MovieChat Forums > J.K. Rowling Discussion > JK Rowling dares police to arrest her ov...

JK Rowling dares police to arrest her over SNP’s new hate crime law


Time to abolish Scotland, the UK should be the sole country!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/01/jk-rowling-could-investigated-misgendering-snp-law-scotland/

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “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.”

Rowling posted pictures of 10 high-profile trans people on Twitter and mocked their claims to be women. They included Isla Bryson, who was initially sent to a women’s prison after being convicted of two rapes.

Among the others she listed was Andrew Miller, 53, who also used the name Amy George. The trans butcher abducted a young girl in the Scottish Borders while dressed as a woman and abused her for 27 hours.

The author also mentioned Katie Dolatowski, a trans paedophile who sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl in the toilet of Morrisons in Kirkcaldy, Fife, in March 2018.

[several more]

By passing the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, Rowling said MSPs had “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”.

She said: “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.”

The minister was also challenged over the “odd” omission of women from the list of protected groups included in the legislation.

This means threats made against Rowling and other feminists critical of trans ideology could not be investigated under the Bill. Ms Brown admitted “more work needs to be done” and said a misogyny Bill would be introduced.

Someone convicted of stirring up hate could face a fine and a prison term of up to seven years.

reply

Can't she just hop on her broom and escape?

reply


We can hope she does. The world has no place for people spouting biological fact.

reply

Is your pastor going to give you a cookie now?

reply


I wish. I do love a good cookie, but alas, as an atheist - the clergy is loathe to bring me sweets.

But thank you - you have reminded me that there are some home made cookies my sister in law brought to "Easter" dinner yesterday (I can play nice with the believers) in the cupboard.

Off I go.

reply

You have always said the same things that religious people do, now you’re an atheist? 🙄

reply


I've always been an atheist - well, I waffle between atheism and agnosticism - but my posting history confirms that.

Yes, I often say the same thing as religious people and it's no wonder. Many of my friends and past coworkers are religious, and most of them believe in God and country - right and wrong - law and order.. Other than God, the rest of their beliefs mostly fall along the same lines as mine.

reply

[deleted]

We all wish we could just get an a broom and escape the gay mafia....

reply

Ain't that the truth... I am already fed up for the year and fucking June is just ahead.

reply

Aww you poor abuse victims, the persecution must be terrible 🙄

reply

Go suck a bag of dick and wave your rainbow flag.

reply

They keep changing the Pride flag because the idiots keep buying the new ones... its a perfect cash cow lol.

reply

No, she can't. She isn't a liberal, so she doesn't live in a fantasy world. She only writes about them.

reply

If you hate "right wing news", the BBC is impartial but doesn't quote any tweets.
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime law - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o

reply

I don't think attempting to protect women's rights / safe spaces should be equated with being right wing. However, Rowling should really keep her trap shut over this.

It's all very well her making statements and being protected by her millions and access to the finest legal representation, but it will be another story for every day folks thinking they're doing the right thing by mimicking her output. They'll be the ones serving time for making similar comments...

reply

Um, no. She should keep speaking out. She is exactly right.

Everyone should be against this.

reply

For more information on what I was saying please re-read my previous post. Thanks 👍🏼.

reply

You’re…what? Joking? Being sarcastic?

Because I did read your post. Very carefully. I didn’t see a hint of any of that. You’re going to have to help me out here.

reply

No sarcasm, but I said nothing to indicate that I thought what she said wasn't correct.

I was however pointing out that it was irresponsible of her to embolden regular folks, without her financial resources, who will simply land up being imprisoned for blasting off in solidarity on social media. That is why I said she should shut her trap.

reply

That is how these evil narcissists will win and society is further destroyed. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to say and do nothing.

So…I disagree completely with that.

reply

Enough to put up financial support for any women who are arrested and need it for legal costs?

