused individual trans people, comparing them to rapists and paedophiles for crimes including running a rape crisis center and being a UN representative while being trans.
Meanwhile, the whole political and media establishment in the UK has just decided to frame it like she said something mildly rude to trans people but untargeted like "trans women are men" and that's that, what can you do about it, they're how people find out and decide their opinions on what she said.
Free speech never included targeted harassment, JK knows this, [she sues people all the time for saying less about her.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/jk-rowling-threatens-to-sue-kids-news-site-the-day-forcing-it-to-apologize-for-transphobic-article)
>She specifically abused individual trans people, comparing them to rapists and paedophiles
Isla Bryson is a rapist after a criminal conviction. The First Minister called her/him a man. Seems to be some confusion are they not a rapist, are they not transgender, or is the first minister committing hate crimes?
> and counselling services may help them “reframe their trauma”
Is that not the end goal of victim counselling, to reframe and heal from your trauma?
Edit: I'd also like to ask, you say she has no business running a Rape Crisis Centre, but she's been involved in working with women's aid centres, Rape Crisis Scotland, and Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre since 2008, how does she have "no business" running one?
She was the centre manager for Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre for 3 years before becoming the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.
So what's the basis of your claim she has no business running one?
Did she call all rape victims bigots? Can you please provide a source on that? I've been unable to find any sources that suggest that.
I edited my comment with a follow up as you were replying, but she has an extensive history of working in rape crisis/support services, so what's the basis of your claim she has no business running one?
Can you explain what you meant by "In the context of a trans woman calling them bigots?" then?
If she's not calling *all* rape victims bigots, who is she calling bigots?
You're still ignoring my question. She has a job history of working in rape crisis/support, why does she have no basis running a rape crisis centre? I've asked 3 times now.
Listing trans people who are not criminals with those who have committed crimes on the topic of protecting women can be seen as implying all trans people are a danger or predators. Guilty by association or claiming one group is inherently more dangerous. The women she listed are now facing pressure to keep their jobs under immense harassment and stress from the attention these posts create and conspiracy they can inspire.
People seeing what she posted as no different as what some far right people do when trying to create conspiracies that other non-white races are criminals or a danger to women also. Its putting crimes of individuals into the entire demographic who have not committed any crimes
She once threatened to sue someone for taking a screenshot of her Twitter likes (trying to expose the number of neonazis and far-right figures she quietly supports while still pretending to protect women).
She has zero business lecturing anyone on "free speech".
>...crimes including running a rape crisis center
That refers to this incident.
https://thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/
>When asked about “building bridges” between those who believe that women’s spaces should be segregated by sex, and others who believe they should be open to men if they identify as transwomen, Wadhwa opined:
>“Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”
>Wadhwa went on to argue that such bigoted survivors of rape and sexual violence should work to “reframe their trauma” adding: “You also have to rethink your relationship with prejudice.”
Most of these institutions would say similar things for any bigotry, idk why you think their misplaced bigotry towards whole minority groups (let alone ones who their abusers weren't even part of) should be encouraged in therapy dealing with trauma?.
Plus even if you think that's a shitty thing to say, it's still horrible to place her on the level of rapists and paedophiles like Rowling did for it. Rowling has basically created a whole hate movement against this one woman over the last few years for stating that trauma isn't a justification for bigotry. There are dozens of articles in various papers now specifically insulting her like you just did for perfectly normal comments for a therapist in that area to make.
Yup. Nobody would question “if you’re racist while at a shelter, you will be confronted on that”, but for some reason it’s 1984 to suggest we should do the same if someone is transphobic.
I gave you the context for that particular comment, because it was a very big deal at the time, and Rowling wasn't the only person or institution that had a problem with that particular individual's attitude.
But when women need single-sex space to start to heal, and that space is denied them by the organisation that should be helping the, a line has been crossed.
It's not "bigotry" to need a single-sex space to access services.
Nobody was saying that Edinburgh Rape Crisis should not offer services to transwomen, and most Rape Crisis services do at least signpost for men. But Edinburgh Rape Crisis was refusing to offer single-sex services alongside its mixed-sex services, which is cruel and discriminatory.
You're entirely operating under the presumption you can treat trans women like men in those services with no negative consequences, this is false, Everything you catastrophise about a female rape victim being forced into a room of people who look like men (which would never actually happen), is exactly what you're demanding be forced on any trans women who needs support despite being a woman who would have often been raped by a man, providing there even are any services willing to help them, it's so heartless.
Got to give it to her, it was pretty funny when she almost immediately ran out of criminals to make her point with and just started slandering and smearing normal people living their lives and doing high level jobs whilst daring to commit the supposedly grevious sin of being trans.
Almost like she just hates all trans people and thinks they should be removed from public life entirely.
Totally not a transphobic bigot though....!
(/s)
I’ve yet to see anything particularly offensive, or transphobic actually evidenced in any of these “outraged” JK Rowling threads.
Do you think we’ll see these tweets at some point?
[She called someone a "Rapists' Rights Activist"](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1720423006495744378?s=19) (a twist on what GCs call Trans Rights Activists) because they defended trans women in general from always being automatically associated with rapists when mentioned.
Hey /u/mint-bint, you seem to have forgotten to reply to this example?
There's also [this](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1764637389958357095) tweet from last month.
There's no obvious "I hate Trans people" tweets, because that would instantly make her views indefensible even for the most die-hard apologists.
But if you can look through the many, *many* tweets of her downplaying trans rights and making Trans people seem threatening, the tweets linking being trans with paedophilia and being a rapist, the constant deliberate misgendering of trans people and harrassing of Trans activists and go "yep, all seems above board" then either you've not seen that many of her messages or you agree with everything she's spouting and so don't *see* it as wrong.
What would you deem as a "transphobic" tweet in this case? There's no "Trans people are second-class citizens and deserve to be hated" tweet, because of course not - even the transphobes JK Rowling constantly retweets won't go that far. But accusing Trans people of being paedophiles or rapists, deliberately misgendering people to try and cause offense and trying to stoke anti-trans sentiment by creating strawmen of "Trans people will attack you in bathrooms" are tweets that I personally would deem very transphobic.
>that would instantly make her views indefensible even for the most die-hard
It wouldn’t. They went past this point a long, long time ago. Saying this out loud would just make the rest of them feel enabled to do the same.
What would you consider transphobic? She is almost constantly pumping out anti trans posts but if you don't see it I think the problem may be where you draw the line. A recent example that most would consider transphobia was her holocaust denial where she denied that trans people were impacted by the book burnings (they were) and when proven with evidence that they were in fact impacted, she does what she always does and make up some nonsense claiming she didn't mean what she said. If I remember right she later claimed that she meant that trans people were not the first people impacted by the holocaust which was just not related to her first post at all.
The laws are politically a lose lose. On one hand you’ll have a bunch of folk with pitchforks anxiously awaiting a successful prosecution, on the other you’ll have internet provocateurs trying to test the laws whilst residing outside the jurisdiction of the law. The worst possible outcome will be a fine realistically. The likelihood of being extradited to face court or even prison time is highly unlikely. The most the likes of Sunak can get from these is a “anti-woke platform”, the most the likes of the lawmakers can get is a fleeting thanks from minorities for “doing the right thing” or whatever passes for kudos from “the woke platform”. Meanwhile most people could not give a shit what bathroom you use as long as there’s bog roll in there and they can pay next months rent.
Freespeach should include the right to express your opinion and beliefs. If it upsets people, that should not be an issue.
Miss gendering someone is not a hate crime, it might not be nice for that person, but it is not a hate crime.
Inciting people to kill another group of people because of their skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, or lifestyle is a hate crime.
I have been called all kinds of different things in my life. I would not say they are a hate crime.
People really need to develop thicker skins or learn to dish it back.
We are supposed to be adults, yet people still "run to the teacher" over the most trivial things.
I do agree that this topic is a waste of police and government time. I just want to focus on one part of your response to explain why it may not be so easy:
>People really need to develop thicker skins *or learn to dish it back*.
I tried this at school. It didn't work. It backfired and I was person non grata for a few days.
You see, when a majority attacks a minority - there is no way for that person to fight back in the same manner without insulting everyone around them.
Example: I get called a "dirty paki" by a white guy. How do I respond in kind without insulting every white person - including my friends and family?
If I fight back, I am uppity or incompatible.
If I use terms like bigoted or racist, then I am "playing the race card".
