Call defendants by gender they want, judges told

And such an interesting choice of media service to actually agree to a rare interview on this weekend. Very proud they were to appear on a such a network. That charity is doing great great work supporting the original founding membership these days.

The context of your response doesn't make clear what you are trying. Stonewall are not Nazi Germany nor Stalinist Russia which Orwell used for a large inspiration of this book.

Your username has been picked to give the, (I assume from the content of your posts) mistaken impression that you work as a teacher.

Orwell, as you no doubt know, created a society in which history was continually obfuscated or re-written, whilst the vocabulary available to the population was deliberately mangled.

Airbrushing away the proof of their involvement in making changes, whilst attempting to remove the wider population’s ability to accurately describe a problem both sound VERY much like a certain “charity’s” recent modus operandi to me.

Thank you, Turquoise and Errol, for your replies re access to the comments on Times articles. I tried a different browser and was able to see the comments, which was very worthwhile. Everyone but the judges can see what nonsense this is.

If I was a fact witness giving evidence in court I would find it extremely difficult to repeatedly refer to a person as the opposite sex. Especially if that person had assaulted me or raped me.

You’re have to think through every sentence very carefully and translate it into politically acceptable speech.

So when asked “ What did the defendant do next ? “ you’d need to think

“ He put his hand over my mouth and told me to shut up or he would kill me “ .

And then translate it in your head to

“ The defendant put their hand over my mouth and told me to shut up or they would kill me “

Or “ Then the person who I perceived at the time was male put what I perceived at the time to be a penis into my mouth.”

It’s much too complex. Witnesses risk getting it wrong and being punished for their Wrong Speak.

Maybe the courts could provide an interpreter, as they do for witnesses who don’t speak English? Then the interpreter could translate the witnesses words into those that are more acceptable to the court and the defendant .

They would also need to get the oath about telling the truth changed too. Because the truth is obviously offending a lot of important and powerful people.

In what way would an Orwell quote fit this?
"Stonewall acts for equality though"

War is peace though.

The judge may have that option, but the witnesses/defendants may not. There has already been a case where the judge instructed the defendant to perjure herself and describe her male attacker as if he was female. The judge penalised the defendant as a result, even though her attacker was found guilty of assaulting her.

We are not directed to do that though.

In most cases a judge won’t be saying he or she in any event (although would use Mr or Ms/Miss/Mrs quite frequently). They’re more likely to use the neutral terms claimant/respondent/defendant in order to avoid the issue.

The judge may have that option, but the witnesses/defendants may not. There has already been a case where the judge instructed the defendant to perjure herself and describe her male attacker as if he was female. The judge penalised the defendant as a result, even though her attacker was found guilty of assaulting her.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10347659/Criminal-defendants-called-gender-want-court-judges-told.html

Stonewall acts for equality though.

I think there's an Orwell quote that fits here...

@highame, Stonewall are a charity group promoting the rights of all queer people including trans individuals. Our justice system has (at least in my lifetime) also been mutable and adjustable to the challenges that the world presents as it moves forwards to unknown experiences.

There are many groups who have a vested interested in changing UK law to fit their particular views.

Stonewall acts for equality though.

This recent revision is an improvement isn't it, it's specifically recognising that there may be times when a victim or witness will refer to someone as their birth sex because that was their experience of the person. I think it's specifically recognising that there are circumstances where this is appropriate.

I’ve read the bench book from cover to cover more than once. It’s not the case that a judge would automatically use a persons desired pronouns, as with all categories covered in the book it’s a balance. In most cases a judge won’t be saying he or she in any event (although would use Mr or Ms/Miss/Mrs quite frequently). They’re more likely to use the neutral terms claimant/respondent/defendant in order to avoid the issue.

@allAbitofalark I find if I open the Times articles in a cognito window I can see the comments - which are almost always much more revealing than the article!

If the police work on the principle of self-id (in all cases it appears), then they are also working ahead of the law? Therefore when a defendant comes to court having committed rape, they will probably expect to be addressed as she, yet according to the ETBB, in cases of rape or DV for e.g. there would be occasions when birth sex was referred to.

Oh those tangled webs our Stonewall Champions league have woven and our legal systems had walked right on in and accepted, without question. When, just when, has our justice system ever done this?

Who's calling the shots? In who's name? Who are they accountable to? (a shortened version of Tony Benn's questions to the powerful in a democracy) I would say that many of the unelected are now making decisions that are against the wishes of the majority

This could come down to the Prosecution demanding that witnesses in VAWG and children cases are allowed to use the pronouns they are most comfortable with. I can't see how any judge could refuse.
It's a bigger question whether other court members should use preferred pronouns in these cases. It would be very odd if the defence questioned a witness using preferred pronouns for the defendent. That in itself could be destabilising for the witness, way beyond probing her evidence.

Going off topic for a moment, for some reason I can't see the comments on The Times articles posted here. Is there anyone else who finds the same?

I wonder why it is and if there is a way around it. I would love to be able to read them. As I think someone mentioned, they are often the best part and give an insight into what other people are thinking.

So the right of a person to give evidence and speak the truth as she understands it depends on the degree of trauma she has suffered?

Hmm. The victim of an assault by a male is allowed to use language that reflects what she has experienced, but a witness in the assault case is not allowed to use language that reflects what she has experienced.

The impact on the trans person in their own life if their trans status is
revealed and potentially becomes public

Of course, the obvious think to prevent one's trans status being revealed would be to refrain from taping women.

As far as passing goes, yes absolutely some trans people pass, though a higher proportion of women who have transitioned to live as men than men who have transitioned to live as women. A VERY high proportion present an appearance of mixed signals, very feminine plus very masculine, which is interestingly challenging for those of us with stereotyped assumptions to deal with.