Oh darn, foiled again.
Police will not pursue a complaint made by India Willoughby about JK Rowling as ”its not a crime to call a biological man a man.”
What I was just saying a few hours ago. You can’t make it a crime to say true things like “that man is a man.” It’s not workable. Laws have to be workable.
Northumbria Police confirmed on Friday that it did not believe the Harry Potter author had committed a crime by calling India Willoughby, the former Celebrity Big Brother contestant, a man. Willoughby had complained to the police over the comments, in which Rowling also repeatedly used “he” pronouns, following a row between the pair on X, formerly Twitter. The 58-year-old said that the writer had “definitely committed a crime” and claimed to be “legally a woman”.
That is, Willoughby claimed to be legally a woman. Remember to write clearly, please. Anyway, well done Willz making yourself look even stupider and more absurd than you already did.
[L]egal commentators expressed major doubts over whether calling a trans woman a male constitutes a crime under UK law and Northumbria Police confirmed that no action would be taken.
“On Monday, March 4, we received a complaint about a post on social media,” a spokesman for the force said. “While we recognise the upset this may have caused, the post was reviewed and did not meet the criminal threshold. The complainant has been updated of this.”
Make a note of it Willz.
Also: you’re a man.
Comments
14 responses to “Major doubts”
But in the past some women have been investigated and even arrested for the same thing in the past. I remember that multiple face filter guy getting a breastfeeding mother separated from her baby by the cops a while back. That was before the Forstater Appeal though. Props to Maya for persisting.
I know. Things are starting to roll back now, slowly, slowly…
I wonder if the prospect of arresting Rowling left them scared shitless. Bullies are less likely to target someone who won’t be bullied. Maybe someone in the police services did the math and decided this was a losing game. Not that their previous visits, cautions, interviews, and arrests for “misgendering” didn’t make them look bad, arresting Rowling would have made them look much worse, and would have been given much more publicity.
I’m starting to think that Willyboy is really stupid enough to think that because something exists as a matter of law it is, ipso facto, illegal to deny it. That’s the sort of thing Trump might come out with – though in Trump’s case he is malicious enough to try to make it true.
I’m not so sure; I don’t think he would have seen this coming, and not because of stupidity or for having been blinded by his narcissism. Given how much the police had become the enforcers of trans ideology, Willoughby would have been justified in expecting the police to continue harassing and arresting those who resist and speak out against trans demands, or more accurately, those who defend women’s rights, particularly women themselves. We’ve certainly seen plenty of stories of police abuse in the name of trans “rights” from policing tweets and ribbons, limericks and stickers that said nothing different than what Rowling did. Perhaps the tide is turning, and Willoughby chose the the moment after the high water mark of trans influence to lodge his complaint. Or maybe, as I speculated above, Rowling was just too strong to target. But since the police have made it clear (in this instance at least) that calling a man a man, and referring to him as “he” and “him” is not a crime, all police persecution of anyone else doing the same thing should stop. It’s not a court decision but it is a precedent. It also shows that, in the eyes of this police department, in this instance, whatever documentation Willoughby has declaring him to be female, it does not turn him into one; he remains a man. This shouldn’t be news, but it is. Given the police’s eagerness to persue gender heretics who refused to bow to Stonewall Law, this is huge.
I wonder if the department in question thought through the fact that they were unilaterally opening up this big new can of worms that’s going to effect policing itself. Feminists and other critics of gender ideology in the UK can now point to this police decision to protect themselves against police targeting and harassment. Considering how widespread the surrender of police services to the demands of trans activism (and the police’s own apparent internally motivated enthusiasm for GC witch hunts), it will be interesting and informative to see how this de facto change in policy plays out across the country. I’m guessing this standard will not be applied evenly or consitently; some departments seem to be more “trans zealous” than others. Will they follow Northumbria’s lead? While the police’s taking up the position of trans “enforcers” seems to have been centrally devised and organized, the beginning of its abandonment of this Holy mission, as it has happened, surprisingly, in the Willoughby/Rowling case, might be a good deal more ad hoc and piecemeal, until goverment guidance steps in decisively. Will trans activists recognize the police response to this incident for the potential sea change it very well might be, if it were to be applied across the board? A woman has said “No,” and has gone unpunished; the police have declared that she did not break the law. Calling a man a man is now no longer a hate crime, not even a “non-crime hate incident.” How will they let this stand?
Now if the police took the next step and actually started citing trans activists for launching frivolous complaints of “misgendering” that waste police time and resources, that would be great. Mustn’t be greedy though; we should be happy with one miracle at a time.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Major […]
The case mentioned by Thoughtcrime @ #1 is that of Kate Scottow. She was convicted in spring 2020 of making persistent use of a “public electronic network” [Twitter] “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”. She had her conviction reversed on appeal in December 2020; the Appeal Court ruled that her behaviour did not fall within the meaning of the legislation under which she was convicted, the Communications Act 2003.
The Appeal court judgement states:
The judges found that:
The other case, that of Maya Forstater, was an employment and discrimination case heard before an employment tribunal, which, as is well known, established that her conviction ‘that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity’ is protected as a ‘philosophical belief’ under section10 of the Equality Act 2010.
Of course, it isn’t a philosophical belief at all; it’s a scientific fact. Not all ‘beliefs’ are really beliefs; some of them are facts.
NightCrow you meant “of 2003” at the end of your first para, right?
iknklast @ #8
‘Of course, it isn’t a philosophical belief at all; it’s a scientific fact.’
This was commented on at the time. It does seem as though statements of belief may in some cases be better protected under current UK law than statements of fact. The belief in question has to be deemed ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society, being not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others’.
Ophelia @ #9
In the UK – I don’t know about other countries – it’s the convention in these legal rulings and in other documents setting out the law to name the act followed immediately by the year it became law. I followed that convention without much thought.
No the convention is fine but didn’t you mean 2003? The chronology is off if a 2020 ruling cites a 2023 ruling. I didn’t want to change it without checking.
Oops. You are, of course, right, Ophelia. It should be 2003. Thanks for picking that up, and do please change it.
Welcome and done!