Call defendants by gender they want, judges told

[Igneococcus]

Supposedly a "dynamic document" that is “admired and envied by judiciaries across the globe”:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ba69c2c0-668b-11ec-98df-0bb0132add1b?shareToken=f53fe2c462d32ddc9bd3e5d7faab1d4d

@Abitofalark

Going off topic for a moment, for some reason I can't see the comments on The Times articles posted here. Is there anyone else who finds the same?

I wonder why it is and if there is a way around it. I would love to be able to read them. As I think someone mentioned, they are often the best part and give an insight into what other people are thinking.

I can read them from the links in a browser, but I do have a logged in subscription. Afaik there's no way to see them within the Times tablet app which is what I usually read from - this seems like an odd limitation but I suppose there's some technical reason for it.

I’ve read the bench book from cover to cover more than once. It’s not the case that a judge would automatically use a persons desired pronouns, as with all categories covered in the book it’s a balance. In most cases a judge won’t be saying he or she in any event (although would use Mr or Ms/Miss/Mrs quite frequently). They’re more likely to use the neutral terms claimant/respondent/defendant in order to avoid the issue.

This recent revision is an improvement isn't it, it's specifically recognising that there may be times when a victim or witness will refer to someone as their birth sex because that was their experience of the person. I think it's specifically recognising that there are circumstances where this is appropriate.

@highame, Stonewall are a charity group promoting the rights of all queer people including trans individuals. Our justice system has (at least in my lifetime) also been mutable and adjustable to the challenges that the world presents as it moves forwards to unknown experiences.

There are many groups who have a vested interested in changing UK law to fit their particular views.

Stonewall acts for equality though.

Stonewall acts for equality though.

I think there's an Orwell quote that fits here...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10347659/Criminal-defendants-called-gender-want-court-judges-told.html

In most cases a judge won’t be saying he or she in any event (although would use Mr or Ms/Miss/Mrs quite frequently). They’re more likely to use the neutral terms claimant/respondent/defendant in order to avoid the issue.

The judge may have that option, but the witnesses/defendants may not. There has already been a case where the judge instructed the defendant to perjure herself and describe her male attacker as if he was female. The judge penalised the defendant as a result, even though her attacker was found guilty of assaulting her.

@ErrolTheDragon

Stonewall acts for equality though.

I think there's an Orwell quote that fits here...

In what way would an Orwell quote fit this?

The judge may have that option, but the witnesses/defendants may not. There has already been a case where the judge instructed the defendant to perjure herself and describe her male attacker as if he was female. The judge penalised the defendant as a result, even though her attacker was found guilty of assaulting her.

We are not directed to do that though.

In what way would an Orwell quote fit this?
"Stonewall acts for equality though"

War is peace though.

If I was a fact witness giving evidence in court I would find it extremely difficult to repeatedly refer to a person as the opposite sex. Especially if that person had assaulted me or raped me.

You’re have to think through every sentence very carefully and translate it into politically acceptable speech.

So when asked “ What did the defendant do next ? “ you’d need to think

“ He put his hand over my mouth and told me to shut up or he would kill me “ .

And then translate it in your head to

“ The defendant put their hand over my mouth and told me to shut up or they would kill me “

Or “ Then the person who I perceived at the time was male put what I perceived at the time to be a penis into my mouth.”

It’s much too complex. Witnesses risk getting it wrong and being punished for their Wrong Speak.

Maybe the courts could provide an interpreter, as they do for witnesses who don’t speak English? Then the interpreter could translate the witnesses words into those that are more acceptable to the court and the defendant .

They would also need to get the oath about telling the truth changed too. Because the truth is obviously offending a lot of important and powerful people.

@Linguini

In what way would an Orwell quote fit this? "Stonewall acts for equality though"

War is peace though.

The context of your response doesn't make clear what you are trying. Stonewall are not Nazi Germany nor Stalinist Russia which Orwell used for a large inspiration of this book.

