Mail article - Judges are ordered to allow transgender defendants to be addressed as the gender of their choice during court appearances

[EweSurname]

This was published in the Mail yesterday, but not sure when the new guidelines for judges were released.

We’ve seen this in action already with Maria being compelled to use mis-sexed pronouns but it’s being formalised by guidelines.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7047897/Judges-ordered-allow-transgender-defendants-addressed-gender-choice.html

New guidelines state that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ and courts should respect a person’s gender identity by using appropriate names and pronouns.

The rules, published in a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, say courts should not reveal a defendant’s birth gender and that in ‘rare’ cases where disclosing a previous sex is necessary, judges should take the court into secret session or impose reporting restrictions.

(I forgot classist. Add that to the list of people discriminated against to pander to less than 1% of men.)

"A person whose gender identity I cannot express a view on approached me and exposed a body part, the identity of which I can specify, to me. It caused me distress but that might be an indication of my bigotry. Your Honour."

Damn. After thinking about how to write a phobic-free sentence I've made the error of writing something furryphobic.

"An person entity whose gender identity I cannot express a view on approached me and exposed a body part, the identity of which I can specify, to me. It caused me distress but that might be an indication of my bigotry. Your Honour."

If victim blaming under this nutjobbery goes far enough that a reaction to indecent exposure is 'bigotry' then law is fucked, and hello vigilantism.

Who will not be fucking about with anyone's pronouns or preferred identity, or with much interest in the perpetrator's preferences and feelings at all. I wish I was exaggerating, but these people seem blind to what happens in societies where the law ceases to be seen to be impartial and just and can no longer be trusted. It tends to involve lamp posts and absolute horrors, not a land of milk and honey.

Exactly. I wonder what would happen if a victim stated in the witness stand that they believed the defendant was male

It happened, more-or-less, to Maria MacLachlan, and the judge refused to grant her compensation as a result.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/06/21/interview-maria-maclauchlan-gra-aftermath-assault-speakers-corner//*

I think the victim should be able to ask to give their testimony in their own words, and that a court clerk write it down and change the pronouns afterwards.

Categorically not!

It is totally unacceptable to allow anyone to change a witness's words.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Once compelling people to lie under oath becomes the norm there is no more justice.

We’re into Animal Farm territory now:

New guidelines state that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ ... published in a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book

Some animals are more equal than others it seems

Right, so a rape victim can be forced to refer to her male rapist as she?

and her?

That's institutional misogynist abuse of women.

So, which organisation is behind the Equal Treatment Bench Book?

And how are judges being 'ordered to allow defendants to self identify'? By whom?

Were my exact thoughts too.

The Judicial College produced the guidelines.

The Judicial College is part of the Judicial Office. It's an unelected civil service, really. The HM Goverment site tells us that it works with (but not for) the Ministry of Justice

The Judicial Office supports the judiciary across the courts of England and Wales, and the non-devolved tribunals across the UK, by providing training, legal and policy advice, human resources, communications and administrative support.

The front-line people are Judges, magistrates, coroners and tribunal staff.

In other words, they make policy and issues 'guidance': except it's more than that. Ignore the advice at your peril because it will provide litigants with grounds for appeal.

Without so much as an impact assessement or consultation with interested parties, they are a law unto themselves.

Regulatory and policy capture at its finest.

Freedom of information requests can be made here:

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/judicial-office#content

If a defendant has changed their whole presentation since the crime, how the heck does the victim answer the question “Can you see your attacker in court?” (Or do they not ask that question anymore?)

Maybe the DM are aware of some court cases coming up where it will be useful to have this article to refer back to, having already primed their readers on a quiet news day...

IPSO are reviewing the guidelines bout reporting on trans issues

PSO Blog: Examining editorial standards in coverage of transgender issues
As an independent regulator of press standards, some of the most contentious and sensitive issues we handle relate to the reporting of transgender matters.

www.ipso.co.uk/news-press-releases/blog/ipso-blog-examining-editorial-standards-in-coverage-of-transgender-issues/

From that blog post:
"The research will involve quantitative mapping of coverage of transgender matters in the last ten years, as well as qualitative interviews with industry figures, groups representing the transgender community and other relevant stakeholders."

