The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Criminalizing attire and the rule of law [I]

The…appellants here, by choosing to dress in clothing and accessories traditionally associated with women, are in effect expressing their identification with the female gender. And the expression of a person’s gender identity forms a fundamental part of their right to dignity. Recognition of this gender identity must be given constitutional protection.per Saunders P. in McEwan, Clarke and ors. v. AG of Guyana

If you wear that, town block…per Glenfield Eastmond (The Devil) in “We goin’ do dixie.”

Transgender dressing, or cross-dressing as it is more popularly referred to, especially by males, is not unknown to most Barbadians of my generation. Time was, in the 1970s and 1980s, when there seemed to be a nightly fashion parade of cross dressers in Baxter’s Road and its environs. In that era too, there was, on more occasions than one, a production called “Queen of the B’s” in which males made appearances, as in any traditional beauty show, in the makeup, formal wear and swimsuits ordinarily worn by females in such contests.

Then, this transgender culture was generally regarded more as a source of fascination and amusement than anything else. However, it appears to have fallen into desuetude (some would uncharitably say “died out”) and the newly popular local attitude to gender transformation may have been witnessed in the apparently favourable reaction to a composition in the last Pic’ o’ de Crop calypso competition entitled Sex Change in which the artiste, Billboard, asserted “there is no such thing as being transgender as you cannot change your sex”.

As a Barbados Advocate editorial pointed out – Permanently fixed at birth?, this assertion, while it may be supported in current local law, fails to take account of the modern reality as manifested in legislation such as the Gender Recognition Act 2004 of the UK, a statute that enables transsexuals to apply for a certificate showing that the person has satisfied the criteria for legal recognition in the acquired gender.

This issue of transgender dressing, that appears to be prevalent in most regional jurisdictions, recently engaged the attention of the Caribbean Court of Justice in arguably unusual circumstances. What was once regarded with curious amusement in Barbados, and I assume in the other jurisdictions, has been criminalized in Guyana by virtue of section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act of that jurisdiction. This provides-

Every person who does any of the following acts shall, in each case, be liable to a fine of not less than seven thousand nor (sic) more than…dollars—

(xlvii) being a man, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in female attire; or being a woman, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in male attire…

In the instant case, the appellants had been arrested and charged with this offence. They pleaded guilty before the Magistrate and were fined accordingly. However, in a manner that is not unknown locally, the Magistrate thought it appropriate to deliver an admonition after conviction. According to the judgment-

The Magistrate told the…appellants that they must go to church and give their lives to Jesus Christ. The Magistrate advised them that they were confused about their sexuality; that they were men, not women.”

They next launched an action in the High Court against the state for a violation of their constitutional rights, most relevant here claiming that the law was bad because it was vague, uncertain, irrational and discriminatory. The vagueness and uncertainty, they said, related to the words “improper purpose”, “female attire” and “male attire” and that it infringed their rights to equality under the law and not to be discriminated against and their right to freedom of expression. They also argued that the remarks of the magistrate reinforced the statal discrimination. This action was unsuccessful, as was the appeal to the Guyana Court of Appeal.

So far as section 153 was concerned, the judge at first instance was of the view that it was immunized from constitutional challenge on the basis of human rights, since it was saved by the savings law clause in the Guyana Constitution. The judge also decided that it was the improper purpose that was the true basis of the criminalization of cross-dressing in public and not the dress itself. Accordingly, “it is not criminally offensive for a person to wear the attire of the opposite sex as a matter of preference or to give expression or to reflect his or her sexual orientation”.

The court held also that the section was not discriminatory because the section is “directed against the conduct of both male and female persons”. Moreover, in an unusually restricted meaning of the word, it was decided that the section addresses “attire” only. In the judge’s interpretation of the law, it was not an offence for a male person to wear a female head wig or earrings or female shoes in a public place, even for an improper purpose. And as for the admonitory remarks by the magistrate, the judge was of the view that while these amounted to “proselytising”, they did not constitute a hindrance to freedom of thought and of religion.

