The once-beloved children’s author is working herself up over Scotland’s new bias law.

The once-beloved children’s author is working herself up over Scotland’s new bias law.

U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has jumped to defend J.K. Rowling, who is once again using her one wild and precious life to post obsessively about transgender women instead of doing literally anything else with her hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Harry Potter author took to X, formerly Twitter, on April 1 to share her thoughts on Scotland’s new Hate Crime Act, which went into effect the same day. The law criminalizes “stirring up hatred” related to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trans identity, or being intersex, as the BBC reported. “Stirring up hatred” is further defined as communicating or behaving in a way “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive” against a protected group. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine, or both.

In response to the legislation, Rowling posted a long thread naming several prominent trans women in the U.K., including Mridul Wadhwa, the CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, and activist Munroe Bergdorf. Since it was April Fool’s day, Rowling decided to commemorate it by sarcastically affirming the womanhood of all the people she named in her thread. In the same breath that she said that a convicted child predator was “rightly sent to a women’s prison,” she also called out a number of trans women making anodyne comments about inclusion, seemingly implying that trans identity is inherently predatory.

read more: https://www.them.us/story/jk-rowling-rishi-sunak-social-media-trans

  • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    42·
    3 months ago

    The law criminalizes “stirring up hatred” related to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trans identity, or being intersex, as the BBC reported. “Stirring up hatred” is further defined as communicating or behaving in a way “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive” against a protected group.

    There’s a difference between saying what you think and being “threatening or abusive”. Note that nothing JK has done so far actually qualifies.

    If she directed her audience to harass the ones she mocked that would be different. At a certain point that shouldn’t be allowed, no?

    • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?

      It is illegal already, she can’t make comments to her weirdly large base that have the same effect of causing violence or panic or fear thereof.

      Hilarious that a chick who made her money off witchcraft and mildly pedophilic children’s stories takes issues with morality of all things.

      • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        Hate to ask, but I don’t want to google it, can you elaborate on that last bit?

          • Kedly@lemm.eeEnglish
            42·
            3 months ago

            An abused boy becomes magical jesus and constantly fights magical hitler while attending magic school… I’m not getting the pedophilic bits unless you think children merely existing equates to pedophilia

            • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
              23·
              3 months ago

              If that’s how you read it.

              There’s a teacher in the book who can see through clothes at a children’s school and its held in the book by administration as a good thing to have around… Think about that.

              Ed: not enough?

              A ghost woman who is canonically age 37 lives in the boys restroom of a children’s school and again canonically watches potter and others bathe… Its so well accepted its in the movies and no one thinks twice about it.

              Polymorph potion, be anyone or anything of any age… I didn’t really need to explain that.

              Luck potion canonically a psuedodate rape drug.

              Love potion a literal and unabashed date rape drug.

              • Kedly@lemm.eeEnglish
                31·
                3 months ago

                Damn, you finally produced some examples, should have started with those! Ill admit most of those are sketchy but man do they not play anywhere NEAR a large enough part in any if the books for you to assume any of us are going to be on the same page as you without those examples already present

                • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m not a teacher, Its not my job to help people read.

                  An adult bathing with children and making inappropriate comments. “That’s not pedophilia!” I think I know now who not to leave kids with.

                  • Kedly@lemm.eeEnglish
                    23·
                    3 months ago

                    Lmao, you’re certainly not smart enough to be one

                  • Kedly@lemm.eeEnglish
                    1·
                    3 months ago

                    I said SOME of them were sus. Myrtle being one of the bigger ones. I was just saying buddy would have had a better chance at a conversation if they actually brought these points up first instead of just walking into the conversation screaming “PEDOPHILE!”

        • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          I upvoted you, as the other guy was not reading your post, but disagree with the general stance. What is “reasonable” is still somewhat defined by the current political climate, even if it’s not defined by a single person.

          The UK government is currently very pro-Israel, and could easily use this to prosecute pro-Palestine/ceasefire protesters (assuming the existing anti-protest laws don’t get them).

          It massively limits the rights of minority political opinions.