If so, let me know your details and I'll arrange to forward them to anyone I see who does land up being arrested...

reply

You can’t be arrested for free speech in the United States. And if they can, there is a larger issue at hand.

reply

You can’t be arrested for free speech in the United States...

LOL. Well that's terrific for you but it's not really going to be much help for the women arrested in Scotland, where this hate crime law (and the subject of this discussion!) has come into place...

reply

So I left the conversation for a while and forgot that a different country was involved in this discussion.

You know. Because I have a life.

My point still stands. You’re going around telling JK Rowling to “keep her trap shut” over something she is completely in the right to say, and you are shamelessly opting for the coward’s way out. I don’t have any sympathy for you. If there is a wrongful, ridiculous, oppressive law, you work to change it by any means necessary.

reply

LoL again! 😂

Perhaps with having your life it would be for the best if you didn't bother posting, since you seemingly cannot help but write garbage.

Your point absolutely does not stand because I've already explained to you earlier in our exchanges that I didn't say anything to indicate I didn't think what she said wasn't correct.

I made it very clear to you that my issue was that it's all very well for her with her wealth and access to the finest legal representation challenging the police to arrest her but that other people were going to land up being imprisoned for blasting off on social media. THAT, as I made abundantly clear, is my issue not what she actually said.

Since you appeared to disagree with this, I asked you if YOU'd put your money were your mouth was and offer financial support to these women since you apparently think they should be speaking out and not being "cowardly" (cowardly by simply not shooting off on twitter, etc? 🤔). At which point you started spouting out irrelevant nonsense about US laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about!

So yeah, your amazing life has obviously impacted your ability to discuss things coherently on here.

Bearing that in mind - and given the fact that I never asked you to reply to me in the first place - it's probably best for you to avoid looking daft 👍🏽.

reply

You said she was correct, but should "keep her trap shut" even though what she said was correct.

I didn't say THEY were cowardly - I said you were.

If what you said isn't a textbook definition of the word cowardly, I don't know what is.

I also didn't say it was easy to change a law. If you stand against an oppressive government who caters to delusional narcissists who think the world revolves around them, you probably will get arrested. You'll be persecuted. All the more reason to bring them to their knees. Scotland overthrew their oppressive government before, they can do it again. It takes courage and perservance - both of which you lack (except for maybe your perservance to double down despite knowing you are in the wrong).

And I'll say whatever I want here - COWARD. 🖕

reply

So I'm cowardly for saying she shouldn't potentially be causing other women to land up in jail?! Haha, okay, that makes sense.

And again - just to prove you aren't a complete hypocrite just emptily shooting your virtue signalling mouth off on social media - please do forward me your contact details so I can forward them to any women who have been arrested for mimicking Rowling and require financial support for their legal costs...

Of course, I'm sure you'll do so because isn't there a very good word to describe the actions of someone who'd hide in the background, anonymously encouraging others to stick THEIR heads above the parapet but then disappearing without trace as soon as THEY get caught? Yes, I'm sure there's a word to describe someone who actually acts like that...

Yes, you're just as BRAVE as JK Rowling here what with your safe, empty signalling.

reply

"You can't be arrested for free speech..."

Unless you say something like "I want that person and their family dead. Someone should do that. Go kill them.".. and/or other words to that effect or similar.

I realise people get a crude sense of propriety from declaring that free speech is a protected right. It's just a shame that half the time most of the people who feel compelled to declare it don't have a fucking clue or a care about how it actually applies in context or in general.

reply

Except no one here is saying anything like that, Mr. Red Herring. Kindly do your best to stay on topic so you don’t look stupid.

reply

Did I say that anyone was saying that? No. Just another straw man.

It simply illustrates that free speech does not mean free of consequence. If speech was as free as you say it is, then it should not be illegal to say anything. But that's not true.

reply

...Just another straw man.

🎉🥳

reply

The mentality of people who proudly declare that speech is a protected freedom, then vehemently deny specific types of speech from having taken place.

