Oct. 3, 2023 - Epoch Times
09:35
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Imagine a scenario where, after several months of searching, the police finally find a killer that was on the loose. | |
| All the evidence points to this person being the killer. | |
| There's even video footage of him committing the crime. | |
| And yet still, during the actual trial, he gets off on a technicality, with the technicality being that the judge used the wrong pronouns when referring to him. | |
| If you think that's ridiculous, well, welcome to the judicial world over in the state of Michigan, where just last Wednesday, the state Supreme Court voted in favor of enacting a new rule which will force all the judges and the court personnel throughout the whole state to refer to plaintiffs, defendants, and lawyers by their preferred pronouns. | |
| Or, if they don't wish to refer to those people by their preferred pronouns, they now have to use some verbal gymnastics. | |
| Here's specifically what the newly adopted amendment reads in relevant part. | |
| Quote, Courts must use the individual's name, the designated salutation, or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that is not inconsistent with the individual's designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, whether orally or in writing. | |
| This means, in practical terms, that if I'm standing in a Michigan courtroom and I tell the court that my pronouns are smash, like, button, then, when referring to me, the judge will have to tell the whole court to smash the like button. | |
| Now, I'm of course just joking about that, but I do hope that you take a quick moment to smash those like and subscribe buttons so that this content can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm. | |
| Now, what this actually means in practical terms is that, let's say you have Derek the murder suspect thinking of himself as a woman, well, the judge in the case over in Michigan will now have to play along and refer to Derek as a she, although the judge will have a few other options. | |
| Quote, The rule, which goes into effect on January 1st of 2024, also will allow judges to avoid pronouns and refer to someone by their role in the case, such as attorney or plaintiff, followed by a last name. | |
| Furthermore, because it's not always obvious what a person's gender identity is just by looking at them, court documents throughout the entirety of the state will now have to be changed in order to conform to this new rule. | |
| Quote, The parties and attorneys may now be given the option of including their personal pronoun preferences in the captions of the initial court documents that come before a judge The idea is to avoid the awkwardness of a judge having to ask a litigant or attorney about their gender identity in trying to determine how to address the individual And just for your reference, these new rules, which are said by the state Supreme Court, govern the practices of all the lower courts throughout the state of Michigan. | |
| And so whether it's criminal court, family court, small claims court, as long as it's in Michigan, starting on January 1st of next year, they will all have to moderate their speech to conform to this new rule. | |
| Now, if you're wondering how this policy change even came about, well, the whole thing began in December of 2021. | |
| Back then, there was a case in front of the Court of Appeals called People v. | |
| Gobrik, and the judge in that particular case, he issued an opinion statement explaining why he would not refer to the criminal defendant by his preferred pronouns, which were, in that case, they-them. | |
| However, this judge's opinion, it set off a chain reaction. | |
| Because what happened was that the Michigan branch of the ACLU, in conjunction with several other pro-gay organizations, they sent a letter to the state Supreme Court asking them to change the very way that the judicial system in the state interacts with transgender people. | |
| This letter from the ACLU then triggered a several-month-long process, which included the Supreme Court taking written comments from Michigan citizens, holding a public hearing, and then deliberating on the issue among the justices. | |
| And then after this long process was over, on September 27th, which was last Wednesday, the state Supreme Court voted 4-3 in favor of making the change and requiring the use of preferred pronouns throughout the entirety of the state. | |
| And just for reference, the four state Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of this change were Richard Bernstein, Kyra Bolden, Megan Kavanaugh, and Elizabeth Welch, all of whom were Democrat nominees. | |
| And in terms of why they decided to make this change, well, you had Justice Kyra Bolden write an opinion statement explaining her rationale for voting in favor of this preferred pronoun change. | |
| Quote, I believe it is perfectly within the realm of this court's authority to require judges who choose to use identifying pronouns to use those requested by the parties. | |
| While Michigan is the first state to amend its court rules to expressly include such comprehensive protection for personal pronouns, history is made by being first. | |
| We are sending a signal that all members of the public are entitled to inhabit public spaces on equal terms. | |
| Adopting this amendment makes Michigan courts more welcoming and inclusive for all. | |
| Likewise, you had Justice Elizabeth Welch issue a separate opinion statement saying that the use of preferred pronouns will actually bolster public confidence in the justice system. | |
| She added that, quote,"...with changes in our society, our vocabulary also evolves. | |
