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.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s becoming harder and harder to be a Harry Potter fan nowaday.

    I don’t really understand what it is about X Formerly Known as Twitter that turns previously respectable people into, well, this.

    Everybody should take a break from social media once in a while, it’s better for your health.

    • Shialac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      It doesn’t turn these people, they were shitty all the time, they just get a platform on X so it becomes visible

      • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Part of it is that having a large captive audience hanging on to your every word really starts to amplify toxic characteristics in those with the predisposition for shittiness. Like Musk or Trump, their descend only came when they became active on social media.

        Twitter is a horrible thing.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          Trump thought the day the Twin Towers fell was a good time to mention his property was closer to the tallest building in New York. That very evening, on the news, in 2001. Here’s a link.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            7 months ago

            Honestly he did so many “Career Suicides” for Politicians that it broke the system, I get that’s why he won, but… still how the shit did he not get sunk by his 9/11 response, I mean, yeah he said stupid shit ages ago… but the dude straight up got 9/11 and 7/11 mixed up.

            The fuck did we go from “A weird yell will disqualify you!” to this!?!?

            • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Because the journalists didn’t do their job. They should have been blasting the “tallest building” and his weird infatuation with his daughter, but he was profitable, so they let it slide.

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        I really dont think Rowling started off this shitty. From what I’ve heard it sounds like she has baggage regarding men she hasnt dealt with and its led her down this incredibly shitty path

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          The books have some really problematic themes that add up over time. If HP ended with the first book, they would be a curiosity, but they add up and JK had a really crooked world view when she wrote them. It’s likely her editor soften them in the beginning, but they had less control as they got more popular.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      They were always awful. They just needed a platform where they could blossom into the terrible people they always were.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh yeah it was definitely Twitter that made her a bigot. She was an upstanding and progressive citizen before a website made her bad! /s

      That’s like saying “I don’t really understand what it is about alcohol that makes people racist”

      • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        If I remember correctly, it all started when she retweeted something that was a bit ignorant and was called out for it on Twitter, but then she kept doubling down until it got to this point, when she could have just stopped talking about it.

        It’s not that Twitter suddenly turned her into a bad person, but it definitely brought out the worst in her.

        • steakmeoutt@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          No it just revealed her beliefs to a wider audience. Twitter like all social media doesn’t bring out anything - it’s just a lens that gives the viewer a perspective they might never have seen and these view are then amplified by others who share them. Rowling was always this person, social media just allowed her to share and amplify her views.

          • sudneo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I disagree. Social media and the “contrarian” attitude they carry, especially Twitter, can help consolidating and radicalizing your opinions. You get exposed to a very toxic way to carry out conversation (especially on Twitter, where you have constant dogpiling and wannabe famous people who try to “blast” others) so that if they are the only places you discuss about certain subjects, can bring you to shift your views as well.

            I am not saying this is the case for J.K. Rowling (I don’t know), but I don’t think we can immediately discard the idea that the dynamics of the medium also affected the result.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I see your point but there are about a hundred or so thoughts I have a day that I am way way cowardly to record. The position she is in with a large fanbase, lots of money, and interacting with pixels probably contributed to her lack of filter.

        So right she might have been intrinsically not a very good person prior but all this stuff hasn’t helped her keep a lid on it.

    • rowinxavier@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think the mistake we make is thinking that people are better than they are. I probably have some hidden bigotry that I am unaware of right now but given a space to be exposed to it someone would notice and point it out. If you only know of someone from one thing they did you can form an opinion of them based on very limited information. Get to know them better and you find that hidden awful. Twitter is a tool of constant broad interaction and it preserves bad takes long enough to see them. Add a culture of never admiting to being wrong and filtering by who you agree with and you have a cycle of awful that turns perfectly boringly not great but OK people into monsters defending genocide. Maybe we shouldn’t know anything about the author, replace their name with a serial number or pseudonym and let the art stand on it’s own. Though the racist jewish, wait no goblin, bankers was fairly intense tbh.

    • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      sorry to join the little dogpile, but its not X, those are her beliefs.

      There are a LOT better books out there then childrens books about wizard school, which she absolutely lifted from Jill Murphy.

        • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Dude… my friend’s and I get together (video conference) to watch the film every year in late October. It also features Charolette Rae (the matriarch on Facts of Life) Dianna Rigg (Queen of Thorns on Game of Thrones) and Fariuza Balk (The Craft, Waterboy etc.)

