Wings Scotland article about Maya and the SNP councillor who called us cunts

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

With bonus photos of the stunning and brave Gregor Murray et al. Doen'st have a huge readership, but, does have influence on SNP voters. Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry are SNP, and doing a lot of lifting to protect women's rights. Nicola Sturgeon is not an idiot, she'll see the damage Jo Swinson did to her party trying to defend the nonsensical arguments. I am no nationalist, but, this is interesting.

wingsoverscotland.com/the-abolition-of-sanity-part-2/?fbclid=IwAR17AFWz7-oQ728aZEdiu9THZFxu37Y9MtvmaeAlWFjowajOvDe1X6Bullc

God Murray's face gives me the rage - smug, woman hating and vile.

Yeah he had online rages at women.

Suspended from SNP

Called women cunts

Such a great poster boy for the trans lobby...

Gregor Murray. Well. There's a man whose Scouts group I would not be letting my kids attend.

Interesting comment

A Man with penis is accused of raping a woman.
The Police want to take a sperm or DNA sample to prove guilt or innocence.

Can the police ask this if he says he is a woman and doesn’t have sperm? Is it against His/Her Human rights to say he isn’t a woman when he says he is?

Police don’t take sperm samples off suspects.

I'd be more interested in whether at some point a defence is put forward that a male person didn't commit rape because they identify as a "she" person:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

It would be a bizarre defence but look at the Interpretation Act 1978:

6 Gender and number.

In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—

(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

The contrary intention could be argued to be provided by the Gender Recognition Act 2004:

9 General

(1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

It's all a mess. I wouldn't expect anyone to use this successfully in a defence but I wouldn't be surprised to see a Yaniv type using this mess in the future to cause distress.

I think this defence will come and soon.

Or the rape law will be changed to a more USA style definition, making it not a sexed crime.

Thanks
I hope Wings gets his twitter account back he has been doing a really good job against all the “acht we’ll fix it after Indy” lot.

I think this defence will come and soon

No it will not.

At the time when C-16 passed in Canada if people had said that within a couple of years there would be an abusive chancer taking ethnic minority women to court for refusing to touch his penis they would have been shouted down in the most violent terms imaginable.

Why do you think that,TheCraneWife?

Well the Law is what it is, written down, not the intention of legislators when they wrote it.

Why wouldn't it?

The law says him/his penis etc

If you are legally female then you could argue that this law cannot apply to you?

Or is it that all law is written with him/his but should be taken to mean male or female (male as default, batch).

Natch not batch!

The important aspect is the penetration by a penis. The equivalent Scottish Act actually doesn't use "his" but refers throughout to "a person"

I do not think for one minute the English courts will interpret the difference between the 2 Acts to come to the assumption "his" is the operative word rather than "penis". Rather they will come to the view the Scottish Act is using more up to date language and that "his" is simply a possesive word.

Courts take account of changing use of language.

If you are legally female then you could argue that this law cannot apply to you?

The Act you are referring to makes no mention of whether someone is "legally female"

Even if that were the case, which it isn't, women can and have been found guilty of rape.

The point in this thread is that it is something that would be susceptible for an abuser to use in order to further abuse a victim in court. It's not about whether it would succeed.

Maybe you think abusers have a line they draw where they think to themselves "even though that would give me a sexual thrill, I'll not do it because it would cross the line into being legally unsound".

I had a look and had remembered right, law in England and Wales says he/him for everything , and it is to be taken to include men and women (male as default).

I don't think the courts in England and Wales could discard the law here and use the Scottish one instead though, because they felt it was better

If there were any issue about the language of rape per se, a trans defendant could instead be charged with assault by penetration (s. 2 Sexual Offences Act 2003) which has the same penalty as rape and includes penetration by any body part. It may be that women have been convicted of that offence, but it's not true that women have been convicted of rape as such in England & Wales.

Yes, there would be ways around any mischief by a rapist on trial. But dealing with the mischief would cause further trauma to a victim, and, anyway, the problem is that the GRA introduced the potential for mischief in the first place.

As time passes I think more and more that section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 needs to be completely rewritten to reflect reality. Or the whole Act scrapped and replaced with something sensible.