Equality Commission: ‘Supreme court ruling on gender has legal uncertainties for NI'
A paper released by the Commission today claims that the judgement will be 'highly persuasive' in certain aspects of Northern Ireland's courts, but there are still uncertainties of what effects it will have on NI law.
In April the country's highest court unanimously ruled that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex" following a dispute centred on whether someone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the UK 2010 Equality Act – which does not apply in Northern Ireland.
The judgement was made by the Supreme Court after campaigning group For Women Scotland, who wanted to overturn Scottish legislation which said 50% of members on public boards should be female, with the definition of female including transgender women.
The decision made headlines across the UK, however questions remained over what the ruling meant for transgender people in Northern Ireland.
The DUP's Upper Bann MP Carla Lockhart welcomed the judgment calling it 'clear and a victory for common sense', while the Ulster Unionist Party's Justice spokesperson Doug Beattie said the ruling 'has major implications for the application of the Equality legislation in Northern Ireland' which he said affirmed that 'transgender women are not women.'
NI based organisation The Rainbow Project acknowledged the decision at the time. saying on a social media statement that the 'ruling is not good news' and that they watched the ruling with 'significant concern'.
The paper also states that the Supreme Court Judgement didn't consider article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
Article 2 of the Framework concerns the rights that are written in the Good Friday Agreement, including protections against discrimination.
Geraldine McGahey, Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland says the Commission will be seeking a Declaration from the courts to address questions regarding legal uncertainties, adding that the commission's approach towards the issues will be in the 'best interests of everyone in Northern Ireland'
'To achieve greater long-term certainty and clarity for all involved, the Commission will be seeking a Declaration from the courts to address several questions regarding the significant legal uncertainties.'
'Our equality laws do not sit in isolation; they interact with other laws and regulations for which the Commission does not have a remit. We believe other bodies and organisations will also require clarification on the legal position in relation to their own areas of work and may join the Commission in its legal proceedings.'
McGahey also said that the commission hopes to avoid 'toxicity' around the debate around biological sex.
The paper also contains interim information for employers and service providers.
In a poll by the Belfast Telegraph in May, almost three-quarters of people in Northern Ireland agree with the Supreme Court's ruling.
The LucidTalk poll found that 72 per cent of people here agreed with the Supreme Court's ruling, with 20 per cent disagreeing and 8 per cent unsure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Children can skip classes with LGBT books, Supreme Court rules
Parents can take their children out of school if they are reading books with gay characters in them, the Supreme Court has ruled. Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland sued to keep their elementary school children out of certain lessons when storybooks with LGBT+ characters were read, claiming it violated their constitutional rights. At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled to block judges from thwarting Donald Trump's move to ban birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment, which makes people born on US soil automatically American regardless of parentage. The LGBT+ ruling overturned a lower court's refusal to force public schools in Montgomery County to allow some children to opt out of the classes if desired. The lower court had rejected the argument made by a group of parents who sued the school district, claiming it violated the Constitution's First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal justices dissented from the ruling. The plaintiffs in the LGBT+ case - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out.' Montgomery County said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of 'social stigma and isolation' among students who believe the books represent them and their families. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. Meanwhile, the birthright citizenship ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, prevents other judges in the court circuit from blocking Mr Trump's legislation. On the first day of his second term, Mr Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under the directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. It did not put the birthright citizenship order into effect or address the legality of ending birthright citizenship. Significantly, the ruling could apply to all attempts by federal judges to block any executive orders from Mr Trump, not just birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court case argued federal judges should not be able to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, in theory paving the way to allow widespread enforcement of Mr Trump's agenda with minimal legal pushback. A 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v Wong Kim Ark set precedent for guaranteeing that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The Trump administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the US.' Following Friday's ruling, Mr Trump claimed a victory. He wrote in a Truth Social post: 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! 'Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our immigration process. 'Congratulations to attorney general Pam Bondi, solicitor general John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.' Mr Trump has previously argued that the 14th amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War and was meant to protect 'babies of slaves' rather than children of illegal migrants. 'Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'suckers' that we are... It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection,' he said in a Truth Social post last month.
Belfast Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Belfast Telegraph
How Brexit has led to legal uncertainties about what a woman is in Northern Ireland
When the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016, no one could have foreseen that a decade later, Brexit would impact on the interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman.
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship broadens Trump's power
The Supreme Court on Friday handed a significant victory to Donald Trump - and future American presidents - when curbing lower courts' power to block executive Trump was beaming as he addressed reporters at the White House briefing room podium, calling it a "big, amazing decision" which the administration is "very happy about".He said it was a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law".The court's decision not only impacts Trump's birthright citizenship order, but also emboldens him to enact many of his other policy actions that have been temporarily thwarted by similar injunctions. Impact on birthright citizenship The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to no longer grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on American soil – at least for the moment. Now the White House will have to implement its plan, which will be no easy Friday, the nation's highest court allowed Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship to go into effect in a month's time, while leaving room for lower courts to curb the impact on those who have standing to traditionally handle processing birth certificates, and many do not record the citizenship of the parents. Democratic-run state governments will be in no rush to do so, no matter what the Trump administration may Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, left the door open for states to make the case that a more broad block on Trump's birthright citizenship action is sets up big legal battles to come."As the States see it, their harms — financial injuries and the administrative burdens flowing from citizen-dependent benefits programs — cannot be remedied without a blanket ban on the enforcement of the Executive Order," Barrett wrote. "The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so we leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments."President Trump described the court's decision on Friday as a "giant win". He added that the "birthright citizenship hoax" has been "indirectly, hit hard" and that the decision would prevent "scamming of our immigration process".Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that the Supreme Court will decide whether the US will end birthright citizenship in October during its next session. Broadening presidential power The court's decision to limit the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions will have immediate, wide-ranging consequences. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have often criticised what they say are ideological jurists in federal district courts who have been able to singlehandedly block executive actions and even legislation passed by doing away automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants born on US soil is at the centre of this high profile case, there are a number of other actions taken by Trump in recent months that have also been held up by lower-level Trump's inauguration to April 29, the Congressional Research Service counts 25 such instances. Lower courts have blocked the president's cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programmes and other government agencies, limited his ability to terminate government employees, put other immigration reforms on hold and suspended White House issued changes to election the Supreme Court's decision in this case, the administration is in a much stronger position to ask courts to allow it to push forward on many of these the Biden presidency, conservative judges prevented Democrats from enacting new environmental regulations, offering student loan forgiveness, modifying immigration rules. Courts blocked changes to normalised immigration status for some undocumented migrants during Barack Obama's presidency, as well, and prevented him from making more white collar employees eligible for overtime all these types of cases, courts will ultimately be able to step in and halt presidential actions that they deem illegal or Supreme Court in its opinion said, " The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity."But that will come further along in the judicial process, at the appellate and Supreme Court level. In the meantime, presidents – Donald Trump and his successors, whether they are Republicans or Democrats - will have more time and space to act.