As already noted, the appellants did not fare any better in the Court of Appeal. In this regard, paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment of President Saunders are instructive.

The Court of Appeal expressed its “complete agreement” with the trial judge’s view that section 153 carried no taint of gender discrimination. On the vagueness point, while acknowledging that the expression “improper purpose” is broad in meaning, the court pointed out that the use of broad terms in statutory provisions is pervasive. In this case, according to the Court of Appeal, the meaning of “improper purpose”, as used in section 153, is “to be gleaned from the context or more directly, the factual circumstance, including the place and time at which the ‘improper purpose’ as used in section 153 is alleged.” In support of this conclusion, the court referred to statements in R v Crown Court at Wood Green ex parte DPP. It was stated there that the legal meaning of statutes, which are vaguely drawn, is to be determined by courts on a case-by-case basis. The court noted that given the changing times, it is impossible for the draftsman to have captured the degree of certainty which a criminalizing enactment ought to bear. The use of the phrase “improper purpose” was intended to capture a range of different situations.

The Court of Appeal answered the appellants’ concern that the vagueness of cross- dressing in public for an “improper purpose” makes it impossible for a citizen to know how to regulate his/her conduct. The court’s view was that it requires “a measure of internal rationalization so that the citizen is able to determine for himself the consequences which a given action may entail”. The Court of Appeal proceeded to suggest examples of conduct that would fail to meet a “proper purpose” standard. One such example given was where a man puts on a dress, a wig and high-heeled shoes, pretending to be a woman in distress, and then enters a taxi in order to rob the driver.

The Court also unanimously dismissed the complaint against the magistrate on the ground that she had made her comments after imposing sentence and therefore what was said could not have influenced the proceedings. [Original emphasis]

Next week –The decision of the CCJ

60 comments

  • In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was amended to cover discrimination against a person who is proposing to undergo; is undergoing; or has undergone gender reassignment. The amendment was a response to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of P v S and Cornwall County Council (C-13/94). The judgement was delivered on 30 April 1996.

    The case is available at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=99622&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4095570

    The Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 are available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1102/made

    The Regulations are currently reflected in the Equality Act 2010 (e.g. see section 7).

    Like

  • In Europe and elsewhere they have moved the bar to including neuter gender on official forms. This is the way of the world.

    Like

  • The UK has gone quite mad. Anyone can now identify as anything – you can be a man on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays, a woman on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and a hermaphrodite on weekends.
    A true asylum of cultural destruction, delivered to us by the globalist left.
    The only freedom disallowed is the right to mock or criticise this new cesspool, especially the muslim part.

    Like

  • 45govt

    What you have characterized above is called self-determination in America … which is in essence the right to live your life you see fit … as long as you aren’t harming anthing or anyone…

    Like

  • Ah Lexicon, but these perverted views ARE harming everyone else. You only have to look at the once respected BBC and it’s anti-white male agenda. The UK IS plagued by PC incompetents in post not for their abilities, but their box-ticking rating.
    Cressida Dick is one prime example, a four foot lesbian promoted after her murder of a Brazilian electrician, with her useless and corrupt Met ignoring violent crime in favour of chasing anyone who may have caused offence, Fran Cotton head of a useless fire service who won’t put out fires or rescue those being incinerated but have a large team of counsellors available for hurt feelings.
    Then there is Treason May. Jesus wept.

    Like

  • 45govt

    You may say that I’ve probable been in America for far too long, but I have worked with gay, straight, lesbian and bisexual and the like, and haven’t had a problem with the way in which these people lead their life … but that does not meaning that I am going to associate with them after work … but I still however respect their right to be who they wish be, so long as it doesn’t harming me our others. And by the way discrimination of any sort is illegal in America…

    Like

  • Was coming to wish everyone a blessed Sunday, but then I saw Lexicon and 45gov was already here.

    WTH, still hoping everyone have a great Sunday. It can only get better.

