Thousands of trans rights protesters on Edinburgh streets following court ruling
Thousands of trans rights protesters have taken to the streets of Edinburgh following the recent Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman.
Demonstrators waved flags and signs and chanted slogans in the spring sunshine as they gathered at the foot of the Mound, in the heart of the Scottish capital, before marching to the UK Government offices at Queen Elizabeth House.
Speakers addressed the crowd using megaphones, and led the demonstrators in chants that included 'Trans rights are human rights' and 'When trans rights are under attack, what do we do? Fight back'.
Meanwhile members of the crowd waved placards emblazoned with slogans including 'Trans women are women', ' Autonomy for every body', and 'One is not born but rather becomes a woman'.
The rally and march was organised by Resisting Transphobia, and took place alongside similar events elsewhere in the country on Saturday.
Lauren Yeoman, 38, said she was taking part in the demonstration because she was 'disgusted' at what she said amounted to the removal of trans people's human rights.
Describing how she felt when she learned of the Supreme Court ruling she said: 'I felt sick to be honest. I think we're taking a lot of backward steps.
'It feels like every day women are being attacked, minorities are being attacked, and the real problem is being ignored, and we're pointing fingers at people who aren't harming anybody, such as trans people, while ignoring the real problems.'
She added: 'Look at the real problems. It's not trans people. Show me figures that show trans people are a danger to us, because I don't think there are any.'
Katelyn Collins, 44, said she was taking part in the march to give 'moral support, emotional support' to other transgender people.
She said of the ruling: 'I found it shocking, the fact that they're picking on us, and it should not happen.
'I was disgraced with it but it didn't bring me down, because I'm proud to be who I am.'
She called on those in power to: 'Let people be. Let people live who they want to be, let people be who they want to be. Life's far too short.'
68-year-old Tirion Dickson attended the march holding a sign reading 'Grans for trans', which she explained had been made for her by her daughter-in-law.
The retired NHS worker said she was taking part to 'give support' to the trans community, and said people of her generation should 'know better'.
'I hope in my lifetime that this group of people will be as accepted as other minority groups have been over time since the 1960s,' she said.
'I just really would say to people 'why spread hatred?'. They are lovely people. They're gentle, lovely people and I don't see any need to hate them.
'I don't see any threat to women whatsoever, they're a group of vulnerable people, they constitute 0.01(%) of the population, so what is the problem?'
Meanwhile Brianna Burt, 34, said she was taking part because she was 'enraged' at the Supreme Court ruling, which she said would harm the rights of 'all minority groups'.
'Trans women are women, and I'm enraged at the ruling by the Supreme Court, and I want to make sure that the media is covering it accurately because the coverage so far has been atrocious,' she said.
She added: '(The) future rights of all women and all minority groups is in jeopardy and we need to speak up about it and get the media to cover it properly.'
The demonstration came after Wednesday's ruling by the UK's highest court, which confirmed the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
This means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
32 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Hamilton by-election: How Labour 'defied the odds' and Reform ripped up the rulebook
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Anas Sarwar was buzzing. The triumphant Scottish Labour leader told journalists his party had defied the bookies, the pollsters and the pundits by winning the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, and it was now 'game on'. He had a point. Almost everyone thought the SNP would keep hold of the seat, albeit with a much reduced majority. In the end, Labour's candidate, Davy Russell, beat his Nationalist rival by 602 votes. It was a narrow victory, but a win is a win. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On Friday, as Labour held a victory rally in Hamilton, one party spinner purchased a "humble pie" - technically, an apple flan - from the Bayne's bakery next to their campaign HQ and used it to tease journalists who had written off Labour's chances. A Reform UK election billboard poster in Larkhall | PA Alas, it wasn't long before Professor Sir John Curtice, the polling guru, rained on their parade with some cold, hard numbers. The result, he said, was actually 'way below' what Labour needs if it wants to win next year's Holyrood election. "I think the honest truth is that neither Labour nor the SNP can be really particularly happy with this result,' he told The Scotsman. Professor Sir John Curtice has an important message about how to restore the public's trust in politics and democracy (Picture: Leon Neal) | Getty Images Instead, the most important development in terms of its wider implications lies elsewhere. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Hamilton by-election was a tight three-horse race between Labour, the SNP and Nigel Farage's Reform UK. The latter came in third, but still secured a remarkable 26 per cent of the vote, outperforming its national polling. In light of this, Sir John said, the possibility that Reform might come second next year, ahead of Labour, 'is not an outcome that we can presume is out of the bounds of possibility'. Like it or not, Reform is now a force to be reckoned with in Scottish politics, and all without having a separate leadership team in place north of the Border. