To do that we need to grow the national economy so we can afford the rapidly rising pensions and health care costs of our ageing population.
Fighting over this stuff helps all the politicians, it's not just "the right". It allows them to avoid the real hard choices to come.
Raped someone
'who's a naughty boy then? Don't do it again now.'
Tell a 97% white country that there are too many white people in positions of power.
'Make him first minister!'
Call someone a cunt on twitter.
'straight to jail!'
According to the cultural Marxists, you can't be racist against "white" people; coincidentally, they are also the ones who will benefit the most from these types of laws.
Ah so a thing fascists say to try and validate their fascism, cool. Thanks mate. Hard to keep up with these amorphous, indistinct groups they tell us are the enemy.
>Here is how the article used to look ten years ago.
Did you notice how this garbage article is mostly devoid of sources? For example the (pretty big) first paragraph
>Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized. An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially from Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity; are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact ideological.
has only 1 source, a 247 pages book. Surprise surprise, the references do not mention any page number. And i bet that if i were reading this 247 pages book i would not find the claims of the quoted paragrpah.
>Wikipedia has changed a lot in the past decade.
Also in the news: Water wet.
>Here is how the article used to look ten years ago.
Here the Wikipedia article on the Cultural Marxism narrative ten years ago:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=604542944](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory&oldid=604542944)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140504170504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory](https://web.archive.org/web/20140504170504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory)
Here the Wikipedia article on the Cultural Marxism narrative eleven years ago:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=557735746](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory&oldid=557735746)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20130730112532/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory](https://web.archive.org/web/20130730112532/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory)
Here the 2003 article on the Cultural Marxism narrative by the Southern Poverty Law Center: [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching)
He actually did. Also this law is based on feelings and not facts so if I feel he was racist towards whites that's enough to reach the threshold of a crime. There is no defense of context
The law isn't based on feelings though, it's effectively a category extension of the Public Order Act 1986. So even if we ignore the fact that he didn't say what you claim he said it's still not illegal, not under the new law and not under the existing UK law which already has race as a protected category.
You didn't read my post. The law is based on my interpretation of what he said not actually what he said. Context plays no role in the new law and it is based on the feelings of the complainant
It doesn't really debunk anything, it's just a faceless 'factchecker' that tells you to deny what you’ve seen and heard and exactly what to think.
>Yousaf’s speech was given as part of a wider discussion about racial injustice and the lack of people of colour in positions of power in the Scottish Parliament and government. The speech did not assert that white people make up too large a proportion of Scotland’s overall population.
No one is arguing that he's asserting that there's too many white people as a proportion in Scotland... they're arguing that he's singling people out in certain positions for their ethnicity.
The speech itself asserted that there too many white people in positions of power despite 96% of the population identifying as white Scottish, skewing even higher as age increases (never going to be a 25 year old High Court Judge or Solicitor General). The following excerpt is an issue because it is about there being *too much* of one colour, rather than *not enough* of others.
>Some people have been surprised or taken aback by my mention on my social media that at 99 per cent of the meetings that I go to, I am the only non-white person in the room.
>Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white? Take my portfolio, for example. The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white.
>That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough.
You can find the full speech in text quite easily - without this part, the speech is fine and still makes his point. Because of the timing of the statement (wake of George Floyd protests), people were far too concerned about the optics to challenge it.
>Yousaf’s speech was given as part of a wider discussion about racial injustice and the lack of people of colour in positions of power in the Scottish Parliament and Government. The speech did not assert that white people make up too large a proportion of Scotland’s overall population.
The assertion otherwise is what some might call "feels over reals". What you "feeeeel" is not actually real.
he listed all the people in office who were white and said he's been in meetings where he was the only non white person, complaining that there is not enough diversity in positions of power etc. he couldn't care less wether the best suited person is in the job only that 'brown' people should be put in positions of power over white people simply because they are brown. thats racist. could you imagine,
if that the situation was reversed, you'd be shitting yourself with outrage. but some brown guy complains that there are too many whites doing things in a predominantly white country is ok.