          The Worst Witch was a series of books though that Rowling absolutely read before “coming up with” a boarding school for magic using students, but get this: In Rowling’s imagination its BOYS instead of girls who are the main focus, and the protoganist is the messiah instead of a girl screw-up with a heart of gold. Its not in the film but there are houses with colorful characteristics, the protoganist is from a non-magical family and the scary, raven haired potion teacher seems to hate the protoganist while the kind, grey haired headmaster is patient and understanding. She has two friends in the invisible (to non magic users) castlesque boardings school thats surrounded by a forbidden forest where she hangs out with two friends, one who’s straight laced and academically sharp and the other who’s a bit goofy.

          Anyway Tim Curry does a musical number

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Have you read the books as an adult? If that wont kill your fandom, I don’t think anything will.

      • SanicHegehog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I mean tbf, the books were written for children. If you don’t like them, then maybe it’s because they’re not for you anymore. Or are you referring to something else?

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          As a kid in the target age range, I bailed after the second or third time Harry gained and lost a positive father figure. There were mounting little issues and the longer the books got, the less rewarding the payoff got. But even I assumed that setting up normalized slavery in your world would lead into a story line that denounces it. Instead, JK didn’t address it in a positive manner and we ended up with HP Adults writing essays defending House Elf Slavery.

          • SanicHegehog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Fair enough. Probably also doesn’t help that the civil rights organization that Hermione founded, or rather attempted to found, was called SPEW. As in, synonym for “vomit”

      • mbfalzar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        My first time reading them, at the age of like, 10? 11? I was so excited for Order of the Phoenix because it was coming out soon and I’d loved the first one that I got as a birthday gift. I slammed through 2 and 3, then 4 just kept going and felt so bad that by the end I wasn’t excited for Order anymore and didn’t finish the series until Order was releasing as a film. They weren’t even that good as a kid if you read anything else

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      if you ever have a couple hours to spare, i think shaun made a really great video on this topic: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-1iaJWSwUZs

      he talks about JK rowling and harry potter, and how many of JK rowlings beliefs/worldviews are embedded into harry potter. he’s very thorough.

    • Phegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      While I am not defending Twitter by any means. I feel like what actually breaks people’s brains is becoming a billionaire. You lose all empathy for other humans.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I mean, it is for most billionaires. But Rowling isn’t a businesswoman who got parents money to invest in a company to rob the proletariat.

          She just wrote a book that happened to be a gigaseller.

          But either way, billionaires have broken brains.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t like Harry Potter to begin with, but I don’t really have a huge problem separating the artist from the art if the only thing they did was be hateful.

      Roald Dahl was a major antisemite, but I still think he wrote great children’s books and suspense/horror stories. H. P. Lovecraft was bigoted about pretty much anyone who wasn’t a white man. Again, a really good writer.

      Where is becomes hard to separate them is when they actually do something about their disgusting ideas. Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are pedophiles. I will never watch either of their movies. And I think both have made very good movies. I feel that I was wrong to watch the ones I did.

      So yeah, Rowling is an utterly contemptible piece of shit, but if you like Harry Potter, it’s okay.

      • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        There were always questionable elements from the books, like the depictions of goblins and elves. But knowing what we know now, these elements cannot be brushed off any more.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          The Elves were directly based off of “Brownies”

          It’s also highly unusual that elves were depicted this way, considering most fantasy stories hold them in high regard as being magical beings seeing themselves above humanity for reasons that are normally geniunely sound (Better moral compass, natural magical talents… Whereas in Harry Potter it’s the exact opposite, humanity seems to be the highest creature and Elves feel like to squabble before them…

          There’s no way the “Brownie” similarity is unintentional

          So what’s a Brownie? Well it was a way of explaining slaves to young children back in those days, to brush off the casual cruelty by lying to kids. Essentially the myth of the “Brownie” was to re contextualize the suffering of the black slave as a magical event, a beautiful mysterious thing to be observed not with horror, but with wonder. A big part of the myth claimed that you can’t give a Brownie anything nice like proper clothing, or else this “breaks the contract between Man and Fae” and they run back into the woods never to be seen again.

          “No it’s okay children, they’re magical forest people called Brownies! And they LIKE doing that work for us! Oh and we can’t give them anything nice, or they’ll disappear forever! And you wouldn’t want that to happen! No no, really, they’re faeries, and they like being whipped like that!”