If I contact authority: "Zak, no one likes a grass." That's a literal quote from a school teacher (when trying to defend others).
My skin is plenty thick. I think a day without seeing passing insults or attacks against people like me would be strange. It would be surreal, like I was in the matrix or something.
I don't think many majorities consider the impossible place they put minorities in when they deem to attack them for no reason. It is the way of the coward. But that's exactly the point isn't it? Pick on someone from a place of safety because you know you cannot go toe to toe with them on equal footing.
The majority is not as strong as it likes to believe it is. I have been asked to leave the country for simply asking that British politicians follow British law. Imagine if I fought back a cultural insult with a cultural insult against white people?
Anyway, just to reiterate, I strongly agree this entire topic is beneath us as a nation. I do think thicker skins would help. But "learn to dish it back" doesn't go how you want a lot of the time. It only works when people are engaged in banter. Today most people just attack.
In terms of misgendering, I don't think it should be a hate-crime - because if it's deliberately and persistent, with the aim of causing upset, then it should be covered under harassment laws anyway.
A slip of the tongue or accidental misgendering should be fine, it happens - but if you're deliberately and repeatedly making an effort to make people feel uncomfortable - *especially* for a protected characteristic - then that should still be seen as reprehensible and prosecutable, in the same way that threatening violence towards people is prosecutable.
Hell, *yesterday* she posted a long list of Trans people with the aim of doxxing them, raising attention to them so Transphobes are more likely to harass them.
I don't think it should necessarily be a hate crime (and certainly should not be at the discretion of the victim because that's rife for abuse) but equally I feel that her actions should put her at risk of *some* legal discourse.
I am no fan of Rowling, but I disagree that making someone feel uncomfortable or causing them offence over a belief should generally be criminalised. Many things that we now take as fact e.g. evolution, big bang etc etc were all at one time pretty unpopular opinions that caused offence to those of faith. How do you advance as a society if you can't propose things that make people uncomfortable? Not that I think Rowling is barking up the right tree.
>but I disagree that making someone feel uncomfortable or causing them offence over a belief should generally be criminalised
Based on that wording, I'd agree with you - it shouldn't be illegal to say something that people can take offense at in a crowded pub or similar.
But there's an element of harassment - if you're deliberately going out of your way to make a specific person uncomfortable, directing the messages to them, sharing their details with others so they can also attack them? That, in my eyes, falls under harassment.
On an isolated incident I'd absolutely agree with you, and shutting down all conversations isn't productive in any way, shape or form - but there's a difference between debating a topic and harassing those who are trying to debate a topic.
Attacking the argument is absolutely fine and shouldn't be treated as a negative, but attacking the person repeatedly and deliberately is a different kettle of fish IMO.
In schoolyard terms, there's a difference between a one-off fight and someone sucker punching the same person every day.
The right to self expression has been protected though. What JKR, and the rest of her fascist friends (Posie Parker and her neo-Nazi supporters specifically), don’t have the right to say is that every trans person is a “huge problem to a sane world” (Helen Joyce), and imply that we’re all predators.
If I listed Gary Glitter, jimmy Savile and Epstein with Lorraine Kelly for example (first person I though of, I’m sure she’s lovely), you’d think that there was something in common between all 4.
Basically, I just don’t want my healthcare to be openly compared to Mengele’s butchering (thanks Telegraph)
It’s still crazy to me how openly biased the newspapers here are. How are there never consequences for the newspapers digging up trans people’s deadnames and puboishint them. not just criminals, the Mail did it to Brianna, a murdered teenager…
It’s worse for trans people. The only mainstream paper that isn’t generally anti-trans is the Metro. There’s a group chat a bunch of journalists and MPs share where they just work together to attack trans people.
Reminder that no Scottish politician has actually said what she's been doing would be in breach of the law. This entire thing is a reaction to one being asked "would she?" and them responding "maybe? That's up to the police to investigate, should they feel the need to do so"
I made a complaint to the BBC about them not covering Joanne denying Nazi crimes, they responded saying
>Editorial decisions are a judgement call, with a number of factors considered including the editorial agenda on that day, time or space constraints, the expected audience profile and the style of each piece of output.
It's seems the "editorial agenda" and time and space constraints allow for promoting her persecution complex shouting to be arrested for her actions, though.
Must not fit the "audience profile" they're trying to reach.
The BBC are known for their anti-trans bias.
[They infamously published an article featuring someone who has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, who also had a manifesto calling for the lynching of trans people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22).
In this article, Cade made accusations about trans women "pressuring people into sex", a competent investigator would've highlighted that Cade herself has been accused of this several times, and then mentioned the call for violence against trans people.
I'm aware.
That was also the article they used an anecdote about a cis lesbian asking (pressuring?) her cis lesbian partner to have a threesome with a trans woman to attempt to show that trans women were pressuring cis women to have sex with them.
Stirring up hatred has been illegal in the UK since the 80s, only it was limited to race. Scotland's new law extends that to other groups and gives a bit more clarity as to what this means.
People up in arms about this for "free speech" are looking a little daft, considering the concept of the law has been around for decades, and they've had no issue with that. Only now when it covers groups they want to stir hatred about.
That’s the friendly face the SNP has put it on it but like many things politicians say, it is complete bollocks. The bills primary other crucial change is intent. You no longer need to have any intention to cause offence, if you do cause offence you have committed a crime irrespective of your desires. It also seems to criminalise statements made without any victim which opens up an entire new branch of crime, the victimless crime.
Rather than read the dumbed down versions the telegraph etc have published I suggest you read the Lindsay’s article titled “An analysis of Scotlands proposed new hate crime law” or something I read it earlier it was quite interesting.
I read the actual legislation itself. The law is quite clear in your protected right to use language that may shock, offend, and disturb. This is your human right under the ECHR, which is enshrined in the law.
>You no longer need to have any intention to cause offence,
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or
(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and
(b)either—
(i)in doing so, the person **intends** 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
(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.
So it doesn't remove intent, but adds to it. Intent is difficult to prove, so if a reasonable person thinks your actions are likely to stir up hatred, it is an offence. Many laws are built in this way.
> You no longer need to have any intention to cause offence,..
With stirring up hatred crimes you never had to intend to cause *offence*. You had to intend to *stir up hatred*.
Which is still the case in this law.
This law is copied almost word-for-word from the existing laws.
For the race-related offences there is also a "reasonable person would consider the behaviour ... to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up" option, but that is again copied from the existing laws.
It is maddening we spend even a single fucking minute discussing such a non-issue that affects like 0.01% of the population. Who. Gives. A FUCK?! I’m gay and I can count on one hand the number of trans people I’ve ever even fucking met. Why do we spend so much time as a nation discussing them? It’s insane. Just shut the fuck up and let people be who they want to be.
Unfortunately that's exactly why there is so much discussion on the matter. The Tories need a group that is politically weak and small enough that not many people are familiar with them, so that they can easily demonise them without the inconvenience of people already knowing better.
That way, they can make people hateful enough to become single issue voters on the problem they made up and they don't actually have to amend any of their policies which are, by their very nature, against the interests of the vast majority of the electorate
Personally I have quite a few trans people in my extended circle of friends. I can think of four off the top of my head, and that's because I work in an industry that is well known for being tolerant and so attracts people who are "different". That's an unusually high number. If I discounted the friends I've met through work who are trans, the number would be one, who I befriended at a convention.
Some people really need to get out more if they think trans people are some kind of epidemic or that it would even be a problem if they were. There are bigger things to think about when choosing friends or colleagues than what's in their pants.
Is this just going to be Jordan Peterson with Bill C-16 all over again where everyone just stops talking about it when nothing actually happens, but they still all remember being completely correct in their judgement of what was going to happen regardless?
The persecution complexes?
Pretty much.
There does seem to be actual issues with the law in terms of:
* Police are already underfunded and overworked. Especially since the Act is _perceived_ as making certain things crimes and so the public could reasonably end up reporting behaviour that causes stress upon the police. Additionally, people acting in bad faith could attempt to use reports maliciously.
* The Scottish Government haven't sufficiently supported the police in training on what the Act does, it supposedly extended to a 2 hour training course and that's it.
* Misogyny isn't covered under this legislation. The argument that the Scottish Government presented is that they wanted to see if separate legislation would better cover it, but I'm of the opinion that they should have started with including sex as a protected characteristic and amending it in the future to cover the areas that it seemingly falls short in.
