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.

No-one can ask to see a GRC but anyone can ask to see a Birth Certificate as proof of identity. The purpose of the GRC is to change the reference to sex on a Birth Certificate [even though such a change is a Legal Fiction]. If the Birth Certificate shows a sex reference for female this does not mean that the person who has transitioned is female and should be treated as such in every circumstance. This is abundantly clear from all the available Exceptions written in to the Equality Act 2010.

In other words, UK law acknowledges that no human can ever change sex. No amount of medical treatment or adjustment surgery makes this possible.

[For the record the GRA 2004 was created primarily to deal with the issue of same-sex marriage which, now that same-sex marriage has been law since 2013, renders that Act of law redundant.]

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?

You should ask the Judge if he/she is demanding that you commit perjury under oath, perhaps?

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.

I don't understand. If the recognition (of the new gender?) is not retrospective, how can it apply for enactments, instruments and documents made before ...the issue of a certificate (of change of gender?)?

I don't understand. If the recognition (of the new gender?) is not retrospective, how can it apply for enactments, instruments and documents made before ...the issue of a certificate (of change of gender?)?

My understanding is that it means that an Act like Sex Discrimination Act 1975 would be accessible to a GRC holder from 2004 onward.

[The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was later absorbed into the Equality Act 2010.]

It's time for us to stop just moaning to one another on social media about how awful it is and how scared we are.

We need a focussed, driven campaign.

I am sure that 99% of the population would agree with us.

The judiciary can only operate with the CONSENT of the people, and I am sure that the vast majority of the people would not consent to this if they were given a vote on it.

What can we do?

It's time for us to stop just moaning to one another on social media about how awful it is

I would hazard a guess that when the next woman stands up in court to give evidence against a person who identifies as trans, she will not be brow-beaten by volunteer part-time magistrates to use pronouns.

Magistrates hear all but the most serious cases and come from the communities that they serve. There are no juries, just a panel of trained citizens.

I have a sneaky suspicion that magistrates will set aside the Code in the interests of justice and in the face of a well-presented case by the prosecution.

I can't imagine any of the ones that I know, consigning the witness to the court cells for a few hours, for contempt of court. They would err on the side of caution rather that face appeals and reviews for dismissing cases because a witness wouldn't 'she'.

And anyway, time is of the essence and delays are frowned on.

In the real world, resistance is possible and is to encouraged, I believe. P U L L, sisters, P U L L