Court and enforced use of 'preferred' pronouns

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

I am still aghast that Maria McLachlan was repeatedly instructed by a judge to use female pronouns for Tara Wood, who had assualted her at Speakers' Corner.

Tara Wood is scientifically male.

Maria McLachlan was instructed to do this, by a Judge, while under oath to tell the truth, in a Court of Law.

What would have happened if Maria had refused to do it on account of it not being the truth?

Anyone know the legal position on this?

I am still aghast that Maria McLachlan was repeatedly instructed by a judge to use female pronouns for Tara Wood, who had assualted her at Speakers' Corner

Don't forget the judge actually reduced the defendants sentence because McLachlan kept forgetting to use the "correct" gender.

I am amazed that a judge could behave so bizarrely.

I guess potentially the judge could have held her in contempt of court in that he asked her to use a particular pronoun and she disobeyed him. Disobeying a judge is contempt. I think that would have gone a bit far though.

As for the truth bit, it doesn’t really go to the truth of her evidence so I don’t think she could have used that as a defence to being held in contempt.

In reality I think it’s more likely that the judge would have made a show of asking her to do it several times and then giving up essentially if she refused to do it. He would have created a lot more work for himself if he chucked her in a cell for using the ‘wrong’ pronouns....

I’m surprised this hasn’t some how been made a bigger deal of in the press.
A woman was forced by a judge to lie under oath about a scientific fact in order to spare feelings.

Judges can surely not put more weight on feelings over fact?

Excuse my ignorance but are wit eases in vases like this asked to swear on the bible? Id have serious issues calling a biological male "she". Especially if he had assaulted me...

There are male medical doctors encouraging bullying of non compliant women on Twitter. New witch hunters!

Are there any avenues open to pursue this legally? Would the victim have to sue the judge for making her perjure herself or something? I’d love for this to be put to a court, not as a side issue in another case, but as the actual reason for being in court.

Does that mean you would be in contempt of court if a rogue judge instructed you to call a man 'she' and you kept forgetting?

I think the point is she was not testifying as to the gender/sex of the defendant. She was testifying as to what happened that day. Everyone knew who the defendant was- she was merely being asked to refer to them as a woman. It’s not quite the same as the judge making her lie under oath because none of her evidence related to the defendant’s sex.

But on what basis can a judge enforce the use of pronouns which are not the ones associated with a defendant's legal sex?

Are there any avenues open to pursue this legally? Would the victim have to sue the judge for making her perjure herself or something?

I really don't think there are, no. The judge was not making her perjure herself. Everyone knew who she was referring to, i.e. the defendant. It did not change any of the material facts in the witness evidence because even if the defendant had been a woman, they would have been guilty of assault.

Does that mean you would be in contempt of court if a rogue judge instructed you to call a man 'she' and you kept forgetting?

Potentially, yes. If you disobey a court order or an instruction from the judge, you can potentially be held in contempt.

But on what basis can a judge enforce the use of pronouns which are not the ones associated with a defendant's legal sex?

They could tell you that unless you refer to the defendant in the way they have asked you to, you will be held in contempt. I really don't think any judge would do this though- it seems so over the top.

This was written in to the Bench Book as far back as 2013.
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/equal-treatment-bench-book-2013-with-2015-amendment.pdf

"Transgender people, whether they are pre or post‐operative trans people or trans people who do not intend to have surgery, should be referred to in their preferred or acquired gender. They should not be addressed as if they remained in the gender that was assigned to them at birth."

[email protected]

check out Bella Bailey @cattdeskatgmail - they are writing to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about this - asking if it is now law that female victims of male violence must now perjure themselves by calling the defendant "she" - you can add your name by DMing her.

OK, thanks Susan and crome. So it would be a case of taking the bench book to court then!

^^ see the Bench Book quite above - the judge was following official guidelines, and in the judge’s court you do what the judge says.

It will be interesting to see how they respond. I am guessing there will be a neutral fob-off saying that the judge did not make the witness perjure herself. That is true- he did not. Perjury relates to the material elements of the witness testimony. The defendant's sex was not material to this because there was no confusion over the identity of the person who punched Ms McLachlan. This related solely to how they were referred to in court.

It was a good verdict though. I understand Ms McLachlan's desire to refer to the defendant as a man, but I don't think complaining about the judge's conduct will get very far because as crome posted, he was following the guidelines and this had nothing to do with perjury.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Can you link to the sentencing issue you refer to?