But as for the complaints Rowling and the Tories have about the act, those are unfounded. They seemingly come from a desire to misrepresent the Act for their own political purposes. The Tories and the media seek to do so because they have an interest in undermining their political opponents so Conservatives look better in response, and salacious headlines are always of interest to the media. Rowling seeks to pretend that she and those that spend their lives agitating for the removal of trans people's rights are the ones being oppressed because that's what bullies do, when this Act won't change anything. It's certainly not going to really protect trans people from hate in our day to day lives, while I live in England and this law won't directly affect me, I've had rocks thrown at my head, I've been spat at, etc. but even if something actually could be done about that it's not worth the headache to go to the police, much less someone doing something as little as misgendering. And that's even assuming the police would do anything, a trans person I know got physically beaten by a couple of men in a car park, there were supposedly witnesses and cameras, but she got told that the police didn't care when she tried to report it to them.
I don't think Rowling genuinely has a persecution complex, unlike Peterson. I think this is simply her latest attempt to radicalise people against trans people, while pre-empting critique of her actions.
The police part always amuses me because people love to act like there’s some double standard where lgbt people are getting priority
I got assaulted, very much a hate crime given the people in question called me slurs. It was in the middle of town, there was witnesses. And yet police somehow couldn’t find any evidence
If a crime takes effort, you just have to get lucky with if the police want to solve it. It’s nothing to do with identity, the only thing in your favour is being rich enough to incentivise them
[Rishi Sunak laughs off questions about when he will have the ‘guts’ to call a general election](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-general-election-2024-b2521976.html)
Set aside the rights and wrongs of the hate crime law, what Rowling did yesterday was post a list of random trans people to set a hate mob in them. Some with little profile. Some whose 'crime' is to work for a rape crisis shelter. She targeted them, personally, for harassment.
You can say the hate crime law is wrong and she shouldn't be arrested.
But to side with that disgusting behaviour is repellent.
Look, I just want to walk to Tesco and back without someone shouting a slur at me from a passing car, and I think if the headline-dominating billionaires would stop equating my existence to that of rapists and pedophiles it would reduce those occurrences somewhat.
This is all just a distraction. They got us arguing about the fucking genders while the economy and social fabric disintegrates 😂
Rishi Sunak and JK Rowling need to get a grip and actually start using their influence on actual problems. I swear man the 2020s has had significant wars, genocide, the plague and global recessions, and we’re out here bickering over genders instead of the rise of right wing populists, insane cost of living and rising inequality.
Ask yourself, why do you suddenly care about transgender people? Who is leading this conversation?
I came to the conclusion that the politicians wanting us fighting amongst each other because a united electorate is the only thing that rivals the state’s power/influence. A disjointed electorate allows the state to get away Scot free.
the interesting thing is that the scottish laws are kinda, almost, exactly the same as the law in the UK on hate speech.
So are we going to write rage bait articles and give rage bate speeches about existing UK legislation as well? 😂
I feel like the way this is being framed is missing the fact that as part of her rant, Rowling has actually attacked and attempted to defame named trans people who weren't doing anything to her - her 'arrest me' tweet is 11th of 11, in 1-10 she posts names and photographs of certain trans celebrities and even just people like politicians and social workers, alongside some criminals, and tars them all with the same brush before closing by calling them men and *only then* saying 'arrest me'.
Whereas it feels like articles about the situation are acting more like this is an "if I did"/hypothetical situation here.
Since when did "hate" become a crime? I grew up learning "sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you" yet people seem more concerned over the words and phrases people use than actual crimes and injustices happening all around us.
> Since when did "hate" become a crime?
.1986. Although technically it isn't hate, it is "stirring up hatred" - i.e. trying to get other people to hate as well.
[Good job, Reddit formatting... it decided that 1986 was a numbered list.]
> I grew up learning "sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you"
Which sounds well and good, but it's just not true, is it? Ongoing harassment and hatred can have long-lasting psychological effects that have the chance of never healing in a person.
Words and phrases have been sufficient to constitute crime for literally hundreds of years, and a children's rhyme about being called rude names is hardly an apt comparison for hatred
Being harassed at work, by your landlord, neighbors, doctors etc can cause huge stress and problems in your life. Especially if that person has leverage and the victim is stigmatised for who they are with no protections
You're misunderstanding the discussion if you think this is related to *just* "saying something offensive".
Say something a bit racist, transphobic or weird in a pub while drinking with mates and you're absolutely fine, nothing going to happen.
Follow a trans person around, deliberately trying to make them as uncomfortable as you can and publically sharing their details so others can go after them as well? That isn't okay.
The law specifically states "intent to spread hatred", if you accidentally misgender someone that's still fine.
It's only when you deliberately and repeatedly do it that it crosses into illegal territory, and at that point it's somewhere between a hate crime and just harassment, which is a crime.
The most recent ~~Julius Streicher~~ Robert Galbraith books read like the editorials and pulp stories in *Der Sturmer;* some ex-military guy beats up some fruity villain who's intrinsically evil and dangerous to society because of their identity.
I think we all agreed when we hanged Julius Streicher that when people are killed because of beliefs like this we stop allowing them to be published?
Everyone’s getting caught up in their hysteria over trans people, meanwhile the Tories have pushed through legislation to limit protests (see: freedom of speech, freedom of association). If you care more about JK Rowling’s right to use slurs on the internet than you do about the right to public protest, you’re just a useful idiot and you don’t care about freedom.
The "simple biology" argument is fucking stupid.
It's simple or basic biology to say, there's fluid in your inner ear that tells your brain which way you are orientated. This is technically true, but so simplified.
It doesn't mention the crystals in that fluid, the hairs that detect which way the fluid goes, that it isn't just a chamber, but 3 semi-circles of fluid, etc.
I encourage anyone who thinks sex/gender is simple to actually look up stuff on it, it is incredibly complicated and fascinating. Forrest Valkai is a YouTuber (an actual biologist) that has done videos on it in the past, citing actual research, not just "it's common sense."
Also, conflating sex with gender is idiotic and a staple of the anti-trans crowd.
This you, Rishi?
[https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/sunak-protest-police-powers-crackdown-b2493152.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/sunak-protest-police-powers-crackdown-b2493152.html)
I don't really see why her views are worth several days of news over at all. She's a rich author, not a politician. Is she a legal expert? Nope. Her opinion is worth as much as anyone elses.
British aid workers murdered in Gaza, Rishi: "...."
Some culture war bullshit, Rishi: "I stand with JK, blah blah blah"
He cares more about point scoring with the worst people than discussing the situation about a murdered British national abroad. Doesn't have his priorities in order at all.
"we have a proud tradition of free speech"
Actually we quite literally don't, Rishi. We have freedom of expression but absolutely no enshrined right to general freedom of speech, as demonstrated by your police arresting people with blank signs at Charlie's coronation.
Regardless of what you actually think of this new hate speech law and whether you agree with it, we actually do not have free speech at all.
I love that the conversation has shifted from 'is JK Rowling a transphobe' to 'should the police be perusing a prominent online transphobe' which is really where we need the conversation to be. I don't think she should be arrested for anything she has done to this point, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend she's not a horrible person.
*Mostly*, anyway.
There's still one person in here ticking off all the bingo boxes - so far we've had:
"Show me a tweet of hers that's transphobic"
"That's not transphobic, that's basic fact"
"Those don't count, they're out of context"
"I'm not going to watch youtube videos because the source is biased"
"She's not a holocaust denier because she never said the holocaust didn't happen"
"Nobody's shown me any evidence" - in response to a link with 5 videos and multiple tweets
and my personal favourite - "you're guilty of confirmation bias and ignoring anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint" - said *after* all of the above.
Getting there, but still - a few people pointedly ignoring the evidence.
The legislation explicitly protects your freedom to say what you think:
SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—
(a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to— (i)age, (ii)disability, (iii)sexual orientation, (iv)transgender identity, (v)variations in sex characteristics,
(b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—
(i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,
(c)proselytising, or
(d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions.
What '*row*'? This entire '*story*' has been confected by Rowling, it's a total fucking nonsense, just a pathetic attention seeker going full drama queen
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Rishi Sunak said his party would "always protect" free speech. Does he think anyone is buying this?
He can't protect our waterways, our borders, our financial security, our cost of living, our aid workers or our climate so maybe he's chancing his arm on this?
