First of all, I’m not a fan of J. K. Rowling. This view does not rise from my having read her works and finding them wanting. I’ve never read them at all (saw one Harry Potter movie). I have been advised by some that I ought to read them simply to make myself familiar with a major creator in our (sort of) shared genre. And I admit that’s fair enough.
My problem is that the biblical prohibition against witchcraft is ingrained deeply in my… my blood, or bones, or DNA or something. I’ve always been against witches, even when I portrayed them sympathetically (as I did in Wolf Time). That’s just one of those places where I Do Not Go. Some readers tell me the HP books have Christian themes. It may be true. But I can’t bring myself to check it out.
More than that, Ms. Rowling has more than once expressed opinions on various topics that I disagreed with. If she is a Christian, as the claim is, she’s a rather different kind than I am.
Nonetheless, right now she’s one of my heroes (you’re not supposed to say heroine anymore, are you?). She has done the right thing – the hard thing – at just the moment when it needs doing.
This from the BBC:
JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts – inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.
The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.
Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.
Her own response was exemplary, and will resound to her honor in future ages:
Ms Rowling 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.”
That’s precisely right.
The issue is not whether an opinion is correct or not. It’s not whether it’s sensitive or not. It’s not whether the person speaking is one you like or not.
J.K. Rowling holds opinions I disagree with. I would not have her muzzled by the law for that. I wouldn’t have the law muzzle Susan Sarandon, or Joy Behar, or Greta Thunberg or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shoot, I wouldn’t muzzle Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, as long as he wasn’t actually organizing violence. That’s our system. Everybody gets to talk. Even the crazies.
I read a book about Thomas Jefferson when I was a kid. It explained his conviction that if everybody gets to talk, the people will be able to pass judgment on their arguments. I thought that was pretty cool.
It may be that we haven’t got the common sense to make that kind of judgment anymore. But we won’t re-learn it by being protected from “hurtful” ideas.