| In order to be fair and impartial, courts, as the face of the third branch of government, must conduct business in a way that does not give the appearance of misgendering individuals intentionally or otherwise." Now, many people objected to this pronoun change because, among other reasons, the use of the pronoun they when referring to a single person is technically not grammatically correct. | |
| But fear not, because Justice Welch responded to that criticism by writing this in her opinion statement, quote,"...its use may require more intentionality and a bit of practice on the part of the older generation. | |
| While it may take some additional time for some to adjust to the change, society has navigated grammatical shifts many times through the centuries." Furthermore, one of the other problems that this change creates relates to the transcripts of the actual trials. | |
| That's because this rule, it only applies to the officials within the court system. | |
| And so, for instance, what might happen is that you might have a trial of an alleged rapist who is a male but identifies themselves as a female. | |
| And so what will now happen is that the judge and the prosecutor will have to refer to this person as a she, whereas the witnesses, the attorneys, the victims, and anyone else in the courtroom will now be able to refer to this person as a heap. | |
| And so, imagine if the case gets appealed, and you're the appellate judge, you have to go through this transcript, and you have to figure out who everyone is talking about when half the courtroom refers to this person as a she, and the other half of the courtroom refers to this person as a he. | |
| You shouldn't have to worry about that, because according to Justice Elizabeth Welch, there's actually a workaround that judges can use. | |
| In the event that some judges and court employees object to honoring a person's specified pronouns on the basis that they do not personally agree with the notion that someone can switch genders or be non-binary, the new rule allows for the use of other respectful, gender-neutral means of address. | |
| To avoid the risk of misgendering someone and to be able to remain true to one's personal religious beliefs, a judge may address a party as Attorney Smith. | |
| Or plaintiff Smith. | |
| However, the story gets a lot wilder, which we'll get into right after I introduce the sponsor of today's episode by showing you this little piece of money. | |
| Or rather, I should say that this is fake money being printed into oblivion by those geniuses over in Washington, DC. And so before they completely obliterate your life savings, what I recommend you do is to convert that fake money into real money, which is physical gold and silver. | |
| And the best company to use is the sponsor of today's episode, American Hartford Gold, who also happens to be my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer. | |
| They have thousands of other 5-star ratings across the country. | |
| They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau. | |
| They ship quickly directly to your doorstep. | |
| Their product listings are awesome. | |
| They're stacked with great options of gold and silver, bullion and coins. | |
| And they have amazing customer service. | |
| When you pick up the phone and call them, you feel good knowing you support a company that supports the truth getting out into the wider American audience. | |
| And so, calling them up is a no-brainer. | |
| But best of all, if you tell them that Roman sent you, they will throw in up to $5,000 worth of free silver with your first purchase. | |
| It's 866-242-2352. | |
| Or you can simply text the word Roman, R-O-M-A-N, Roman, to 65532. | |
| Of course, all their details will be down in the description box below. | |
| And now, let's head on back to the studio. | |
| However, as great as this little workaround is, the three justices who voted against making this rule change, they say that this change will make cases with transgender litigants a nightmare to actually work through. | |
| For instance, you had Justice Brian Zacher, who was one of the three justices who voted against making this rule change, and here's what he said about the potential real-world problems that this preferred pronoun rule can actually lead to. | |
| Quote,"...any inadvertent and repeated slip of the tongue by a judge could result in disciplinary action from the Judicial Tenure Commission." The new court rule presented an open invitation to abuse by litigants eager to gain any measure of control over their fight. | |
| Injecting grammatical gymnastics, confusion, and distraction into legal proceedings may result in mistrials and cause trauma for victims in criminal trials. | |
| However, this viewpoint was in the minority, and this rule is now in effect. | |
| Although I should rather say it'll go into effect starting on January 1st of next year. | |
| Something that all people out in Michigan can look forward to. | |
| And of course, if you happen to not live in Michigan, well, there's a good chance that this type of a change might be coming to your state as well. | |
| I mean, if you think about it, this whole thing was initiated by just a single letter from the Michigan branch of the ACLU. And seeing how successful this one letter was Well, there's a good chance that the local chapters of the ACLU and the other states will be sending similar letters to other state Supreme Courts to have the same change be enacted there as well. | |
| We'll just have to wait and see whether that happens, but just as a matter of fact, the Michigan Supreme Court became the first in the nation to officially adopt preferred pronouns. | |
| If you'd like to go deeper into this change, I'll throw all my research notes. | |
| They'll be down in the description box below this video for you to peruse at your own leisure. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times. | |
| Stay informed. |
Export Selection