Scottow conviction overturned on appeal.

[marvellousnightforamooncup]

Whoop!

Just seen her tweet.

@OhLittleBoreOfWhabylon

Good choice of pictures in the Mail, I thought Lovely one of Kate.

Isn't it kind of them to do a piece including a photo of Boris Johnson in which his hairstyle for once looks reasonably ok?

Surely we are not bound by law to refer to people with GRC as their chosen gender in everyday speech, or casual correspondence?

I think that with today's ruling, if I were to call a male person 'she', then it comes under causing offence, and is now not a crime. As such, calling a male person 'he' against their wishes is the same....offensive maybe, but perfectly legal.

Thank you for linking to the judgement

Surely we are not bound by law to refer to people with GRC as their chosen gender in everyday speech, or casual correspondence?

Or when talking about a group of those with GRCs or an individual in general conversation in any context as opposed to having direct conversation with someone who is present?

Isn't this what Maya's case is testing? The difference between a legal fiction which must be recognised in situations such as employment, and compelling speech against the beliefs of the speaker? The difference between courtesy supporting of the chosen legal fiction with pronouns in individual conversation with a GRC holder and in general situations such as a work place with them, and being expected to state in all contexts, at all times, even in theoretical conversations when debating harm to women's rights, a belief that a male person is a woman? For a legal context to recognise as unacceptable (as the judge in Maya's case seemed to try to do) for a woman to state out loud that she does not hold a belief that a male person is a woman?

In essence, the right to hold a view that some may find offensive and disagree with which applies to everyone, equally, regardless of any protected characteristics being involved , without this being a criminal offense.

The ruling is incredibly nuanced and detailed - it's no wonder it took a week for reporting to start, along with the potential for civil claims now possible.

Meanwhile in Canada....

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1339835048871268353?s=21

vancouversun.com/news/b-c-courts-require-lawyers-to-give-more-inclusive-introductions

If I was raped I swear I'd go to prison for contempt rather than refer to my rapist as She.

"Just another way for an abuser to exert his control"

If I was raped I swear I'd go to prison for contempt rather than refer to my rapist as She.

Me too, I would honestly go to prison before I called a rapist 'she' or 'her'. Women cannot rape, no way would I play along with the delusion that I was raped by a woman. They can piss off with that.

I'm amazed she was ever arrested for this let alone convicted. Since when has been unkind being illegal. Would she be able to sue for some sort of wrongful arrest?

I'm assuming Canada has something similar to the U.K. whereby witnesses swear or affirm to tell the truth? How the hell does that fit with women being compelled to lie about the sex of a rapist?

How does any of this fit in with the hate crime consultation I wonder. Could it be a new law will steamroller over this judgement and make it illegal (or at least criminally hateful) to misgender someone?

The UK isn't actually that different:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ETBB-February-2018-amended-March-2020.pdf

See Chapter 12 Transgender People.

I'd hope it would focus their minds that 'hate crime' pertains to hate associated with an actual crime, and being pissy on the internet is not a crime.

See Chapter 12 Transgender People.

In the case of an alleged rapist, the exceptions re sex at birth and 'anatomical status' surely apply.

The dignity of the alleged victim should be considered equally to that of the alleged perpetrator. (I know that's too often not the case, 'should')

Maybe, but as we've seen plenty of times, guidelines below the High Court level are often interpreted in an oppression hierarchy fashion with the protection of women not scoring particularly well.

Looks like the daily mail article has been taken down, SH was complaining about it on Twitter saying certain things were made up

Michelleofzeresistance yes I think those are a large part of the issues in maya's case - but it's about whether her position counts as a philosophical belief, so that it was unlawful for the employer to discriminate against her for holding those beliefs. So it's not about what's legal to say, but what we can believe without being discriminated against by being sacked etc.

I don't know what the possible outcomes are but I hope the appeal judge manages to protect the underlying principle especially when expressed on legal/policy issues. With other beliefs it seems to be possible to protect them, while also allowing employers to stop people expressing them to work colleagues in a way that would create a horrible environment for someone. Its so annoying and wrong the way her case has been characterised as an effort to protect the right to misgender and harass work colleagues.

I don't know how much of a baring kate's case (& the Miller v humberside police case) will have on maya's or Katie alcock's discrimination cases, because the first two are about state interference with free speech. But it does feel like once this general issue is put in front of senior judges they are seeing it with more clarity. Stonewall training isn't ringing in their ears so loudly or something.

This one?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9066069/Woke-folk-beware-Freedom-speech-includes-right-offend-say-judges-landmark-ruling.html

The high court may have said that freedom to speak inoffensively is not worth having, but I’ve just gone to post on the other thread in support of Louise and it’s been taken down.

if you are reading Louise. Your approach is so much classier,

Is that the thread that was started late last night? I had a feeling it would be gone by morning.

Not withstanding the court win I thought the OP was skating on thin ice from the start.

I have just read the judgment with a bit more care.

I see that

1. there are ongoing civil proceedings, in the course of which an interim injunction was granted
2. that interim injunction is extremely wide -unprecedentedly so
3. there is an accusation that Scottow has breached the injunction and so is in contempt of court -so there are still ongoing criminal proceedings against her
4. that injunction was granted by a non-specialist judge
5. since that injunction was granted, a specialist subsection (“list”) has been created for cases of its kind
6. the judge who heard this December 2020 appeal against conviction has directed that the civil proceedings be moved now to the new specialist list and that a case review be carried out.

Does anyone know
what powers a the judge carrying out the case management conference will have to review the scope of the interim injunction? whether the scope of the injunction can be referred to a higher court, either on application by Scottow or on the court’s own initiative?

@Cuntysnark

Fabulous. A little jig of joy!

For a second, I read that as "pig of joy". Which seemed unlikely.

[quote ProfessorSlocombe]Anyone a fan of facts ?

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/3421.html[/quote]
Very useful.
Section (5) addresses that directly:

"The facts of the matter have not been as easy to identify as they should have been. This is a result of several factors: the fact that the prosecution did not obtain all the contextual material for the offending messages; the somewhat disorderly way in which the case for the prosecution was presented at trial; the diffuse nature of the arguments for the appellant; the limited fact-finding in the judgment of the District Judge; and the unorthodox nature of the case stated. The formal information that was laid before the Magistrates Court is not before us, nor is the summons, nor were the essential facts relied on set out in the prosecution opening, nor has anyone prepared a basic chronology of the key facts. An argumentative chronology was prepared by Counsel for the purpose of the case stated and Skeleton Argument, but this was not adopted nor commented upon by the District Judge. It unhelpfully weaves together facts which were, and those which are not clearly found by the District Judge, together with comment and submission, and contains some errors and omissions. To a substantial extent, it has been necessary to reconstruct events, using the papers before us. I am confident however that the following facts were established before the District Judge, or are agreed, or clear beyond dispute.:

......I think that

7. scottow may be out of time to appeal the injunction but
8. all injunctions are discretionary and equitable remedies and
9. there were strong hints in the December 2020 criminal case that the judge in the civil case had made errors in law either in granting the injunction or in its breadth 10). I think because of this there will still be mechanisms to have the existence and breadth of the injunction reviewed
10. as Scottow’s liberty may be at stake (the contempt proceedings) this will hopeful happen quite soon

Is anyone with better procedural knowledge around?