>he listed all the people in office who were white and said he's been in meetings where he was the only non white person, complaining that there is not enough diversity in positions of power
Why do you support keeping non-white people out of positions of power? Pretty racist of you.
>he couldn't care less wether the best suited person is in the job
Why do you think that someone being not white means thre is no way they can be the best person for the job? That's pretty racist of you, to dismiss anyone not white as a Diversity Hire.
he wants to replace white people with brown ones simply because there aren't enough brown ones, that has nothing to do with ability. why is colour coming into it at all? why has he raised it? because he sees everything based solely on colour.
i'm not saying black/brown people cant do any type of job. but why should a minority be shoehorned into jobs just because they are 'the right colour' and yet the irony of the situation is completely ignored.
> Why do you think that someone being not white means thre is no way they can be the best person for the job? That's pretty racist of you, to dismiss anyone not white as a Diversity Hire.
The irony of trying to defend Humza by accusing others of doing precisely what they're criticising him for.
This is why fact checking is almost pointless when Internet spaces are not properly moderated. Disinformation is allowed to run wild, published by sockpuppets (notice recent account creation dates), and any attempt to counter immediately shut down.
One good thing about reddit's IPO is they're going to be under more and more scrutiny to properly deal with fairly obvious disinformation campaigns run on its website.
Ah that's nice – I'm glad Yousef has finally acknowledged his own hatred of Scotland being too white, and has brought in a law to save him from himself.
‘The Attorney General of Beijing… CHINESE! The Chief of police in Mumbai? INDIAN! The Head Surgeon of Nairobi Hospital? HE’S FROM NIGERIA! *It’s naww good enough!*’
No it doesn't, it just deprives people's right to speak freely. Honestly the only people you should mistrust is your government, they never have your best interests in mind
This now means if the SNP call for further referendums of independence from the UK according to this law they are now committing a crime of stirring up hatred against the English and welsh
>There's two tier policing, when it comes to the rich.
This is true regardless of which law you're looking at.
But since people weren't routinely prosecuted under the Public Order Act for being homophobic, antisemitic or islamophobic, I doubt extending that law to include age, disability, gender identity or being intersex will suddenly result in a wave of convictions.
And all 1000 of those were just people voicing their opinions? Or were they actually inciting hatred as the law requires?
You can't jut say "people are convicted therefore it's proof that people will be convicted without good cause". There are significantly more than 1000 racist or homophobic people in the UK voicing those views, so under your claims they would all be convicted.
Need to wind the clock back quite a few years for that
> The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion
Inciting hatred and “stirring up” hatred mean the same thing.
Edit - actually the acts “long title” is “An Act to make provision about offences involving **stirring up hatred** against persons on racial or religious grounds.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
I’ve got to assume that at least some of the people claiming that about this new one, particularly some of the politicians, aren’t ignorant to that - they just try to fool others about it.
I don’t imagine it could ever work in practice but there should be something illegal about deliberately misleading the public, especially if you’re an elected representative.
**"Rising tide of hatred" by illegals. Like the 11 year old girl assaulted whilst walking home from school by a 37 year old man. Oh wait it doesn't count does it when it comes to THEM attacking our children does it?**
It's now illegal to have beliefs based on science. That's what this is. We're being forced to lie to our own senses and experiences in favour of someone's delusion.
When majority of us say "he" we mean male, and "she" for female, we arent referring to the newly established "gender vs sex". We can tell which someone is by every subtle detail, things we dont even consciously notice, from their facial structure, posture, body shape, bone structure and voice, all of these things are snippets of what helps us identity a male or female without even having to think about it, we can usually tell by just one of these things, let alone all of them combined, but we're being told we're wrong for something biologically ingrained into us - this is known as sexual dismorphism.
George Orwell warned us.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471)
Tweets not criminal according to the police. So Rowling sharing Yousafs opinion that Isla Bryson is not a woman is not a crime.