          Feeling disgusted? Good, that sickness in your stomach is proof that you’re a better person than JK Rowling.

          tl;dr Harry Potter elves are a resurrection of Pro-Slavery Propaganda used to indoctrinate children into thinking it’s okay to treat people like shit. They had to GASLIGHT LITERAL CHILDREN into thinking that black people were magical elves, in order to stop them from feeling bad about slavery… and JK decided to bring that back for her kid’s book.

          As much fun as Hogwarts Legacy is, I hope she rots in hell and then is reborn as a transgender woman to learn basic empathy.

          • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s also highly unusual that elves were depicted this way, considering most fantasy stories hold them in high regard as being magical beings seeing themselves above humanity for reasons that are normally geniunely sound (Better moral compass, natural magical talents… Whereas in Harry Potter it’s the exact opposite, humanity seems to be the highest creature and Elves feel like to squabble before them…

            Have you never heard of Santa’s elves? Or Elves in Shakespeare’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’?

            • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’ve been meaning to read the latter, and we’re all aware of the former, but there’s a lot of conflicting legends of Santa’s Helpers

          • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            most fantasy stories hold them in high regard as being magical beings seeing themselves above humanity for reasons that are normally geniunely sound (Better moral compass, natural magical talents…

            Oh sweet summer child… You better not know about elves in folklore…

            • Syndic@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              And even if we only look at Tolkin’s Elves, who basically are the base of the whole modern conception of them, they certainly aren’t better as a general rule. Some of them are really shitty fucks.

      • cmbabul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m very torn on this issue, like I 100% agree on Polanski and Allen(especially Woody not that Polanski isn’t incredibly shitty too but most of his work isn’t about sexualizing minors, whereas the primary and ultimate love interest for Woodys stand in character in Manhattan is a child). I might, and big emphasis on might watch Chinatown or the Ninth Gate again after he’s dead and in the cold cold ground, but I damn sure won’t pay for any of them if I decide to make that call.

        And I only say this because there have been so many shitty people in Hollywood and the movie making business in general I think it’s impossible to watch most without supporting someone awful. Weinstein produced a ton of great films, Brando anally raped Maria Schneider in Last Tango and the scene we see is the one and only take if memory serves(I don’t watch that film anymore but I still watch the Godfather every few years), Kevin Spacey and Brian Singer are predators but I’m sure I’ll watch the Usual Suspects again at some point in my life.

        I obviously don’t besmirch anyone that simply can’t bring themselves to engage in art by people we know to be bastards. But I kinda look at it the same way as buying a pair of Nikes, there is certainly a lot of profit from suffering that produced those shoes but I don’t necessarily think anyone is a bad person for wanting some new Jordans

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Honestly learning everyone in Hollywood is a fucking creep explains a lot about how genuinely disturbing the actions of male leads in “Romantic Comedies” tend to be

          Try half the shot in a “Romance” movie in real life and even at the time most of them originally came out, you’d go to jail and no one would feel sorry for you.

          • cmbabul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            100% agree, he should be locked up

            Edit: the following isn’t what I think about him, but I do think he’d have been more likely to suffer the proper consequences had the Manson family not murdered Sharon Tate, it in no way should give him any sympathy or protection and it’s pretty fucking gross that it does, but I don’t think it’s a non factor

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah honestly if history remembering who Edison and Dahl were didn’t sink GE and Wonka, Harry Potter will be fine… but fuck, she did suicide her own legacy

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Even there, I think it’s a grey area. I was already in middle school when Roald Dahl died and I’m Jewish, but my dad (who was remarkably sensitive to antisemitism in almost every other case) still read me his children’s books. He did profit off of them and he shouldn’t, but it’s hard to deny that books like James and the Giant Peach or The BFG aren’t amazingly good children’s books which don’t themselves have any bigotry issues (Willy Wonka not so much re the original Oompa Loompas) and it would be hard to say that children shouldn’t have been reading books that good just because the guy who wrote them was horrible.

          I just don’t know how to feel about such things. At what point is a work so good that it transcends how horrible the person who made it is? I don’t have an answer there.

          As I said, I’ve never been a fan of Harry Potter, so this particular issue does not apply to me in this case and I honestly do not know what I would do about it if I did.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I don’t mean to suggest that the work somehow justifies the abhorrent views of the author, just that sometimes art transcends the artist. It’s in no way a universal thing and maybe it doesn’t and/or shouldn’t apply to Rowling’s works. I only read part of the first book and I didn’t enjoy it, so I personally don’t think so.

              But my post was more about not beating yourself up about liking something made by a terrible person.