This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- Publishing a book
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- [Official] Riots in streets across the UK, after 3 children die in Southport stabbing
- For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warning
- KCL Law and Professional Practice
- Criminal Law vs Family Law
- Tesco Advise
- Access to He colleges for law?
- How do police download phone data
- The experience I wanted
- 14yo Arrested After 7yo Killed by Motorcycle Hit-and-Run
- Riots in Leeds
- sociology
- Do you have to be top of your class to succeed on a law degree?
- Criminology at the University of Winchester: A students POV
- uni course med or law ???
- is it just me or anyone else?
- national 5 modern studies 2024
- From Freedom Fighters to Thought Police: How the Left Lost Its Way
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime law
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.
There’s more on this story here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o
There’s more on this story here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o
Scroll to see replies
She really does her best to be exasperating, doesn’t she?
The beeb are partly responsible for reporting on everything that falls out of her head.
The beeb are partly responsible for reporting on everything that falls out of her head.
Reply 4
Not surprising to see her misunderstand what the bill does. Grifters gonna grift.
intends to stir up hatred based on protected characteristics is the new legislation - Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 section 4
direct intention of, not recklessly not negligently stirring up hatred via comments. anyone with half an A level in law would know how difficult it is to prove direct intent.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4
without even knowing rowling's actual comments i'd bet my life savings she's in the clear, especially when it's legal to vent 'ideas that offend, shock or disturb' (see link above). wow, so edgy girl
direct intention of, not recklessly not negligently stirring up hatred via comments. anyone with half an A level in law would know how difficult it is to prove direct intent.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4
without even knowing rowling's actual comments i'd bet my life savings she's in the clear, especially when it's legal to vent 'ideas that offend, shock or disturb' (see link above). wow, so edgy girl
Reply 6
She’s actually becoming a nightmare.
Original post by Genesiss
intends to stir up hatred based on protected characteristics is the new legislation - Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 section 4
direct intention of, not recklessly not negligently stirring up hatred via comments. anyone with half an A level in law would know how difficult it is to prove direct intent.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4
without even knowing rowling's actual comments i'd bet my life savings she's in the clear, especially when it's legal to vent 'ideas that offend, shock or disturb' (see link above). wow, so edgy girl
direct intention of, not recklessly not negligently stirring up hatred via comments. anyone with half an A level in law would know how difficult it is to prove direct intent.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4
without even knowing rowling's actual comments i'd bet my life savings she's in the clear, especially when it's legal to vent 'ideas that offend, shock or disturb' (see link above). wow, so edgy girl
At this point JK Rowling seems to be doing this as an act of attention seeking.
I can understand some of the concerns when it comes to this type of thing (topic), but is Harry Potter really in that much of a desperate state that you need to do this kind of stuff (bring yourself this much attention and trouble)?
I don’t engage with Harry Potter stuff so I wouldn’t know how the franchise is doing.
Reply 8
Original post by Genesiss
intends to stir up hatred based on protected characteristics is the new legislation - Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 section 4
direct intention of, not recklessly not negligently stirring up hatred via comments. anyone with half an A level in law would know how difficult it is to prove direct intent.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4
without even knowing rowling's actual comments i'd bet my life savings she's in the clear, especially when it's legal to vent 'ideas that offend, shock or disturb' (see link above). wow, so edgy girl
direct intention of, not recklessly not negligently stirring up hatred via comments. anyone with half an A level in law would know how difficult it is to prove direct intent.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4
without even knowing rowling's actual comments i'd bet my life savings she's in the clear, especially when it's legal to vent 'ideas that offend, shock or disturb' (see link above). wow, so edgy girl
She absolutely is. The law already exists when it comes to racial and religious hatred, all this does is extend it to other protected characteristics.
I generally stay away from identity politics topics as they bore me but I made the mistake of looking at Rowling’s Twitter feed.
There’s someone nasty invective on there. If I had her level of wealth, I’d be on a Caribbean island with a harem to serve my every want. Instead she choose to become a pathetic trans-obsessed internet goblin that gets into slanging matches on the internet
Identity politics really do rot people’s brains.
There’s someone nasty invective on there. If I had her level of wealth, I’d be on a Caribbean island with a harem to serve my every want. Instead she choose to become a pathetic trans-obsessed internet goblin that gets into slanging matches on the internet
Identity politics really do rot people’s brains.
(edited 1 year ago)
and ofc now the bbc decides to report exactly what i said yesterday, that ‘ideas that offend, shock or disturb’ are legal (s 4(5))
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471
however still casually omitting the fact that stirring up hatred must be intentional (s 4(2)(b)) <— this is imperative if one wants to understand law, cuz without the specific intent the action in question isn’t a crime.
course that doesn’t sell newspapers tho; wouldn’t be sensational if there wasn’t some good ol’ fear mongering that any criticism one makes about trans people can lead to a conviction. getting tired of this **** tbh
(btw i'm having internet problems again so give me a sec to reply to the rest)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471
however still casually omitting the fact that stirring up hatred must be intentional (s 4(2)(b)) <— this is imperative if one wants to understand law, cuz without the specific intent the action in question isn’t a crime.
