TIM Hopkins, formerly of the Equality Network, appears to have a remarkably short memory. In his letter of April 4 he chastises JK Rowling for tweets which seemed “designed to offend” and “provoke anger and upset”, yet, were he to cast his mind back to March 2021, he might understand why Ms Rowling felt the need to test the limits of the new hate crime legislation and his own role in making this a necessity.

At stage three of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, Johann Lamont lodged amendments designed to protect freedom of expression. Amendment 11B expressly dealt with ensuring it would be safe to express innocuous views like “sex is a physical, binary characteristic that cannot be changed” and “a person’s sex may be relevant to their experience”.

READ MORE: JK Rowling lashes out at Humza Yousaf amid Hate Crime Act row

The response from the Equality Network was brutal. In a briefing urging MSPs to reject this, they claimed that providing this protection would “fundamentally undermine trans people’s long-established Convention right to be legally recognised in their transitioned gender” and lead to “open season” on trans people. This contributed to the ongoing confusion and anxiety about what can safely be said here, deliberately engineered by groups like the Equality Network, who have encouraged people to report stickers with dictionary definitions as hate crimes.

Had the Scottish Government made it explicit either in the act or in guidance (promised discussions on which with ourselves and others were pulled, to avoid upsetting activists like Mr Hopkins), no-one, including Ms Rowling, would have felt the need to establish now whether naming the reality of sex was likely to trigger a police investigation. That she was compelled to take this step was largely due to the past actions of organisations like the Equality Network and their shameful attempts to shut the door on debate.

Susan Smith
Director, For Women Scotland

IN response to the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime Act, it was just so depressingly predictable that awful wuman JK Rowling posted a thread on X listing sex offenders who had described themselves as transgender alongside well-known transwomen activists, describing them as “men, every last one of them.” That was such a gratuitous and, let’s face it, puerile act, as was her publicly challenging Police Scotland to arrest her. Quite rightly the polis didn’t grant her wish, in my view, to become a martyr for the culture-war brigade. It would just have led to a backlash directed at the trans community.

JK Rowling is an intelligent, influential woman with many admirers and should have known that referring to trans activists and trans sex offenders together in this way was highly likely to add to the grief the trans community have already been getting from all quarters. Hate Crime Act or no Hate Crime Act, there are loads of obnoxious right-wing politicians and public figures that know there are many ways to stir up hatred against a group of folk in society without getting dragged away in a Black Maria polis van. Reform UK’s Lee Anderson is a master of the art!

READ MORE: Tackling of hate crime should be welcomed by all progressive Scots

The First Minister just this week has been subject to a hate crime, with sickening racist graffiti being spray painted on walls and fences of houses near his home. They included the phrase “f*** Islam” and racist slurs related to Humza’s Pakistani heritage. I’ll be honest, I feel this is an opportune time to admit that I’ve always felt in my bones that there are loads of, on the surface, perfectly respectable folk throughout Scotland, who will never accept Humza purely because of the colour of his skin and/or his religion. That is a sad state of affairs in 2024!

Stirring up hatred, whether against trans folk or Muslims etc, can lead to real people’s lives being made a misery through verbal abuse and physical attacks. JK Rowling is brainy enough to know that. Words have consequences even if they aren’t deemed illegal!

I can never get ma heid aroond how narked some folk can get about individuals that have never harmed them personally or anyone else. For god’s sake, be intolerant only of the intolerant and live and let live! Oh, and get a life!”

Ivor Telfer
Dalgety Bay, Fife

THE UK is currently threatening to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights because it doesn’t like some of the judgements passed down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), known derisively by Conservative commentators as a “foreign court”.

Which foreign court will be next on the list of bogeymen? The International Criminal Court? The International Court of Justice? Both of these could equally be cited as foreign courts set up by international agreement.

Is it just the fact that the ECHR has an “E” in it, or is it because it’s the only one currently ruling that our government has been behaving illegally?

Whatever the reason, it’s a poor reflection on a political party that prides itself on being the standard bearer of law and order.

Cameron Crawford
Rothesay