Bench Book

[rb67]

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/equal-treatment-bench-book-february2018-v4.pdf

I saw this tweeted this am and then lost the tweet. I have had a quick look. Its a fucking disaster, written by people totally hoodwinked and probably have no idea what they are talking about.

I have to go work now so don't have time to read properly.

tweet? twitter.com/confirmedturf/status/969102025995595776

So the judiciary are now going to be using 'cis' as though it is an accepted term.

The term ‘cisgender’ or ‘cis’ is often used to describe people whose gender identity corresponds to the gender assigned to them at birth. ‘Cisgender’ has its origin in the Latin prefix ‘cis’ which means ‘on this side of’.

But we have to be very careful about how we talk about rapists who identify as women.

Terminology is rapidly changing in this area, and where it is necessary to refer to someone’s transgender identity at all, they should always be consulted about their preferred terminology.
Where relevant, many people will find it acceptable to be described as a ‘trans person’ or a ‘transgender person’. Others may prefer to describe themselves more specifically as, eg, ‘gender fluid’ or ‘non-binary’.

Where has this organisation got the authority to change the laws in this way? My understanding is that open trials and reporting are a benchmark of our open legal system so how can an advisory / training organisation decide to change the boundaries about this? This allows transgender defendants a level of privacy that most defendants would wish for themselves?

Where does their authority come from to change the words 'man and woman to 'cis'?

Daily Mail link as this seems to be the only press who have picked this up so far:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5447565/Judge-tells-colleagues-not-say-postman-immigrant.html

I know that most organisations have listen to the transactivist organisation skewed versions of the law and practice and meekly implement them but aren't our legal systems meant to be better than this?

Who are the legal people on this board? Maybe they can let us know whether this is legitimate or not?

Shedalight - sorry what do you mean 'legitimate'?

I don't think that it has 'legal force' as such - but it is an official document to be used by members of the judiciary as a guide.

Test

Yes I confirm it is real. It came out yesterday and I looked at the transgender bit straight away. The ‘cis’ passage quoted enraged me. HOWEVER it doesn’t actually boil down to much more than ‘respecting identity’ or basically being polite. There is a bit about whether or not it may be necessary to talk about a person being transgender, but that bit is fairly OK I thought.

It wouldn’t mean any judge couldn’t use her/his own judgement about anything. So in the grand scheme of things it could be worse.

sawdustformypony
Sorry - I wasn't very clear
It was the bit about criminals courts being taken into private session, or publicity about a trial restricted, if the evidence is likely to expose the fact that someone has changed sex. Why should someone get privacy for their sex offending case just because they're claiming a sex change?
I thought that was rarely used and is often contested when it happens by the press? So this seems like a change in policy and I am questioning what rights this organisation has to propose this change?

Sawdust - where are you quoting from? I can't see that in the Bench book. It says ' There are obvious instances when
disclosure will be made for this purpose, eg for the recovery of a debt incurred in the previous name / gender. A person’s transgender history may also be a relevant and important issue in divorce or family proceedings, or as the background to an offence of violence against that person. In these instances, disclosure is legitimate and necessary. However, judges should be aware of the
sensitivities, and exercise extreme caution about ‘outing’ someone where their gender is not relevant to the specific issue(s) in the case.
23. In respect of family proceedings, Sir James Munby (President of the Family Division of the High Court) has issued the following useful statement (cited in the Women and Equalities Committee Report on Transgender Equality 2016,para 80):
‘The facts of the individual cases in which the disclosure question will ariseare likely to vary widely. In some instances it will be relevant to the issues to know that an individual has a transgender history. In others it will be entirely irrelevant. Disclosure should not [be] permitted in those cases where it is unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues. There is a need for judges to be aware of and astute to the issues.’

Apart from the implication that transgender people are more likely to be victims than perpetrators, that seems not too bad?

