New Zealand could follow Britain in defining sex as biological
Winston Peters, the country's deputy prime minister, put forward draft legislation in parliament barely a week after Britain's Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on a person's sex at birth.
His New Zealand First Party, which has campaigned to ban transgender women from using women's toilets or participating in women's sports, said events at home and internationally showed 'the pendulum is swinging back towards common sense and proving us right'.
The bill defines a woman as an 'adult human biological female' and a man as an 'adult human biological male'.
It would move the country away from 'woke ideology' that had undermined the protection and safety of women, Mr Peters said in a statement.
'These definitions in law fight back against the cancerous social engineering we've seen being pushed in society by a woke minority,' he said.
'The need for legislation like this shows how far the deluded left has taken us as a society. But we are fighting back.'
New Zealand First is the smallest member of the three-party coalition government, and it is not clear that it would have the support to pass the draft law.
The bill was lodged by a member of parliament, not the government, making it less certain that parliament would allot time for it to be debated.
It faces a struggle to become law as it has to be selected at random from a ballot and then garner a majority support in parliament.
Centre-left opposition leader Chris Hipkins said Peters was pursuing 'any populist cause' to maintain support.
'They're interested in one headline after the next,' the Labour Party leader told public broadcaster Radio New Zealand.
'They don't really have a coherent programme and they're certainly not focused on the things that are required to lead New Zealand forward.'
The proposed law follows a ruling by Britain's highest court last Wednesday that only biological and not trans women meet the definition of a woman under equality laws. It was a landmark decision welcomed by the Government as bringing clarity.
The ruling centred on whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), a formal document giving legal recognition of someone's new gender, is protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act.
Transgender rights have become a highly political issue in many countries, with some critics saying the conservative Right has weaponised identity politics to attack minority groups, while others argue that liberal support for transgender people has infringed on the rights of biological women.
In the United States, legal challenges are underway after president Donald Trump issued executive orders that include barring transgender people from military service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Let trans women into women's shelters, say SNP ministers
But the suggestion drew strong criticism from campaigners, who said the Scottish Government was misrepresenting the law. 'Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women',' Trina Budge of For Women Scotland told The Herald. READ MORE Three months ago, the UK's highest court ruled that 'women' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex rather than gender identity. The court case was brought by FWS after they challenged the Scottish Government's guidance on the definition of 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the commission issued draft guidance on a range of topics, including how single-sex services can be lawfully provided, when trans people can be excluded, and when organisations might request a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate. The draft said any service offered to 'women and trans women' is not a single-sex service under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful discrimination against those of the opposite sex. The EHRC later opened a consultation on the draft to help formulate an updated Code of Practice. The commission said it received more than 50,000 responses. Final guidance had been expected before Parliament broke for summer earlier this week, but the EHRC said last week it would be published later in the year. For Women Scotland won the Supreme Court in April (Image: PA) The Scottish Government quietly published its response to the consultation on Friday afternoon. Ministers raised concerns that the commission's draft code placed too much emphasis on when trans people can be excluded from services, and not enough on how services can remain inclusive within the law. 'We consider that it would be helpful to provide illustrative examples within the Code of Practice to provide guidance on how a service provider may lawfully implement an inclusive approach,' the Government said. 'This would be particularly helpful in situations where a service provider has identified a need that exists for both biological women and trans women, for example in relation to those who have experienced domestic abuse, homelessness or trafficking. 'Without this clarity, providers may simply stop offering any services to trans people due to concerns about legal risk.' They also warned that, following the judgment, some trans people had chosen to 'remove themselves from public life' out of fear of being turned away from services. In its submission, the Scottish Government also said it was also concerned about what it described as 'social policing' of someone's sex. 'We note that the impact of the guidance may lead to situations where some members of the public will take it upon themselves to judge appearances and assume someone's sex based on their perception of that person's sex or gender identity. 'This sense of distrust in others and social policing of bodies is detrimental not only for trans and non-binary people, but for those who are born male or female who may not fit into society's current expectations of what a man or woman looks like, which change over time, and in different contexts and places.' The response also called for advice on how to apply the updated definition of legal sex to workplace facilities, and for consideration of the impact of the code on intersex people. Ms Budge said: 'The Scottish Government still woefully misunderstands the Supreme Court judgment on how the Equality Act works. "Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women'. 'We note that in pushing for this option, the Government has dropped its previous legal argument that a man needs a GRC to access a women's service and reverted to, once again, looking for ways to include men in women's services on a self-ID basis. 'Women who have suffered domestic abuse or trafficking do not wish to be put in sleeping accommodation with males for very good reasons of privacy and safety, and it is beyond our understanding why the Government keeps trying to insist otherwise." Lucy Hunter Blackburn from the MBM policy collective said: 'The response suggests that the Scottish Government has learnt little from the past few years. "It remains fundamentally unsympathetic to the rights and needs of women as a sex, and strongly wedded to defining 'women' as a group that must include some men. 'As a result, it appears to misunderstand both the judgment and the role of the EHRC. It still seems to believe, wrongly, that managing single-sex services and spaces must involve 'balancing' the rights of women against those of a sub-set of men. 'It is resisting clarity in favour of complication, and in doing so providing poor leadership to all Scottish public bodies who now just need to make the law work on the ground.'