Thank you, Turquoise and Errol, for your replies re access to the comments on Times articles. I tried a different browser and was able to see the comments, which was very worthwhile. Everyone but the judges can see what nonsense this is.

@Igneococcus

A lot of comments about that case in the comments. The comments are often more useful than the articles.

This is why the Grauniad don't allow comments.

@ErrolTheDragon

Stonewall acts for equality though.

I think there's an Orwell quote that fits here...

The context of your response doesn't make clear what you are trying. Stonewall are not Nazi Germany nor Stalinist Russia which Orwell used for a large inspiration of this book.

Your username has been picked to give the, (I assume from the content of your posts) mistaken impression that you work as a teacher.

Orwell, as you no doubt know, created a society in which history was continually obfuscated or re-written, whilst the vocabulary available to the population was deliberately mangled.

Airbrushing away the proof of their involvement in making changes, whilst attempting to remove the wider population’s ability to accurately describe a problem both sound VERY much like a certain “charity’s” recent modus operandi to me.

And such an interesting choice of media service to actually agree to a rare interview on this weekend. Very proud they were to appear on a such a network. That charity is doing great great work supporting the original founding membership these days.

Stonewall are not Nazi Germany nor Stalinist Russia which Orwell used for a large inspiration of this book.

I think you’ve missed the point of 1984 rather badly. The intended takeaway isn’t “The Soviet Union is very bad, thank goodness we don’t live there.”

I was thinking of some pigs are more equal than others.

Stonewall used to be a truly great organisation, but latterly some of the people who stonewall used to be for aren't being well served by it any more.

@ErrolTheDragon

I was thinking of some pigs are more equal than others.

Stonewall used to be a truly great organisation, but latterly some of the people who stonewall used to be for aren't being well served by it any more.

Oh don't tell them! I was enjoying being one of the cultured, erudite people on the thread!

I was enjoying being one of the cultured, erudite people on the thread!

Not me, I can't even get a quote right.
Some animals...

No deep analysis, just wry observation that recent stonewall ideas of 'equality' somehow result in giving to males at the expense of females. Plus ca change.

@cloudtree

The judge may have that option, but the witnesses/defendants may not. There has already been a case where the judge instructed the defendant to perjure herself and describe her male attacker as if he was female. The judge penalised the defendant as a result, even though her attacker was found guilty of assaulting her.

We are not directed to do that though.

Then why did the judge do it?

Re Orwell quotes, what about: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

We seem, as a society, to be being pushed to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

Thread other day led me to have a look current bench book.

I am SURE this section has been fairly drastically altered since I read it.

The version I read back fair while ago. I remember as was so odd.

Felt like written by a trans org/ individual and not reviewed.
Language was not at all as would expect in major important doc like this.
It went off track a lot into areas nothing to do with what talking about.
It was just.. so strange that wouldn't forget!

It's vv different now.

Bailey is going to court over this?
Has she got copy of how before?
If they have updated since, what does that mean for case?

(Plenty still to say no thanks to, but original so so obviously no good in so many ways).

[quote thequeerteacher]@highame, Stonewall are a charity group promoting the rights of all queer people including trans individuals. Our justice system has (at least in my lifetime) also been mutable and adjustable to the challenges that the world presents as it moves forwards to unknown experiences.

There are many groups who have a vested interested in changing UK law to fit their particular views.

Stonewall acts for equality though.[/quote]
I find the term all very interesting in your post. All is used extensively by Gender activists, all now means mtf trans inhabit without question the space of women. This is not about equality, it never was. If it were an argument about equal rights for trans people, there would have been a really big campaign to get men to accept mtf trans in their own spaces. Queer is a political movement to disrupt and confound the current order, to destroy women's rights (as the weakest therefore first) and then to move forward. Each time TRA's gained any ground by stealth, they immediately moved on to the next demand, The demands will go on and on. There is no middle ground, there is no equality.