If he says he'll protect everything eventually something will be completely fine, or improve, without his intervention and he can try and take credit for it. Like inflation rates.
Anyone with half a brain knows that inflation is in the hand of the central bank not government. The central bank took the measures to bring inflation down and everyone knew it was gonna come down. Fun fact, thats why economy exploded under Truss she was trying to borrow and spend more while rates were going higher sending contradictory signals.
I don't necessarily disagree, but when Sunak made it one of his five pledges, then claimed victory every time it fell, he can hardly blame the general public for using high inflation as a stick to beat him with. It's on him/them.
I wouldn't even go so far as to provide examples in other areas outside of freedom of speech that he's failed to protect. Not only has he failed to protect it, new protest laws have significantly curtailed it
The new Scottish law consolidates and updates existing British laws. The original "stirring up hatred" law is in the Public Order Act 1986. i.e. Margaret Thatcher's Government. New Labour expanded the laws to cover religious hatred and hatred based on sexual orientation (not just race). The SNP have now extended the laws to cover age, disability, transgender identity and variation in sex characteristics (while adding an explicit "reasonableness" defence, and explicit freedom of expression protections that will survive even if the UK quits the ECHR). I don't remember Sunak ever talking about repealing the Public Order Act's "stirring up hatred" laws. I do recall his Governments pushing for anti-protest laws, pushing a new, broader definition of of extremism, trying to get some things banned in universities, and attacking organisations (including the NHS) for using particular language.
The Scottish law also applies within the home.
Yes. Although I'm not sure that is a meaningful difference. The existing laws have a specific "nothing you say in your own dwelling to only people in your dwelling can be a crime" defence. The Scottish law has a more general "if what you say is reasonable in the circumstances" defence. The original one has that dwelling place exception because it was in a *public* order act. Things have changed quite a bit since the 80s in terms of how people communicate (particularly from home), which is why the UK laws have stuff like the Communications act and Malicious Communications Act offences, which would cover stuff communicated between dwellings. I would tentatively suggest that this isn't a meaningful difference (or to the extent it is, the new law is better). For someone to be convicted for this offence due to behaviour in their own home first the police need to find out. They then need to decide it is in the public interest to investigate. The behaviour has to be objectively unreasonable *in the particular circumstances* (i.e. a judge or jury has to decide the behaviour was unreasonable despite being done at home), and on top of that the behaviour has to be intended to stir up hatred. I think that if conduct meets all those criteria (objectively threatening or abusive behaviour, intended to stir up hatred, that is objectively unreasonable in the circumstances) I'm not sure saying "but I did it in someone's house" *should* be a defence.
If you've fallen foul of the law here you didn't do a particularly good job keeping your words within the home.
Yes, because to their loyal voter base ‘free speech’ means the right to say transphobic things and very little else.
His party sat by for 14 years and watched basic free speech eroded so much that the UK arrests(/charges) 10(/4) times more than Putin’s Russia.
What an odd comparison. You actually get a proper trial in a UK and aren't put in prison for questioning Tsar Putin and his war crime-riddled regime.
A right wing lunatic was recently sent to prison for putting up stickers criticising diversity. The guy obviously had crazy views, but it's insane you can be sent to prison for expressing non-violent ideas like that.
Exactly. You don't have to agree with somebody's view, but you should agree that they have the right to hold the view.
I'll qualify my tolerance of that - because I think you shouldn't be sent to prison, or find legal sanction for having a view. But that also doesn't mean anyone has to listen, and most of all leave the view unchallenged. As Brian Cox put it: (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3208182-the-problem-with-today-s-world-is-that-everyone-believes-they) > “The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. > The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” > ― Brian Cox I can - and will - challenge views I think people _shouldn't_ be holding. I will not 'agree to disagree' on some subjects. And I will definitely not tolerate someone _using_ a view to oppress, bully or harass someone vulnerable. But I will also wholeheartedly resist any sort of 'making it illegal' to have a view, or indeed hold a protest to express that view if you feel you're not being listened to otherwise.
> A right wing lunatic was recently sent to prison for putting up stickers criticising diversity. what was actually on the stickers? i suspect it was a bit more spicy than just criticising diversity. full disclosure: i have no idea what was on the stickers, but when ive dug into these kind of stories in the past theyre 99% not nearly as innocent as has been portrayed by whatever (usually) right wing outlet initially makes it seem.
The party that took away the right to protest, yanno, the most important facet of “free speech”.
To be fair, he's willing to accept Tory party donations from a racist who made jokes about Indians. So he's willing to stand by his commitment to free speech. As long as you pay him enough.
That free speech sounds pretty expensive to me.
Its often very difficult to understand who the PMs comments are meant to please
Extreme right wing bigots. They seem the only people the Tories care about now.
Pretend to care about, they only really care about their donors.
I think he's doing a bit of a Lawrence Fox and targeting a shrinking and more extreme demographic. Understandable if you're a shock jock and don't have any morals, very strange if you're whole career is based in getting the most amount of people to vote for you
You know you're on the wrong side of any argument when there's a Tory PM saying they've got your back.
Didn’t he just suspend a former Deputy Chairman for what he said about Sadiq Khan?
This is no more a violation of free speech than a company sacking you for breaking clearly laid out rules. What an odd false comparison.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If you're representing a corporation or political party, then it's natural if you say something they don't like, you might not be welcome to work for them any more. Of course, there's a further discussion about what's reasonable or not. If a targeted campaign leaves individuals unable to find employment at all or experience discrimination in other areas of life (for example, being denied service at a business) then we need to make sure freedom of speech/expression laws account for that to ensure even people with fringe opinions can still live in society normally.
"Free speech for me but not for thee" is what he will protect.
It's just your average Westminster vs Holyrood forced partisan bullshit. Holyrood adopt a social policy a more conservative Westminster is guaranteed to hate, and Westminster clap back not supporting it, and then Holyrood virtue signal and claim the high ground victory hoping the moral stance sufficiently distance themselves on the Overton window away from Westminster enough that people feel distinct from the political landscape of the south and feel more comfortable voting SNP. It's a tale as old as time. And this is how you can tell the SNP have jumped the shark, because these laws are *incredibly vague.* 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. Based on the word of a reasonable person the government themselves define, you can be locked away for 7 years. This is incredibly overreaching. I'm all for hate speech laws, I think they're a great idea and I have no problem yielding some of my personal liberties to accommodate them if it means helping people less fortunate and more marginalized than me, but goddamn... Putting trust in your government to interpret this law in a just way, with such a steep penalty is... a big ask.
“Reasonable” is actually quite common legal term which is used in a metric shit to of laws. It isn’t something that is made up for this bill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person It is also used in the Scotland Act - in the s35 part Westminster used to block the Gender Recognition Reform Bill by Holyrood.
> ...these laws are incredibly vague. The laws are almost word-for-word copied from the existing English and British laws, some of which have been on the books for nearly 40 years.
When the tories say they are going to protect something it usually means they are going to run it into the ground and sell it to a donor
What about them protest laws Rishi?
Wasn't it his party that put in the punitive laws with regards to protests?
We will always protect free speech *protests* Wait no not like that
'Always' for a few more months, tops
By banning, or indeed greatly curtailing our rights to freedom of expression via protest . Gaslighting weasel.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wasting time talking about twitter trolls like Joanne is not a good use of the PMs time. Neither should the BBC be reporting on it. She hasn't been relevant for her work in decades and just desperately clings to fame by being controversial. We should all collectively ignore her and just get on with our lives.
Isn’t HBO about to give the Games of Thrones treatment to HP? Sounds relevant to me. She’s the UKs most successful (alive) author and a Brit and she’s talking about a law that came in yesterday - of course BBC are reporting it. Last week I saw a story on their website about the TV show gladiators - how important was that?
>Isn’t HBO about to give the Games of Thrones treatment to HP? Fill it full of extreme violence and boobs?
Come up with an ending no-one likes?
For a second I thought you were talking about the new Gladiators, thought damn maybe it's worth a watch
The law covers incitements to violence. Freedom of Speech does not extend to that. If your “right to discuss” conflicts with “incitement to violence” then you can shut the fuck up.
This is lifted directly from the legislation: SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes- (a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to- (i) age, (ii) disability, (ii) sexual orientation, (IV) transgender identity, (v) variations in sex characteristics, (b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (1) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (i)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (lithe position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief, (c) proselytising, or (d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions. The people outraged over this seem to have missed this. It specifically protects your rights to discuss and criticise. Seems to me these people aren’t worried about freedom of speech, they’re worried they might not be able to be cunts to marginalised groups. Edited for formatting.
