Family First is for language that upholds biological truth because this protects girls and women from the harm caused by men appropriating their gender.
Sadly the Chief Justice of South Australia is the latest of our woke elites who can’t see this.
Chris Kourakis fought a war on social media this week against Harry Potter author JK Rowling with the judge asserting that female victims of sexual assault must sit in court and listen to lawyers calling their male rapist “she” or “her”.
We kid you not.
Kourakis said his court protocol “respected” biological males who had decided to change their gender.
After Rowling called him out, he backed away from an earlier court protocol he issued that seemed to imply even a female victim of rape must address a so-called trans identified male as “she” or “her”.
“The Honourable Chris Kourakis has issued a statement referring to my ‘anxiety’ about the use of female pronouns for men standing trial for violence against women and rape,” Rowling wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
“He states that ‘a victim of crime would never be asked to address an accused person in a way which caused the victim distress’,” she wrote in another post.
“That assurance is welcome, although I note that he’s addressed the matter only after it was raised publicly. No such exemption is mentioned in the Practice Note, which takes the ideological position that the ‘use of preferred gender pronouns is a matter of respect’. The natural inference is that a woman would be considered guilty of disrespect if she, alone in the courtroom, described her male attacker as a man, while all court officials were addressing and describing him as a woman.
“This is not a hypothetical situation. The judge will be aware, if he‘s informed himself – as he implies I have not - that I’ve already cited an example where a 60-year-old woman was violently assaulted by a 26-year-old trans-identified male. She was chided by the judge for displaying ’bad grace’ by not using her attacker’s preferred pronouns.”
Kourakis had asserted that only other lawyers, not a victim, would be expected to use the fake pronouns of a male criminal identifying as a woman.
Earlier this year a NSW magistrate referred to a criminal act conducted by a man identifying as a woman as exposing “her penis” to a 14-year-old boy in a public toilet.
The Australian newspaper reports that:
“South Australia followed the lead of Victoria and Queensland as jurisdictions that this year released practice notes requiring court attendees to refer to parties by the pronouns they indicate being most comfortable with, such as they/them.”
Family First is deeply concerned that if courts do not uphold truth that public confidence will be lost in the judiciary.
It should go without saying that no female victim of crime should be placed in a situation where her male perpetrator is referred to as “she” or “her”.
Six years from the de-gendering of Australia’s marriage laws, the consequences for vulnerable people continue to play out in the most bizarre ways.
Do you like this page?