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The spectre of Mr Farage dominated the by-election campaign, and his visit to the constituency on Monday received huge amounts of coverage. His rivals also spent a great deal of time talking about him. The First Minister repeatedly portrayed the by-election as a two-horse race between the SNP and Reform - an analysis that turned out to be somewhat flawed, to put it mildly. "Reform's performance, 26 per cent, is more than you would expect in Hamilton, if the result there were simply reflecting what the opinion polls have been telling us,' Sir John said. "Now there are [a few] possibilities. One is that the Reform campaign in the constituency might have been particularly effective. I certainly think that Mr [Ross] Lambie was a relatively strong candidate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "And it may well be that Labour and the SNP made the cardinal, classic mistake of giving lots of lovely publicity to your opponent's election campaign. "Or it may be that the polls are indeed underestimating Reform somewhat. We did see Reform doing better than expected in the English local elections, and then the polls caught up with what the local elections were saying." The polling expert added: "For those of us who weren't consumed by the day to day events in Hamilton, we were going 'hang on, the only thing that anybody is hearing about this by-election campaign is what Nigel Farage is saying, as advertised by Anas Sarwar and John Swinney'." Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse was prime territory for Labour, and exactly the sort of seat it should be winning. Nevertheless, a narrative developed during the campaign the party was in trouble, and there was speculation it could even come third. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad That did not happen, and Mr Sarwar is quite right to celebrate a hard-earned victory. Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish Labour party, celebrates with deputy leader Jackie Baillie. | Lisa Ferguson Mark Diffley, the pollster, said it was a 'big win' for Labour. However, he said it was 'not right' to say the party had hugely outperformed its polling. 'National polling puts Labour at 20 per cent, down two points from 2021 Holyrood election,' he wrote on social media. 'In this by-election, Labour's vote share fell by two points from the Hamilton result in 2021.' Labour bosses credited their victory to activists rolling up their sleeves and hitting the doors. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "For a long time, people looked at the SNP and thought they had the strongest communications strategy, the strongest digital outlook and they had the strongest field operation,' Mr Sarwar said. 'I genuinely believe we beat them in all three of those areas. We ran the most significant and best ground operation in any constituency in the history of the Scottish Labour party in this by-election." Meanwhile, John Swinney, the First Minister and SNP leader, told journalists he would 'consider the implications' of the result. 'There's nothing quite like being on the doorsteps for several weeks to hear what people are thinking and feeling, and you hear it very directly,' he said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Asked about a potential Cabinet reshuffle, he said: 'Obviously I've got to consider all the issues about the ministerial team. [Energy Secretary] Màiri McAllan will be concluding her maternity leave soon, so these issues will be considered.' While his rival celebrated in Hamilton, Mr Swinney took questions at the SNP's HQ near the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. It was, understandably, a muted affair. But spare a thought for the Scottish Tories, who secured just 6 per cent of the vote. The party will meet for its annual conference in Edinburgh next weekend, where leader Russell Findlay will have the unenviable task of trying to build some momentum.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024. Following the ruling, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the commission's approach 'has been fair and appropriate throughout'. She continued: 'Our six-week consultation period represents a balance between gathering comprehensive stakeholder input and addressing the urgent need for clarity. We're particularly encouraged by the thousands of consultation responses already received and look forward to further meaningful engagement through the rest of the process. 'The current climate of legal uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics who rightly expect clarity about their rights. A swift resolution to this uncertainty will benefit everyone, including trans people.'
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The co-directors of For Women Scotland and campaigners celebrated outside the Supreme Court in London after the ruling in April (Lucy North/PA) The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Other campaigners have protested since the ruling (Andrew Matthews/PA) Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024. Following the ruling, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the commission's approach 'has been fair and appropriate throughout'. She continued: 'Our six-week consultation period represents a balance between gathering comprehensive stakeholder input and addressing the urgent need for clarity. We're particularly encouraged by the thousands of consultation responses already received and look forward to further meaningful engagement through the rest of the process. 'The current climate of legal uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics who rightly expect clarity about their rights. A swift resolution to this uncertainty will benefit everyone, including trans people.'
