Another one for the growing list: Rapist's weapon referred to as "her penis" in court

[unclebuck]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11855869/Transgender-sex-offender-raped-friend-penis-just-weeks-leaving-jail.html

FFS "her penis" - NO! Just stop gaslighting victims

So fucking depressing isn't it. I don't even have the energy for outrage today. Please let's have more sunlight on this crap

They're calling him 'a trans predator'. That's quite bold, I feel. Usually, we're being told those don't exist.

The positive is that the term “her penis” is in scare quotes throughout the article. I don’t think I’ve seen that before. It’s a step forward, and the writer is definitely thumbing their nose at the atrocious Ipso guidelines, while still feeling obliged to stay technically within them.

It’s also interesting how very clear it’s made that he’s a man/male, and a reference to how recent the “transition” is, in a way that allows for the suggestion that he might have been less than sincere.

Along with the term “trans predator” and the reference to Adam Graham/Isla Bryson, I think this actually represents a step in the right direction. It’s not that long since we were seeing pieces that made no reference whatsoever to the fact of these sex offenders actually being male, just calling them “women” throughout.

I hope very much we won’t see any more of those now we’re in the post-Graham era.

Yes the Daily Mail uses quote marks but the JUDGE said 'her penis' about a male rapist to a rape victim. I think this is state sponsored gaslighting of victims.

He committed the crime in 2019, he was found guilty of rape yet he's still on fucking bail - what the actual fuck.

Sorry for the language but this is a dangerous predator that will be violating the boundaries of women and girls every single day he is out of jail.

Eurgh. I've just read it and came here to look for somewhere to post it. At least he's going to a men's prison. He's already had four years for raping an underage girl and done this as soon as he was released, so I hope he gets a long sentence now.

2019! That poor woman, to have this case hanging over her all this time with her attackers just wandering free. Presumably that’s at least in part due to Covid delays?
She did extraordinarily well to get through it, especially with the added head fuckery of having to call a rapist with facial hair she/her. That Equal Bench Book thingy needs to go.

The article is grimly amusing - I agree the Mail is walking right up to IPSO and blowing an enormous raspberry in their faces while still technically following the rules.

Crawford, who inexplicably spoke with a slight American accent despite not having lived in the US, replied: 'No.'

Crawford has presumably been using youtube voice training videos made by an American - odds on it’s only his fake lady-voice that has a transatlantic accent.

Or they must not be a ‘real’ trans person.

I don’t understand how you are supposed to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ in court, but everyone is forced to lie about biological reality.

A judge uses the phrase 'her penis' in the ultimate bowing down to preferred pronouns no matter what context, who the person is and the effect on the victim of what can only and ever be a male crime.

This is not a crime we can do and this is male on female violence.

Orwellian, they'd have me in contempt of court if I had been present there. Truly unforgivable. When rapists are given special agency to retraumatise victims in our law courts this is a massive lose for women, no matter the outcome.

It is absolutely Orwellian and quite chilling. I would never be able to say that phrase in court or anywhere else for that matter. Reality matters. Prioritising the rapist’s preferred pronouns over a victim’s very real trauma and experience of MALE violence… utterly shameful.

The Mail know exactly what they're doing. They are somewhat constricted by what is said in court, so if the court is referring to this man as a woman, they have to do the same. We really need to change the rules followed by judges.

There is no way you’d get me to call him she or her if I were in court, just no! Surely you can’t be accused of contempt of court if you are just stating g the obvious?!

Unfortunately if the judge directs you to use particular pronouns, and you refuse, then you most certainly can be held in contempt.

I'm A Christian, and would swear on the Bible to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I hope that if I were in the position to be giving evidence I would have the courage to say, "I'm sorry my Lord/Lady if this seems to be disrespectful to the court - I have every respect for the court but I have taken an oath to a higher power to tell the truth.

It is my belief that God created people in two sexes, male and female, and the truth is that the accused is male and therefore should be referred to by the pronouns "he, him and his". In all conscience i cannot refer to this person by female pronouns, because he is physically male".

I would like to see how the judge would reconcile my (legally confirmed) right to the expression of my sincerely held Christian beliefs with the accused's (not legally supported) demand to his (probably recently) adoption of a trans identity. Especially as (if I understand it correctly) this particular area of the Bench Book is advisory, not mandatory.

I hope I'm never in that position - but I'd be very interested to see how such a challenge would play out.

being gender critical is also protected in law

You can complain directly to the daily Mail or any publication that does this, you can also complain to IPSO if they are covered by IPSO as not all newspapers and magazines are.

And Sex Matters have this where you can log the article.

sex-matters.org/take-action/bad-media-watch/

Good point.

Thank you, Maya.

So I wonder just what would happen if you insisted that you had
a) a legally protected right to be gender critical
b) a right to a religious belief that an oath to God trumps the wishes of a judge - particularly when this oath is taken in court and is part of essential court procedure and is legally as well as morally binding
c) pointed out that to call a man "she" is, in fact, perjury if you have taken an oath to tell the truth

Emotionalsupportviper · Today 09:08

So I wonder just what would happen if you insisted that you had
a) a legally protected right to be gender critical
b) a right to a religious belief that an oath to God trumps the wishes of a judge - particularly when this oath is taken in court and is part of essential court procedure and is legally as well as morally binding
c) pointed out that to call a man "she" is, in fact, perjury if you have taken an oath to tell the truth

I'm not religious, but I'd support that and the rest. If he hasn't got a GRC, surely you can't be forced to call him "she"? And it MUST be against the oath sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and you're not onboard with gender cack?

The very first clause in the IPSO guidelines is
The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/

Some reports (not this one so much) which have just referred to make perpetrators as a 'woman' have most definitely been breaking that.

Yes - atheists have to affirm when they give evidence in court, and this is also a legally binding oath to tell the truth.

I've had opportunity to swear the atheist version. I wasn't guilty!

On account of being a witness.

The judiciary guidelines say that a victim of domestic or sexual assault does not have to use preferred pronouns if it could affect their ability to give evidence. What is needed is for judges to actually use this guidance and give women the permission to not pander to this crap. There was no privacy to breach, they were talking about "her penis" so it was stark bleeding obvious they were talking about a male not a female person.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-July-2022-revision-2.pdf#page351

Thank you - I was pretty sure that the Bench Book recommendation was just that - a recommendation, not a proscription, but it's good to see that confirmed.

Judges want to begin sticking up for the victims instead of pandering to perverts.

How about just not having to use preferred pronouns at all without a qualifying reason? They are preferred anyway. Why the compelled speech especially in a law court where one shall speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Nobody should be obliged to tell a lie and especially not in court. We have protection under hunan rights legislation saying exactly that: people cannot be compelled to lie.

But when I said somewhere, goodness knows where, that if I were in court facing my rapist, no way would I call him a woman. Then it was pointed out that I may have lost years of my life to this case and it was one of the teeny, tiny number that ever even got to court -would I risk losing all at that stage?

Now it seems I wouldn't have to call a man a woman after all. But if I were a mere witness? What then?