[ad_1]
Featured news from Judicial
In an August 2020 decision, the high court said that the use of generic masculine nouns includes both men and women in its reference.
“In this ruling, the use of generic masculine nouns is understood to include in their reference, under conditions of full equality and equity, men and women without distinction of sex. For this reason, following the recommendations of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) regarding the use of inclusive language, the double mention of gender will be dispensed with in the text of this sentence as it is considered unnecessary ”. This single paragraph contained in a Constitutional Court protection ruling last August has generated controversy among legal professionals and feminists.
The ruling is the T-344 of 2020 and was dictated by today’s former magistrate Luis Guillermo Guerrero, along with Alejandro Linares and Antonio Lizarazo who partially saved the vote. And it was promoted when studying two accumulated guardianships in which women victims of domestic violence asked for protection. The high court pointed to the recommendations made by the RAE in the sense that the grammatical masculine includes the feminine gender.
#RAEconsults What has commonly been called “inclusive language” is a set of strategies that aim to avoid the generic use of the grammatical masculine, a mechanism firmly established in the language and that does not involve any sexist discrimination.
– RAE (@RAEinforma) January 28, 2021
#RAEconsults The use of the letter “e” as a supposedly inclusive gender mark is alien to the morphology of Spanish, as well as unnecessary, since the grammatical masculine (“all”) already fulfills this function as an unmarked term of gender opposition.
– RAE (@RAEinforma) February 1, 2021
The decision was questioned by expert lawyers. For example, Liliana Estupiñán, doctor in Legal Sociology and Political Institutions and post-doctorate in Constitutional Law pointed out that the mention of gender is something necessary. “More training in feminism for our judges. That requires maximum awareness and knowledge. Centuries of patriarchy, it is normal that they normalize the immoral and unjust. Much to do, “he said on his Twitter account.
Mention of gender as unnecessary? What happens to our Court? Do they support a decision in the RAE? At least make “this preliminary clarification” with another class of arguments. Now shall we say magistrates to our magistrates, for a simple practical matter? pic.twitter.com/y0aGLHvj9u
– Liliana Estupiñán Ac (@LiliEstupinanAc) February 3, 2021
Criminal lawyer María Helena Hernández and lawyer Katherine Bustamante also questioned the decision. “With so many women who fulfill the role of JUDGES in #Colombia celebrating the decision of the Constitutional Court in Sentence T-344 of 2020, it is urgent to deepen and extend training in gender in Law”.
The anger generated by some when I use inclusive language makes it clear that they have never considered masculine as generic, but as unique and exclusive.
To those people it seems an outrage to name others. In this case, others.
– Helena Hernández * (@ Helena77Hdez) February 3, 2021
With so many women who fulfill the role of JUDGES in #Colombia celebrating the decision of the Constitutional Court in Sentence T-344 of 2020, it is urgent to deepen and extend gender training in Law. @LiliEstupinanAc @ Helena77Hdez
– Katherine Bustamante (@KatheBustamante) February 3, 2021
In the ruling in question, the Constitutional Court urged the Ministry of Justice and Law to “include, within the minimum contents of the training program in extrajudicial conciliation in law, a specific thematic axis on the matter of management of conflicts related to forms of violence against women and introduction of the gender perspective in the function of administering justice, in which the legal bases of this order are taken into account ”.
[ad_2]