    Composing my comments.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Jeff
    What, pray tell, was the “improper purpose” that the judge at the first instance took to be the basis for conviction or these cross dressers?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Lexicon
    But I still however respect their right to be who they wish be, so long as it doesn’t harming me our others
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Respectfully ….
    What makes you think that you are intelligent enough to know what is harming you or others … or even what ‘harm’ is..?

    What EXACTLY do you think accounts for your particular level of idiocy? …genetics alone cannot explain it.

    Boss, you have been so HARMED that you are WAY beyond redemption – unless of course you should be subjected to a thorough bush bath …and subsequent adoption like Bushie experienced….

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Lexicon….nor do I have a problem with how they lead their lives, and have quite a few in the family – what I hate is having their sexuality worn like some badge, and the State giving them preferential treatment, which inevitably means others being discriminated against.
    Just STFU about your private life and accept the same rules as everyone else – you are NOT special.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ TheO it already got better with your departure.

    Like

  • What affronted me most about the judge’s ruling is the fact that he tried to imposed his morals upon appellants by telling them to go to Church and give their live to God … such a thing could not have happened in America because the very statement by judge in of itself violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment … which says and I am praphasing now … everyone has the right to and from religion…

    Like

  • Jeff continues to do an excellent job of analysing the variety of shiite rules that are composed from time to time by the brass bowls who constitute the various ‘law-making’ bodies of our world.
    ….people of the ilk of Froon, Stinkliar, Kellman, Mia, Hats and Prescod….and their overseas equivalents.

    One day coming soon (bushie hopes) he will graduate to assessing the LAWS that guide our ACTUAL EXISTENCE, and which direct the affairs of our world on a day to day basis….and has don so for millennia…

    Hopefully it will dawn on Jeff …and soon… that while the RESULTS of these various shiite rules continue to defy ANY kind of reasonable correlation with intent, there are CLEARLY a set of overriding SPIRITUAL laws that do…. with consistent and unwavering accuracy…..

    THESE are the laws that we need to have analysed by persons of Jeff’s ilk….

    Liked by 1 person

  • This is very interesting. I will wait for the article next week to get the full picture.

    Like

  • One person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. It is difficult to tell where the line is and so there should always be an examination of the way things are and a determination of where they should be. Life is messy. We just need to accept it, deal with it and sort out issues as they arise.

    Liked by 1 person

  • In the UK, the High Court held that the UK’s refusal to issue a gender-neutral passport was lawful. An appeal may be made against the High Court’s ruling. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44575229

    I am not aware of any cases in the UK where a person, e.g. claimed to be a male yesterday; a female today; and then a male tomorrow. Such a situation did not apply to the Karen White case. See https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

    Liked by 1 person

  • Bush Tea

    There is physical, psychologically, and emotional harm … and out of these three only physical harm can really be viewed as illegal … and that is the point I was trying to stressed when I made mentioned to harm caused by the lifestyle of the people above…

    Like

  • When will someone challenge the legality of the Barbados Gov’t ban on the wearing of camouflage clothing by civilians?

    Like

  • Really!with all the pain and suffering happening in barbados
    People here worrying about gender neutral dress code
    Wuh men have been dressing in female attire from biblical times head wrap and all

    Like

  • Sergeant why don’t you? Are you not a citizen of Barbados?

    Like

  • Really with so many things happening in Barbados people worrying about netural gender dress code
    Men have been wearing female attire going as far back as biblical times head wraps and all

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Dean Jeff, two things…first the mundane….You can be amazingly propa for your Sunday PG column and yet as in this case be also uproariously darkly ribald : *”…it appears to have fallen into desuetude (some would uncharitably say “died out”) *”. Smooth. 🤣 Actually, ‘died out’ could also be charitably said, not so! Oh lordie.

    And the serious, like @PLT I am amused by the phrasing in the statue re “improper purpose”. I suspect your essay next week re the CCJ judgement will explode that a bit…but the Guyana appellate judge surely seems to show how ridiculously broad and badly written was this attempt to criminalize basically standard everyday behaviour.