Why would anyone deny saying anything to anyone? Is speech not supposed to be free?

(The mentality of me arguing with them though....)

reply

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you on this one.

I was just joking as (as I've told you before) I love your strawman arguments!

Cheers 👍🏽

reply

I know.

reply

I was referring to The Telegraph, which is considered right wing by the far left. I doubt most would have included those tweets.

reply

Your post doesn't make a lot of sense.

The fact that she has the finest legal representation is yet another reason she SHOULD keep talking and defying this crazy mob.

What are you saying, that when something is wrong and when you have the means to fight and speak against it, you should just stay quiet so that the "others" can follow you and maintain the silence and the injustice going?

reply

What are you saying, that when something is wrong and when you have the means to fight and speak against it, you should just stay quiet so that the "others" can follow you and maintain the silence and the injustice going?

No, that's not what I said at all. Therefore it's little wonder you aren't making any sense of it...

reply

It was.

reply

No, it wasn't.

And I'd already elaborated further on my actual meaning to someone else who'd already said exactly the same thing in reply to my post, before you, quite rudely, decided to ignore their comment and parrot it yourself.

So I'm not going to spoon-feed you any further here, simply because you're unable to read as well as comprehend.

Therefore:- Good day to you Sir 👍🏽

reply

So if 2 different people make the same interpretation to your post, you decide to assume that both people are stupid instead of acknowledging that you said nonsense? 🤣

I read the post of the other user, I wanted to add my own answer to highlight better how poor was your post.

reply

No, I'm assuming you alone are stupid.

As I said, the other person made the same point and I explained to them my actual meaning. If you had read that further explanation and still had an issue, you should have replied there (which would have necessitated saying something different as your regurgitated comment would have been absolute nonsense there) and I would have been happy to reply to you, if you raised a new, valid point.

But, as already said, I shouldn't have to repeat myself simply because you are unable to read a thread properly.

So, once again:-

Good day to you Sir 👍🏿

reply

It seems you are just unable to accept the fact you made a stupid point and then tried running circles to deny you made a stupid point.
Keep your ignorance and calling the others stupid to make yourself feel better.

reply

Jesus H. Christ

Just read FFS - The other guy who replied BEFORE you and to whom I'd ALREADY replied to said EXACTLY the same thing as you.

I then subsequently explained to him why the supposition he had made was incorrect and gave my actual reasoning.

Now, I've said that to you about three times now - If you are too stupid / stubborn to go and actually read what I said - and want to "argue" on an initial comment I've already clarified - I cannot help you any further...

As I can pretty much guarantee you lack the intelligence to shift from your already resolved point and will simply rabbit, rabbit, rabbit 🐰 it over and over again, I will not respond further.

Good day to you Sir 👍

reply

it was

reply

Aw lovely 😍 you've got a pal x

Same thing I said to the other guy though - I've no problem arguing my perspective if you want to do so but don't simply parrot a point I've already clarified as being wrong...

Thanks 👍

reply

The point against you has already been successfully made, you've just chosen to ignore it.🤷‍♂️

reply

I don't know if you've ever seen the film Anchorman? It's a very amusing film.

Anyway in it, there's one particular scene where all the characters are discussing things they love. However, there this is one character in the film, Brick, who is an absolute buffoon, - barely understanding what's going on around him - who is desperate to involve himself in the conversation and say something, anything in order to feel relevant, involved. Finally he looks around and just splurts out "I love lamp!". It's hilarious...

Anyway, you're a double redundancy here. There is no "point" made against me. Someone initially misunderstood the meaning of why I said Rowling should keep her trap shut. I subsequently explained to them their misunderstanding of my meaning.

Yet you have come on here as the SECOND person looking to ignore the fact that I've already clarified my meaning was not that Rowling should keep quiet to inspire others to follow her in maintaining an injustice (LOL. Seriously, that doesn't even make sense!) and clearly have no interest in going back up the thread and reading what I did actually say.