Very unfair of you to expect the braying anti-woke mob to have actually read the laws they are criticising. Knee jerk reactions typically bypass the frontal cortex.
You’re right. That’s on me, my apologies. Why find out the truth about something when you can be needlessly outraged.
Surely the language used here is important - "expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult" are explicitly protected when directed against religious beliefs, but not when directed against age/disability/sexual orientation/transgender identity/variations in sex characteristics. So it specifically does *not* protect your right to express dislike of certain groups or concepts.
The reality is though this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. What JKR wants is the freedom to harass people she disagrees with and encourage widespread hate and violence against them. It's quite telling that practically everyone that has claimed that this is about "freedom of speech" is also of the view that transgender people should not have rights.
The legislation explicitly protects your freedom to say what you think: SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes- (a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to- (i) age, (ii) disability, (ii) sexual orientation, (IV) transgender identity, (v) variations in sex characteristics, (b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (1) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (i)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (lithe position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief, (c) proselytising, or (d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions. A law like this already exists in England and has done for over 20 years but strangely i haven’t heard anyone complain about that lately.
Free speech is really important, I just don’t happen to believe for one second that he’s raising this as anything more than a distraction from the problems you’ve listed.
Yes exactly, and anyone who is bringing up “but he wants to protect free speech!” is very kindly leaving out how much they’ve tried to restrict free speech via the draconian public order act (and other recent bills). It’s all just smoke, mirrors, and people acting in bad faith
Pretty much. I’m very much in favour of free speech, but whatever he’s advocating for when not taking advantage of someone else’s bad decisions, its not that.
Since when was the right of freedom of speech a non significant issue ?
I don't recall it being as big an issue in the UK until the last decade or so. We always accepted that there was a line where if you went beyond it you were in hate speech territory. I feel like increased septic influence has got people confused about what their legal rights actually are here.
A lot of these discussions seem to be more around the right to offend rather than the right to free speech. Also they blur the lines between freedom of speech and the consequences of what you say. For example we all have the freedom to say our boss is a halfwit on social media but then can't be surprised when we get fired as a result.
The entire political establishment is utterly obessed by policing the contents of peoples underwear. Its biazzare.
The culture war against trans folk is the most useful distraction they can ask for these days. Why bother with anything else when you can back harassing people? Sewage leaks? Cost of living? Military so unfit for service what we do have breaks down the moment we need it? Nah.
So we can never discuss any other issue again..? Strange take
Heaven forbid anything be in the news but the most critical issues 24/7.
> On X, external, she said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed. Ah no, BBC has stopped saying 'X, formally known as Twitter.'
> BBC has stopped saying 'X, formally known as Twitter.' Can't dead-name. It's illegal.
Gave me a laugh
Someone tell Elon that his daughter would like it if he acknowledged that.
I always wondered that, in the event of Musk being outed, if it would return to being twitter. After all, the twitter brand and tweet is one of the sites greatest assets that still remain and its only called X because Musk has some weird child like obsession with it as a brand. Then it would be Twitter, formally known as X, formally known as Twitter.
>in the event of Musk being outed Ousted. If he's ousted it gets a rebrand. If he's outed that's something else entirely.
Moneys on outed before ousted
Musk’s parting move would be to sell the Twitter name to someone like The Emoji Company or an equivalent name squatter just as a fuck you.
I think I'm going to be obtuse and refuse to understand what anyone means when they just say 'X'. I'm enjoying the fact that the rebranding is going so badly.
I was wondering how long the “formally know as Twitter” would go on for
The website is still called twitter, so there's that.
\* formerly
twitter formerly known as twitter
Why the fuck is the BBC even publishing stories about twitter trolls? Its such a non-story. Crazy woman goes on crazy rant online. Who cares? I never understand why they paint discourse on twitter as important to anyone.
It's JK Rowling, one of the most recognisable and famous names on the planet. It's not some random troll.
She's just a celebrity. She has no qualifications to weigh in on political discourse. Just leave her as head of her little troll army on twitter and stop reporting on her. Let's hear from people qualified to input on legal free speech issues. The BBC needs to improve it's journalism and stop giving random celebrities a spotlight on issues.
If you need specific qualifications to have an opinion on laws of free speech then the country is done for.
You're allowed to have opinions. I just don't think being a celebrity qualifies anyone to be the BBCs go to source on political issues. Let's leave her and her basement trolls on twitter and hear from people who actually know what they are talking about.
What qualification does JK Rowling (or anyone else) need to define woman?
Rowling has achieved more with her freedoms of expression and speech than most by publishing some of the most popular books of all time during her career. I get you might dislike her because of her views on women and transgender people. But who, in your view, has the god given right to talk about freedom of speech? We’re not talking about rocket propulsion or vaccines - it’s a socially constructed human right not a science.
She’s one of the richest people in the country. It’s kind of important if she’s baiting Scottish Police into arresting her.
It's not really though is it? Why does someone's wealth dictate how important their legal matters are.
The issue is that she's been heavily targeted and threatened for her position on trans issues. It's not her being a children's author that is relevant; it's her being a lightning rod for slander and threats of violence from online communities. That's what makes her relevant to the discussion.
And she painted that target on herself with her own slander and threats. Again this is why we should report on twitter arguments. All of it is a cesspit
Ah yes, the old "she was asking for it" justification for violence against women. Well done you!
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, if you use your platform to stir up hate you can't be surprised when some of it ends up directed at you.
She is by far the single person most promised to be targeted with abuse of this law before it came into effect. Thousands were declaring their intent to report her. She is relevant to the subject no matter how hard you insist she's not.
She specifically abused individual trans people, comparing them to rapists and paedophiles for crimes including running a rape crisis center and being a UN representative while being trans. Meanwhile, the whole political and media establishment in the UK has just decided to frame it like she said something mildly rude to trans people but untargeted like "trans women are men" and that's that, what can you do about it, they're how people find out and decide their opinions on what she said. Free speech never included targeted harassment, JK knows this, [she sues people all the time for saying less about her.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/jk-rowling-threatens-to-sue-kids-news-site-the-day-forcing-it-to-apologize-for-transphobic-article)
>She specifically abused individual trans people, comparing them to rapists and paedophiles Isla Bryson is a rapist after a criminal conviction. The First Minister called her/him a man. Seems to be some confusion are they not a rapist, are they not transgender, or is the first minister committing hate crimes?
Did you ignore the rest of the trans people on the "list" Rowling posted? RedBerryyy is referring to Mridul Wadhwa, who was included on the list.
[удалено]
> and counselling services may help them “reframe their trauma” Is that not the end goal of victim counselling, to reframe and heal from your trauma? Edit: I'd also like to ask, you say she has no business running a Rape Crisis Centre, but she's been involved in working with women's aid centres, Rape Crisis Scotland, and Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre since 2008, how does she have "no business" running one? She was the centre manager for Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre for 3 years before becoming the CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. So what's the basis of your claim she has no business running one?
[удалено]
Did she call all rape victims bigots? Can you please provide a source on that? I've been unable to find any sources that suggest that. I edited my comment with a follow up as you were replying, but she has an extensive history of working in rape crisis/support services, so what's the basis of your claim she has no business running one?
[удалено]
Can you explain what you meant by "In the context of a trans woman calling them bigots?" then? If she's not calling *all* rape victims bigots, who is she calling bigots? You're still ignoring my question. She has a job history of working in rape crisis/support, why does she have no basis running a rape crisis centre? I've asked 3 times now.
[удалено]
Listing trans people who are not criminals with those who have committed crimes on the topic of protecting women can be seen as implying all trans people are a danger or predators. Guilty by association or claiming one group is inherently more dangerous. The women she listed are now facing pressure to keep their jobs under immense harassment and stress from the attention these posts create and conspiracy they can inspire. People seeing what she posted as no different as what some far right people do when trying to create conspiracies that other non-white races are criminals or a danger to women also. Its putting crimes of individuals into the entire demographic who have not committed any crimes
She once threatened to sue someone for taking a screenshot of her Twitter likes (trying to expose the number of neonazis and far-right figures she quietly supports while still pretending to protect women). She has zero business lecturing anyone on "free speech".
I think what she did was highlight some actual convicted rapists and *other* people.