    As a layman it confounds the nonsense ‘sensible’ men and women write into law when they are intent on proselytizing their own moral code. The defense lawyer was accurate this was vague and very uncertain!

    I believe the question of a ‘handyman’ walking down the street at 9 PM with his screwdriver, hammer and a few other assorted tools was discussed in these pages before….that fella can be rightly arrested as a possible burgalry suspect although on his way to work to his job site at 9 AM he can be very rightly considered as properly outgitted and ATTIRED …

    So is that the context of the remark that the “…judge also decided that it was the improper purpose that was the true basis of the criminalization of cross-dressing in public and not the dress itself” ?

    And if the Appeal Court then opined that “…that the vagueness of cross- dressing in public for an “improper purpose” makes it impossible for a citizen to know how to regulate his/her conduct” how then was the case still held for the state?

    Will Guyana do like Bdos and sulkingly opt to leave the CCJ jurisdiction 😂….the JCPC would just as quickly overturn this folly surely!

    As usual thanks for Sunday learning session.

    Like

  • The purpose of affirmative action is to circumvent the whole system that most people acknowledge has been historically stacked in every facet of life against minorities. There should come a time when affirmative action is no longer necessary. The longer white people fight to keep the system tilted in their favour, the longer will there be a need for affirmative action.

    It is amazing that when we black people and women speak about our experience we are told to stop playing the victim but now we have people who are still in charge (check Trump’s cabinet, the GOP Congress, the judiciary picks) playing the victim most pathetically.

    https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/11/12/18088874/jemel-roberson-police-shooting-security-guard-illinois

    This is the system stacked AGAINST THE WHITE MAN,

    Forgive me, David, for straying from the topic. Some things are just too egregious to let pass.

    Like

  • First and last warning.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @45, come on dude…are you seriously going to engage a chat about ‘Pocahontas lies’ here and now!

    The mere use of the stupidly, pejoratively intended alias speaks to the absurdity of the challenge…. the woman has Native American ancestry …of that there is no doubt…how much and how distinctive is frankly irrelevant…just as it was that any smidgen of Black ancestry made the most pale of pale faces ostracized as non pure white.

    Anyhow, I suspect yoy anc your crew are intent to make even this another RACE and colour debate…good heavens PLEASE DON’T!

    @Sargeant, and what fashion trend was doomed with the ban on camouflage clothing…it solved an apparent problem at the time and for all practical purposes continues to do so.

    No special freedoms or rights are being crushed based on this statue as compared to the problems it supposedly resolves …the risk-rewards come down on the side of maintaining the tule.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    …you and your crew. That should read.

    Like

  • Lexicon,

    We were speaking about discrimination in general not specifics about Elizabeth Warren, Obama and Clarence Thomas.

    The point about affirmative action has been adequately made. No need to stray any further.

    Like

  • @Jeff
    What, pray tell, was the “improper purpose” that the judge at the first instance took to be the basis for conviction or these cross dressers?

    Peter, it is not stated expressly stated but, given the comments made by him on conviction, he probably assumed the same as Barbadians might have assumed with ours…wink wink..!

    Like

  • Hopefully it will dawn on Jeff …and soon… that while the RESULTS of these various shiite rules continue to defy ANY kind of reasonable correlation with intent, there are CLEARLY a set of overriding SPIRITUAL laws that do…. with consistent and unwavering accuracy…..

    THESE are the laws that we need to have analysed by persons of Jeff’s ilk…

    Unfortunately, Bushie, while I recognize the existence of these laws, I am not as adept at analyzing them as I am at the legislated ones!.

    Liked by 1 person

  • As usual thanks for Sunday learning session.
    @!DPD, de nada,

    Like

  • Lexicon,

    45 has his agenda. It will not change no matter what you say. I answer his posts only to stop weak-minded unsuspecting readers (not the bloggers) from being misled.

