nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The addressing of people involved in a criminal court case.

political analyst

In a criminal court case, especially a rape trial, and especially in a common-law jurisdiction, is a complainant obliged by a court to refer to the defendant with the defendant's preferred pronouns if the defendant's identity is different from the defendant's sex, especially if the complainant is an alleged victim of rape or of any other sexual offence?

The following article was written by a Canadian lawyer.

https://genderreport.ca/shahdin-farsai-practice-directions-on-preferred-gender-pronouns-in-court-are-problematic/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168023#Comment_120168023

The OPs question was about the witness referring to the accused, not the prosecutor.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168421#Comment_120168421

Having read the article about the Lindsay Armstrong case, I think it's reasonable to assume that the rapist's sister has the same point of view as the mother. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168509#Comment_120168509

I understand that, and Marcusm’s point was about balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the complaining witness. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the prosecution would be hoping their own witnesses wouldn’t tank their case against the accused by deliberately misgendering the accused at every opportunity.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168504#Comment_120168504

There’s many trans activists and allies on twitter, some of them for 8 hours a day but with all due respect, you are by far the most indoctrinated and delusional I’ve ever come across.

It’s going to be difficult for you all from here on in as more and more people wake up to the scandal of double rapists in cheap nylon wigs with their Crown Jewels bulging out of their Pennys leggings try to force their way into the women’s prisons, and any where else they can access vulnerable women, aided and abetted by politicians and journalists who are afraid of being labelled bigots.

I don’t revel in that. I think you maybe are coming from a kind place. You’ve just lost all sense of reality on this subject. Good luck finding your way back.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120169720#Comment_120169720

As much as I appreciate the sentiment TT, I thought we weren’t doing this? Legal Discussion is not the appropriate forum for it in any case, where a certain standard of conduct is expected, and humour such as your caricature above of a person more likely to be found guilty of crimes against fashion bears no relevance to a person who is accused of committing a crime against society. There are far more serious implications for the latter than the former.

When it comes to people accused of sex crimes in particular, I care less about their gender or sex than I do about ensuring they receive a fair trial, as opposed to the idea of witnesses believing they have free reign of the Courts. That kind of behaviour risks not only the prosecution failing to make their case, it’s a distraction which is likely to lead to the Judge getting browned off if they have to keep reminding witnesses to conduct themselves appropriately, and it certainly doesn’t curry favour with a jury who are likely to end up becoming disinterested and failing to examine critical evidence which would ensure a successful prosecution.

We’re both aware of the dismal conviction rates for sexual offences, though I’m not sure if you’re aware of jury bias in terms of how a jury which is made up of a majority of women tends to deliver a favourable verdict for the defence in sex cases where the accused is a man and the complaining witness is a woman. It’s a phenomenon that’s observed across multiple jurisdictions, and while legal academics and researchers and psychologists have multiple theories to explain the nature of the phenomenon, the kind of biological determinism that you’re engaging in, isn’t one of them.

You have to wilfully ignore mountains of evidence in order to come to the conclusions you do about sex offenders and their victims, not the least of which is your caricature of what constitutes a vulnerable woman. One only has to look at a recent case where a woman fought the law, and while the law did win eventually, the officers involved didn’t come away unscathed from the encounter with a male officer being package checked and a female officer being kicked into the chest. It doesn’t mean the woman wasn’t in a vulnerable situation with five officers against one ordinary indecent criminal.

Similarly, in the context of women who are subject to sexual abuse, assault and harassment in the female estate of prisons where prison officers are primarily of the male sex, you appear to wish to ignore the wood for the trees and zero in on transgender sex offenders among the prison population. That you would then question my compassion for women seems a bit, well, dare I say - oblivious to reality.

In spite of that, and by way of returning the compliment, I too wish you well in your advocacy endeavours, in the knowledge that one of the first signs of cult behaviour isn’t that one loses their sense of reality, it’s that they lose their sense of humour, and thankfully at least for society at large, you’re nowhere near that point.

AllForIt

This thread highlights to me the utter lunacy of laws and social distain for 'misgendering', because that's just transphobia don't you know.

I think the law is very much muddled up on this from what I see in the press.

I've seen reports that say something along the lines of 'she raped her as a man' [before they transitioned], as if there is some pivot point that one turns from a man into a woman. But the trans activists say that trans people were trans from the day they were born, so at what point one 'realized' they were trans or at what point they decided to transition whatever form that takes has noting to do with anything because they were trans from the day they were born whether they have a dick or not.

If the state acknowledges one is trans they are saying they were always one gender.

In that case then the courts have to uphold that the victim refer to her rapist as a woman, and by inference say she was raped by a woman, that she was in relationship with woman, all done by use of pronouns. And if anyone thinks that the pronoun thing is all just about 'respect' you gotta be kidding me because it's not, it's about affirming ones gender, verbally acknowledging that you agree what the gender of a person is.

