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

Tbf, as the GRC only changes gender (the certificate itself doesn’t mention sex at all), it is hard to see how it is justified that it should also cause any effect on anyone else’s perception of the rapists sex.

It is another bizarre anomaly.

A lot of things about how victims are treated in the criminal justice system concern me. This isn't one of them.

There are many rules about how people can talk in court. There are good reasons for those rules. The victim is not entitled to say whatever she wishes in the defendant's trial. It's not about that.

I think the judges comments provide context to the decision that many posters seem determined to overlook because it doesn't suit their narrative.

Fucking christ do you lot ever stop?

A lot of things about how victims are treated in the criminal justice system concern me. This isn't one of them.

Misogyny. On a predominantly female forum. Gotta keep us in line.

That wasn't the situation though was it?

The judge was addressing the totality of her behaviour which was clearly not a good faith attempt to cooperate with the court.

There is no reason to think that someone who was cooperating but struggling for other reasons would warrant the same result.

It's a different situation.

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.

And those saying it's fine also seem to be thinking very narrowly. What do you do when you want to say something like "I heard a man's voice" or "I noticed a man following me, so I started walking faster".

Are you allowed to say that, or would that be "misgendering" the person you are now identifying?

Honestly, if that's a sincere question I think that she would have been ok to say those things.

She's not referring to a particular identified person in those examples, she's describing her own perception at a point in time. Her evidence is that she recognised the voice as a male one, that the shape following her appeared to her to be male.

She also wouldn't have the same restrictions when she is giving her statement to the police. The police statement would contain all of that kind of information.

It's about how she spoke in court, and again, this behaviour should be assessed in the context of her other behaviour leading up to the decision.

It's about how she spoke in court, and again, this behaviour should be assessed in the context of her other behaviour leading up to the decision.

Oh wow, so not only does a victim of male violence in court get quizzed on her personal life, often made out to be a ‘loose woman’ and strenuous attempts made to discredit her word and evidence but you are happy for her language and level of ‘respect’ towards her attacker to be policed and assessed as part of her testimony?

That’s starting to sound very biased against the interests of the victim.

That's really shocking to see. This is what needs to be reported on more.

No, not respect for the accused.

Respect for the court, Richard 'Barrister'.

And not taking steps to fuck up a criminal trial, such as by publishing content online about it while proceedings are on foot.

@RichardBarrister Also her attacker was convicted remember?

I'm not sure this is the great miscarriage of justice you're making it out to be.

I think the judge explained it well enough. Im just repeating myself and people on this thread seem determined to ignore anything that doesn't suit their agenda.

*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.*

@StarsSand I would warrant that most rules and limits are in place to avoid prejudicing the jury or leading the witnesses. They are, as you say, about preserving the integrity of the proceedings.

Forcing the victim to comply with the lie that a male rapist is a woman does not preserve the integrity of the proceedings, whatever kind of house of cards you’re trying to build here. It is fundamentally a huge lie right at the heart of the proceedings and it does not benefit anyone except the rapist.

Yep! That adding gaslighting and possibility of legal sanctions against a woman who has been raped is fucking ridiculous!

You're cherry picking one line out of many.

The point is, it shouldn't be there AT ALL. The judge was wrong to mention it. And perjury is a crime.

'If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.'

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6

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?

I'll stop when you can answer the question of why rape victims should be expected to consider the rapist's feelings?

No and nor should we ever fucking stop.

Honestly, if that's a sincere question I think that she would have been ok to say those things.

My broader point is that she's going to be second-guessing herself about whether it's acceptable to say something like that, if it's already been make clear she's not allowed to call him "he". These are tortuous conditions.

(And it is absolutely the case that many "transwomen" would regard any suggestion that they are or look male as transphobic - certainly no less "offensive" than pronouns).

Enforced speech is something quite different to court etiquette.

I'm sure the victim objects to having to pretend her attacker is a woman. It's a power play, a game to this revolting person. It's further abuse to the victim and gaslighting to the public.

Respect for the court

Just obeying the rules, you mean? That's not an argument, if we're debating what the rules should be.

Or is there some other meaning here?

Aside from "obeying the rules", I'd say to go along with a denial of reality is to not respect the court...

Indeed the reason a lot of us feel quite strongly about this is that we regard the court system as a sort of sacrosanct bastion of truth and reality, and we think stuff like the ETBB is immensely disrespectful of the entire point.

For the third time- she didn't have to lie. She didn't have to say the accused was a woman.

She could have said 'the accused' 'the defendant' or any number of things.

It's simply untrue that she was being forced to lie in any way shape or form.

As an aside, I always understood that rape, by definition, involved a penis, so whenever we see that a "woman" has been accused or convicted of rape, they must actually be a transwoman. However, there was a case recently of a female deputy headteacher convicted of rape. How is this possible? Aiding and abetting a rape I could understand, but how can a woman be convicted of rape?

It's simply untrue that she was being forced to lie in any way shape or form.

She was prevented from stating the truth. It amounts to the same thing and you know it.

Please don't tell me what I know.

She was not prevented from telling the truth.

The truth is she was referring to the defendant and she could have called the defendant just that. That's the truth.

She instead wanted to grandstand on a social issue.

*For the third time- she didn't have to lie. She didn't have to say the accused was a woman.

She could have said 'the accused' 'the defendant' or any number of things.

It's simply untrue that she was being forced to lie in any way shape or form.*

You are splitting hairs here. She is being coerced not to state the truth. She is unable to refer to her rapist as a man.