Judicial College Misrepresents the law re transgender people

[KeepPrisonsSingleSex]

The Equal Treatment Bench Book is published by the Judicial College as a guide for judges and others working within the courts. It contains suggestions of measures that can be taken in order to ensure that all who participate in the legal process are able to do so equitably and fairly.

A new edition of the ETBB was published earlier this year. Regrettably, it misrepresents the law on transgender people and goes so far as to imply that deadnaming and misgendering may be criminal acts.

Institutional capture runs deep within the criminal justice system and has an adverse effect at every level.

Our article on the Equal Treatment Bench Book is published today at Conservative Home:

www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/05/radical-the-criminal-justice-system-has-been-thoroughly-captured-by-gender-identity-ideology.html

I’m all ears to see what legal rights trans people have that GC feminists are trying to strip away

Actual rights in law btw not stonewall unicorn law

@Theeyeballsinthesky

I’m all ears to see what legal rights trans people have that GC feminists are trying to strip away

Actual rights in law btw not stonewall unicorn law

Me too, question has been asked many times but never answered.

JKRowling and Joanna Cherry and Joan McAlpine are rabid tories? Who knew?

When did being Tory become something supposed to be too shameful to admit to? I mean it's the governing party in the UK it obviously doesn't consist of all untouchable people who eat other people's grandmothers?

And if I toss around some extreme hyperbole often enough and long enough can I make people believe that it's true too? Because if so, anyone who thinks that grass is green definitely absolutely is a Lib Dem nut whose feet smell and who eats snot sandwiches. Gawd my playground days are coming back.....

Glitchy thread

@soberodent. Venn diagram to explain the overlap with conservatives and Gender Ideology critical views.

Political parties change, people change, party allegiance rarely does because it's tribal rather than rational, but the gender debate and "woke/progressive liberalism" is devisive (and illiberal) and has forced a lot of people, me included to re-evaluate their natural party allegiances.

In the UK, we are still, just about, a liberal democracy.

Though we haven't achieved equality, we are working towards it and we are one of the most equal, safest societies that has ever existed in the history of the world, ever, anywhere. Still some idiots want to raze the secular market place of ideas that got us there . So yes, I guess in the absence of any other defence, to prevent critical and post-modern ideologies (which are ultimately totalitarian) from getting a foothold , the conservatives it is (until another option presents itself or other parties get their shit together)

Let's face it, the 'you're all in bed with the far right' is an American import.

Like Black Friday it's not really working here.

People don’t seem the ‘get’ that we aren’t American.

And to think we used to smugly point and laugh at ‘emotional support ponies’ and such things that we’d see on tv shows about odd foreigners...

Keep trying to post, but this thread is too glitchy.

The pertinent point here is to demonstrate that I am wrong and that the Judicial College has not misrepresented the law.

Yes, very glitchy thread. Sorry for the double post.

@soberodent

why is it that these women feel the need to speak out through the medium of conservative institutions that have in the past directly opposed the rights of sexual minorities, people of colour and women? surely working with, supporting and voting for those organisations would be throwing those people under the bus to torture trans people, and if so, why do so many so called feminists still go along with it?

Torture? Is that really what you think when women say we want our very few single sex spaces. How are we torturing anyone?

That's a really excellent article KPSS. Thank you. It's so important that our justice system is applied fairly to everyone but in reality that really is not the case.

So important to highlight it to those who may be in a position to reverse some of the damaging ideas that the judiciary are now accepting as truth.

As a life long lefty type I would never vote conservative.

However I know plenty of people who do- they are the govt after all and just made massive gains in the elections last week. All those people are 'rabid'?

Crikey.

That response made me click the link and read the piece though, which I wasn't going to! So well done.

I find it very odd the guidance says that for most crimes biology is irrelevant.

Of the crimes I've had committed against me in my life, sexually motivated ones by men are in a massive majority. If you're flashed at, subjected to verbal abuse, threatened etc etc by a man when you're a woman how is biology not relevant?

If the view is to be taken that biologically there's no relevance in crime. Then what does that mean for male on female sex offences and DV etc?

I read on the news just now that 29 people have been arrested for sexually abusing someone over 7 years from age 13.

I glanced at the names and they looked pretty male. The victim was described as a girl.

Irrelevant?

It's so important that our justice system is applied fairly to everyone but in reality that really is not the case.

Yes to this, Clymene. Very true.

And my thanks also to you, KPSS for that excellent piece.

I think and hope that one day people will look back and recognise just what a horrendous re-abuse it is (hopefully by then was) of women who’ve been sexually assaulted, abused or raped by men to have to refer to their attackers in court as if they were women.

We know that sexual violence is about power. What a delight those abusers must take in wielding this particular form of power over the women they have already victimised and traumatised, wielding it actually within the system that is supposed to be bringing them to justice, as part of that system.

It’s truly dystopian.

I’ve stopped saying “Nothing can shock me any more”, because I keep hearing things that are a whole level worse than before.

One was when a police officer warned a man who had shared a feminist poem on social media “I have to check your thinking”. Another was when a judge told a woman in court that she had to call her male-bodied attacker “she”, and fined the attacker just £130 for assaulting a 60-year-old woman. And now another.

