Scotland Is Devolving Before Our Eyes, Some Worry It Will No Longer Be a Free Country

This harsh criticism comes as the controversial act will come into force next month. The act has long been bashed, as many believe it will be used to stop one’s freedom of speech in different ways.

This means that someone who speaks cruelly of people because of their disability, race, gender identity, or religion could face criminal charges. The court can then sentence this person to up to seven years in jail.

These critics believe that the bill is intended to target anything that someone says that may be controversial. They claim many people may live in fear over this so-called draconian law. 

According to Yousaf, the act will not prevent any expression of potentially controversial views. The act will only allow the courts to go after people who say things that are expressed “in a threatening or abusive way that is likely or intended to stir up hatred.” 

Supporters of the law counter this and have stated that the law doesn’t do this. Instead, they have said freedom of speech is still protected. The bill only goes after hate crimes. 

“People like J.K. Rowling could have police at their door every day for making perfectly reasonable statements,” Ross said. 

Though Rowling is aware of the backlash, she hasn’t stopped her controversial claims about transgender people — even after some in the Harry Potter cast publicly disagreed with her. These comments have resulted in more conservative people, such as Ross, backing her.  

According to Willoughby, Rowling misgendered the presenter. While this was reported, the police chose not to act or continue any investigation into Rowling’s comments.     

Rowling currently lives in Edinburgh, Scotland. Therefore, she may continue to face difficulties under this new law, if the police decide to pursue this type of legal action.

This challenge came after Rowling blasted the law again, saying it was “wide open to abuse.” Rowling then posted a list of both transgender sex offenders and trans women activists, saying they were all “men, every last one of them.”

In her initial post, she even challenged the police to arrest her. She said, “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.”

The police will not be investigating Rowling’s comments, even if people do find it to be hate speech. In a statement, Police Scotland said, “The comments are not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken.”

“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,” Rowling said.

Instead, police will only go after hateful speech that encourages violence against certain protected groups. After all, Rowling received many complaints from people after her latest comments, though the police refused to act on it because it wasn’t criminal.

This graffiti contained a racial slur and was found near Yousaf’s Broughty Ferry family home. Police have since confirmed that it has been complained about under this new law.

Yousaf also talked about how this incident has impacted his family. “I do my best to shield my children from the racism and Islamophobia I face on a regular basis. That becomes increasingly difficult when racist graffiti targeting me appears near our family home,” he wrote on X.

For example, Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has come out in support of Rowling. Though he said he wouldn’t comment on police matters, he also said that “nobody should be criminalized for saying commonsense things about biological sex.”

“The prime minister and high-profile commentators are simply incorrect when they suggest that misgendering or ‘stating facts on biology’ would be criminalized,” de Santos explained.

“This is no more true than stating that the existing law has criminalized the criticism of religion. This kind of misrepresentation about the act and its purpose only serves to trivialize the very real violence committed against us in the name of hate,” de Santos stated.

Yousaf amended the legislation to ensure that performers and artists do not have the possibility to be charged. However, critics still say this doesn’t do enough.

As a result of all of these concerns and confusing statements, there is a worry many artists won’t willingly want to come to perform potentially controversial pieces in Scotland.

How this law will play out — and whether it will truly result in these critics’ fears coming true — remains to be seen. In the next month, once the law goes into effect, the Scottish public will be able to see how this may impact their future.

However, people have varying points of view. What one person sees as threatening, another may not. Thus far, it appears the police will be the first to decide what is hate speech, while the courts will later have to either confirm or deny the police’s view.

Women are not a part of the protected groups in this law. Therefore, if someone makes a violent speech or post about women, they will not be prosecuted under this law. In response to this criticism, Scotland’s government has stated they will create a misogyny bill.