J.K. Rowling, who also writes under the name Robert Galbraith, is best known for her Harry Potter book series, has had her evolving threads through the timeline in this culture war the West finds itself in. Indeed, there will be more regarding J.K. Rowling’s place here in the Culture War Encyclopedia. For now, let us examine her latest memetic mind-magic battle in public square of media, for she is a truth troll.
J.K. Rowling, veteran memetic sorceress on Twitter/X battles on, waving her magic wand again, which is truly her pen, that is to say; her Word is her magick to be wielded, at times, as her astral weapon, her etheric sword, her magick wand in the mindspace of the noösphere1, the field of battle.
Introducing Rajan Barot who describes himself in his profile as
A British lawyer interested in engaging on issues of politics, international affairs, law and human interaction
The post no longer exists but we can fairly surmise it was posted due to what we will see from this man below. Later that day, Rowling posted this on X [archived here],
Scotland's new hate crime law has come into force, with JK Rowling and Elon Musk among its critics.
The Harry Potter author and the owner of social media platform X both claim the legislation could harm free speech.
Senior police officers say they expect a flood of complaints about online posts.
But the Scottish government insists the law provides protection from hate and prejudice without stifling individual expression.
"I think there has been a lot of misinformation," about the legislation, said the Victims and Community Safety Minister Siobhian Brown, before going on to claim, inaccurately, that it was "passed unanimously" by MSPs in 2021.
In fact the law was approved by 82 votes to 32 with four abstentions after heated debate about its contents.
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.
Stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality or ethnicity was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986 but, in an attempt to streamline the criminal law in Scotland, that too is now part of the Hate Crime Act.
The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was "likely" rather than "intended".
Free speech protection
Supporters of the hate crime law point out that it contains safeguards designed to protect freedom of speech.
For example, it states that it is a defence for a person charged with stirring up hatred to show that their actions were "reasonable."
It also references the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes protection for "ideas that offend, shock or disturb."
To be convicted of a hate crime, "you have to be really threatening and really abusive, and there has to be reasonable assumption from others that that is the case," said Ms Brown.
As well as the offence of stirring up hatred, the Hate Crime Act also consolidates the existing law on crimes which are "aggravated by prejudice."
These are where an offender demonstrates malice or ill-will towards their victim based on a protected characteristic, which can be taken into account by a sheriff or judge with a longer sentence or a higher fine than would otherwise have been the case.
For example, if an assailant punched someone in the face while also making a hateful comment about their age, that might be assault aggravated by age-related hatred.
This is the first time that age has been included in the list of protected characteristics for aggravated offences, a move welcomed by some campaign groups.
"It's going to be a positive thing for the country," said Adam Stachura of the charity Age Scotland.
Others are less enthusiastic.
Adam Tomkins, professor of public law at Glasgow University, and a former Conservative MSP, voted against the bill because it could see someone convicted of stirring up hatred for a comment they make in private in their own home, not just in public, "and I just don't think that's where the criminal law belongs."
However, Professor Tomkins said he believed the law only posed a risk to free speech "if it's misunderstood," adding, "if it's properly understood, I think this is a fairly safe piece of legislation now."
"The tests are quite woolly and we don't know how people are going to interpret this," she told BBC News.
"We do anticipate that there will be a lot of malicious complaints, a lot of rather trivial complaints and potentially people who are investigated will see their lives upended.
"I imagine there will be many complaints, for example, made against JK Rowling," she added.
Ms Rowling, a prominent critic of some transgender ideology, described the law as "ludicrous" in a defiant post on X (formerly Twitter) last month.
They are referring to the post wherein she wrote,
If you genuinely imagine I’d delete posts calling a man a man, so as not to be prosecuted under this ludicrous law, stand by for the mother of all April Fools’ jokes.
They continue,
Mr Musk has cited discussion about the legislation as an "example of why it is so important to preserve freedom of speech."
Vic Valentine of the charity Scottish Trans said the organisation supported the law because of the "serious impact that hate crime can have on LGBTI people."