[quote soberodent]@KeepPrisonsSingleSex ok apparently gc brain prevents people from reading for some reason. once more, with feeling everybody!

why do only rabid conservatives agree with your regressive stance on trans rights? why do they take up seemingly "radical feminist" positions only in regards to stripping trans people of their legal rights, their dignity and their access to life-changing healthcare?[/quote]
Don't be daft. I'm a lifelong socialist. Most (but by no means all) of the GC people I know are very much on the lefty side, lifelong activists - quite different from the "activism" of trans rights extremists, who don't give a shit about anyone until it offers them the opportunity of shouting down women.

And don't be daft re "stripping" trans people of "legal rights", "dignity" and "access to healthcare". Everyone here favours all trans people having the exact same rights as everyone else. What GC people don't want is for women's rights and gay and lesbian rights to go out of the window in favour of gender ideology.

And, as a socialist, I am glad Tories are talking about this. As with absolutely every issue that matters, it's no good if the only people discussing it are ten hardcore Marxists in a smoke-filled backroom. I want Tories to give a shit about women's rights and gay rights - and, if they didn't do that in the past, I'd like them to start as soon as possible.

If you are genuine in your wish to have this important issue discussed sensibly and meaningfully in the left-wing press, why don't you join with other socialists in trying to make this happen?

Good article, KPSS.

I’ll be interested to see if any of the authors of the bench book pop along to reassure us that of course women who’ve been raped and who actually manage to beat the odds and have their rapist brought to justice won’t be compelled to say things like “her penis” or “she raped me “ when giving testimony. Will they? I am sure that the authors are keenly aware of how difficult taking the stand already is for a sexual assault victim, and they wouldn’t want to add to that burden by enforcing compelled speech on a raped woman so that an alleged rapist is not put out by their sex being accurately described in a sex crime.

They surely don’t intend for women to be compelled to not only deny their own reality, but describe acts that aren’t possible under English law (rape can only be committed by a penis, which is the male sexual organ). Do they?

Surely not. That sounds like a terrible state of affairs to me.

It’s hard to know if it’s actually happening or not, isn’t it, Sophocles.

But if the ETBB is being followed at all times then this man’s victim would presumably have had to refer to him as if he were a woman:

metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/trans-woman-jailed-for-15-years-for-raping-another-woman-13921362/

He is reported as if he were female, after all. And that’s just one example, as we know.

I notice the rape took place at Winter’s home. I wonder if the fact he self defined as a “transgender woman” gave his victim a false sense of safety with him. A case of pronouns being almost literally Rohypnol if that were the case.

It is beyond the pale if this is indeed happening. Do you have any more info on this (the phenomenon in general more than this particular case), KPSS?

“Equal Treatment” certainly sounds increasingly like a misnomer to me, when it comes to chapter 12 at any rate. “Preferential Treatment” would be more accurate.

Just as the GRA gives “rights” to trans people that no one else has: the “right” to legally falsify your official identity documents. Actually, that can be done with passport and driving licence even without a GRC, can’t it.

Why are legally sanctioned lies being framed as a “human right” for this one group of people? The state should never knowingly admit false information to be recorded on official documents. That should apply equally to all.

@Sophoclesthefox

Good article, KPSS.

I’ll be interested to see if any of the authors of the bench book pop along to reassure us that of course women who’ve been raped and who actually manage to beat the odds and have their rapist brought to justice won’t be compelled to say things like “her penis” or “she raped me “ when giving testimony. Will they? I am sure that the authors are keenly aware of how difficult taking the stand already is for a sexual assault victim, and they wouldn’t want to add to that burden by enforcing compelled speech on a raped woman so that an alleged rapist is not put out by their sex being accurately described in a sex crime.

They surely don’t intend for women to be compelled to not only deny their own reality, but describe acts that aren’t possible under English law (rape can only be committed by a penis, which is the male sexual organ). Do they?

Surely not. That sounds like a terrible state of affairs to me.

I think in such cases, where biological sex is relevant to the court proceedings, we are likely to see that trials will be heard in private or there will be reporting restrictions. Those are suggestions made in the ETBB that will still preserve the privacy of the trans person in question and will avoid the risk of 'criminal acts' being committed in court.

Of course, it is also possible that victims and witnesses to such crimes will be compelled to use female pronouns. Use of female pronouns by a male victim of sexual assault has occurred in the past.

Thanks for the clarification, KPSS.

“Criminal acts”, though. So chilling.

It’s a long time since I studied, so am dredging up bits of knowledge long buried, but how will holding trials in private be balanced against justice “being seen to be done”? (Not saying you have the answer, but it’s important that this is discussed and weighed up, open justice etc)

I'm rapidly left-wing and GC, as are a great many friends and colleagues, but that doesn't fit your narrative @soberodent so I expect you'll discount it. I won't be so childish as to blame it on your non-GC brain though.

Rabidly, obviously. Thanks autocorrect.

@Sophoclesthefox

Thanks for the clarification, KPSS.

“Criminal acts”, though. So chilling.

It’s a long time since I studied, so am dredging up bits of knowledge long buried, but how will holding trials in private be balanced against justice “being seen to be done”? (Not saying you have the answer, but it’s important that this is discussed and weighed up, open justice etc)

I agree.

I think it should only be in rare and carefully defined situations where trials are held in private or where reporting restrictions are imposed. There are situations where one or other of these will be required.

In my opinion, this does not include the risk of misgendering or deadnaming.

Of the crimes I've had committed against me in my life, sexually motivated ones by men are in a massive majority.

Good point, NiceGerbil. True for me too and probably for most women.