    Like

  • “discrimination and undesirability surrounding the region’s treatment of persons with same sex preferences, has to come to an end and my policy is that Barbados must lead by example in order to ensure that the change is tangible and that the process of change is expedited.”

    https://barbadostoday.bb/2018/11/17/barbados-symmonds-recognized-at-world-travel-market-in-london/

    Like

  • “These are the laws we need to have analyzed by persons of Jeff’s ink”

    No need to because the Holy Spirit guides, leads, protects and bring these laws to our remembrance … the Bible also tells us that how can a carnal mind understand spiritual things; these things are foolishness to him…now not saying that anyone is either carnal or spiritual…

    Like

  • Censorship is the last resort of the timid.

    Like

  • And what is being disrespectful to fellow commenters? We have several blogs about the US and Race. Go to the archives or under the Submission page and duke it out.

    Like

  • Disrespectful? Is that what you call pointing out Lexicon’s factual inaccuracies?

    Like

  • “You only have to look at the once respected BBC and it’s anti-white male agenda.”

    I would probably become anti-white male too if I keep seeing a bunch of psycho, ugly white boys like Michael Gove and Rees-Moggs..(rass-mugg) parading around with nothing useful to offer the UK population.

    Like

  • Am one of those people who believe ALL people should be able to live their lives without the hypocrites and their judgement calls…who turn out to be closet this and closet that ..when ya really delve into their closeted filth…while they are pointing fingers..

    … it all stems from the long dead criminals from the year DOT trying to control the lives of others, while living the dirtiest lives known to animals in the animal kingdom.

    Like

  • BT it sounds like you love barbados because you can eat,drink, and be mary

    Like

  • @ Jeff
    Unfortunately, Bushie, while I recognize the existence of these laws, I am not as adept at analyzing them as I am at the legislated ones!.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Sir, if we use our best teachers to teach jobby…
    and then depend on GP and Lexicon to teach us about the diamonds of life
    THEN…
    We end up poor, disenfranchised, and desperate…
    while all our inherited assets transfer to strangers.

    If we use our best builders to build dog houses
    while Maripoka and Kellman build the technological infrastructure
    THEN..
    We end up with sewerage on the streets (or swamp), pot holes all over and un-usable public buildings.

    Skippa..
    Were you to turn your brilliant mind to the critical task
    You will be shocked and the rate of change of ‘adeptness’ that can be achieved…

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Lawson
    Bushie loves Barbados because it is home.
    One wonders at your motivation for disliking it…

    Liked by 1 person

  • Lawson is cursed…he must turn up in Bim every year, even if he has to walk through bajan poop to get there.

    Like

  • WARU, your posts are pathetic, as clearly are you. What I would call a waste of your benighted parents’ foop.

    Like

  • lol…but they wind you up so they must be worth something that ya ALWAYS have to respond.

    Like

  • A brighter day dawns…..Barbados has an Anglican Bishop.S & P have upgraded its outlook on the financial state of the economy.Let the dogs bark.

    Like

  • “In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was amended to cover discrimination against a person who is proposing to undergo; is undergoing; or has undergone gender reassignment. The amendment was a response to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of P v S and Cornwall County Council (C-13/94). The judgement was delivered on 30 April 1996.”

    because they choose to glorify deviant behaviour does not mean all must accept it. What makes the judicial position of Guyana and the European Court of Human Rights wrong wrong and the position taken by the Uk right.

    Liked by 1 person

  • A couple of months ago i saw a man dressed up like a woman miniskirt high heels and all with his whiskers showing; looked so odd that i thought he should have been arrested for causing a disturbance.

    Liked by 1 person

  • A few men dressed up in women’s clothes ….hmmmm……I guess that will surely start WW 3 – the end of the world.

    SOS!!!!!!

    Like

  • charles get rid of the mirror
    BT you know I dont hate barbados….just the stupidity
    Waru cursed ??? how is that sewage mess going, nobody talking much , going down in feb please eat as much as you can before I get there.

    Like

  • @ Donna
    A few ‘men’ dressed up as women will not start world war II… just as a few rotten apples will not destroy the farm.