But a rape trial show up the absurdity of all that nonsense. It's not gonna work in the long term so I'm afraid it's back to the drawing board.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175726#Comment_120175726

A trial isn’t about the victim, it’s about the accused, who has the right to the presumption of innocence. What you’re doing is presuming the accused is guilty. You’re also assuming that by default the victim will have an issue with referring to the accused in accordance with their preferred gender. A trial isn’t about establishing or affirming anything about the accused’ gender or sex. It’s entirely about establishing whether the accused is guilty or not guilty (or in Scotland - a verdict of not proven exists, for now) of the crimes they have been charged with.

A victim is giving evidence as a witness in the prosecution’s case against the accused. If having to refer to the accused in such a manner as directed by the Court which they find objectionable is something they are unwilling to do, the witness can find themselves in contempt of court. There’s no need to go back to the drawing board, there are already established procedures to address those circumstances if they arise.

A witness who refuses to give evidence or testify, can also find themselves jailed for contempt of court -

https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/insight-forcing-rape-victims-testify-tips-scales-294688

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175993#Comment_120175993

That doesn't mean that the court has to add to the trauma that the complainant has.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120177752#Comment_120177752

The Courts aren’t adding to anything, it’s also not the function of the courts to fulfil the role of victims support services -

https://www.gov.uk/get-support-as-a-victim-of-crime

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175993#Comment_120175993

I think my point still stands even in the case the accused is innocent.

And if the accuser has no issue with using preferred pronouns out of respect I have no issue with that, although I'm sure there are a few feminists who would have especially in the case of a rape trial.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120180218#Comment_120180218

I don’t doubt it A, but more mainstream feminists in the UK at least have much greater concerns than the use of anyone’s preferred pronouns at trial. They’re still reeling from the fallout of Dame Cressida Dick’s oversight of the Met Police and the many scandals involving the conduct of officers under her leadership, as well as her decision to abandon the policy of automatic belief of complainants in sexual assault and rape cases given the disaster that turned out to be -

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-ditch-practice-of-believing-all-victims-jsg6qd2ws

Only matched by the litany of disasters among the male police officers and their attitudes to women on display during her time as head of the Met Police -

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/the-misogyny-that-led-to-the-fall-of-londons-police-commissioner

The current feigning outrage over pronoun use serves as nothing more than a political distraction from the fact they aren’t able to deal with a rather grim reality.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183221#Comment_120183221

The current feigning outrage over pronoun use serves as nothing more than a political distraction from the fact they aren’t able to deal with a rather grim reality.

I think another grim reality is that trans woman don't behave like women, and the only way they do is on an aesthetic superficial level.

This is why Nicola Sturgeon has had to backtrack on where trans prisoners are imprisoned because of that realization.

The current feigning outrage over pronoun use serves as nothing more than a political distraction from the fact they aren’t able to deal with a rather grim reality.

See this is the thing as above, it's not about the pronouns per se, because that's just superficial. They are just words. But it could be seen in a court of law that the fact a person demands to be deemed a woman that would take away from the statistical fact, indeed fact, that men are more prone to violence and sexual assault. People are often convicted on circumstance evidence and one of those circumstances is whether the accused is a man or a woman.

I'm not sure how the Metropolitan police takes more seriously an accusation that a woman raped a woman vs a man raped a woman.

Regardless I just find all the mind bending hoops you have to go through on this issue completely ridiculous.

If it were up to me I would amend the gender recognition laws and say that if one really has a gender identity (which is what the activists say, that everyone has!) and one clearly has a biological sex then BOTH those should be indicated on one's birth certificate. That would allow anyone to use whatever pronouns they wished as per their prerogative and take away the Left's outrage over this pronoun nonsense.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120190262#Comment_120190262

Surely you mean men in that case? That men don't behave like women? They most certainly do, some of them anyway, and they have done for quite some time. So much so that what has historically been regarded as the greatest threat to civilised society, in the UK anyway, was the threat of homosexual activity among men. I'm guessing you've never had cause to wonder where the idea of 'mollycoddling' came from? During the 18th century at least, venues like Mother Clap’s Molly House and Miss Muff's Molly House were popular with men. In their enthusiasm to pass laws prohibiting a behaviour which was considered so heinous that it could not be spoken of among Christian men, they kinda overlooked women, for about 200 years -

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 made no change to the law regulating buggery committed between a man and a woman and, as a consequence, left in place the total prohibition of such acts. This was, at the time, regarded by some parliamentarians as an ‘extraordinary state of affairs, and one not less calculated to preserve respect for the law’.102 However, following the act of 1967, legislators consistently overlooked this aspect of buggery law because, as was often the case, buggery was mistakenly understood as a ‘homosexual offence’. This was probably also the case with the general public who, as Baroness Mallalieu argued in 1994, ‘are astonished to learn’ that consensual heterosexual buggery remained a criminal offence attracting a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Nicola Sturgeon hasn't backtracked on anything, she had her leash yanked by the UK Government, and with regards to the case in hand, she didn't say what she is reported as having said in certain media outlets - this one being a good example -

“But I don’t think Douglas Ross and I are disagreeing here, because what I think is relevant in this case is not whether the individual is a man or claims to be a woman or is trans, what is relevant is that the individual is a rapist.

