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

JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

…

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.

  • iLoveFishing
    1·
    9 months ago

    You have me convinced. Lock up anyone that voices criticisms of left leaning ideology.

      • iLoveFishing
        1·
        9 months ago

        And when the right gets elected we can consider any criticism of Christianity as hate speech and lock them up too. People never abuse their power.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          11·
          9 months ago

          Weird how that hasn’t happened in any other country that has hate speech laws.

          Is America special? Americans somehow need extra special freedom of speech?

          • iLoveFishing
            1·
            9 months ago

            Because they are rarely enforced. Do you really think that if Trump was elected again he wouldn’t try to abuse a law like this? Either way, we have different opinions here. I believe that if someone wants to criticize an idea they should be allowed to, you believe that if that opinion is offensive that it could be considered hateful and should be illegal, do I have that right?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              I thought you just said comedians were getting locked up because of those laws. Now you’re saying they’re rarely enforced. Which is it?

              • iLoveFishing
                1·
                9 months ago

                They are rarely enforced. What percent of the world is comedians?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  So, again, you are claiming America is a special place and Americans need special freedoms other Western countries don’t have.

                  • iLoveFishing
                    1·
                    9 months ago

                    Either way, we have different opinions here. I believe that if someone wants to criticize an idea they should be allowed to, you believe that if that opinion is offensive that it could be considered hateful and should be illegal, do I have that right?

              • iLoveFishing
                1·
                9 months ago

                Either way, we have different opinions here. I believe that if someone wants to criticize an idea they should be allowed to, you believe that if that opinion is offensive that it could be considered hateful and should be illegal, do I have that right?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  Nope. You don’t have that right. “Offensive” was not in the definition I gave you either. You keep adding to or modifying the definition.

                  Once again-

                  Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.

                  That says nothing about offensiveness or about political ideology and there are zero examples of a country twisting that law into some major form of oppression. Not one. Your hypothetical doesn’t change reality.