You don't want to engage in any actual discussion, all you really want to do is bark out "I Love Lamp"!

So good for you 👍 You love lamp. I get you...

reply

That was pretty funny. Your patience with idiots is also amusing. Carry on. . .

reply

if a bbc headline doesn't have a pun in it that makes you want to remove your eyes, it didn't happen

JK Rowling throws the book at the police
JK Rowling potters about on x
JK Rowling casts a spell on trans people

that sort of thing

reply

I don't really disagree with her views on biological sex, but I'm wondering if she's ever criticized women who identify as men. Or does she apply double standards?

reply

Doubtful. She talks about one more as it's more personal to her. But if you don't a believe a man can just become a woman, surely you also don't believe a woman can just become a man.

reply

Let's be real here: women have more of a right to fear men than men have a right to fear women.

reply

I wasn't talking about fear, I was talking about how she constantly makes fun of men calling themselves women in the name of biological facts. She most definitely seems to apply a double standard in that regard.

reply

I read somewhere that 76% of trans people are men transitioning to women so maybe that's why. But I think she makes fun of men thinking they're women more because she has the experience of being a woman and understands what it's like to be a woman.

reply

I get the impression she's mostly motivated by radical feminism. I'm more of an equalitist, so I'd like to see any criticism directed at both groups.

reply

I don't think she necessarily applies double standards, I think it's merely a case of being focused on men who identify as women being much more of a threat to women, then women who identify as men are to men. This is an entirely rational position to take, and you'll note, if you read her history of remarks on this topic, that she has on numerous occasions specifically called out the danger of men getting themselves locked up in women's prisons, or gaining access to battered women's shelters.

Again, it's perfectly reasonable for her to focus on this. Men are considerably larger and stronger than women on average, especially in upper body strength. A man who says he identifies as a woman, and manages to get the system to agree with him, and incarcerate him in a prison full of other women, who are locked in there with him, with no escape, is a far greater potential threat to those women, than would be a woman who says she identifies as a man, and gets herself sent to a men's prison (and I'm not aware of any cases of that happening -- I wonder why).

So, she devotes her time, energy, and money, to advocating for women on this issue, because they are in far greater need of such a champion to protect their interests than men are. There is no need to infer hypocrisy here.

reply

If she uses examples of transgender "women" (even non-violent ones) when arguing the facts of biological sex, then it surely is hypocritical of her to always leave out transgender "men".

reply

No, it isn't. That is an extremely black and white, reductive view of the issue. In the abstract, what's wrong for one side, is just as wrong for the other, and each side of the issue might be worthy of equal mention. The real world is not so abstract. If you are a 5'6", 120lb woman, locked in a prison cell with 6'0", 190lb "trans-woman," you are in a lot more potential danger than if you are a 6'0", 190lb man locked in a cell with a 5'6", 120lb "trans-man."

There is a serious, real world, safety issue here, it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. The difference between biological men and women is real. You know what else is? Sexual dimorphism. Men are bigger, stronger, and on the average, more violent and physically aggressive.

You know, one of the greatest criticisms people have of woke leftism is that it denies observed reality, that it demands that we pretend not to know things we do, in fact, know. So stop doing that! Stop pretending that one gender isn't at greater risk of physical harm than the other from trans-ideology, because it is.

reply

Not only are you deflecting, you're making an unfounded connection between me and supposed claims I have nothing to do with. If the issue is that certain policies regarding transgenders may increase the risk of physical harm to others, then it makes sense for her to bring up transgender "women" and violence by them against biological women. If her argument is that it isn't correct to call them women because it's a biological fact they're not actually women, then it's a double standard not to bring up transgender "men" as well.

reply

Okay, then show me the biologically female "trans-man" who is a genuine physical threat to men. Show me the biologically male "trans-man" who is taking sports trophies and athletic scholarships away from biological men. Show me that.