Will gender-critical women be included in the list of relevant stakeholders, I wonder?

(Where is IPSO - above or below the tideline of the ever encroaching waters of regulatory capture?)

I think the best course of action is for everyone to ignore such ridiculous instruction and refer to any cross dressing male as he.

If women have to go to prison for telling the truth and to protect females and their boundaries, so be it.

If contempt of court becomes a matter of enforced lying under oath, so be it.

If that is what so-called "justice" becomes because of the patriarchal imposition of institutionalised rape culture, so be it.

I suspect such an environment in the so-called justice system will not last long.

The research is being carried out by external consultants Mediatique so it depends on their position I would suggest. Their list of clients includes BBC & Ch4 and is slanted to TV & digital by the looks of it.

They're relying on people having too much to lose, Jacky.

For instance, I'm a single parent with no other parent on the scene. Suppose I were the complainant in a rape trial, they told me I'd be held in contempt if I didn't use the correct pronouns. Would I have the courage to hold fast, knowing DS would end up in the care system, and that I'd lose my job (instant dismissal for a conviction for contempt of court, no wriggle room at all)? Would I fuck.

That's what they rely on. The fact that people can't speak up. Collectively maybe we could, but they'd pick us off one by one.

Those that can, though: we definitely need the Suffragettes back.

We really do.

It’s a very hypothetical situation and one I hope I’ll never be in, but I am willing to lose my job, be fined, be imprisoned etc, for refusing to participate in compelled speech. Maybe ‘willing’ is the wrong word because my brain wiring doesn’t enable me to do otherwise, but nonetheless. I have a choice to be silent with no explanation or say why I can’t talk. I choose to say what the problem is.

I guess we just need to have each others’ backs; when this inevitably gets legally tested, throw Nice Things and support and practical help towards whichever poor woman ends up on the receiving end. And is ok to be unable to be in that position like Fermat and no doubt many others, but those that can, please do.

Maybe we could write an open letter/declaration stating our position.

Just posted on the subject of police guidance misquoting the GRA in the "Regulatory Capture" thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture?msgid=87785021

Long post that ends:

Section 22 is only about disclosing information once acquired. It does not say anything about the police not being allowed to ask if they have a GRC or to see it.

Section 22 is also clear:

". . . it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

Further the GRA 2004 also explains, in the Explanatory Notes associated with Section 9:

"28. Subsection (2) provides amplification of subsection (1), making clear that the recognition is not retrospective, so the certificate does not rewrite the gender history of the transsexual person, and that the new gender applies for the interpretation of enactments, instruments and documents made before as well as after the issue of a certificate.

Beyond that, if there is no GRC, the person concerned must be treated as their natural sex. See this letter from a group of lawyers:

[extract: "It is established in case law that the comparator for a transgender person claiming discrimination in relation to gender re-assignment is not the sex which they are seeking transition to but that which they are seeking transition from."]

forwomen.scot/30/03/2019/tie-letter-legal-response/

Here is the relevant case law [see para 70 onward]:

www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fa2c94e0775e7ef4e3

Further, those Explanatory Notes to section 9 make clear that the GRC only relates to the relationship of the GRC holder with existing law. Thus, use of "pronouns" and the so-called phenomenon of "dead-naming" have no relevance since these are not written in any law.

Beyond that, there is the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which relates to freedom of belief and which includes the freedom to disbelieve. So, no-one can force you to believe that a man is a woman or vice versa and use dissonant pronouns ... not even anyone working within the Judiciary.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

If I saw, say, a robbery being committed by a man. Am I to say I saw a robbery committed by a man or not? Am I expected to change my statement because the man sitting in the dock who the police arrested wants to be referred to as a women? I might not even be clear that they are one and the same person so I would be changing my statement to say I saw a woman commit a robbery even though it might have been a different person entirely - a man who identifies as a man? And what are the jury to make of my statement now I am no longer describing what I saw? Do they assume I am unreliable? That it must be the trans identified Male in the dock because I am referring to the person I saw as a woman? Or if I insist I saw a man, do they let a guilty man go free because they are told the man in front of them is actually not a man but a woman?