It would not, Vic added, criminalise behaviour which transgender people might simply find upsetting, offensive or even transphobic.
That seems to be exactly wrong and a lie.
Police resourcing
The SNP-led Scottish government has tried to soothe concerns.
Siobhian Brown described the act as "ambitious" while also insisting it would "not necessarily" criminalise anything that was not already criminal.
Really? Then why make the law? A law against what? If we are talking about that which is already against already existing law then why make an other law? Something does not add up here. They go on…
Asked whether "misgendering" someone or making a comment about their religion would be a crime the minister replied: "This will be up to Police Scotland. I wouldn't say misgendering if you say something on social media for example it would be up to Police Scotland to determine."
Ch Supt Rob Hay of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS), which represents senior officers, said there was the potential for a "huge uplift" in complaints about social media posts.
Mr Hay said his central concern was that Police Scotland "haven't been provided with any additional resources in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation."
Just last month the national force said it was no longer able to investigate every "low level" crime, including some cases of theft and criminal damage.
It has, however, pledged to investigate every hate crime complaint it receives.
BBC News understands that these will be assessed by a "dedicated team" within Police Scotland including "a number of hate crime advisers" to assist officers in determining what, if any, action to take.
At a recent meeting of the Scottish Police Authority board, Ch Con Jo Farrell said her force would apply the act "in a measured way" under "close scrutiny."
Debate about the act has also resurrected a long-running row about how police forces throughout Britain record allegations of hate crimes where no charges are brought.
The Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser has been leading a campaign against the recording of what are termed "non-crime hate incidents" after he discovered that Police Scotland had recorded a comment he had made on social media as a hate incident, despite deciding that no crime had been committed.
More generally, the publicity about the new law, and the controversy surrounding it, has prompted warnings that it could lead to self-censorship.
Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said it could have a "chilling effect" on free speech.
And some feminist groups have raised concerns that the absence of sex as a protected characteristic in the legislation leaves women unprotected.
One may wonder if they are referring to sex or gender. Usually, such groups agree to refer to men (adult male humans) as women. But they also usually agree that sex is not gender. So, are they talking about sex or gender in that last sentence? At any rate, they conclude,
The Scottish government has promised to introduce a separate misogyny law "in due course" following a report by the barrister, Helena Kennedy KC.
Only kidding. Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren't women at all, but men, every last one of them.
In passing the Scottish Hate Crime Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls. The new legislation is wide open to abuse by activists who wish to silence those of us speaking out about the dangers of eliminating women's and girls’ single-sex spaces, the nonsense made of crime data if violent and sexual assaults committed by men are recorded as female crimes, the grotesque unfairness of allowing males to compete in female sports, the injustice of women’s jobs, honours and opportunities being taken by trans-identified men, and the reality and immutability of biological sex.
For several years now, Scottish women have been pressured by their government and members of the police force to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears, repudiate biological facts and embrace a neo-religious concept of gender that is unprovable and untestable. The re-definition of 'woman' to include every man who declares himself one has already had serious consequences for women's and girls’ rights and safety in Scotland, with the strongest impact felt, as ever, by the most vulnerable, including female prisoners and rape survivors.
It is impossible to accurately describe or tackle the reality of violence and sexual violence committed against women and girls, or address the current assault on women’s and girls’ rights, unless we are allowed to call a man a man. Freedom of speech and belief are at an end in Scotland if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal.
I'm currently out of the country, but if what I've written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.
If you agree with the views set out in this tweet, please retweet it.
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 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.
The law does not protect women as a group from hatred.
One can safely bet that the BBC is referring to men (adult male humans) as well as women (adult female humans) when they make reference to “women” in the sentence above. Let’s move on…
The Scottish government is expected to include this later in a separate misogyny law.
Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.
She described them as men in a series of posts alongside transgender campaigners.
Ms Rowling said: "I'm currently out of the country, but if what I've written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment."