Yeah, you can't, because there aren't any. This is NOT a bothsidesism issue. I'm not deflecting a goddamned thing. One gender is clearly more at risk, and more disadvantaged by this ideology than the other. This is a fact

Once again: one of the greatest criticisms people have of woke leftism is that it denies observed reality, that it demands that we pretend not to know things we do, in fact, know.

Stop. Doing. That.

reply

Stop. Missing. The. Point.

I'm not talking about physical threat, I'm talking about Rowling's argument that BIOLOGICALLY they are not women. Two different issues.

Now stop deflecting and, for god's sake, stop associating me with leftist ideology.

reply

I'm not missing one damned thing. I'm pointing out that Rowling's focusing on the fact that "trans-women" are a threat to women, and saying nothing about "trans-men" is NOT hypocritical, because "trans-women" pose several varieties of real threats to actual women, in way that "trans-men" do not do to actual men.

You are arguing from the point of view that both sides are absolutely equal, and if she doesn't condemn one side equally with the other, well then she's just wrong -- and by inference, her arguments can be dismissed because they are hypocritical. What I'm saying is that this is wrongheaded, simplistic, facile, and only superficially persuasive. Superficially, because yes, in the abstract, what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander. In real world terms however, the reality is that women are far more threatened by trans-ideology than men are. And that IS the reality. So it is not hypocritical for Rowling to see that danger, and focus her attention and advocacy there. That's where it is more needed.

Again, bottom line: trans ideology is putting men into women's prisons and women's shelters in a way that threatens women. Show me where the reverse is happening, where biological women are posing as serious a threat to men.

You can't, because they're not.

Trans ideology is depriving women of trophies, records, and athletic scholarships. Show me where the reverse is happening.

You can't, because they're not.

This absolutely is an issue where one gender is impacted more than the other, and it is Rowling's gender. Why are you characterizing it as fundamentally wrong for her, a woman, to defend other women? Can you not hear yourself?

reply

"You are arguing from the point of view that both sides are absolutely equal"

When it comes to the argument of biological facts of gender, then yes, absolutely, 100%. To ignore transgender "men" in that regard is absolutely hypocritical.

I'm going to ignore everything else you've said because that's deflective nonsense that misses the point completely. I don't know how often I have to repeat this to you, I'm NOT talking about Rowling's argument that transgender "women" can be a threat to biological women. You have not paid attention if you think that's all she has talked about.

reply

"Deflective nonsense" my eye. You just don't like hearing that maybe she has rational, considered, and actually valid reasons for putting her focus where she has put it. And this is all in service to some abstract notion of equal justice (never mind that as things stand, the way trans ideology is being pushed, women are facing the greater injustice from ignoring biological reality) that allows you to engage in self-righteous moral preening.

reply

"You just don't like hearing that maybe she has rational, considered, and actually valid reasons for putting her focus where she has put it."

You obviously did not read one single word of what I actually said. But go ahead with your deflective ramblings that completely and utterly miss the point.

"And this is all in service to some abstract notion of equal justice (never mind that as things stand, the way trans ideology is being pushed, women are facing the greater injustice from ignoring biological reality) that allows you to engage in self-righteous moral preening."

You are out of your mind, trollboy.🍆

reply

You obviously did not read one single word of what I actually said. But go ahead with your deflective ramblings that completely and utterly miss the point.

Or maybe, just maybe, I read every word you wrote, and understood it perfectly, and I just don't agree with you, don't think your point is valid, and understand that someone with a very different point of view -- the point of view of a woman -- might see the issue from a completely different perspective.

I also happen to be convinced at this point that you are being what a Brit like Rowling herself would call "bloody minded" about this issue, and stubbornly, indeed mulishly refusing even to consider that there might be other perspectives, let alone try to see the issue from one.

reply

If you read every word of it, then you understood absolutely nothing, even though I made my point explicitly clear multiple times. Your deductions, assumptions and accusations are absolutely ridiculous and unfounded. You may call me "bloody minded", but you're out of your bloody mind. Go troll somebody else.

reply

I've made my point explicitly clear multiple times as well, and you've dismissed everything I've written out of hand, completely unconsidered. Don't flatter yourself that you have the moral high ground here. The fact that you have resorted to such name calling and accusations robs you of any claim to it.