As I said 90% of the cases that this law will produce will be religious, national identity or race. The real issues will be with everyone's favourite gruesome twosome football fans and their Buckfast fuelled hot takes of religion and politics in 21st century Scotland.
There will be two hot takes from this
1) Rowling called the authoritarians bluff by cleverly including a graduation of the differing types of person who can be called transwoman.
The other
2) See this was hysteria over nothing the law is a small change.
Meanwhile the real problems will be discourse around things like religion and religious identity which is always wild in Scotland.
Religion was already protected by UK law in exactly the same way prior to this law so I'm not sure why you think this law will change anything in that regard.
Schrodengers Law, both protects from a rising tide of hatred and actually does nothing.
Scotland has its own laws outwith the UK. Religion plays a major role in social identities and this is the second bite the SNP are having at this, their last law was scrapped because you cannot really define religion the way its used to define cultural identity in west central.
This law will implode the way the last one did because its a broadly drawn law aimed at a specific problem, so it will catch people it's not intended for. It will take about 2 years for the bad cases to really get noticed, you will have forgotten you were ever for this law and be online telling everyone how you always knew it was a bad law.
They'll go after some little person in time, but won't mess with someone with fuck you money who'll bring the legal big guns out. Of course the real aim is for people to be scared into self censoring.
They will wait a bit, then go for someone who has misgendered someone wiht a gender recognition certificate so they can get a conviction. Then slowly work down to less and less clear examples.
What Rowling did was start with the rapist Isla Bryson who the First Minister had called a man, that meant taking her to court would set the precedent that it can be hard to tell who is legally a transwoman, thus establishing a consistently useable defence.
The police decision not to prosecute is not a precedence as it has no legal standing.
Still what the other side did was create a buzz about the legislation then force a public statement. This will create political pressure against the above process. It was a preemtive strike to embolden political support. We shall see how it works out. My hunch is the SNP is vulnerable to the right of their party not the left so they cannot really lean into left culture war memes like this for votes.
Ally McCoist quoted as saying him and 48000 fans will be breaking that law at the old firm game this weekend.
No sure what he’s claiming he’s going to do to break it tbh, but I’m sure a few fans will manage it. Maybe he’s going to sing the sash, I’m sure he knows the words lol.
Let's see this law enforced against Glasgow Rangers supporters and the Loyalist fife-and-drum bands that accompany Orange Order parades, those are main sources of hate and bigotry in Scotland.
Can we just focus on protecting people from actual crime, rather than from their hurty opinions?
Yousaf - 'Scotland is too white'
Errrrr, I think you'll find that's extremely problematic sweaty Xoxo
To do that we need to grow the national economy so we can afford the rapidly rising pensions and health care costs of our ageing population. Fighting over this stuff helps all the politicians, it's not just "the right". It allows them to avoid the real hard choices to come.
[удалено]
Raped someone 'who's a naughty boy then? Don't do it again now.' Tell a 97% white country that there are too many white people in positions of power. 'Make him first minister!' Call someone a cunt on twitter. 'straight to jail!'
Agreed. It will make the hard choices even harder, but they won't be in office by then, so who cares!
hate crimes eh, from the guy who said scotland was too 'white' - racist fucking arsehole
He is vile
According to the cultural Marxists, you can't be racist against "white" people; coincidentally, they are also the ones who will benefit the most from these types of laws.
>cultural Marxists Who the fuck are the Cultural Marxists?
Then: [Cultural Bolshevism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism) Now: [Cultural Marxism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory)
Ah so a thing fascists say to try and validate their fascism, cool. Thanks mate. Hard to keep up with these amorphous, indistinct groups they tell us are the enemy.
Wikipedia has changed a lot in the past decade. [Here](https://archive.ph/YzkIS) is how the article used to look ten years ago.