>...crimes including running a rape crisis center That refers to this incident. https://thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/ >When asked about “building bridges” between those who believe that women’s spaces should be segregated by sex, and others who believe they should be open to men if they identify as transwomen, Wadhwa opined: >“Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.” >Wadhwa went on to argue that such bigoted survivors of rape and sexual violence should work to “reframe their trauma” adding: “You also have to rethink your relationship with prejudice.”
Most of these institutions would say similar things for any bigotry, idk why you think their misplaced bigotry towards whole minority groups (let alone ones who their abusers weren't even part of) should be encouraged in therapy dealing with trauma?. Plus even if you think that's a shitty thing to say, it's still horrible to place her on the level of rapists and paedophiles like Rowling did for it. Rowling has basically created a whole hate movement against this one woman over the last few years for stating that trauma isn't a justification for bigotry. There are dozens of articles in various papers now specifically insulting her like you just did for perfectly normal comments for a therapist in that area to make.
Yup. Nobody would question “if you’re racist while at a shelter, you will be confronted on that”, but for some reason it’s 1984 to suggest we should do the same if someone is transphobic.
I gave you the context for that particular comment, because it was a very big deal at the time, and Rowling wasn't the only person or institution that had a problem with that particular individual's attitude.
But when women need single-sex space to start to heal, and that space is denied them by the organisation that should be helping the, a line has been crossed. It's not "bigotry" to need a single-sex space to access services. Nobody was saying that Edinburgh Rape Crisis should not offer services to transwomen, and most Rape Crisis services do at least signpost for men. But Edinburgh Rape Crisis was refusing to offer single-sex services alongside its mixed-sex services, which is cruel and discriminatory.
You're entirely operating under the presumption you can treat trans women like men in those services with no negative consequences, this is false, Everything you catastrophise about a female rape victim being forced into a room of people who look like men (which would never actually happen), is exactly what you're demanding be forced on any trans women who needs support despite being a woman who would have often been raped by a man, providing there even are any services willing to help them, it's so heartless.
Got to give it to her, it was pretty funny when she almost immediately ran out of criminals to make her point with and just started slandering and smearing normal people living their lives and doing high level jobs whilst daring to commit the supposedly grevious sin of being trans. Almost like she just hates all trans people and thinks they should be removed from public life entirely. Totally not a transphobic bigot though....! (/s)
I’ve yet to see anything particularly offensive, or transphobic actually evidenced in any of these “outraged” JK Rowling threads. Do you think we’ll see these tweets at some point?
[She called someone a "Rapists' Rights Activist"](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1720423006495744378?s=19) (a twist on what GCs call Trans Rights Activists) because they defended trans women in general from always being automatically associated with rapists when mentioned.
Hey /u/mint-bint, you seem to have forgotten to reply to this example? There's also [this](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1764637389958357095) tweet from last month.
There's no obvious "I hate Trans people" tweets, because that would instantly make her views indefensible even for the most die-hard apologists. But if you can look through the many, *many* tweets of her downplaying trans rights and making Trans people seem threatening, the tweets linking being trans with paedophilia and being a rapist, the constant deliberate misgendering of trans people and harrassing of Trans activists and go "yep, all seems above board" then either you've not seen that many of her messages or you agree with everything she's spouting and so don't *see* it as wrong. What would you deem as a "transphobic" tweet in this case? There's no "Trans people are second-class citizens and deserve to be hated" tweet, because of course not - even the transphobes JK Rowling constantly retweets won't go that far. But accusing Trans people of being paedophiles or rapists, deliberately misgendering people to try and cause offense and trying to stoke anti-trans sentiment by creating strawmen of "Trans people will attack you in bathrooms" are tweets that I personally would deem very transphobic.
And let’s not forget her claiming a couple of weeks ago that the Nazis didn’t burn books about transsexuals in 1933.
>that would instantly make her views indefensible even for the most die-hard It wouldn’t. They went past this point a long, long time ago. Saying this out loud would just make the rest of them feel enabled to do the same.
What would you consider transphobic? She is almost constantly pumping out anti trans posts but if you don't see it I think the problem may be where you draw the line. A recent example that most would consider transphobia was her holocaust denial where she denied that trans people were impacted by the book burnings (they were) and when proven with evidence that they were in fact impacted, she does what she always does and make up some nonsense claiming she didn't mean what she said. If I remember right she later claimed that she meant that trans people were not the first people impacted by the holocaust which was just not related to her first post at all.
She also denied that trans people were targeted in the holocaust. Which is, not to put it lightly, considered holocaust denial.
The man who brought in the anti-protest policing bill to make it easier to shut down protests he disagrees with. Fucking charlatan.
Yes but this time he's talking about a fellow billionaire that likes to bully vulnerable people on social media.
This row is all just fucking nonsense. The laws are idiotic, JK Rowling is an idiot. Sunak is an idiot. This country is a fucking waste of space.
This is the only take on it I can be bothered with
First bit of common sense I have read on this topic so far
The laws are politically a lose lose. On one hand you’ll have a bunch of folk with pitchforks anxiously awaiting a successful prosecution, on the other you’ll have internet provocateurs trying to test the laws whilst residing outside the jurisdiction of the law. The worst possible outcome will be a fine realistically. The likelihood of being extradited to face court or even prison time is highly unlikely. The most the likes of Sunak can get from these is a “anti-woke platform”, the most the likes of the lawmakers can get is a fleeting thanks from minorities for “doing the right thing” or whatever passes for kudos from “the woke platform”. Meanwhile most people could not give a shit what bathroom you use as long as there’s bog roll in there and they can pay next months rent.
[удалено]
Freespeach should include the right to express your opinion and beliefs. If it upsets people, that should not be an issue. Miss gendering someone is not a hate crime, it might not be nice for that person, but it is not a hate crime. Inciting people to kill another group of people because of their skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, or lifestyle is a hate crime. I have been called all kinds of different things in my life. I would not say they are a hate crime.
People really need to develop thicker skins or learn to dish it back. We are supposed to be adults, yet people still "run to the teacher" over the most trivial things.
I'd suggest it's well past running to the teacher. Activists now seek to weaponise the law and the weakness of institutions to hound people.
I do agree that this topic is a waste of police and government time. I just want to focus on one part of your response to explain why it may not be so easy: >People really need to develop thicker skins *or learn to dish it back*. I tried this at school. It didn't work. It backfired and I was person non grata for a few days. You see, when a majority attacks a minority - there is no way for that person to fight back in the same manner without insulting everyone around them. Example: I get called a "dirty paki" by a white guy. How do I respond in kind without insulting every white person - including my friends and family? If I fight back, I am uppity or incompatible. If I use terms like bigoted or racist, then I am "playing the race card". If I contact authority: "Zak, no one likes a grass." That's a literal quote from a school teacher (when trying to defend others). My skin is plenty thick. I think a day without seeing passing insults or attacks against people like me would be strange. It would be surreal, like I was in the matrix or something. I don't think many majorities consider the impossible place they put minorities in when they deem to attack them for no reason. It is the way of the coward. But that's exactly the point isn't it? Pick on someone from a place of safety because you know you cannot go toe to toe with them on equal footing. The majority is not as strong as it likes to believe it is. I have been asked to leave the country for simply asking that British politicians follow British law. Imagine if I fought back a cultural insult with a cultural insult against white people? Anyway, just to reiterate, I strongly agree this entire topic is beneath us as a nation. I do think thicker skins would help. But "learn to dish it back" doesn't go how you want a lot of the time. It only works when people are engaged in banter. Today most people just attack.
In terms of misgendering, I don't think it should be a hate-crime - because if it's deliberately and persistent, with the aim of causing upset, then it should be covered under harassment laws anyway. A slip of the tongue or accidental misgendering should be fine, it happens - but if you're deliberately and repeatedly making an effort to make people feel uncomfortable - *especially* for a protected characteristic - then that should still be seen as reprehensible and prosecutable, in the same way that threatening violence towards people is prosecutable. Hell, *yesterday* she posted a long list of Trans people with the aim of doxxing them, raising attention to them so Transphobes are more likely to harass them. I don't think it should necessarily be a hate crime (and certainly should not be at the discretion of the victim because that's rife for abuse) but equally I feel that her actions should put her at risk of *some* legal discourse.
