JK Rowling “wasted” police time and attacked Scottish “societal values” when she gave voice to ‘lawful but awful’ gender critical views, and misgendered a series of high-profile trans women in a “deliberate provocation” to test the boundaries of the country’s new Hate Crime Act, a senior SNP politician has said, in an apparent show of frustration that the legislation has not (yet) succeeded in having a chilling effect on gender critical speech.
As reported by the Telegraph, Karen Adam, who is convener of Holyrood’s equalities committee, launched a thinly veiled attack on the Harry Potter author in a defence of Humza Yousaf’s controversial legislation, which she hailed as an “incredible example of our commitment to justice”.
On the first day that the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act came into force, Rowling deliberately “misgendered” a series of high-profile trans women, calling them men and challenging Police Scotland to arrest her.
The force declined to do so after receiving complaints, ruling that she had not committed a crime with her deliberately provocative social media posts on X, formerly Twitter.
After Police Scotland said she had not committed a crime, Rowling said: “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.”
Writing in her column in The National, a pro-independence newspaper, Ms Adam took aim at “deliberate provocations seen in recent times where individuals had tested the boundaries of the legislation”.
She added: “[They] do more than just waste police time, they strike at the very core of our societal values.
“These actions aren’t just about challenging a legal framework, they question our collective resolve to build a community where hatred finds no home.”
Ms Adam went on to warn that while people were free to speak as they wished, they could not do so free from “consequences”.
She raised the case of a trans constituent who had told her of the “discrimination and fear” they experienced due to dehumanising “online debates over their life”. She added: “Freedom of speech is indeed a cherished principle, vital to the being of our democracy – but it’s not absolute. It comes with the responsibility to not harm others intentionally.”