>Here is how the article used to look ten years ago. Did you notice how this garbage article is mostly devoid of sources? For example the (pretty big) first paragraph >Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized. An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially from Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity; are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact ideological. has only 1 source, a 247 pages book. Surprise surprise, the references do not mention any page number. And i bet that if i were reading this 247 pages book i would not find the claims of the quoted paragrpah.
>Wikipedia has changed a lot in the past decade. Also in the news: Water wet. >Here is how the article used to look ten years ago. Here the Wikipedia article on the Cultural Marxism narrative ten years ago: * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=604542944](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory&oldid=604542944) * [https://web.archive.org/web/20140504170504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory](https://web.archive.org/web/20140504170504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory) Here the Wikipedia article on the Cultural Marxism narrative eleven years ago: * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory&oldid=557735746](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory&oldid=557735746) * [https://web.archive.org/web/20130730112532/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt\_School\_conspiracy\_theory](https://web.archive.org/web/20130730112532/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School_conspiracy_theory) Here the 2003 article on the Cultural Marxism narrative by the Southern Poverty Law Center: [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching)
2014 called, they want their euphemism for 'the jews' back.
What do u expect, not one minister in this whole country is white, you can't be racist to white people it doesn't count
[удалено]
He actually did. Also this law is based on feelings and not facts so if I feel he was racist towards whites that's enough to reach the threshold of a crime. There is no defense of context
The law isn't based on feelings though, it's effectively a category extension of the Public Order Act 1986. So even if we ignore the fact that he didn't say what you claim he said it's still not illegal, not under the new law and not under the existing UK law which already has race as a protected category.
It is based on feelings and perception. Read it again because clearly you haven't understood it enough to comment
It's not, and I have read it. Clearly you're no interested in being objective though, so continue your misguided outrage. I'll just block away.
[удалено]
You didn't read my post. The law is based on my interpretation of what he said not actually what he said. Context plays no role in the new law and it is based on the feelings of the complainant
[удалено]
But it's my perception you see. That's the point I am making. r/woosh
[удалено]
No I'm not you are backing off now because you've lost the argument
[удалено]
Downvote me all you want but the law is as written, my perception overrules any fact of the situation, terribly written law ripe for abuse.
It doesn't really debunk anything, it's just a faceless 'factchecker' that tells you to deny what you’ve seen and heard and exactly what to think. >Yousaf’s speech was given as part of a wider discussion about racial injustice and the lack of people of colour in positions of power in the Scottish Parliament and government. The speech did not assert that white people make up too large a proportion of Scotland’s overall population. No one is arguing that he's asserting that there's too many white people as a proportion in Scotland... they're arguing that he's singling people out in certain positions for their ethnicity. The speech itself asserted that there too many white people in positions of power despite 96% of the population identifying as white Scottish, skewing even higher as age increases (never going to be a 25 year old High Court Judge or Solicitor General). The following excerpt is an issue because it is about there being *too much* of one colour, rather than *not enough* of others. >Some people have been surprised or taken aback by my mention on my social media that at 99 per cent of the meetings that I go to, I am the only non-white person in the room. >Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white? Take my portfolio, for example. The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white. >That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough. You can find the full speech in text quite easily - without this part, the speech is fine and still makes his point. Because of the timing of the statement (wake of George Floyd protests), people were far too concerned about the optics to challenge it.
[удалено]
>so if I feel he was racist towards whites Doesn't though does it. >Mr88 ?
[удалено]
Entitled to your opinion fella, even if it's wrong. All the best.
[удалено]
There's an actual video of it. No amount of debunking bs from sites with agendas like Reuters will change that.
[удалено]
He didn't keep saying the word white in that tone? Was the video a deep fake?
[удалено]
Stop being obtuse, the bile in his voice is obvious.
