The Times- Call defendants by gender they want, judges told
Call defendants by gender they want, judges told
Judges have been told that they should refer to criminal defendants by the gender they have chosen for themselves.
New guidance instructs judges to consider whether alleged victims of sexual offences should be required to describe transgender defendants by the pronouns they self-identify with.
It will give rise to concerns that witnesses and alleged victims of rape, sexual offences and domestic abuse could be forced to refer to defendants as women, even if they view them as male.
Revisions to the “equal treatment benchbook”, a 540-page guide from the Judicial College, have told judges: “There may be situations where the rights of a witness to refer to a trans person by pronouns matching their gender assigned at birth, or to otherwise reveal a person’s trans status, clash with the trans person’s right to privacy.”
Lady Justice King, the Court of Appeal judge and the chairwoman of the college, described the guidance as a “dynamic document” that has become “a key work of reference” that is “admired and envied by judiciaries across the globe”.
The advice goes on to give a range of guidance to judges on modern mores, including the direction that they should “use gender-neutral language where possible”. That translates to meaning that ideally the term “businessman” should be banished in favour of “business person” and the description “postman” should be ditched for “postal operative”. The college advises judges to use the term “flight attendant” instead of “air hostess” and “chair” instead of “chairman”.
But it is the college’s advice on gender that is likely to be the most controversial. The guidance states that judges should be alert to issues about gender identity as early as possible in court hearings. It states that “in the rare circumstances where it is necessary in the proceedings to disclose a person’s previous name and transgender history, the court may consider making reporting restrictions to prevent the disclosure of this information more widely or directing a private hearing”.
The guidance also refers to advice from the campaign group Stonewall, as it states that “ideas about acceptable language are changing rapidly”. It says that the “term queer is rapidly gaining accepted use as an umbrella term for those who are not narrowly heterosexual and not cisgender (ie identifying with their birth gender)”.
It goes on to say: “Stonewall advises that the term queer has been reclaimed by young people in particular who do not identify with traditional categories around sexual orientation and/or gender identity. It has also become associated with various arts and cultural movements around the world, and it has entered academic discourse.”
Judges are warned, however, that “nevertheless [the term queer] is still considered derogatory by some people in the LGBT communities, and it is therefore to be avoided”.
In cases involving violence against women, the college advises judges that “some people object to the term victim as it can imply passivity and helplessness. They may prefer the word survivor, which can convey resilience.”
Elsewhere, the guidance advises that in court judges should refer to “women” unless in a context where the term “ladies and gentlemen” is used. However, it recognises that “some women of an older generation, or in certain regions, may consider lady more polite than woman, but on the whole, women would find lady patronising in a context where men are referred to as men”.
The guidance says “it is almost never acceptable to comment on an individual’s looks, appearance or fragrance or whether s/he has a nice smile”.
Comments
Post a Comment