Mail article - Judges are ordered to allow transgender defendants to be addressed as the gender of their choice during court appearances

It's time for us to stop just moaning to one another on social media about how awful it is

I would hazard a guess that when the next woman stands up in court to give evidence against a person who identifies as trans, she will not be brow-beaten by volunteer part-time magistrates to use pronouns.

Magistrates hear all but the most serious cases and come from the communities that they serve. There are no juries, just a panel of trained citizens.

I have a sneaky suspicion that magistrates will set aside the Code in the interests of justice and in the face of a well-presented case by the prosecution.

I can't imagine any of the ones that I know, consigning the witness to the court cells for a few hours, for contempt of court. They would err on the side of caution rather that face appeals and reviews for dismissing cases because a witness wouldn't 'she'.

And anyway, time is of the essence and delays are frowned on.

In the real world, resistance is possible and is to encouraged, I believe. P U L L, sisters, P U L L

It's time for us to stop just moaning to one another on social media about how awful it is and how scared we are.

We need a focussed, driven campaign.

I am sure that 99% of the population would agree with us.

The judiciary can only operate with the CONSENT of the people, and I am sure that the vast majority of the people would not consent to this if they were given a vote on it.

What can we do?

I don't understand. If the recognition (of the new gender?) is not retrospective, how can it apply for enactments, instruments and documents made before ...the issue of a certificate (of change of gender?)?

My understanding is that it means that an Act like Sex Discrimination Act 1975 would be accessible to a GRC holder from 2004 onward.

[The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was later absorbed into the Equality Act 2010.]

28. Subsection (2) provides amplification of subsection (1), making clear that the recognition is not retrospective, so the certificate does not rewrite the gender history of the transsexual person, and that the new gender applies for the interpretation of enactments, instruments and documents made before as well as after the issue of a certificate.

I don't understand. If the recognition (of the new gender?) is not retrospective, how can it apply for enactments, instruments and documents made before ...the issue of a certificate (of change of gender?)?

If I saw, say, a robbery being committed by a man. Am I to say I saw a robbery committed by a man or not?

You should ask the Judge if he/she is demanding that you commit perjury under oath, perhaps?

No-one can ask to see a GRC but anyone can ask to see a Birth Certificate as proof of identity. The purpose of the GRC is to change the reference to sex on a Birth Certificate [even though such a change is a Legal Fiction]. If the Birth Certificate shows a sex reference for female this does not mean that the person who has transitioned is female and should be treated as such in every circumstance. This is abundantly clear from all the available Exceptions written in to the Equality Act 2010.

In other words, UK law acknowledges that no human can ever change sex. No amount of medical treatment or adjustment surgery makes this possible.

[For the record the GRA 2004 was created primarily to deal with the issue of same-sex marriage which, now that same-sex marriage has been law since 2013, renders that Act of law redundant.]

If I saw, say, a robbery being committed by a man. Am I to say I saw a robbery committed by a man or not? Am I expected to change my statement because the man sitting in the dock who the police arrested wants to be referred to as a women? I might not even be clear that they are one and the same person so I would be changing my statement to say I saw a woman commit a robbery even though it might have been a different person entirely - a man who identifies as a man? And what are the jury to make of my statement now I am no longer describing what I saw? Do they assume I am unreliable? That it must be the trans identified Male in the dock because I am referring to the person I saw as a woman? Or if I insist I saw a man, do they let a guilty man go free because they are told the man in front of them is actually not a man but a woman?

Further, those Explanatory Notes to section 9 make clear that the GRC only relates to the relationship of the GRC holder with existing law. Thus, use of "pronouns" and the so-called phenomenon of "dead-naming" have no relevance since these are not written in any law.

Beyond that, there is the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which relates to freedom of belief and which includes the freedom to disbelieve. So, no-one can force you to believe that a man is a woman or vice versa and use dissonant pronouns ... not even anyone working within the Judiciary.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Here is the relevant case law [see para 70 onward]:

www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fa2c94e0775e7ef4e3

Further the GRA 2004 also explains, in the Explanatory Notes associated with Section 9:

"28. Subsection (2) provides amplification of subsection (1), making clear that the recognition is not retrospective, so the certificate does not rewrite the gender history of the transsexual person, and that the new gender applies for the interpretation of enactments, instruments and documents made before as well as after the issue of a certificate.