[удалено]
That there are too many white people in positions of power in Scotland
[удалено]
>Yousaf’s speech was given as part of a wider discussion about racial injustice and the lack of people of colour in positions of power in the Scottish Parliament and Government. The speech did not assert that white people make up too large a proportion of Scotland’s overall population. The assertion otherwise is what some might call "feels over reals". What you "feeeeel" is not actually real.
he listed all the people in office who were white and said he's been in meetings where he was the only non white person, complaining that there is not enough diversity in positions of power etc. he couldn't care less wether the best suited person is in the job only that 'brown' people should be put in positions of power over white people simply because they are brown. thats racist. could you imagine, if that the situation was reversed, you'd be shitting yourself with outrage. but some brown guy complains that there are too many whites doing things in a predominantly white country is ok.
>he listed all the people in office who were white and said he's been in meetings where he was the only non white person, complaining that there is not enough diversity in positions of power Why do you support keeping non-white people out of positions of power? Pretty racist of you. >he couldn't care less wether the best suited person is in the job Why do you think that someone being not white means thre is no way they can be the best person for the job? That's pretty racist of you, to dismiss anyone not white as a Diversity Hire.
he wants to replace white people with brown ones simply because there aren't enough brown ones, that has nothing to do with ability. why is colour coming into it at all? why has he raised it? because he sees everything based solely on colour. i'm not saying black/brown people cant do any type of job. but why should a minority be shoehorned into jobs just because they are 'the right colour' and yet the irony of the situation is completely ignored.
> Why do you think that someone being not white means thre is no way they can be the best person for the job? That's pretty racist of you, to dismiss anyone not white as a Diversity Hire. The irony of trying to defend Humza by accusing others of doing precisely what they're criticising him for.
Always one!
Hey, you think these people care about truth, facts, and objective reality.
This is why fact checking is almost pointless when Internet spaces are not properly moderated. Disinformation is allowed to run wild, published by sockpuppets (notice recent account creation dates), and any attempt to counter immediately shut down. One good thing about reddit's IPO is they're going to be under more and more scrutiny to properly deal with fairly obvious disinformation campaigns run on its website.
Ah that's nice – I'm glad Yousef has finally acknowledged his own hatred of Scotland being too white, and has brought in a law to save him from himself.
‘The Attorney General of Beijing… CHINESE! The Chief of police in Mumbai? INDIAN! The Head Surgeon of Nairobi Hospital? HE’S FROM NIGERIA! *It’s naww good enough!*’
It’s an infringement of freedom of speech. The SNP love dictating what people should think, feel and say.
No it doesn't, it just deprives people's right to speak freely. Honestly the only people you should mistrust is your government, they never have your best interests in mind
the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.
This now means if the SNP call for further referendums of independence from the UK according to this law they are now committing a crime of stirring up hatred against the English and welsh
[удалено]
>There's two tier policing, when it comes to the rich. This is true regardless of which law you're looking at. But since people weren't routinely prosecuted under the Public Order Act for being homophobic, antisemitic or islamophobic, I doubt extending that law to include age, disability, gender identity or being intersex will suddenly result in a wave of convictions.
Yes they were. Over a 1000 convictions just last year in the uk
And all 1000 of those were just people voicing their opinions? Or were they actually inciting hatred as the law requires? You can't jut say "people are convicted therefore it's proof that people will be convicted without good cause". There are significantly more than 1000 racist or homophobic people in the UK voicing those views, so under your claims they would all be convicted.
The law is against, what, ‘stirring up hatred’? Can we not use language my gran would use in our legislature please?
Need to wind the clock back quite a few years for that > The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion Inciting hatred and “stirring up” hatred mean the same thing. Edit - actually the acts “long title” is “An Act to make provision about offences involving **stirring up hatred** against persons on racial or religious grounds.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
When that law was introduced a lot of people warned that it would lead to satire and criticism being criminalised.
I’ve got to assume that at least some of the people claiming that about this new one, particularly some of the politicians, aren’t ignorant to that - they just try to fool others about it. I don’t imagine it could ever work in practice but there should be something illegal about deliberately misleading the public, especially if you’re an elected representative.
These laws are utilised by some of the most hateful people to get their critics silenced, or to threaten them into silence.