(I've googled but can't find anything)

Thanks

Google, right to be forgotten has been invoked already?

So it would be a case of taking the bench book to court then!

You could try...

Major problems with this policy in the courts:

1. It establishes self-identification by stealth, which is apparently not based on any law passed by Parliament.

2. A witness who has to devote mental attention to using the 'correct' i.e. false pronouns will be hindered from giving coherent and truthful answers.

3. We naturally intuit that females are less willing and less able to inflict violence than males, and so continual reference to a male as 'she' may subconsciously affect assessments of threat.

Don't forget the judge actually reduced the defendants sentence because McLachlan kept forgetting to use the "correct" gender.

I missed that. Are you sure???

Have read the sentencing remarks. He did not reduce the sentence due to how the victim gave evidence. What he said was that there was tension and hostile language on both sides of the debate and he branded the victim ungraceful for refusing to refer to the defendant as 'she'. He said this was further evidence of the tension between the two groups. He did not reduce the sentence in light of it.

Whatever position one takes, it's fair to say that there was tension between the groups- I don't think this falls within the category of the judge acting bizarrely.

Could you please link to the sentencing remarks, Susan? I couldn't find them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5613057/Model-punched-feminist-smashed-120-camera-violent-brawl-walks-free-court.html#ixzz5Cr1RJRiX

But in giving his verdict, the Judge also branded Miss MacLachlan ungraceful for failing to refer to Wolf as 'she' during the two-day trial.
He said: 'When I asked Miss MacLachlan to refer to the defendant as she, she did so with bad grace.
'Having asked her to refer to Miss Wolf as she as a matter of courtesy, she continued to refer to Miss Wolf as he and him.
'The language of the debate is antagonistic and hostile.'

This is actually taken from a daily mail article and I know that many don't like clicking on the link so I have copied and pasted, but the article is here:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5613057/Model-punched-feminist-smashed-120-camera-violent-brawl-walks-free-court.html

Returning his verdict at Hendon Magistrates' Court, District Judge Kenneth Grant said: 'Miss Wolf is an activist on transgender issues.

'The group of protesters, of which she was one, attended Speakers' Corner effectively to take issue with the views of a separate group of radical feminists who they refer to as Terfs.

'The politics of the transgender debate was not dealt with in any detail in the trial and there was not, in my view, a need for the politics of that debate to be specifically considered, safe to say that they are strongly held, passionately expressed, opposing stand points.

'The language of the debate between the different wings of the transgender discussion is antagonistic to say the least.

'Miss Wolf referred to the rally, the meeting at Hyde Park, and the meeting due to follow the meeting at Speakers' Corner, she referred to it as a hate rally.

'The group she was protesting against, she referred to that group and persons comprising, as trans exterminatory radical feminists, which is strong language.

'She referred to Terfs wanting to exterminate people like me and that may have been an honestly held belief, but it demonstrates the position of the views held by opposing members of the debate.'

Wolf, who the court heard receives £320 per month job seeker's allowance, was told to pay a £150 fine, £30 victim surcharge and £250 prosecution costs.

But in giving his verdict, the Judge also branded Miss MacLachlan ungraceful for failing to refer to Wolf as 'she' during the two-day trial.

He said: 'When I asked Miss MacLachlan to refer to the defendant as she, she did so with bad grace.

'Having asked her to refer to Miss Wolf as she as a matter of courtesy, she continued to refer to Miss Wolf as he and him.

'The language of the debate is antagonistic and hostile.'

The fracas broke out after Miss MacLachlan tried to film counter demonstrators, including Wolf, when the two groups clashed at the demo.

Referring to a video of Wolf attempting to slap a camera from Miss MacLachlan's hand, the judge said: 'That, I concluded, was an assault.

'It was a relatively minor assault.

'I suspect it that was the only altercation that was recorded during that event, it would not have resulted in this trial.'

Wolf's solicitor, Jodie Alexander, had claimed she attacked Miss MacLachlan in a bid to stop her partner being assaulted.

It was also claimed Wolf feared footage would be leaked online to 'out' her as transgender.

But Judge Grant said: 'The idea that any one of those assaults was a prevention of crime is not an argument in this case that I was prepared to accept and I specifically reject.'

He rejected evidence that Miss MacLachlan held a counter demonstrator in a head lock before the attack.

The Judge added: 'All three incidents of which there was physical contact between Miss Wolf and Miss MacLachlan did amount to assault and in relation to the defence of self-defence or defence of another or prevention of crime.'