Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

Callistemon21

Dickens

Aveline

And it's a crime to comment on it in your own home.

???

How would private conversations in the privacy of your home be known about by anyone other than those involved in them?

Well, I suppose if you had a group there for a meeting and someone took offence at what you said, they just might report you.

I really have heard it all now, Aveline. 😯

Well, I suppose if you had a group there for a meeting and someone took offence at what you said, they just might report you.

Now you mention it, I'm sure I read some time ago that this had in fact happened. Of course, it might have been one of those myths that circulate on social media.

I doubt if it will be applied anyway. Inciting racial hatred is a crime, but Frank Hester said the most appalling things about Dianne Abbot and got away with it.

Dickens

Aveline

And it's a crime to comment on it in your own home.

???

How would private conversations in the privacy of your home be known about by anyone other than those involved in them?

I assume somebody privy to the conversation could report you. Let's say you invite neighbours round for drinks, you've known them for years and think you're on the same page about most things. But how well do you really know anyone?

It could happen and did happen in Nazi Germany.

Aveline

And it's a crime to comment on it in your own home.

🙄

^What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.^

Glorianna 👏👏👏

Sorry that should be Glorianny

They are not her obsessions. The erosion of women's rights is a very big problem and not one to minimise.

Brianna was targeted as she was the nearest and easiest to lure.

There was a list of people who may have been victims, but they had easy access to Brianna.

Apart from mild curiosity about the male/female aspect, the people who killed her could and would have chosen anyone else.

Glorianny

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

So it protects many of us. but no protection if the offence is against a biological woman because of her sex. Why do you think they not only failed to include sex (which is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act) but actively voted against the amendment to include it?

MissAdventure

Brianna was targeted as she was the nearest and easiest to lure.

There was a list of people who may have been victims, but they had easy access to Brianna.

Apart from mild curiosity about the male/female aspect, the people who killed her could and would have chosen anyone else.

I was just about to comment about that.

They had four other names on their kill list None of them trans

Glorianny

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

To me it shows the inherent weakness of the “sledgehammer to crack a nut” approach of lumping everything together while sneaking in what to me is a contentious issues.
Age ✔️
Disability✔️
Religion ✔️
Sexual orientation ✔️
But transgender identity at the expense of another group who suffer bias,, harassment and violence ie women- that’s another issue altogether,
JK Rowling has highlighted the injustice, inconsistency and downright dangers of this act/law.
A field day for Orwell’s Thought Police and an impossible fudge whose implementation is fraught with loopholes.
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
But concerns have been expressed that the legislation’s definition of a hate crime is too ambiguous, leading to a torrent of vexatious complaints being made to police
It seems less than a third of Scotland’s police officers have not received training on Humza Yousaf’s “confusing” new hate crime law, it has emerged amid warnings of a deluge of cases
The Scottish Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said they had been allocated only a “cheap” two-hour training course that was not sufficient.
David Kennedy, its general secretary, said 6,000 of Police ^Scotland’s 16,000 officers had not even completed that yet and admitted he had not either.
Mr Kennedy warned the legislation will mean a huge increase in workload for the force, with families, neighbours and work colleagues being “drawn into a criminal law environment “
It’s not as if Police Scotland are sitting around, filing their nails, doing the crossword or playing Candy Crush on their phones because there are no crimes to solve.

Glorianny

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

Instead she focuses on her own obsessions.

Campaigning for a cause could be called an "obsession" - usually by those who oppose it.

Remember you told us that, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter" in another topic?

The same principle applies.