Here is the list of 'references and resources' for this section. [The actual online version has clickable links]

‘The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders’ (PSI 17/2016; PI 16/2016):
Ministry of Justice/ NOMS (2016)
(Search policy title on the Justice website, or directly from your search engine) or via
this direct link.
‘The Cost of Being Out at Work: LGBT+ workers' experiences of harassment and
discrimination’ (TUC 2017).
Detention Services Order 11/2012: ‘Care and Management of Transsexuals
Detainees’ (version 2.1, June 2015).
‘Engendered Penalties: Transgender and Transsexual People’s Experiences of
Inequality and Discrimination’: Whittle, Turner and Al-Alami (2007). (Press for
Change and Equalities Review).
‘Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Homophobic, Biphobic and Transphobic Hate
Crime’: Crown Prosecution Service (revised 2017).
‘The Hate Crime Report: Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in the UK’: Galop
(2016).
‘No safe refuge – Experiences of LGBT asylum seekers in detention’ (Stonewall,
2016).
‘Report on Transgender Equality’: Women and Equalities Select Committee (2016).
‘Self-harming thoughts and behaviors in a group of children and adolescents with
gender dysphoria’: Skagerberg, Parkinson, Carmichael: International Journal of
Transgenderism, 14(2), 86-92 (2013).
‘Suicide risk in the UK trans population and the role of gender transition in
decreasing suicidal ideation and suicide attempt’: Bailey, Ellis and McNeil.
Mental Health Review Journal, 19(4) 209-220 (2014).
‘Supporting trans employees in the workplace’: ACAS Research paper 04/17.
‘Trans Research Review for the Equality and Human Rights Commission’: Mitchell
and Howarth (2009).
UK Border Agency Instruction: ‘Gender Identity Issues in the Asylum Claim’.
Other
Information on Applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Testingnamechange1

On the page before the one you have quoted from it says:
17. Where appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice, the court may consider making reporting restrictions under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent the disclosure of a transgender person’s previous name and transgender history, or it may direct a private hearing.
18. It is inappropriate to enquire about, or refer to a transgender person’s medical history, including their anatomical status, unless it is legally relevant to the case at hand, and then this issue should be handled with utmost sensitivity and respect for a person’s private life. Again, a private hearing might be directed where appropriate.

Thank you. Yes, I see it now. I suspect that some of the sources used maybe slightly biased (haven't read them all so can't say for certain), but by and large I am still happy to put my faith in the bloody independent mindedness of judges.

I wonder how many sex offenders will be asking for private hearings because of their self ID? And will judges grant it, having been advised just how special and vulnerable this group are?

Just also confirming this is real. We have had an email telling us to read the latest version of it. I confess I haven’t yet read this version but will do before my next sitting in court.

Non law person here but surely this private session, or publicity about a trial restricted, if the evidence is likely to expose the fact that someone has changed sex.

Means that sex crimes by TIM will be hidden as they are mostly white middle class males so will direct barristers to claim they as women or imply they have had surgery.

Can we protest these changes ? Where does one complain?

Fuck it! It comes back to how many women and girls are ok to be raped just to spare one TIM’s feelings. Answers seems to be A LOT.

Why private hearing just coz you have changed sex? Is that normal?

(changed name from rb67)

This document seems to imply a GRC is irrelevant and therefore that the Gender Recognition Act is irrelevant: if someone identifies as a different biological sex (referred to as "gender") then that should be respected regardless.
It is difficult to argue against changes to the GRA if those changes have already been accepted. It seems the argument has taken place behind closed doors and self id here.

The word cis is used to refer to women. Most women have never even heard of this word never mind accept it as a reality. If we accept cis we also have to accept the trans activist agenda. It is important this word is not accepted into the mainstream; its inclusion indicates that is happening.

Someone in the legal "system" may make up their own mind. A person working in an HR department who receives a complaint quoting this type of document will not have that confidence. See what appears to be the absolute terror felt by political parties, Swim England, the BACP, most of the media.

It may not be law or guidance but it is the type of document that helps build argument.

Terfmore
That's my concern. Who are they to recommend that cis is now used and that all the trans sex offenders get to ask for 'private courts' and for reporting restrictions?
It also mentions the importance of accepting self ID