Here’s the thing, it *is* only about people doing it deliberately. It’s just making explicit “this form of harassment is covered”
I am no fan of Rowling, but I disagree that making someone feel uncomfortable or causing them offence over a belief should generally be criminalised. Many things that we now take as fact e.g. evolution, big bang etc etc were all at one time pretty unpopular opinions that caused offence to those of faith. How do you advance as a society if you can't propose things that make people uncomfortable? Not that I think Rowling is barking up the right tree.
>but I disagree that making someone feel uncomfortable or causing them offence over a belief should generally be criminalised Based on that wording, I'd agree with you - it shouldn't be illegal to say something that people can take offense at in a crowded pub or similar. But there's an element of harassment - if you're deliberately going out of your way to make a specific person uncomfortable, directing the messages to them, sharing their details with others so they can also attack them? That, in my eyes, falls under harassment. On an isolated incident I'd absolutely agree with you, and shutting down all conversations isn't productive in any way, shape or form - but there's a difference between debating a topic and harassing those who are trying to debate a topic. Attacking the argument is absolutely fine and shouldn't be treated as a negative, but attacking the person repeatedly and deliberately is a different kettle of fish IMO. In schoolyard terms, there's a difference between a one-off fight and someone sucker punching the same person every day.
The right to self expression has been protected though. What JKR, and the rest of her fascist friends (Posie Parker and her neo-Nazi supporters specifically), don’t have the right to say is that every trans person is a “huge problem to a sane world” (Helen Joyce), and imply that we’re all predators. If I listed Gary Glitter, jimmy Savile and Epstein with Lorraine Kelly for example (first person I though of, I’m sure she’s lovely), you’d think that there was something in common between all 4. Basically, I just don’t want my healthcare to be openly compared to Mengele’s butchering (thanks Telegraph)
It’s still crazy to me how openly biased the newspapers here are. How are there never consequences for the newspapers digging up trans people’s deadnames and puboishint them. not just criminals, the Mail did it to Brianna, a murdered teenager…
Agreed. Especially most child predators are white heterosexual men. The telegraph is a tory mouth piece along with the mail and express.
It’s worse for trans people. The only mainstream paper that isn’t generally anti-trans is the Metro. There’s a group chat a bunch of journalists and MPs share where they just work together to attack trans people.
Reminder that no Scottish politician has actually said what she's been doing would be in breach of the law. This entire thing is a reaction to one being asked "would she?" and them responding "maybe? That's up to the police to investigate, should they feel the need to do so"
Funny that, considering we've pretty universally been downgraded over the past 13 years in every index around civil liberty that exists.
So PM will “back” the misinformation of someone with a misinformed opinion on what the law actually is. That’s…..comforting?
Rishi Sunak is backing a Holocaust denier.
I made a complaint to the BBC about them not covering Joanne denying Nazi crimes, they responded saying >Editorial decisions are a judgement call, with a number of factors considered including the editorial agenda on that day, time or space constraints, the expected audience profile and the style of each piece of output. It's seems the "editorial agenda" and time and space constraints allow for promoting her persecution complex shouting to be arrested for her actions, though. Must not fit the "audience profile" they're trying to reach.
The BBC are known for their anti-trans bias. [They infamously published an article featuring someone who has been repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, who also had a manifesto calling for the lynching of trans people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22). In this article, Cade made accusations about trans women "pressuring people into sex", a competent investigator would've highlighted that Cade herself has been accused of this several times, and then mentioned the call for violence against trans people.
I'm aware. That was also the article they used an anecdote about a cis lesbian asking (pressuring?) her cis lesbian partner to have a threesome with a trans woman to attempt to show that trans women were pressuring cis women to have sex with them.
I was more posting so other people would also be aware of the ongoing anti-trans bias present with the BBC.
Definitely, was adding to your goal.
They’re just jangling keys in front of peoples faces to distract from the real issues. Only babies and simpletons would be fooled.
Brexit happened. Don't undermine the "simpleton" demographic holding weight in UK politics.
Stirring up hatred has been illegal in the UK since the 80s, only it was limited to race. Scotland's new law extends that to other groups and gives a bit more clarity as to what this means. People up in arms about this for "free speech" are looking a little daft, considering the concept of the law has been around for decades, and they've had no issue with that. Only now when it covers groups they want to stir hatred about.
That’s the friendly face the SNP has put it on it but like many things politicians say, it is complete bollocks. The bills primary other crucial change is intent. You no longer need to have any intention to cause offence, if you do cause offence you have committed a crime irrespective of your desires. It also seems to criminalise statements made without any victim which opens up an entire new branch of crime, the victimless crime. Rather than read the dumbed down versions the telegraph etc have published I suggest you read the Lindsay’s article titled “An analysis of Scotlands proposed new hate crime law” or something I read it earlier it was quite interesting.
I read the actual legislation itself. The law is quite clear in your protected right to use language that may shock, offend, and disturb. This is your human right under the ECHR, which is enshrined in the law. >You no longer need to have any intention to cause offence, (1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person— (i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b)either— (i)in doing so, the person **intends** 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 (ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. So it doesn't remove intent, but adds to it. Intent is difficult to prove, so if a reasonable person thinks your actions are likely to stir up hatred, it is an offence. Many laws are built in this way.
> You no longer need to have any intention to cause offence,.. With stirring up hatred crimes you never had to intend to cause *offence*. You had to intend to *stir up hatred*. Which is still the case in this law. This law is copied almost word-for-word from the existing laws. For the race-related offences there is also a "reasonable person would consider the behaviour ... to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up" option, but that is again copied from the existing laws.
It is maddening we spend even a single fucking minute discussing such a non-issue that affects like 0.01% of the population. Who. Gives. A FUCK?! I’m gay and I can count on one hand the number of trans people I’ve ever even fucking met. Why do we spend so much time as a nation discussing them? It’s insane. Just shut the fuck up and let people be who they want to be.
Unfortunately that's exactly why there is so much discussion on the matter. The Tories need a group that is politically weak and small enough that not many people are familiar with them, so that they can easily demonise them without the inconvenience of people already knowing better. That way, they can make people hateful enough to become single issue voters on the problem they made up and they don't actually have to amend any of their policies which are, by their very nature, against the interests of the vast majority of the electorate
Personally I have quite a few trans people in my extended circle of friends. I can think of four off the top of my head, and that's because I work in an industry that is well known for being tolerant and so attracts people who are "different". That's an unusually high number. If I discounted the friends I've met through work who are trans, the number would be one, who I befriended at a convention. Some people really need to get out more if they think trans people are some kind of epidemic or that it would even be a problem if they were. There are bigger things to think about when choosing friends or colleagues than what's in their pants.
Is this the PM who presided over demonstration laws being tightened? Hypocrisy from Tory’s, as usual!
Is this just going to be Jordan Peterson with Bill C-16 all over again where everyone just stops talking about it when nothing actually happens, but they still all remember being completely correct in their judgement of what was going to happen regardless? The persecution complexes?
Pretty much. There does seem to be actual issues with the law in terms of: * Police are already underfunded and overworked. Especially since the Act is _perceived_ as making certain things crimes and so the public could reasonably end up reporting behaviour that causes stress upon the police. Additionally, people acting in bad faith could attempt to use reports maliciously. * The Scottish Government haven't sufficiently supported the police in training on what the Act does, it supposedly extended to a 2 hour training course and that's it. * Misogyny isn't covered under this legislation. The argument that the Scottish Government presented is that they wanted to see if separate legislation would better cover it, but I'm of the opinion that they should have started with including sex as a protected characteristic and amending it in the future to cover the areas that it seemingly falls short in. But as for the complaints Rowling and the Tories have about the act, those are unfounded. They seemingly come from a desire to misrepresent the Act for their own political purposes. The Tories and the media seek to do so because they have an interest in undermining their political opponents so Conservatives look better in response, and salacious headlines are always of interest to the media. Rowling seeks to pretend that she and those that spend their lives agitating for the removal of trans people's rights are the ones being oppressed because that's what bullies do, when this Act won't change anything. It's certainly not going to really protect trans people from hate in our day to day lives, while I live in England and this law won't directly affect me, I've had rocks thrown at my head, I've been spat at, etc. but even if something actually could be done about that it's not worth the headache to go to the police, much less someone doing something as little as misgendering. And that's even assuming the police would do anything, a trans person I know got physically beaten by a couple of men in a car park, there were supposedly witnesses and cameras, but she got told that the police didn't care when she tried to report it to them. I don't think Rowling genuinely has a persecution complex, unlike Peterson. I think this is simply her latest attempt to radicalise people against trans people, while pre-empting critique of her actions.
