Bloody terrified about the Fair Cop judgment now

It is lying under oath. As a witness you have to say what you saw not what the defendant wanted you to see.

Couldn't Maria avoid the use of pronouns and refer to the person by name continually?
It's very difficult to do this when you're on the stand. It's a lot of pressure. The court is supposed to be witness/victim friendly as well as dependent friendly if there's going to be justice.

IIRC that is what she tried to do after the judge admonished her.
She was not the only witness who 'misgendered' the person who assaulted her.

Couldn't Maria avoid the use of pronouns and refer to the person by name continually?

In the discussion of Maria's case there was a link to the official court policy requiring witnesses to suspend their disbelief in deference to people's stated gender identity. The courts policy appears to follow Stonewall guidelines rather than the ones provided in the EA2010.
I hope I said that in a way that will not bring another strike.

Maya posted a list of ongoing or upcoming legal cases around relevant issues:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1209418488965672962?s=20

And Astonlegalbrain has just joined MN for FWR:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3772219-maya-lost-can-it-be-true?msgid=92564236#92564236

twitter.com/jac_aston/status/1209433175837040641?s=21

I don't know why the post I quoted was deleted, which means mine was, but I'm assuming my only 'crime' was quoting the other post, so here's the link again to the article about Maria MacLachlan being forced in court to use 'she' to describe the person who assaulted her.

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/06/21/interview-maria-maclauchlan-gra-aftermath-assault-speakers-corner/

Just tried to check the website but it is 'frozen', at least on my computer. Wondered if they were updating ...

I've wondered what happens in rape cases, Sadly.
Either way, it's a horrible thought. A woman having to refer to her rapist as 'she' because that's HIS preference - or being given permission to use 'he' when it's rape but not when it's "just" an assault like in Maria's case.

Does anyone know if a victim has been compelled to use female ptonouns in any other case? There have been quite a few rape and sexual assault cases involving trans women? I wonder what prosecution lawyers are telling victims to do in these cases and what happens if they refuse.

Agreed, I love my wise and brilliant viper sisters.

Thanks for the post, Charlie.

The best thing that could have happened to Maya's case was to lose with a questionable judgement and then appeal. The coverage and sunlight it sheds will be much greater that way. Crowdfunding means Maya can take it to higher courts with attendant publicity and rulings that, if they go our way, will serve to fix a lot more than a lowly employment tribunal judgement win would have done.

The judge in the Harry case denounced the use of the word t**f and says it was used to deplatform.

I thought the judgement was supposed to be out for Christmas but it will be better coverage-wise if it waits till January.

I think Harry's result is going to be appealed whichever way it goes.

Yes, I met his son after the first day in court and he said this too.

Also I recall someone saying elsewhere employment judges generally tend to be quite left-leaning because they're drawn to that area of practice for a reason. Whereas judges who take on judicial reviews should - fingers crossed - be utterly objective because it's such an important area of law.

The judge in Maya's case definitely didn't get it and PP is right - he said during the hearing that he considered prostate cancer to be a "woman's health issue" if such prostate was attached to a transwoman. I remember a few of us saying "shit we're fucked" when someone live tweeted that.

Thank you, Charlie. That's a bit reassuring.

Do not lose heart. This was one solicitor in one employment tribunal delivering one (seemingly bonkers) ruling. Having argued the case with another employment lawyer, I am fast realising that this may not be an area of the law they are well versed in at all.

And having argued with a law professor not so long ago about them twisting the law into the direction their ideology leads them to, I also understand how brazenly the law can be misrepresented and how difficult it is for a lay person to counter the jargon employed to confuse us. You just have to remember just how many court cases bring you two legal camps arguing opposite ends of the law, and just how often the sides that lose or win can change. No individual law professional is in sole possession of the one true interpretation of the meaning of the law.

Interpretations aside, in my view the solicitor who chaired Maya's employment tribunal showed too limited an understanding of both the GRA and how the GRA and the Equality Act interact to deliver a ruling that will stand (in all fairness I wouldn't expect him to). He might have been much better advised to limit the scope of his ruling, but we will never know why he went as far as he did. However, I would expect a High Court judge to be much better informed about all relevant laws and much more skilled in applying it.

Now that alone doesn't mean the next ruling would be better for us, but it gives us a fighting chance. I know anyone going to court would rather win outright, better still never actually have to go to court at all. But we do need proper test cases - one way or the other such cases will inform our campaign going forward.

This judgement cannot set legal precedent by the way, it's not what Employment Tribunals are designed for. Which is why this is not yet a test case, although it may become one. Only the higher courts are tasked with properly examining the law pertinent to a case such as this and tasked with looking at the relevant human rights legislation.

So ignore all the trans privilege activists crowing about this ruling stopping us from speaking about sex in this debate and naming men as men. It hasn't and it can't.

I think Harry's result is going to be appealed whichever way it goes.

Wasn’t there a moment in the Maya case where the judge told Kristina Harrison that she was a woman with a prostate?

Can’t tell what Harry’s result will be as the law sometimes throws up very strange results, but I don’t think there were any similar indicators that the judge had trans ideological thoughts.

I do wonder, if he wins are they going to use the money and move on to other things?

I am not sure if he can be awarded costs. If not then my understanding was the amount raised wouldn’t cover the costs.