    However, a society that ADOPTS shiite as NORMAL …. and that LEGISLATES that shiite be treated just like food …will quickly self-destruct…..
    just like a farm will go bankrupt – where the farmer decides to be an ‘equal opportunity’ manager – and store the few rotten apples along with the good stuff.

    Liked by 1 person

  • In the case of P v S and Cornwall County Council (C-13/94), the UK Government unsuccessfully argued that the European Sex Discrimination Directive did not cover discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment (e.g. see paragraph 14 of the case transcript). Hence, the UK Government amended its domestic legislation (i.e. the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) in order to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice.

    I did not say that the ruling of a particular Court on this subject is right or wrong.

    Like

  • “I did not say that the ruling of a particular Court on this subject is right or wrong.”

    i never said that was your view. i posed a rhetorical question but i hold the view that persons that are legally considered as adults can do what they like with their bodies provided it does not infringe on the rights of others but i oppose deviant behaviours such as bulling, wicking, paedophilia, bestiality,stealing, killing

    Liked by 1 person

  • Truth will set you Free

    Immigration Officers at a bar in Bridgetown and she was found in that bar scantily clad and working as an exotic dancer in contravention of Section 17(1) of the Immigration Act. She was subsequently deported on October 9, 2017, in accordance with Section 13 (6) of the Immigration Act
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I don’t believe the misinformation put out by Edmund Hinkson as to why this Caricom National wasn’t taken before the local law courts as he has alleged fraud.

    This Statement yesterday seem to be a cover-up.

    Since others have alleged both Immigration officers and Police officers tip off the strippers on raids in the clubs along with the Owners there is obviously a major ongoing criminal conspiracy.

    Maybe Jeff Cumberbatch can shed why ALL Strip Clubs and sex bars whose workers are 99 percent visitors to the island and contravene Immigration Act Section (17) 1 why are they allow along with the owners of these establishments to break local laws so easily.

    The exotic dancers/strippers are not issued work permits thereby engagingly in criminal activities and should ALL be deported like the Guyanese female in the Press Release by Edmund Hinkson.

    There is obviously complicit criminal collusion between the Minister, Police and Immigration if this Policy is not across the Board for all exotic strippers/dancers in the Strip Clubs and sex bars who are mere visitors to the island of Barbados.

    Like

  • Bushie,

    A few rotten apples? I accept people for who they are. I cannot tell them who they are supposed to be. I do not know their biological make up. God does and will deal with the matter accordingly. So….they don’t trouble me; I don’t trouble them.

    Like

  • @Professor Cumberbatch “Pic’ o’ de Crop calypso competition entitled Sex Change in which the artiste, Billboard, asserted “there is no such thing as being transgender as you cannot change your sex”. As a Barbados Advocate editorial pointed out – Permanently fixed at birth?, this assertion, while it may be supported in current local law.”

    I am recalling from memory so please don’t beat me up.

    More than 30 years ago I recalled reading in a Toronto newspaper advice column–it may have been the Toronto Star–where a Barbadian who had been born male, and who had had gender reassignment surgery had applied for a passport in the new female gender. The Barbados government of the day had refused, but had been persuaded by the newspaper? to grant its citizen the Barbados passport in the new female gender.

    I don’t know if the government of the day committed an illegal act, or conveniently for peace and the protection of the incoming Canadian tourist dollars conveniently agreed to grant the passport.

    So transgender in not new.

    And being granted a Barbados passport in the new gender is not new either.

    Like

  • @45govt November 18, 2018 8:33 AM “Cressida Dick is one prime example, a four foot lesbian promoted after her murder of a Brazilian electrician”

    Why don’t you stop telling lies on Police Commissioner Dick?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cressida_Dick
    Cressida Dick is the third and youngest child of Marcus William Dick, Senior Tutor at Balliol College, Oxford,and Professor of Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, and Cecilia (née Buxton), a University of Oxford historian. She was born and brought up in Oxford, England, and educated at the Dragon School, Oxford High School, Balliol College, Oxford, and Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

    Like

  • @peterlawrencethompson November 18, 2018 9:12 AM “What, pray tell, was the “improper purpose” that the judge at the first instance took to be the basis for conviction or these cross dressers?”