In the fields of philosophy and rhetoric, there is something called the principle of charity. You might want to look it up, because I will -- charitably -- assume you are unfamiliar with it. The only alternative explanation is that you are scornful of it.

reply

I've dismissed what you've said because it's either completely unfounded or totally unrelated to what I've been arguing.

I don't give a flying hoot about morals, what you're doing is basically putting words in my mouth. I haven't even come close to implying the things you've accused me of. You refuse to have a fair and honest discussion. You lose.

Like I said, go bother someone else with your off-base ramblings.

reply

Caligula tried declaring victory once (over the sea). Didn't work for him either.

reply

He must be your idol.👍

reply

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

You know, I wasn't trolling; I started out trying to debate in good faith -- though it's obvious you haven't been doing that all along -- and to make a point it seems like you simply might not have considered. Now I recognize you. You are one of those tiresome people who categorically rejects any idea or opinion that's not his own.

Well, as I said... I wasn't trolling, but at this point, I have to admit: your inability just to walk away and not get the last word in is becoming highly amusing.

You should never let someone know that it's so easy to push your buttons.

reply

🧦🍆🧦

Now let's see if you're able to walk away and not get the last word in, D-feet.😊

reply

Why should I? You can't.

reply

Lol, why should I? Because YOU say I should???

Come on, don't be a hypocrite, just show me you ARE able to walk away.😀

reply

You first.

reply

Nah, you're the one who brought it up.

reply

Poke poke poke.

reply

Lol, you're only poking yourself, Davros!😆

You do realize that once I stop responding to you, not only will you be exposed as a hypocrite, your accusation against me will also be proven wrong. I really got to thank you for giving me that opportunity!🤭

reply

That statement is a complete non sequitur.

reply

Well, you're the champion of non sequiturs!

Hey, but thanks for proving I'm right.👍

reply

I love the "burn" emoji. It's adorable you think that's what you're doing.

reply

It's absolute lunacy that you think that's a "burn" emoji.

But hey, thanks for proving I'm right.👍

reply

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You're like Bruno Kirby's Lieutenant Steve character from "Good Morning Vietnam" -- people who are really funny, don't tell people they're funny, they just are.

People who are actually right, or who have "burned" someone during a debate, don't have to tell people either, people will just see it.

reply

Lol, you're the one who keeps telling I'm right with your inability to stop replying. But go ahead, just one more!😆

reply

I hate to break it to you, but if there is some quality that applies to me because of an inability to stop replying, it also applies to you, and for precisely the same reason.

That's quite a lack of self-awareness you seem to have.

reply

I wasn't the one complaining about other people's inability to walk away. It seems you hold yourself to a different standard.

Now come one, Davros, one more!🍆

reply

You still don't get it: I complained about your inability to walk away, and then I pointed out that seeing how easy it is to push your buttons has turned out to be quite amusing.

And you keep replying too. You really still don't get it: you simply can't credibly accuse the other side of hypocrisy when you're doing the same thing, no matter how you try to spin it.

Again, the lack of self-awareness really is something.

reply

Lol, Davros, you always turn things around when you're feeling trapped! I'm simply pointing out you're a hypocrite for your accusation that I'm not able to walk away while you are unable to do so yourself. That's an issue you brought up, I don't even care who's able to walk away or not. You're only pushing your own buttons here. 🤷‍♀️

Now come on, amuse yourself and give me one more reply!😆

reply

Okay: you can have your victory in stubbornness, if you want to call it that.

It's not one in intelligence or wisdom, but if you want to "win" through pigheadedness, be my guest. That's not a "victory" I'm embarrassed to let you have.

reply

What is JayKay’s least favourite holiday destination?