course that doesn’t sell newspapers tho; wouldn’t be sensational if there wasn’t some good ol’ fear mongering that any criticism one makes about trans people can lead to a conviction. getting tired of this **** tbh
(btw i'm having internet problems again so give me a sec to reply to the rest)
Original post by Genesiss
and ofc now the bbc decides to report exactly what i said yesterday, that ‘ideas that offend, shock or disturb’ are legal (s 4(5))
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471
however still casually omitting the fact that stirring up hatred must be intentional (s 4(2)(b)) <— this is imperative if one wants to understand law, cuz without the specific intent the action in question isn’t a crime.
course that doesn’t sell newspapers tho; wouldn’t be sensational if there wasn’t some good ol’ fear mongering that any criticism one makes about trans people can lead to a conviction. getting tired of this **** tbh
(btw i'm having internet problems again so give me a sec to reply to the rest)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471
however still casually omitting the fact that stirring up hatred must be intentional (s 4(2)(b)) <— this is imperative if one wants to understand law, cuz without the specific intent the action in question isn’t a crime.
course that doesn’t sell newspapers tho; wouldn’t be sensational if there wasn’t some good ol’ fear mongering that any criticism one makes about trans people can lead to a conviction. getting tired of this **** tbh
(btw i'm having internet problems again so give me a sec to reply to the rest)
They haven’t ommited this if you click on the other link in the OP:
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.
The maximum penalty is a prison sentence of seven years.
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 the protected characteristics.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Talkative Toad
They haven’t ommited this if you click on the other link in the OP:
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.
The maximum penalty is a prison sentence of seven years.
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 the protected characteristics.
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.
The maximum penalty is a prison sentence of seven years.
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 the protected characteristics.
aw yes i see that slipped in there (and think i saw that yesterday). in the second one (one i posted) it says:
'the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 makes it a criminal offence to make derogatory comments based on disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.'
which is not accurate reporting; it’s not that simple.
also i’m on prsom and completely agreeee with your earlier comment 💯
Original post by SHallowvale
She absolutely is. The law already exists when it comes to racial and religious hatred, all this does is extend it to other protected characteristics.
stirring up racial hatred isn’t quite the same and has a lower threshold than stirring up hatred against other protected groups (trans included) actually. if you look at section 4(1)(a)(i) it includes insults, not just threatening or abusive behaviour. insults are not included as a crime against other groups like trans (s 2(a)(i))
also, with racial hatred one is guilty of an offensive if they do it intentionally or recklessly s 4 (1)(b)(ii). no direct intention is necessarily required then when it comes to race; this is not the same against trans.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/
(from what i’ve seen) rowling would say she’s ‘just stating facts’ not intentionally stirring hatred; legally speaking, then, this may be reckless or negligent, but reckless/negligent is not criminal unless you’re talking about race. in order to prove ‘intended’ to stir hatred, well, she’d basically have to do/say something so obvious and offensive idk if i could post it here.
don’t get me wrong tho, i think rowling is a miserable old attention-seeking hag. what’s more is that by not being arrested, she just proved the scottish legislation isn’t that irrational, and wasn’t that her intention ie legislators overly imposing on her ‘free speech’? or what was the point of this
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Genesiss
aw yes i see that slipped in there (and think i saw that yesterday). in the second one (one i posted) it says:
'the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 makes it a criminal offence to make derogatory comments based on disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.'
which is not accurate reporting; it’s not that simple.
also i’m on prsom and completely agreeee with your earlier comment 💯
'the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 makes it a criminal offence to make derogatory comments based on disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.'
which is not accurate reporting; it’s not that simple.
also i’m on prsom and completely agreeee with your earlier comment 💯
Looks like this confirms that JK Rowling isn’t breaking the law
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/jk-rowling-tweets-not-criminal-say-police-scotland-4577049
I actually agree with a lot of what Rowling has to say. Simply because one person believes in something does not mean another person has to. Again if a person says they are offended yet what has been said is not in itself offensive then its just tough. The people who say they are offended are the attention seekers not Rowling. She seems just to making the point how absurd this all is!
PM backs JK Rowling's views on new hate crime law
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmmqq4qv81qo
The BBC article links do some of the statements on X I think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmmqq4qv81qo
The BBC article links do some of the statements on X I think.
(edited 1 year ago)
Not sure why it is necessary for the PM to 'back' anyone if they are within the law. A mad waste of time.
Original post by Admit-One
Not sure why it is necessary for the PM to 'back' anyone if they are within the law. A mad waste of time.
Just because someone wants to identify as the leader of the government doesn't mean we all have to do the same. He is biologically a small and effete man and I will refer to him as such.
Related discussions
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- Publishing a book
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- [Official] Riots in streets across the UK, after 3 children die in Southport stabbing
- For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warning
- KCL Law and Professional Practice
- Criminal Law vs Family Law
- Tesco Advise
- Access to He colleges for law?
- How do police download phone data
- The experience I wanted
- 14yo Arrested After 7yo Killed by Motorcycle Hit-and-Run
- Riots in Leeds
- sociology
- Do you have to be top of your class to succeed on a law degree?
- Criminology at the University of Winchester: A students POV
- uni course med or law ???
- is it just me or anyone else?
- national 5 modern studies 2024
- From Freedom Fighters to Thought Police: How the Left Lost Its Way
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 months ago
Mums furious after photo firm offers to delete kids in wheelchairs from school picsLast reply 3 months ago
Poundland drafts in advisors amid discounter crisis
