Court and enforced use of 'preferred' pronouns

This judge was biased in my opinion.

Surely if he was biased, he would not have found Tara Wolf guilty and would have accepted that it was self-defence? As I mentioned upthread, judges have to be very careful. Defendants will grab onto any possibility of appeal or suggestion of bias (in the opposite direction). I believe the judge was covering his arse while still reaching the correct verdict.

Thanks for the extensive sentencing quote @SusanBunch (Mon 16-Apr-18 17:51:25).

As I read it, Maria's ungraciousness was one factor (out of four) in his decision not to grant compensation.

BTW, I've never heard of law that prohibits filming people in a public place. It's also odd to say that trying to film someone who just tried to smash your camera is "unhelpful".

I don't believe so Assigned

Jaycee has written some good posts in the past breaking down the figures and basically the number of individuals with dysphoria going through the full process of SRS/hormones and GRC hasn't really changed from the the tiny number of people it always was.

It's the new Stonewall umbrella that is causing most of the issue.

Does Tara Wood have a GRC?

No, I believe not.

I get what the judge was saying but isn't that a dangerous precedent to set, such that filming someone effectively mitigates the seriousness of the filmed person assualting the filmer?

I don't think you would want that as a blanket rule. In some circumstances (e.g. if a creepy guy is filming you and you knock the camera out of his hand), filming can be very antagonistic and there is definitely a suggestion/risk that the footage will be used for things other than private viewing. If they say here that filming is totally non-provocative, then what if men filming women start complaining that they were also being non-provocative.

I think at the end of the day, it was the right result. Tara Wolf was clearly guilty of assault and there was no excuse for it. It was not self-defence. However, I do see a difference between this and between someone who was out for a walk that day, just happened to be passing and got punched. I think the judge saw that too. I think Dr Julia Long shouting in the court didn't help either as the judge probably saw that as further evidence of antagonism.

Is it required by courts that a victim must be 'courteous' to their assailant?

A victim does not owe her male attacker a courtesy, least of all one which goes against her beliefs and the truth.

Of course a victim has the right to be 'hostile' to the man who battered her.
And to truthfully represent his sex.

This judge was biased in my opinion.

Yes @BarrackerBarmer that was certainly a reason given for denying compensation.

BTW I could understand insisting that a transwoman with a female birth certificate (via GRC) should be addressed as 'she'--that seems a defensible interpretation of the law. But not any bloke who calls himself she.

There are absurd implications of the rule, e.g. a man attacks someone, then on the morning of his court appearance he decides to become a woman, forcing everyone to recall the attack as being carried out by a woman.

OK, I have found it now. No, it was not due to her refusing to use the pronouns, it was the circumstances of the assault and her conduct on Twitter afterwards. He said it was 'notable' that she did not use the preferred pronouns, but this was not the reason for denying compensation.

"Compensation would not be appropriate, particularly due to the unhelpful way in which the victim was present [at the protest] and the way she was filming.

"She was asked at different stages not to film but continued to do so.

"Another factor I have to take in to account is the Twitter post that has been submitted that was posted after the case had been brought to the attention of the police and there were criminal proceedings pending.

"It was foolish of her to post that tweet in the way that she did.

"It was notable that when I asked Ms Maclachlan to refer to Ms Wolf as 'she', she did so with bad grace - having asked her to do so she continued to refer to Ms Wolf as 'he' and 'him'".

Can you link to the sentencing issue you refer to?

Apologies. I'm afraid I saw it on twitter. I can't remember from which side. I suspect it was from people interpreting this:

Wolf, who the court heard receives £320 per month job seeker's allowance, was told to pay a £150 fine, £30 victim surcharge and £250 prosecution costs

But in giving his verdict, the Judge also branded Miss MacLachlan ungraceful for failing to refer to Wolf as 'she' during the two-day trial

He said: 'When I asked Miss MacLachlan to refer to the defendant as she, she did so with bad grace

'Having asked her to refer to Miss Wolf as she as a matter of courtesy, she continued to refer to Miss Wolf as he and him.

'The language of the debate is antagonistic and hostile.'

Note also the Trumpian insinuation that there was violence on both sides

I agree but I think the problem was that she was filming them and wouldn't stop. Had she literally just been a bystander, it might have reflected in a higher sentence. I think if the judge had said that the victim was totally blameless and this was just a random attack that this would have provided material for the defendant to appeal. Judges often try to be as balanced as they can, even if this appears to 'put the blame on both sides' in order to make their judgments appeal-proof.

If you could link to the compensation bit, that would be helpful. I thought the judge was simply passing sentence and that any issues of compensation would be dealt with by the CICC, but I may be wrong on that.

I read he denied maria compensation because of the pronoun thing.

Only submissive victims deserve compensation.

How dare any of you! Damn right the court demanded the right use of pronouns. God, this site is vile these days.

Sorry, cross-posts there Crome.

I actually think the judge is being quite balanced here. He is certainly not reducing the sentence on account of how Ms Maclachlan gave evidence. He said it was a fairly minor assault and had to be taken in the context of two groups with high tensions running between them.