Police Scotland said it had not received any complaints over the posts.
The maximum penalty under the new act in Scotland is a jail 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 protected characteristics.
Hatred based on race, sex and religion was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986, but that will also now fall under the new act in Scotland
The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour.
In England and Wales stirring up hatred over race, religion or sexual orientation by threatening behaviour remains illegal
In Scotland, the new act also consolidates existing laws on crimes which are "aggravated by prejudice" towards a protected characteristic.
This can be taken into account by a judge who might issue a longer sentence or a higher fine.
A protest group of around 200 people gathered outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on the morning the new law came into effect.
The Scottish government said the Hate Crime Act would provide protection from hate and prejudice without stifling individual expression.
First Minister Humza Yousaf said it was designed to deal with what he called a "rising tide of hatred" in society.
In response to general criticism of the act, he said: "Unless your behaviour is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of the new offences being created."
Social media comments made by JK Rowling challenging Scotland's new hate crime law are not being treated as criminal, Police Scotland has said.
The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
The new law creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to protected characteristics.
The force said complaints had been received but no action would be taken.
Reacting to the news, Ms Rowling posted on X: "I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women - irrespective of profile or financial means - will be treated equally under the law.
"If they go after any woman for simply calling a man a man, I'll repeat that woman's words and they can charge us both at once."
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into effect on Monday, makes it a criminal offence to make derogatory comments based on disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.
Stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality or ethnicity was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986 but is now included in the new law.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak earlier backed Ms Rowling's stance stating the UK had a proud tradition of free speech.
Mr Sunak would not be drawn on whether he supported her approach, saying that it was "not right for me to comment on police matters, individual matters".
But he added: "We should not be criminalising people saying common sense things about biological sex, clearly that isn't right.
"We have a proud tradition of free speech."
Graffiti featuring a racial slur was visible near the first minister's home
Scotland's First Minister Humza Yousaf said racist graffiti, which appeared near his home, is a reminder of why Scotland must take a "zero-tolerance" approach to hate crime.
He said the law was designed to deal with what he called a "rising tide of hatred" in society.
A spokesperson for the first minister said: "The prime minister's comments ignore the fact that the right to freedom of expression is built into the Act and that it also has a high threshold for criminality.
"The legislation does not prevent people expressing controversial, challenging or offensive views, nor does it seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way."
The law states that it is a defence for a person charged with stirring up hatred to show that their actions were "reasonable."
It also references the right to freedom of expression in the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes protection for "ideas that offend, shock or disturb."
At the heart of Ms Rowling's criticism of the hate crime law is the fact that it does not include biological sex as a protected characteristic.
The Scottish government points out that it is planning a separate law to tackle hatred and harassment of women which it says will be introduced at Holyrood by the end of the parliamentary term in 2026.
'Great relief'
Supporters of Ms Rowling welcomed Police Scotland's decision.
Susan Smith of For Women Scotland, which campaigned against recent proposed changes to gender law, told the BBC's Newscast podcast that it was "a great relief but it's only happened because she pushed it".
"Now hopefully anybody else who says something similar will know that they are protected," added Ms Smith.
Earlier, Dr Nick McKerrell, a senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, told BBC Radio Scotland's Drivetime he thought it was unlikely that Ms Rowling would be prosecuted.
He told the programme: "On balance I think she probably won't be prosecuted because the test in the legislation states that you have to be threatening and abusive to someone with your language which essentially means that you have to cause them fear and alarm.
"I think it's close to the edge but I don't think, as it stands, those communications do that.
"Also, within the law, there is a protection for being offensive or shocking in your language and I think it could fall into that category of being offensive and shocking, but not in the realm of criminality."
The lecturer added: "There is a test for stirring up hatred, which the courts have recognised. It's quite a high level to stir up hatred.
"So any group that thinks this law is going to lower that is wrong."
The noösphere is the sum-total of mental activity which emerges out of a complex biosphere . . . Teilhard describes how our planet is growing its very own mind.