Transylvania




Thank you

reply


That would have worked beautifully with a virtual rimshot. Too bad this technology hasn't been been brought to forums - have the punch line blocked out like a "spoiler". Move the cursor over the text and it appears with an audible rimshot following shortly after (depending on say how many syllables the punch line contains). Better forums can also animate a virtual drummer.

reply

No greater vanity than to falsely call yourself a fugitive from the law when you know you are completely free.

reply

The law was just implemented yesterday.

reply

She still falsely claiming to be an outlaw. She's using the law to attract publicity to herself. I don't know how that's no obvious. Maybe it is but for some people it suits them to ignore this fact.

reply

your saying she's making up her stance on trans issues and her view of the new law

...in order to "attract publicity to herself" ?

does this apply to anyone who comments on current affiars?
or said anything . ever . ?

reply

No I'm not saying she is making up her stance. But she is the author of her own supposed criminality. Not the law.

No it applies to people who want a certain rep.

reply

There was a Harry Potter video game that was released and they had to distance themselves from her. She was removed from a pop culture museum. She received death threats and was doxxed. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have spoken out against her.

reply

That proves her claims of her supposed criminality?

reply

No. She's bringing up criminality because Scotland just passed a law yesterday that allowed police to arrest those who misgender. She's calling out the law itself.

reply

People are already well aware of the law no thanks to JK Rowling. All JK Rowling is doing is painting a picture of herself being persecuted for her thoughts, opinion and position by the establishment by claiming to be a criminal under this new law.

reply

Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are British pussies.........

imagine a world were the creator of fucking harry potter of all people, is the one that stand up to these lunatics and mentally ill people...... amazing!

reply

It's crazy people focus so much on this issue instead of things that raise the quality of life in these countries.

reply

it is what the global jew wants, keep us bickering about bullshit while they funnel all our money and power into their criminal ethnostate....

reply

Are you aware that the First Minister of Scotland, who is the focus of criticism of this law, is a Muslim?

reply

LMAO. . .idiots abound

reply

Why are people in the UK so fragile? They are putting people in prison for hurting someones feelings.

reply

while they have migrants raping and grooming children........

UK government is sick

reply

The land of the slaves the USA just shoot each other.

American education is sick. Scotland has its own government.

reply

UK government is still sick


they use the same tactics.

go after petty crimes and let knife migrants go free.


i am European, i know all about this shit.
so your attempt to badmouth america does nothing......

reply

3 dots in your ellipses please...

The government does not let knife crime go free.

You know nothing.



reply

LOL...... UK government are among the softest in Europe!
Right up there with Sweden.

both let muslim migrants get away with anything.

I know everything.... so eat a dick you British wanker!

🤣🖕

reply

"both let muslim migrants get away with anything"

Such as?

reply

At least seven members of the first Rochdale grooming gang brought down for raping and trafficking young children across England are walking free on the streets today


Qari Abdul Rauf, 54 and Adil Khan, 53, were part of a group who plied girls as young as 12 with alcohol and drugs before ferrying them around in taxis to be raped.


-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12968329/rochdale-grooming-gang-12-years-prison-sentences.html

reply

So that means that "muslim migrants" get away with "anything"? (I won't get into the weeds about how that came about due to lack of Police resources and policy geared towards crimes more connected with property and money in that area. It has fuck all to do with government policy toward "muslim migrants")

I guess if the same crimes are committed by white English people and they haven't spent the rest of their lives in prison, that means that the "government" lets white English people get away with anything. By your own logic.

reply

You know nowt you absolute tool 😂

reply

Noone is going to prison.

reply

THey are going to jail though.

reply

Nah she challenged the police the, they said they aren't doing anything. Good for her.

reply

The person ragging on American education turns right around and writes "noone".

reply

imagine a world were the creator of fucking harry potter of all people, is the one that stand up to these lunatics and mentally ill people...... amazing!

reply