To object to having to call a man accused of rape 'she' in a criminal court trial?

[Appalonia]

Firstly, the definition of rape is penetration by a penis without consent. Only men have a penis. This case makes a mockery of the law and the criminal justice process and is a gross victimisation of this victim?
www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/23259685.clydebank-court-hears-woman-raped-clydebank-home/?ref=twtrec

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but didn't poor, marginalised, vulnerable 6'4" Tara Woolf gleefully tweet the intention to go out and punch some TERFs just before this incident with Maria McLaughlan? A woman in her 60s who was so very threatening with her camera and her existing?

Yazo Are you new here? 🙄

YANBU. Shocking. Absolutely

Well, Maria should have done what the abuser man told her and put down the camera. Now it's been explained to me I'm just astonished the judge didn't make Maria apologise and pay compensation to Tara.

I certainly wouldn’t say she.

you could say “they did this”. Or “it did this”

Me too. The fucked up thing is you could end up in the same prison as the man who raped you.

Yes, it can't technically be used as a defence. Where it is an issue however is that it can confuse the Jury. The Jury must be beyond all reasonable doubt in order to convict, so obfuscation such as this may undermine the case.

She was filming people without their permission. If a man had done that to a group of women I imagine we'd all have a problem with it.

She also tweeted about the matter while the legal proceedings were on foot, jeopardising the right to a fair trial.

She disobeyed the instruction of a judge repeatedly in court.

Im not in the UK but if that happened where I live she could have been charged with contempt of court.

Shes carried on like a muppet.

Justice was served in relation to her assault. No one condones her being struck. I'm not sure what more anyone wants.

Yeah, clearly she was asking for it.
The judge may have a point re the tweet but the rest seems very biased, adding insult to injury.

Is it illegal to use a camera where there is no expectation of privacy? Iirc this happened at speaker's corner. Maria and others were filming the people who were speaking on women's rights, Tara and friends rocked up expressly to disrupt it. Of course they didn't want that filmed.

Maria shouldn't have tweeted. But, from the judge's comments, refusing to lie under oath use preferred pronouns did colour the judge's decision when it came to compensation.

She was filming people without their permission. If a man had done that to a group of women I imagine we'd all have a problem with it.

This doesn't sound right, TRAs film and photograph people all the time (not to mention ranting at them and physically impeding them from entering meetings, etc.) and you don't need permission to use a camera in public.

Seems like a very poor reason to deny someone compensation for being assaulted.

In the context of her other behaviour, repeatedly doing something a judge has instructed her not to, is being disrespectful to the court and legal process.

She could have said 'the defendant' or 'the accused' or used their name each time.

She didn't need to say anything she didn't believe was true.

She was being deliberately provocative and trying to make a wider political point, and the judge was just trying to get through their duty list and see justice done. The court isn't there for people to soap box.

She was filming people without their permission. If a man had done that to a group of women I imagine we'd all have a problem with it.

She was filming a public meeting, as were several others. The idea that is provocative is both laughable and a shameful excuse for violence.

Their gender or chosen gender is irrelevant. Her and she are available for use by biological males.

All words are available for people to use. What is at issue here is forcing a witness in court to use words they consider untrue.

You don't 'use' words by choosing the ones other people describe you with- no words are 'available' in that sense.

the judge was just trying to get through their duty list and see justice done.

If that was the case he probably wouldn't have made a fuss about someone using normal sex-congruent pronouns.

She could have said 'the defendant' or 'the accused' or used their name each time. She didn't need to say anything she didn't believe was true.

Or, and this is a crazy thought, the court could have let her describe the events in her own words. And the defendant could describe the events in his own.

Rather than compel either of them to obey the other's world view?

Maybe that's just too basic.

Only one party had/has a “world view’. The other side had/has actual objective fact.

But otherwise I agree with your point.

You're speculating. Justice has to be done and has to be seen to be done. Everything else is irrelevant. Tara's pronouns weren't pertinent. Neither was whatever wider political point Maria may have wanted to make.

Here's a crazy thought- there are strict rules of evidence in a criminal trial and no one gets to just talk how they would in other situations.

One of those rules is following instructions from the judge who is trying to keep proceedings on track.

In what other situation can a judge force a witness to commit perjury?

Again, she didn't need to say anything she didn't agree with.

She could have said 'the defendant' 'the accused' used their name, pointed at them and said 'that person sitting there'.

There was no need for any pronouns at all.

And she wasn't forced. She wasn't charged with contempt or arrested. She disobeyed a judge but was ultimately allowed to carry on like a tit in a court but then there was a civil consequence for the totality of her behaviours which undermined the court.

She could have said 'the defendant' or 'the accused' or used their name each time. She didn't need to say anything she didn't believe was true.

Why is it ok to be compelled to use language that goes against your instinct and how you have been educated? Pronouns are currently still explained to primary school children as denoting to the male or female sex.

In an emotive environment where a victim is recounting her rape why is it reasonable to expect her to slow down and consider the language she is using for the benefit of her rapist?

Yes its reasonable.

There are many rules and limits on what anyone can say in the witness box.

These rules ensure a fair trial which ensures a legitimate conviction.

Even if you only care about the rights of the victims and not the accused- If people fuck around and break rules in criminal hearings, it just gives their lawyers a chance to have the conviction overturned on appeal.

It serves no one to do what she did, least of all herself.

Could be that the judge was trying to avoid giving the defendant grounds for an appeal.

Gaslighting rape victims should be illegal, especially when the rapist does not even have a GRC.

It certainly wasn't a case of losing compensation purely due to pronouns.

I’m not sure that it was claimed that it was purely down to pronouns but pronouns clearly played a part because the judge saw fit to mention it.

Neither you nor I know exactly how much weight was put on that particular factor. Judging by the rules that are extremely favourable to trans people in the Bench Book, I would say it carried significant weight.

Does it not concern you that a woman wishing to describe her attacker in accurate terms of what SHE experienced was even rebuked by the judge, let alone lost compensation as a result?

If you have trouble seeing the issue, imagine a person with a mental impairment trying to get through a trial under those conditions. Forced to lie with a threat of punishment for non compliance.
Being forced to stop their thought processes and lie every time they referred to the accused would have a chilling effect on their testimony and make them appear less convincing - and the same effect is true for women who are the victims of assault who are compelled to lie.