Trans woman argues they can’t be tried in court as they were a man when they committed the crime...

[Destinysdaughter]

In Ireland:

www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2018/10/03/4162881-judge-to-consider-legal-points-in-mayo-case-involving-transgender-pers

“A District Judge is to consider legal submissions as to whether a transgender person could be properly before a court on charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, having been charged as a male but was now registered under the Gender Recognition Act of 2015 as a female.”

...“The defence's case is that that person no longer exists and therefore the prosecution should not and could not proceed“

Having read the article through a second time, it doesn't seem that the person doesn't want to be charged with the offence just that they want to be summonsed with their new, female name. However, the argument that the old name doesn't exist because that person doesn't exist anymore is still wrong. At best I think the courts could issue the summons as New Name also known as Old Name, but they committed the alleged offence under their old name so presumably that name will need to be used in court by witnesses etc and having more than one name does have the potential to cause confusion.

Have read it a third time, and I did actually read it correctly the first time, that the defendant thinks they should not be summonsed at all.

OK, so what age would this person be of their previous persona ceased to exist? Can one spring, fully formed aged, for example, aged 32 years,4 months and 11days? Or, is this new person also now a young child and in need of attending school and an adult guardian?

I’ve read that Connacht Tribune article a few times and I’m not clear what the sequence of events or indeed the objection is.

Is it:
John allegedly commits crime. John is charged as ‘John.’ John then self ids as Jane. Case gets to court and solicitor says ‘there is no such person as John’? Does the solicitor want the charges for Jane or is she claiming the case is nullified as there is no person to correspond with the name?

Or
John allegedly commits crime. John then self ids as Jane. Gardai present charges under the name of John. Solicitor objects: to get the charges dropped (like if any other detail such as date, location, or statute of limitations was incorrect); or is it to say ‘I insist you charge me as Jane!’

I can't imagine it will succeed, if only because if it did an avalanche of criminals would follow suit.

This is the kind of thing which could peak trans people.

I can't imagine it will succeed, if only because if it did an avalanche of criminals would follow suit.

You know this is 2018 right?

Logic is so 2015.

Have you yet seen the errors in the ways of left wing politics?

Sciencelover, I think you will find that this issue is one that unites women from both the right and left wing.

Even if the ruling is not made, can we add this to the thread of things that never happen ? The question has been asked, it's the beginning.

Added.

It's happening as much as Freemen on the Land are happening.

I think it our be wise to rely on this as an example of anything other than fringe thinking. This is not mainstream, and I do not think it wouid carry weight as a representative example.

Once the original idiocy has been declared by the state

• that a man can turn into a woman

the following idiocies are without limit

Judge says today that it is, in fact, the same person and the summons can go ahead.

www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2018/12/05/4166147-new-development-in-legal-case-involving-mayo-transgender-person/

"Garda James O'Brien, who arrested the accused on June 6, 2017, said he knew the person as a male prior to the night in question and introduced her to the member in charge using the male name that he knew. At all times the person signed her former male name on documents in the garda station. "

Ha bloody ha

Rule number 1 about claiming that your previous identity no longer exists.

Don't deadname yourself in custody.

*Rule number 1 about claiming that your previous identity no longer exists.

Don't deadname yourself in custody.*

There is no way a court can let this win. Any person committing a serious crime would just need to transition to avoid conviction. Funny though.

The defence's case is that that person no longer exists

Where the heck did the defendant get the body they're inhabiting from, then?

If they claim not to exist, would it be a crime for police to just shoot them? I mean, you can't kill someone who doesn't exist, can you?

AWAs will try anything - right?

So why do people still not believe in male predators-in whatever guise?