Beyond that, if there is no GRC, the person concerned must be treated as their natural sex. See this letter from a group of lawyers:

[extract: "It is established in case law that the comparator for a transgender person claiming discrimination in relation to gender re-assignment is not the sex which they are seeking transition to but that which they are seeking transition from."]

forwomen.scot/30/03/2019/tie-letter-legal-response/

Just posted on the subject of police guidance misquoting the GRA in the "Regulatory Capture" thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture?msgid=87785021

Long post that ends:

Section 22 is only about disclosing information once acquired. It does not say anything about the police not being allowed to ask if they have a GRC or to see it.

Section 22 is also clear:

". . . it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

We really do.

It’s a very hypothetical situation and one I hope I’ll never be in, but I am willing to lose my job, be fined, be imprisoned etc, for refusing to participate in compelled speech. Maybe ‘willing’ is the wrong word because my brain wiring doesn’t enable me to do otherwise, but nonetheless. I have a choice to be silent with no explanation or say why I can’t talk. I choose to say what the problem is.

I guess we just need to have each others’ backs; when this inevitably gets legally tested, throw Nice Things and support and practical help towards whichever poor woman ends up on the receiving end. And is ok to be unable to be in that position like Fermat and no doubt many others, but those that can, please do.

Maybe we could write an open letter/declaration stating our position.

Those that can, though: we definitely need the Suffragettes back.

They're relying on people having too much to lose, Jacky.

For instance, I'm a single parent with no other parent on the scene. Suppose I were the complainant in a rape trial, they told me I'd be held in contempt if I didn't use the correct pronouns. Would I have the courage to hold fast, knowing DS would end up in the care system, and that I'd lose my job (instant dismissal for a conviction for contempt of court, no wriggle room at all)? Would I fuck.

That's what they rely on. The fact that people can't speak up. Collectively maybe we could, but they'd pick us off one by one.

The research is being carried out by external consultants Mediatique so it depends on their position I would suggest. Their list of clients includes BBC & Ch4 and is slanted to TV & digital by the looks of it.

I think the best course of action is for everyone to ignore such ridiculous instruction and refer to any cross dressing male as he.

If women have to go to prison for telling the truth and to protect females and their boundaries, so be it.

If contempt of court becomes a matter of enforced lying under oath, so be it.

If that is what so-called "justice" becomes because of the patriarchal imposition of institutionalised rape culture, so be it.

I suspect such an environment in the so-called justice system will not last long.

From that blog post:
"The research will involve quantitative mapping of coverage of transgender matters in the last ten years, as well as qualitative interviews with industry figures, groups representing the transgender community and other relevant stakeholders."

Will gender-critical women be included in the list of relevant stakeholders, I wonder?

(Where is IPSO - above or below the tideline of the ever encroaching waters of regulatory capture?)

Maybe the DM are aware of some court cases coming up where it will be useful to have this article to refer back to, having already primed their readers on a quiet news day...

If a defendant has changed their whole presentation since the crime, how the heck does the victim answer the question “Can you see your attacker in court?” (Or do they not ask that question anymore?)

The Judicial College produced the guidelines.

The Judicial College is part of the Judicial Office. It's an unelected civil service, really. The HM Goverment site tells us that it works with (but not for) the Ministry of Justice

The Judicial Office supports the judiciary across the courts of England and Wales, and the non-devolved tribunals across the UK, by providing training, legal and policy advice, human resources, communications and administrative support.

The front-line people are Judges, magistrates, coroners and tribunal staff.

In other words, they make policy and issues 'guidance': except it's more than that. Ignore the advice at your peril because it will provide litigants with grounds for appeal.

Without so much as an impact assessement or consultation with interested parties, they are a law unto themselves.

Regulatory and policy capture at its finest.

Freedom of information requests can be made here:

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/judicial-office#content

So, which organisation is behind the Equal Treatment Bench Book?

And how are judges being 'ordered to allow defendants to self identify'? By whom?

Were my exact thoughts too.

Right, so a rape victim can be forced to refer to her male rapist as she?

and her?

That's institutional misogynist abuse of women.

We’re into Animal Farm territory now:

New guidelines state that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ ... published in a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book

Some animals are more equal than others it seems

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Once compelling people to lie under oath becomes the norm there is no more justice.