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves could overrule Supreme Court in £44bn car finance scandal
Rachel Reeves is considering overruling the Supreme Court if judges side with consumers over the £44bn car finance scandal. Under plans being considered by the Chancellor, the Government could retrospectively alter the law to reduce the liabilities paid by lenders if the Supreme Court upholds a decision made by the Court of Appeal last October. Britain's biggest banks could be forced to pay out £44bn in compensation to drivers after customers said they were unlawfully sold car loans. The Treasury is debating if new laws could be applied retrospectively to the case, allowing them to cover old contracts and cases, The Guardian reported. Such a move would cut the multibillion-pound bill facing lenders including Close Brothers, Barclays, Santander and Lloyds. Retrospective legislation would also ensure the scandal does not balloon beyond car loans, and potentially expose lenders to complaints over commission payments across other financial products such as loans for household appliances and furniture. Government sources refused to rule out such an intervention from Ms Reeves. On Thursday the Supreme Court was expected to set a date for their ruling but did not do so, raising the prospect that the decision would fall close to the autumn Budget. It comes after the Supreme Court in February stopped an attempt by the Chancellor to block payouts to drivers. The Treasury argued the scandal threatened to undermine the UK economy and deter investment, saying payouts must be limited. The regulations which govern these payments come under common law. Therefore, they are set by judges using court decisions, rather than by Parliament. New legislation would allow Parliament to have the final say on the handling and disclosure of commission arrangements handed to borrowers. Although passing retrospective legislation on compensation in the UK is uncommon and controversial, it is not unprecedented. In 2013, the Parliament passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act, to prevent £130m in compensation payments being made to people who had their benefits stopped following their refusal to work for private companies. Several lenders have set aside significant sums to cover potential compensation costs, including Lloyds Banking Group, which has reserved £1.2bn, Santander UK is designating £295m to cover the costs in compensation and Close Brothers has put aside £165m.
Reuters
11 hours ago
- Reuters
Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from US Supreme Court
July 25 (Reuters) - Even as an uproar over files relating to Jeffrey Epstein engulfs President Donald Trump and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to wade into the controversy and decide whether to hear a bid by an associate of the late financier and convicted sex offender to overturn her criminal conviction. The justices, now on their summer recess, are expected in late September to consider whether to take up an appeal by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being found guilty in 2021 by a jury in New York of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Maxwell's lawyers have told the Supreme Court that her conviction was invalid because a non-prosecution and plea agreement that federal prosecutors had made with Epstein in Florida in 2007 also shielded his associates and should have barred her criminal prosecution in New York. Her lawyers have a Monday deadline for filing their final written brief in their appeal to the court. Some legal experts see merit in Maxwell's claim, noting that it touches on an unsettled matter of U.S. law that has divided some of the nation's regional federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said there is a chance that the Supreme Court takes up the case, and noted the disagreement among appeals courts. Such a split among circuit courts can be a factor when the nation's top judicial body considers whether or not to hear a case. "The question of whether a plea agreement from one U.S. Attorney's Office binds other federal prosecution as a whole is a serious issue that has split the circuits," Epner said. While uncommon, "there have been several cases presenting the issue over the years," Epner added. Trump's Justice Department appeared to acknowledge the circuit split in a brief filed to the justices this month, but urged them to reject the appeal. Any disparity among lower court rulings "is of limited importance," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the brief, "because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement." If the Supreme Court opts to grant Maxwell's appeal, it would hear arguments during its new term that begins in October, with a ruling then expected by the end of next June. Trump and his administration have been facing mounting pressure from his supporters to release additional information about the Justice Department's investigation into Epstein, who hanged himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump, met with Maxwell in Florida on Thursday in what her lawyer called "a very productive day." The administration reversed course this month on its pledge to release more documents about Epstein, prompting fury among some of Trump's most loyal followers. The Epstein case has long been the subject of conspiracy theories, considering his rich and powerful friends and the circumstances of his death. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office. Whether the court would want to take on such a case that represents a political landmine is an open question. The justices hear relatively few cases - about 70 out of more than 4,000 appeals filed at the court each year - and have broad discretion to choose which ones will be on their docket. At least four of the justices must agree in order for the court to take up a case. Maxwell's appeal focuses on a deal Epstein struck in 2007 to avoid federal prosecution in part by pleading guilty to state criminal offenses in Florida of soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution. Epstein then served 13 months in a minimum-security state facility. In 2019, during Trump's first term as president, the U.S. Justice Department charged Epstein in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors. Epstein pleaded not guilty, but committed suicide before the trial at age 66. Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted the following year after being accused by federal prosecutors of recruiting and grooming girls to have sexual encounters with Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell failed to convince a trial judge and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out her conviction based on the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which stated that "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said that in its reference to co-conspirators, the Epstein agreement had no geographic limit on where the non-prosecution agreement could be enforced. "If the government can promise one thing and deliver another - and courts let it happen - that erodes the integrity of the justice system," Markus told Reuters. "This isn't just about Ghislaine Maxwell. It's about whether the government is held to its word," Markus said. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has urged the Supreme Court to hear Maxwell's appeal given the prevalence of plea agreements in the U.S. criminal justice system and to ensure that the government keeps its promises. The group represents thousands of private lawyers, public defenders, law professors and judges nationwide. It said in a filing to the justices that the lack of a geographic limitation means "no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district." Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal law, said it was unusual for the U.S. attorney in Florida to include protection for co-conspirators in the agreement to not prosecute Epstein. That peculiarity might be reason enough for the Supreme Court to avoid the matter, Richman said, as it renders the case a poor vehicle for resolving whether pleas in one court district bind actions in all other court districts. "There were many strange things about this deal," Richman said, which will cut against the Supreme Court's interest in taking up Maxwell's appeal. Richman said he hoped the political fallout would not play into the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Maxwell's appeal. If it does, Richman said, taking up the case could allow Maxwell to avoid cooperating with the government and dodge responsibility. "A decision that would allow Maxwell to protect herself probably would not be something they would be interested in," Richman said of the Supreme Court justices.