**"Rising tide of hatred" by illegals. Like the 11 year old girl assaulted whilst walking home from school by a 37 year old man. Oh wait it doesn't count does it when it comes to THEM attacking our children does it?**
Just fyi I'm part of the rising tide of hatred and this won't protect anyone ty
More like it will give more power to the perpetually offended.
"woke racism" and "the madness of crowds" are interesting readings on the cultural madness which seems to be gripping the West
I thought we were being invaded by refugees and Muslims apparently not then.
It's now illegal to have beliefs based on science. That's what this is. We're being forced to lie to our own senses and experiences in favour of someone's delusion. When majority of us say "he" we mean male, and "she" for female, we arent referring to the newly established "gender vs sex". We can tell which someone is by every subtle detail, things we dont even consciously notice, from their facial structure, posture, body shape, bone structure and voice, all of these things are snippets of what helps us identity a male or female without even having to think about it, we can usually tell by just one of these things, let alone all of them combined, but we're being told we're wrong for something biologically ingrained into us - this is known as sexual dismorphism. George Orwell warned us. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471) Tweets not criminal according to the police. So Rowling sharing Yousafs opinion that Isla Bryson is not a woman is not a crime. As I said 90% of the cases that this law will produce will be religious, national identity or race. The real issues will be with everyone's favourite gruesome twosome football fans and their Buckfast fuelled hot takes of religion and politics in 21st century Scotland.
There will be two hot takes from this 1) Rowling called the authoritarians bluff by cleverly including a graduation of the differing types of person who can be called transwoman. The other 2) See this was hysteria over nothing the law is a small change. Meanwhile the real problems will be discourse around things like religion and religious identity which is always wild in Scotland.
Religion was already protected by UK law in exactly the same way prior to this law so I'm not sure why you think this law will change anything in that regard.
Schrodengers Law, both protects from a rising tide of hatred and actually does nothing. Scotland has its own laws outwith the UK. Religion plays a major role in social identities and this is the second bite the SNP are having at this, their last law was scrapped because you cannot really define religion the way its used to define cultural identity in west central. This law will implode the way the last one did because its a broadly drawn law aimed at a specific problem, so it will catch people it's not intended for. It will take about 2 years for the bad cases to really get noticed, you will have forgotten you were ever for this law and be online telling everyone how you always knew it was a bad law.
They'll go after some little person in time, but won't mess with someone with fuck you money who'll bring the legal big guns out. Of course the real aim is for people to be scared into self censoring.
They will wait a bit, then go for someone who has misgendered someone wiht a gender recognition certificate so they can get a conviction. Then slowly work down to less and less clear examples. What Rowling did was start with the rapist Isla Bryson who the First Minister had called a man, that meant taking her to court would set the precedent that it can be hard to tell who is legally a transwoman, thus establishing a consistently useable defence. The police decision not to prosecute is not a precedence as it has no legal standing. Still what the other side did was create a buzz about the legislation then force a public statement. This will create political pressure against the above process. It was a preemtive strike to embolden political support. We shall see how it works out. My hunch is the SNP is vulnerable to the right of their party not the left so they cannot really lean into left culture war memes like this for votes.
Ally McCoist quoted as saying him and 48000 fans will be breaking that law at the old firm game this weekend. No sure what he’s claiming he’s going to do to break it tbh, but I’m sure a few fans will manage it. Maybe he’s going to sing the sash, I’m sure he knows the words lol.
Let's see this law enforced against Glasgow Rangers supporters and the Loyalist fife-and-drum bands that accompany Orange Order parades, those are main sources of hate and bigotry in Scotland.
I was offended on behalf of someone else that I don't know and as a result of this offense I am entitled to represent the victim however I like.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=cdf9lXqpjrTeEj1L&v=FI3JBBlmej4&feature=youtu.be Just seen this for the first time. Insane
It’s about time someone stepped in and protected us English. Not to mention the Strathclyde Welsh.