Police say J.K. Rowling didn't break the law with tweets criticising Scotland’s new hate speech law and referring to transgender women as men. Photo / AP
Police say J.K. Rowling didn't break the law with tweets criticising Scotland’s new hate speech law and referring to transgender women as men. Photo / AP
Police Scotland has confirmed that it has received complaints against J.K. Rowling under the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) new hate crime laws.
TheHarry Potter author posted pictures of 10 high-profile trans people and ridiculed their claims to be women.
She then dared Police Scotlandto use the new laws to arrest her.
However, the force has said it will not be taking any action against her.
A Police Scotland spokesman said: “We have received complaints in relation to the social media post. The comments are not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken.”
It was unclear whether the complaints would be recorded by the force as non-crime hate incidents.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act creates a criminal offence of “stirring up of hatred”, expanding on a similar offence based on racist abuse that has been on the statute book for decades.
The legislation extends this to other grounds on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.
In response, Rowling wrote on X, formerly Twitter:
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.https://t.co/CsgehF2a5d
Concerns have also been expressed that the legislation’s definition of a hate crime is too ambiguous, potentially leading to a “chilling” effect on freedom of speech and a torrent of vexatious complaints being made to police.
In particular, Rowling’s allies have suggested that trans activists have her “in their sights”.
Rowling’s list, posted on X, included Isla Bryson, who was initially sent to a women’s prison after being convicted of two rapes, to whom she mockingly referred as a “lovely Scottish lass”, and India Willoughby, the TV personality.
At the end of the list, Rowling tweeted: “April Fools! Only kidding. Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren’t women at all, but men, every last one of them.
“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.”
She used the hashtag #arrestme.
J.K. Rowling at the premiere of the film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, in London. Photo / AP
A person commits an offence under the act 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.
Humza Yousaf, the First Minister, has said there is a high threshold for prosecution, but concerns have been expressed that the legislation’s definition of a hate crime is too ambiguous, leading to vexatious complaints being made to police.
Roddy Dunlop KC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, responded to the police’s announcement on Rowling by tweeting: “As many of us have been saying: the bar for prosecution, let alone conviction, is high, and I doubt we will see many of either.
“The problem is more likely to lie in the police being swamped with reports and what happens in terms of recording.”
Speaking about the police’s decision not to take action against Rowling, Joanna Cherry KC, a senior SNP MP, tweeted: “This is a welcome decision no doubt made at a high level in Police Scotland, but people, particularly ordinary working class women, can’t be expected to rely on a decision in a single high profile case to protect their #FreedomOfExpression.
“Clarity ideally would be on the face of the law. In its absence we need to see the thinking that has informed this decision set out in publicly available guidance to ordinary officers and particularly the hate crime champions.”