    You asked. So the story below might be informative. The law and the judge was probably trying to prevent such incidents. Most of us regardless of how liberal we are, are heavily invested in knowing the gender of the person with whom we propose to have sexual relations. Just sayin’

    https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/05/predator-posed-as-woman-to-trick-other-men-into-sex
    A man faces jail after being convicted of luring other men into having sex with him by posing as a woman named Ana.

    Duarte Xavier used online dating sites to contact four heterosexual men and deployed various ruses, including telling them he was married and that he wanted to engage in role play, to convince them to wear blindfolds, before engaging in sexual acts.

    Police said Xavier’s victims, all of whom initially believed he was female, were left “traumatised” by his crimes, which they described as being “unique in their depravity”.

    DC Lucy Marsh, of the Metropolitan police, said: “Xavier has demonstrated extreme manipulation and cunning to satisfy his own sexual gratification, setting bizarre conditions that the victims adhered to in the belief that they were part of the experience.”

    She described Xavier as a sexual predator who had “demonstrated extreme manipulation and cunning” in tricking the men. “I hope the victims … will now feel that they have achieved some justice. I thank them for their bravery not only in telling us of their ordeals, but in facing difficult and challenging questions throughout the judicial process.”

    Xavier, who is from south-west London, was convicted at Kingston crown court on Friday of six counts of causing a male aged 13 or over to engage in penetrative sexual activity.

    The court heard he was a liar and fantasist whose crimes spanned several years. Posing as Ana, he would send provocative pictures to men and draw them into meeting for sex.
    His trial was told that he would set a series of conditions, including that the victim must wear a blindfold, and that they were not allowed to touch him. None of the victims had any reason to believe he was not who he said he was, with one telling police Xavier’s voice sounded like that of a foreign woman.

    One of his victims had told no one about the encounter with Xavier because he felt embarrassed and ashamed. He was identified by police officers who examined phone records from seized mobile phones after Xavier’s arrest.

    The first incident took place in February 2016 and, in that case, the victim demanded Xavier delete all records of their conversation and did not report anything to the police.
    The second victim, who encountered Xavier in October 2017, called officers afterwards and Xavier was arrested the next day, before being released under investigation. But he was free to strike again in April this year, when he attacked his third victim. That man also called police and Xavier was arrested for the final time.
    The previously unreported incident involving the fourth victim occurred in December 2016.

    Marsh said she was “entirely aware that there may be other potential victims of Xavier who, so far, have also felt too ashamed to speak to police”. She added: “I would ask those people to come forward, to tell us, and we will treat you with the utmost sensitivity and in the strictest of confidence.”

    Xavier was remanded in custody to be sentenced at Kingston crown court on Friday 9 November.

    Like

  • https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-sex-catfish-tinder-pretend-online-dating-london-wandsworth-duarte-xavier-a8627116.html

    A man who posed as a woman online to trick would-be suitors into blindfolded sexual encounters at his flat has been jailed. Handing down a 15-year sentence on Friday, vice-judge advocate general Michael Hunter told Xavier: “You have been found guilty of what can only be described as a campaign of deception and obtaining sex by pretending that you were a woman.

    Like

  • @ Donna
    I do not know their biological make up. God does and will deal with the matter accordingly. So….they don’t trouble me; I don’t trouble them.
    +++++++++++
    Exactly.

    So since you do not know (somewhat like GP …except that he THINKS that he knows)
    ..and you know that God does…
    What does GOD have to say about the matter…?
    …or are you more concerned with what Peter Wicki and his ilk says…?

    Also…
    Apples are made for eating ..and for apple juice.
    …and rotten apples cannot be blamed for their biological makeup either
    But will you eat them?
    ..or make juice with them…?
    Well…
    Not stinking Bushie…

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s