Maybe from a tactical viewpoint, Ms Maclachlan could have been more cooperative when giving evidence (to make the defendant look worse and appear to discredit the arguments they were raising) but I am not sure whether that would have had an impact on the sentence. The judge rejected claims of self-defence and said this definitely was an assault.

IIRC the judge did use Maria's "bad grace" as one justification for not awarding compensation to her.

Note also the Trumpian insinuation that there was violence on both sides. In fact one side wanted to exercise their democratic right to meet and discuss proposed legislation (and only assembled at Hyde Park because their meeting venue had to be kept secret), while the other side was intent on fucking up some TERFs.

This is actually taken from a daily mail article and I know that many don't like clicking on the link so I have copied and pasted, but the article is here:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5613057/Model-punched-feminist-smashed-120-camera-violent-brawl-walks-free-court.html

Returning his verdict at Hendon Magistrates' Court, District Judge Kenneth Grant said: 'Miss Wolf is an activist on transgender issues.

'The group of protesters, of which she was one, attended Speakers' Corner effectively to take issue with the views of a separate group of radical feminists who they refer to as Terfs.

'The politics of the transgender debate was not dealt with in any detail in the trial and there was not, in my view, a need for the politics of that debate to be specifically considered, safe to say that they are strongly held, passionately expressed, opposing stand points.

'The language of the debate between the different wings of the transgender discussion is antagonistic to say the least.

'Miss Wolf referred to the rally, the meeting at Hyde Park, and the meeting due to follow the meeting at Speakers' Corner, she referred to it as a hate rally.

'The group she was protesting against, she referred to that group and persons comprising, as trans exterminatory radical feminists, which is strong language.

'She referred to Terfs wanting to exterminate people like me and that may have been an honestly held belief, but it demonstrates the position of the views held by opposing members of the debate.'

Wolf, who the court heard receives £320 per month job seeker's allowance, was told to pay a £150 fine, £30 victim surcharge and £250 prosecution costs.

But in giving his verdict, the Judge also branded Miss MacLachlan ungraceful for failing to refer to Wolf as 'she' during the two-day trial.

He said: 'When I asked Miss MacLachlan to refer to the defendant as she, she did so with bad grace.

'Having asked her to refer to Miss Wolf as she as a matter of courtesy, she continued to refer to Miss Wolf as he and him.

'The language of the debate is antagonistic and hostile.'

The fracas broke out after Miss MacLachlan tried to film counter demonstrators, including Wolf, when the two groups clashed at the demo.

Referring to a video of Wolf attempting to slap a camera from Miss MacLachlan's hand, the judge said: 'That, I concluded, was an assault.

'It was a relatively minor assault.

'I suspect it that was the only altercation that was recorded during that event, it would not have resulted in this trial.'

Wolf's solicitor, Jodie Alexander, had claimed she attacked Miss MacLachlan in a bid to stop her partner being assaulted.

It was also claimed Wolf feared footage would be leaked online to 'out' her as transgender.

But Judge Grant said: 'The idea that any one of those assaults was a prevention of crime is not an argument in this case that I was prepared to accept and I specifically reject.'

He rejected evidence that Miss MacLachlan held a counter demonstrator in a head lock before the attack.

The Judge added: 'All three incidents of which there was physical contact between Miss Wolf and Miss MacLachlan did amount to assault and in relation to the defence of self-defence or defence of another or prevention of crime.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5613057/Model-punched-feminist-smashed-120-camera-violent-brawl-walks-free-court.html#ixzz5Cr1RJRiX

But in giving his verdict, the Judge also branded Miss MacLachlan ungraceful for failing to refer to Wolf as 'she' during the two-day trial.
He said: 'When I asked Miss MacLachlan to refer to the defendant as she, she did so with bad grace.
'Having asked her to refer to Miss Wolf as she as a matter of courtesy, she continued to refer to Miss Wolf as he and him.
'The language of the debate is antagonistic and hostile.'

Could you please link to the sentencing remarks, Susan? I couldn't find them.

Have read the sentencing remarks. He did not reduce the sentence due to how the victim gave evidence. What he said was that there was tension and hostile language on both sides of the debate and he branded the victim ungraceful for refusing to refer to the defendant as 'she'. He said this was further evidence of the tension between the two groups. He did not reduce the sentence in light of it.

Whatever position one takes, it's fair to say that there was tension between the groups- I don't think this falls within the category of the judge acting bizarrely.

Don't forget the judge actually reduced the defendants sentence because McLachlan kept forgetting to use the "correct" gender.

I missed that. Are you sure???

Major problems with this policy in the courts:

1. It establishes self-identification by stealth, which is apparently not based on any law passed by Parliament.

2. A witness who has to devote mental attention to using the 'correct' i.e. false pronouns will be hindered from giving coherent and truthful answers.

3. We naturally intuit that females are less willing and less able to inflict violence than males, and so continual reference to a male as 'she' may subconsciously affect assessments of threat.