This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
J. K. Rowling challenges new Scottish hate speech legislation, openly challenging them to arrest her for calling trans criminals men who pretend to be women:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1774747068944265615
#ArrestMe is, dare I say it, brave and powerful. At least she's putting skin in the game. It's also pretty well calculated in my opinion.
They can't really attack her for being a right wing extremist when her world famous books are a pretty clear allegory of Racism Bad. She even makes sure to target India Willoughby, who is apparently anti-black. Rowling has an enormous pot of money for expensive litigation and automatic worldwide attention on her. It's hard to righteously defend people such as
It's very practical politics to fish out the worst of the enemy milieu to preface one's normative statements. I think Rowling has a good shot at tactical victory - either the govt won't charge her or she'll win in court. On the other hand, only systemic change is going to change the progressive-leaning status quo. You need an Orban or some similar force to drag out the weed by the roots, rather than just pruning away when it grows particularly egregious. Rowling is no Orban, that's probably far too extreme for her.
The legislation is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents
Crimes include 'stirring up hate' by 'behaving in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting' to select groups. Looks like it allows nigh-limitless opportunities for selective enforcement. And a huge drain on police resources, given they can't even investigate all crimes:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68703684
Why would she win? If she violates the law and is convicted there is no higher court to appeal to, there is no British constitution. She could ‘flee’ to England, which would lead to an interesting legal situation (any British police force can make arrests anywhere in the UK, so Police Scotland could in theory arrest her in, say, London and drive her back to Edinburgh, but they would be reluctant to do so for political reasons). But the only real way for her to win if charged would be for the UK Parliament to pass a law explicitly reversing the Scottish Parliament’s bill. In an election year that is unlikely, and it will be even more so after Labour win in October.
Part of the court challenge/conviction proceedings would undoubtedly be a question of whether the law as written is constitutional or not, and that's where it's likely to be quashed.
This brings its own drama though as it's not the first time the UK Supreme Court has quashed legislation enacted in Scotland for being unconstitutional - see: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67648200
As an ignorance American I read that article and am confused. They don't have a Constitution, so how is anything unconstitutional?
The UK likes to say it has an "unwritten constitution". There have been calls for a formal constitution, but in practice there is a 'constitution', it's just not all collected in one document:
More options
Context Copy link
The Supreme Court of the UK is essentially a government department that rules on whether policies, laws or sentences violate primary legislation passed by parliament. The House of Commons itself can overrule or abolish the Supreme Court at any time, convict or free anyone of anything, or do anything else by simple majority because it is singularly sovereign. Technically the Commons can be limited by the Lords and the King, but the lords have been neutered for a century and the monarchy had its last vestiges of genuine influence removed by the early Victorian era.
“Constitutional” therefore is a kind of legalese thing where a law or policy gets struck down because it conflicts with previous law passed by parliament. The Constitution is, to some extent, whatever parliament in Westminster passes, plus some procedural stuff. Of course the government can just ‘make it legal’ with a majority vote, but if they don’t explicitly override or repeal the previous legislation then they need to go back and do so.
In Scotland’s case constitutional questions related to devolution involve stuff from the original 1707 acts of union, huge amounts of precedent in the following centuries and the official devolution enacted by Tony Blair. The Supreme Court ruling Scottish law as unconstitutional is essentially the government (and thus parliament) saying that the law itself violates UK law.
The thing is that the UK’s protections for free speech in the law are pretty limited, largely either longstanding precedent or just incorporating the ECHR (which has carve outs for speech rights) into law. It’s not clear, therefore, that this Scottish law is ‘unconstitutional’.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Actually I’m curious about this. If she loses at the trial court level in Scotland, is there no Scottish court of appeals?
Regardless of the answer to the previous question, if she were to lose both the initial trial and any available appeals within Scotland, could she appeal to an appellate court of the United Kingdom? If not, we are a heartbeat away from nullification being fair game for any devolved legislature within the UK, and bizarrely, the ECHR would have more power than “domestic” British courts, at least in Scotland!
In general the interplay of devolution and the judiciary is fascinating. It’s like the UK is cherry-picking bits and pieces of US- or Canadian-style federalism without a real guiding principle of who exactly has authority over what. No British constitution indeed.
Technically the Supreme Court of the UK (mostly just England, Wales and NI) has ultimate jurisdiction over the Scottish Courts, but cases are vanishingly rare and generally relate to ‘devolution issues’ where controversy over the Scottish government’s authority lies.
Devolution grants the Scottish government explicit control of crime, culture, “anti-social behaviour” and justice as interpreted broadly. Excepted matters are limited to constitutional issues, defense, immigration, foreign policy, trade policy, some other national issues and so on.
Of course, the UK has absolute parliamentary sovereignty, a majority of 1 would be enough to impose any policy on Scotland for any reason at any time without any recourse (provided it was written in the correct way). But parliament generally accepts the Scottish government’s control of most of the criminal law. The UK vetoed self-ID for trans people but it was a very specific thing based off them modifying (rather than merely building on top of) some equality legislation.
Not really, no - that England and Scotland have had separate legal systems despite being part of the same sovereign state predates US-style federalism - the Act of Union was in 1707, and it explicitly left Scots law unchanged. The fact that Scotland had its own legal system but no legislature pre-devolution was one of the constitutional weirdnesses that so offended Tony Blair.
The Supreme Court of the UK can't hear direct appeals of Scottish criminal cases (this was part of the deal made in 1707), but you are right that this one could be litigated as a devolution issue - the powers of the Scottish Parliament (like every other UK body with delegated legislative powers) are limited by the Human Rights Act, so if the Scottish law JK Rowling was being prosecuted under violated a ECHR right, it would be ultra vires. If the bad actor here was activist Scottish judges rather than politicians and she was prosecuted under Scots common law then there would be no appeal to a UK court, only to the ECtHR in Strasbourg.
"Doing fine without one" is misleading. The UK Supreme Court doesn't have a materially different role to the old Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (i.e. the Law Lords) - it just meets in a different building. I agree with you about Tony Blair feeling the need to rationalise things when there was no practical benefit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's Tony Blair for you. Same reason the UK now has a "Supreme Court" despite doing just fine without one for centuries.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
ECHR
She could file a complaint with the ECHR, and under Scottish law the government would have to consider their decision, sure. But it would be as meaningless as appealing to the King for a royal pardon (and about as likely).
Hate speech (which the ECHR admits is vaguely or broadly defined) or any speech that runs contrary to the “fundamental principles” of the ECHR is explicitly considered exempt from Article 10 (free speech) protection.
Not only that, but the ECHR has a history of rejecting challenges to hate speech convictions, especially those relating to LGBT issues. For example, here’s the ECHR affirming the conviction of an Icelandic national for calling LGBTQ people “sexual deviants”.
Rowling would not win her case there, an appeal to the ECHR would be appealing to a body around which the Scottish government essentially bases much of its social policy.
I'm not sure how the case would go, the point was that she could still appeal to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link