What can courts legally do if someone refuses to use preferred pronouns?

The quote I took was from West Yorkshire Police's website. I don't know if it's precisely the wording in law. I've looked, but can't find anything that is clearly relating to 'incidents' as opposed to crimes. It all seems a bit vague - I suppose the only thing to do is keep your head down and not say anything to anyone, ever!

Ridiculous to force someone to lie under oath. We aren’t stupid. And it pisses me off that attacks on women for being female is not a hate crime. But calling a man in a dress just that is, apparently. It’s ridiculous and shows that women are viewed as lesser.

Didn't one of Karen White's victims refuse to use 'she' or refer to 'her penis' in court? I think she may have been unable to get criminal injuries compensation as a result?

Would like some clarification on this also. It’s one (horrific) thing to be punished via court for not going along with what you consider an untruth but it takes a whole more sinister turn if actively not telling an untruth but not getting involved either way is punishable too.

What about using 'they'? I've always used 'they' when I want to disguise the sex of the person I'm talking about, e.g. "Someone just came up to me & they said...".

Didn't one of Karen White's victims refuse to use 'she' or refer to 'her penis' in court? I think she may have been unable to get criminal injuries compensation as a result?
I'm not at all sure about this though so might have it wrong

If someone could clarify I would be grateful. This is utterly dystopian.

This bullshit lead directly to the sexual assaults of the women in the first place and then to compound it by enforcing untruths such as ‘her penis’ is legislated gaslighting.

So really absolutely anything at all could be classed as a hate incident if anyone perceives it as such.

Except if it’s against women and girls of course. Physical or sexual violence against women and girls isn’t a hate crime - unless you are male - in which case words - which include biological facts - constitute a hate crime.

Simples - equality under the law..

Didn't one of Karen White's victims refuse to use 'she' or refer to 'her penis' in court? I think she may have been unable to get criminal injuries compensation as a result?
I'm not at all sure about this though so might have it wrong.

A Hate Incident is any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity or perceived disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity

But is this a legal definition? If so, how did gender identity creep in? Or am I reading this too simplistically from the perspective of self-id?

Agree, if I was absolutely forced to, in fear of losing my job/being prosecuted for it, I would use the person's 'chosen' name, repeatedly. Nothing on earth could make me do otherwise.

So really absolutely anything at all could be classed as a hate incident if anyone perceives it as such

Yup, and a person can even report a hate incident for someone else. Without the original target knowing anything about the incident.
Can't see any problems there can you?
Quick quick look over there, nothing happening here.

Where do you draw the line. So you have Blair White sat oppersite you, there an insistence you refer to them as her - I can get on board with that and it would be weird not too.
But what if you have a man looking and dressing like Phil Mitchell, but still claims is a woman and wants to be refered to as she. Is that OK? Doesn't feel OK to me. Feels like Phil is taking the piss out of everyone in the room.

I've said this on another thread and another autistic poster said a similar thing, and I think that for many autistic people generally we can find it difficult to knowingly say things that we believe to be false. I cannot envisage a situation where I'd be able to call a person by the pronouns associated with a particular sex if I knew that they were not of that sex. The only way I can see myself doing it is with using air quotes or something that would be bound to get me in trouble, so I suppose I'd side step it as much as I could.

I guess if the court ordered you to say "she" and you kept saying "he", you could be done for contempt of court? But I don't think they could do anything if you used "the defendant" etc to get around it.

So really absolutely anything at all could be classed as a hate incident if anyone perceives it as such.

'What is a Hate Incident?

A Hate Incident is any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity or perceived disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. [unless it's motivated by hatred of women, of course, they don't count!]

Examples include:

Verbal or online abuse, insults or harassment, such as taunting, offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.

A hate incident doesn't mean that we won't take it seriously if someone reports it.'

www.westyorkshire.police.uk/advice/abuse-anti-social-behaviour/hate-crime/hate-crime-hate-incidents

Presumably, as PP’s have said, if someone refuses after being ordered by a judge they could be held in contempt of court. Interesting to know what would happen next, and whether the judge’s instruction could be legally challenged.

I've just watched Posie's latest video, and she discusses Scottow's case.

I know no offence was intended here, but I’d like to suggest those of us supporting her call her Kate. Or Kate Scottow if needing to specify the case. She’s a fellow MNer and friend to many on here; it’s fine to be on first name terms like we are with Posie et al

Can tone of voice be a crime?

I expect so. File it under 'funny looks', another one of the non-crime hate incident type of things. (I believe the perception of the Victim of the non-crime is the thing, as in - if the Victim feels that hate was a factor, that is what makes it a hate crime. Or - non-crime, but subject to police visits, etc. Hope that's cleared that up!).

These days? Probably a flogging and three days in the stocks. Honestly, it's been one long ride down a slippery slope ever since they made it illegal to hurt someone else's feelings.

If the judge directed you to use them then it would be contempt of court to continue.

Can a judge direct you to perjure yourself by saying something you know is not true?

On both cases it reads like Kafka novel.

Thanks Frontpaw

No parent should be pitted by the state against their child in this way. It's beyond cruel for both parties.

Wasn’t that Canada - and he was threatened with something like GBH if he called his child by the correct sex? The US case is a messy divorce where the mum (a doctor or psychologist?) demanding that the child is a girl but dad demanding the child is a boy.

I believe a judge in America has compelled a father to call his young trans-identified daughter 'he'.

I couldn't and wouldn't be forced to say my daughter was my son.

Of course I don't want to hurt my child so I use their new name and 'they' when communicating with them.
I can just about cope with the cognitive dissonance by doing this.

However, if ordered to say my son, or use 'he, his or him' - absolutely not. No matter what the consequences.

I conceived, gestated and gave birth to a human of the female sex and that is my lived, physical experience. It can't be changed. And I would suffer extreme mental anguish if I was being compelled to lie about this reality.

Reality cannot be ignored, no matter how 'kind' we're told to be. Respect for each other's reality and feelings has to go both ways.

I would be concerned by the conflict between "I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and using a pronoun that the witness believed to be untrue.

That’s a very good point. I wonder what the judge would say if you pointed that as a Christian who has sworn on the bible, you would find it extremely distressing to be expected to then, as fair as your faith goes, lie about what you have witnessed. how would he/she answer that.

Could you use the preferred name and pronouns but with heavy incredulous/sarcastic inflection?
'I met "Olivia" [do air quote marks] and "she" asked me'.....etc etc.
Can tone of voice be a crime?