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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 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
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 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
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 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
            ·
            3 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
          3 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
            ·
            3 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
      ·
      3 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
        ·
        3 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
          3 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

    • Carlo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think you can ethically separate art from artist when the artist is still alive, profiting from their work, and using those profits to further causes that you abhor. JKR doesn’t limit herself to expressing her views on social media.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 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.

        • Carlo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t know the extent of Dahl’s antisemitism, and am not currently inclined to research it. I also enjoyed his stories growing up, as well as Lovecraft’s, and lots of other authors who held views that I strongly disagree with. I don’t think all art created by deeply flawed people is worthless, by any means.

          However, I strongly disagree with the notion that a piece of high-quality art is some kind of ethical trump card; it’s a bald-faced cop-out. Providing material support to someone who habitually crusades against an oppressed minority isn’t a gray area because you(rhetorically—I don’t mean you, personally) like their stories. Art is everywhere. There’s really no dearth of excellent stories written by people that are either dead, or don’t spend their time stirring up hate.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 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.

            • Carlo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, I feel like we’re mostly talking past each other. Cheers!

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

              And I agree, that would be silly.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 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