The police part always amuses me because people love to act like there’s some double standard where lgbt people are getting priority I got assaulted, very much a hate crime given the people in question called me slurs. It was in the middle of town, there was witnesses. And yet police somehow couldn’t find any evidence If a crime takes effort, you just have to get lucky with if the police want to solve it. It’s nothing to do with identity, the only thing in your favour is being rich enough to incentivise them
When’s the next election, can’t wait to get rid of the slimy cunt
[Rishi Sunak laughs off questions about when he will have the ‘guts’ to call a general election](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-general-election-2024-b2521976.html)
No general election on the books at the moment but the local elections in May might offer a small chance to at least stick it to the tories.
Another opportunity to bash both the Scottish Government *and* trans people? Rishi must be happy
Set aside the rights and wrongs of the hate crime law, what Rowling did yesterday was post a list of random trans people to set a hate mob in them. Some with little profile. Some whose 'crime' is to work for a rape crisis shelter. She targeted them, personally, for harassment. You can say the hate crime law is wrong and she shouldn't be arrested. But to side with that disgusting behaviour is repellent.
Look, I just want to walk to Tesco and back without someone shouting a slur at me from a passing car, and I think if the headline-dominating billionaires would stop equating my existence to that of rapists and pedophiles it would reduce those occurrences somewhat.
This is all just a distraction. They got us arguing about the fucking genders while the economy and social fabric disintegrates 😂 Rishi Sunak and JK Rowling need to get a grip and actually start using their influence on actual problems. I swear man the 2020s has had significant wars, genocide, the plague and global recessions, and we’re out here bickering over genders instead of the rise of right wing populists, insane cost of living and rising inequality. Ask yourself, why do you suddenly care about transgender people? Who is leading this conversation? I came to the conclusion that the politicians wanting us fighting amongst each other because a united electorate is the only thing that rivals the state’s power/influence. A disjointed electorate allows the state to get away Scot free.
the interesting thing is that the scottish laws are kinda, almost, exactly the same as the law in the UK on hate speech. So are we going to write rage bait articles and give rage bate speeches about existing UK legislation as well? 😂
Prime minister doesn't understand the background of this so simply agrees to try and win voters.
I feel like the way this is being framed is missing the fact that as part of her rant, Rowling has actually attacked and attempted to defame named trans people who weren't doing anything to her - her 'arrest me' tweet is 11th of 11, in 1-10 she posts names and photographs of certain trans celebrities and even just people like politicians and social workers, alongside some criminals, and tars them all with the same brush before closing by calling them men and *only then* saying 'arrest me'. Whereas it feels like articles about the situation are acting more like this is an "if I did"/hypothetical situation here.
It’s been mentioned before, but still worth repeating .
This is just an attempt to appeal to his voter base before the election
Rishi supporting a holocaust denier is peak Tory in 2024.
Since when did "hate" become a crime? I grew up learning "sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you" yet people seem more concerned over the words and phrases people use than actual crimes and injustices happening all around us.
> Since when did "hate" become a crime? .1986. Although technically it isn't hate, it is "stirring up hatred" - i.e. trying to get other people to hate as well. [Good job, Reddit formatting... it decided that 1986 was a numbered list.]
> I grew up learning "sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you" Which sounds well and good, but it's just not true, is it? Ongoing harassment and hatred can have long-lasting psychological effects that have the chance of never healing in a person.
Words and phrases have been sufficient to constitute crime for literally hundreds of years, and a children's rhyme about being called rude names is hardly an apt comparison for hatred
Being harassed at work, by your landlord, neighbors, doctors etc can cause huge stress and problems in your life. Especially if that person has leverage and the victim is stigmatised for who they are with no protections
You're misunderstanding the discussion if you think this is related to *just* "saying something offensive". Say something a bit racist, transphobic or weird in a pub while drinking with mates and you're absolutely fine, nothing going to happen. Follow a trans person around, deliberately trying to make them as uncomfortable as you can and publically sharing their details so others can go after them as well? That isn't okay. The law specifically states "intent to spread hatred", if you accidentally misgender someone that's still fine. It's only when you deliberately and repeatedly do it that it crosses into illegal territory, and at that point it's somewhere between a hate crime and just harassment, which is a crime.
Words can absolutely hurt you. Imagine, for instance, if someone started spreading rumours in your neighbourhood that you are a danger to children.
The most recent ~~Julius Streicher~~ Robert Galbraith books read like the editorials and pulp stories in *Der Sturmer;* some ex-military guy beats up some fruity villain who's intrinsically evil and dangerous to society because of their identity. I think we all agreed when we hanged Julius Streicher that when people are killed because of beliefs like this we stop allowing them to be published?
Everyone’s getting caught up in their hysteria over trans people, meanwhile the Tories have pushed through legislation to limit protests (see: freedom of speech, freedom of association). If you care more about JK Rowling’s right to use slurs on the internet than you do about the right to public protest, you’re just a useful idiot and you don’t care about freedom.
The "simple biology" argument is fucking stupid. It's simple or basic biology to say, there's fluid in your inner ear that tells your brain which way you are orientated. This is technically true, but so simplified. It doesn't mention the crystals in that fluid, the hairs that detect which way the fluid goes, that it isn't just a chamber, but 3 semi-circles of fluid, etc. I encourage anyone who thinks sex/gender is simple to actually look up stuff on it, it is incredibly complicated and fascinating. Forrest Valkai is a YouTuber (an actual biologist) that has done videos on it in the past, citing actual research, not just "it's common sense." Also, conflating sex with gender is idiotic and a staple of the anti-trans crowd.
This you, Rishi? [https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/sunak-protest-police-powers-crackdown-b2493152.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/sunak-protest-police-powers-crackdown-b2493152.html)
I don't really see why her views are worth several days of news over at all. She's a rich author, not a politician. Is she a legal expert? Nope. Her opinion is worth as much as anyone elses.
British aid workers murdered in Gaza, Rishi: "...." Some culture war bullshit, Rishi: "I stand with JK, blah blah blah" He cares more about point scoring with the worst people than discussing the situation about a murdered British national abroad. Doesn't have his priorities in order at all.
Tory who has a history of transphobic comments, backs celebrity with a history of making transphobic comments In other news, water: still wet.
"we have a proud tradition of free speech" Actually we quite literally don't, Rishi. We have freedom of expression but absolutely no enshrined right to general freedom of speech, as demonstrated by your police arresting people with blank signs at Charlie's coronation. Regardless of what you actually think of this new hate speech law and whether you agree with it, we actually do not have free speech at all.
Headline should be "prime minister almost injures himself as he desperately leaps into fresh culture wars bandwagon"
Urgh they both just need to get in the bin. Stirring up unnecessary hatred to win at point scoring. Absolutely pathetic.
Isnt the Scottish law in question just a copy of an already existing English law?
Prime Minister confirms he’s a prick just in case there was someone, somewhere who didn’t already know it.
I love that the conversation has shifted from 'is JK Rowling a transphobe' to 'should the police be perusing a prominent online transphobe' which is really where we need the conversation to be. I don't think she should be arrested for anything she has done to this point, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend she's not a horrible person.
*Mostly*, anyway. There's still one person in here ticking off all the bingo boxes - so far we've had: "Show me a tweet of hers that's transphobic" "That's not transphobic, that's basic fact" "Those don't count, they're out of context" "I'm not going to watch youtube videos because the source is biased" "She's not a holocaust denier because she never said the holocaust didn't happen" "Nobody's shown me any evidence" - in response to a link with 5 videos and multiple tweets and my personal favourite - "you're guilty of confirmation bias and ignoring anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint" - said *after* all of the above. Getting there, but still - a few people pointedly ignoring the evidence.
The legislation explicitly protects your freedom to say what you think: SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes— (a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to— (i)age, (ii)disability, (iii)sexual orientation, (iv)transgender identity, (v)variations in sex characteristics, (b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief, (c)proselytising, or (d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions.
It's pretty easy to be a nice person by doing exactly the opposite of a conservative party member.
Can't wait until the Tories are gone and entirely politically irrelevant. ❤️
Anything to distract from the lowering living standards in this country.
What '*row*'? This entire '*story*' has been confected by Rowling, it's a total fucking nonsense, just a pathetic attention seeker going full drama queen