RosiesMaw

Glorianny

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

To me it shows the inherent weakness of the “sledgehammer to crack a nut” approach of lumping everything together while sneaking in what to me is a contentious issues.
Age ✔️
Disability✔️
Religion ✔️
Sexual orientation ✔️
But transgender identity at the expense of another group who suffer bias,, harassment and violence ie women- that’s another issue altogether,
JK Rowling has highlighted the injustice, inconsistency and downright dangers of this act/law.
A field day for Orwell’s Thought Police and an impossible fudge whose implementation is fraught with loopholes.
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
But concerns have been expressed that the legislation’s definition of a hate crime is too ambiguous, leading to a torrent of vexatious complaints being made to police
It seems less than a third of Scotland’s police officers have not received training on Humza Yousaf’s “confusing” new hate crime law, it has emerged amid warnings of a deluge of cases
The Scottish Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said they had been allocated only a “cheap” two-hour training course that was not sufficient.
David Kennedy, its general secretary, said 6,000 of Police ^Scotland’s 16,000 officers had not even completed that yet and admitted he had not either.
Mr Kennedy warned the legislation will mean a huge increase in workload for the force, with families, neighbours and work colleagues being “drawn into a criminal law environment “
It’s not as if Police Scotland are sitting around, filing their nails, doing the crossword or playing Candy Crush on their phones because there are no crimes to solve.

I think it is perfectly fair to be critical of any legislation although I do think the only real objective view can be fully realised with time and research into its effectiveness.
What I object to is the focus on a single issue in something which covers so many minority groups in society and using a personal obsession to denigrate something which may offer protection to many.

Glorianny

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

Stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality or ethnicity was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986. The new Act adds more categories but specifically excludes women from protection. IMO this fits with the misogyny that underpins the trans agenda. Men who pretend to be women are covered, but adult human females are not. How is that remotely justifiable?

Imo it isn’t a personal obsession but is the result of knowing what it’s like to be abused and to be afraid of someone? If I eg was alone in a ladies toilet late at night and a man who identified as a woman came in I’d feel both uncomfortable and afraid.

Dickens

Glorianny

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

Instead she focuses on her own obsessions.

Campaigning for a cause could be called an "obsession" - usually by those who oppose it.

Remember you told us that, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter" in another topic?

The same principle applies.

An obsession is where someone focuses on a single area and ignores others. There are 5 minority issues named in legislation. Ignoring the other 4 shows obsession. Racial hate crime, sexual orientation hate crime, disability hate crime and religious hate crime are all on the rise. Something needed to be done.

Ignoring 4 and targetting one, is called an obsession? Nah.

Doodledog

Glorianny

What a pity a woman should choose to denigrate a law aimed at protecting far more than trans issues.The protected classes as defined in the law include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. So it protects many of us.
Instead she focuses on her own obsessions. Let's not forget those who have been the victims of the feelings and hatred stirred up by similar ideas, like Brianna Grey. Protection against hatred is something we all deserve.

Stirring up hatred based on race, colour, nationality or ethnicity was already illegal in Great Britain under the Public Order Act 1986. The new Act adds more categories but specifically excludes women from protection. IMO this fits with the misogyny that underpins the trans agenda. Men who pretend to be women are covered, but adult human females are not. How is that remotely justifiable?

But age, disability, religion and sexual orientation were not covered, nor was transgender.
Misogyny is a problem but there is some legislation which covers it. It isn't being applied. This is an interestig paper www.engender.org.uk/content/publications/Engender-Misogyny-and-Criminal-Justice-Group-September-2021.pdf
The problem is of course that hatred for any section of society tends to breed more hatred, not less. And if another law is needed that is no justification for denigrating this one.

It's not remotely obsessional to focus on the part of the law that expects people to pretend that male-born people can become women. Nobody is asking us to pretend that old people can become young just by 'identifying' as such, are they? And none of the other protected groups make a habit of vexatious tweets and threats of prosecution.

The problem is of course that hatred for any section of society tends to breed more hatred, not less. And if another law is needed that is no justification for denigrating this one.
Unfortunately, I think that's what will happen here. People will only take so much, and even some of those who were previously captured by the trans propaganda are realising the reality of the doublethink and logistic contortions required to stay within a ridiculous law.

I wholeheartedly support J K Rowling

So do I.

But age, disability, religion and sexual orientation were not covered, nor was transgender.
Misogyny is a problem but there is some legislation which covers it. It isn't being applied.
Glorianny why do you think sex was not only left out of the original draft but the amendment to include it was voted against? Why would you specifically not want to protect people from hate because of their sex? It seems an odd deliberate act and continues to give men freedom to indulge their hatred of women, unless those women have an additional protected characteristic.

Quote maddyone Tue 02-Apr-24 21:00:47
I wholeheartedly support J K Rowling

So do I.

So do I.

Well said Doodledog 👍