“That is how the individual should be described, and it is that that should be the main consideration in deciding how the individual is dealt with – that is why the individual is in a male prison, not in the female prison, these are the issues that matter.”

And the thing is, she's absolutely right - she correctly identifies the individual as a rapist, removing all doubt as to whether or not they were in possession of the requisite appendage at the time when they committed the offences which they had been charged with. Whether they continue to maintain possession of said appendage, or have since disposed of it, is irrelevant, as a charge of rape can only be applied if the individual possesses the requisite appendage. Women can be charged with rape under UK law, but as an accomplice. Otherwise they would stand to be charged with sexual assault, and that's where there may be considerable difficulty if anyone is troubled more by the idea of ambiguity around a person's gender, or statistics regarding same in terms of criminal offences committed. Circumstantial evidence about the prevalence of men who are violent is easily rebutted by the fact that the vast majority of men do not engage in any form of violence, nor do the vast majority of women.

Regardless I just find all the mind bending hoops you have to go through on this issue completely ridiculous.

I take it you're not referring to me personally, because as far as I'm concerned it's not even something worth questioning in the context you're trying to put it in to suggest that someone who the law regards as innocent be deprived of their right to fair procedures, not because you're certain they committed rape or sexual assault (and even then it couldn't be justified), but because in your mind it would somehow assuage the Lefties outrage, when one thing really has nothing to do with the other. Besides, I don't think it would achieve what you're hoping it would, given the UK Supreme Courts recent ruling on a similar issue -

UK Supreme Court rules against gender-neutral passports

I don't have to jump through hoops at all.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120193415#Comment_120193415

I take offence that anyone would think homosexual sex is akin to 'behaving like a women'. A gay man said to me once a man having sex with a man is the most masculine thing you can do. In fact part of the internal lgbt trans wars is due to the redefining of homosexuality as 'gender non-conforming'. Is it hell gender non-conforming. Last time I checked heterosexual sex does not standarly involve 'sodomy'.

Anyway you know perfectly well what I meant, and that is that men are more aggressive than women, sexually and in many other ways.

You've made a bit deal between rape and sexual assault. To a woman what is the big difference here, very little in reality. Rape and sexual assault are violent attacks, so they are really the same thing and come from the same place.

Sturgeon has backtracked because now she's see's fit to regard a person a man rather than a woman when it's been proven they are of the same mindset of a male rapists. Lesbian rapists are not segregated away from other women prisoners. She is in trouble because it is only after the fact that a trans woman commits a sexual assault on a woman does she now recognize that a trans woman cannot be held in a woman's estate with women, because women don't want it. But she has legislated that those types of people can frequent all women's spaces before they have committed a sexual assault. Her position doesn't make any logical sense.

"Regardless I just find all the mind bending hoops you have to go through on this issue completely ridiculous" I take it you're not referring to me personally, because as far as I'm concerned it's not even something worth questioning in the context you're trying to put it in to suggest that someone who the law regards as innocent be deprived of their right to fair procedures, not because you're certain they committed rape or sexual assault (and even then it couldn't be justified), but because in your mind it would somehow assuage the Lefties outrage, when one thing really has nothing to do with the other. Besides, I don't think it would achieve what you're hoping it would, given the UK Supreme Courts recent ruling on a similar issue -

Yes apologies, I should have said 'one' not 'you' personally.

Again, I don't think you're angle that the accused may be innocent makes any difference to what I'm saying.

And see we have to go back to your appendages thing here, because if a trans woman raped a woman with an appendage, then had the appendage off, and was on trial 'as a woman' without the appendage, are we going to say the rapist raped the victim as a man or a woman? But I don't think this makes any difference, it's all superficial. It was always a body with a mans brain that raped the woman and should be recorded as such. Not a woman on woman sexual assault, and it would be ludicrous and insulting for the victim to be compelled to refer to the accused as 'she'.

UK Supreme Court rules against gender-neutral passports https://www.euronews.com/2021/12/15/uk-supreme-court-rules-against-gender-neutral-passports

This is a bit of a tangent but I remember the thread in CA about that that I thought was so ludicrous I decided not to participate in it. For those that don't know the complainant claim they had no gender at all and wanted that recognized.

My solution as above would accommodate that person, so they would have to tick a box that indicated their biological sex but they could leave the gender identify box blank, or have an option as neither. I'd leave it blank as well because I don't have a gender identity and if I do it's because of the physical body I have not some kinda zen feeling.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120178240#Comment_120178240

I don't know of any gender ID law that specifically says that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to be referred to by the desired gender ID at all times. Surely, the judge would have discretion to allow the complainant refer to the defendant in accordance with what the defendant's gender ID was at the time of the alleged crime, just like witnesses are allowed to give evidence behind a screen or by video-link.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120208680#Comment_120208680

It’s very simple PA - Judges are about as interested in culture wars nonsense as everyone else, that is to say - not a whole lot.

political analyst

It was claimed that parties attending court in South Australia had to refer to defendants by the defendants' preferred pronouns but it turns out that is not the case.

https://www.mondaq.com/australia/court-procedure/1393296/do-courts-have-to-use-preferred-pronouns-for-transgender-defendants-in-criminal-cases