Maggie Chapman speaks out as Tory bid to oust her from committee fails
After the top UK court ruled that sex was biological under the 2010 Equality Act, Chapman told a trans rights protest that the decision reflected 'bigotry, prejudice, and hatred'.
The comments sparked a backlash from Scotland's legal profession, with both the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates speaking out against Chapman.
READ MORE: John Swinney reaffirms support for trans people amid 'uncertainty and anxiety'
On Tuesday, citing the faculty's intervention, the Tories sought to pass a motion which would have put Chapman's membership on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee to a full Scottish Parliament vote.
Conservative MSP Tess White moved the motion, which was backed by her fellow Tory MSP Pam Gosal as well as Labour's Paul O'Kane. However, the committee's three SNP MSPs – Marie McNair, Evelyn Tweed, and convener Karen Adam – and Chapman herself all voted it down.
After the victory in the vote, which means she will remain in post on the committee, Chapman said she was 'grateful' to have held on.
'I am also very grateful to the many trans and non-binary people and allies who have been in touch with me over the last two weeks to tell me their stories,' she went on.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman has long campaigned for trans rights (Image: PA) 'It's been devastating to hear about the exclusion and prejudice they or their loved ones have faced, and how worried they are for the future.
'The focus should not be on me, it should be on the outcomes of the ruling and the serious threat that is being posed to the rights of trans and non-binary people.
"I have never questioned the court's right to make the ruling that it did. But that does not mean that I must agree with it. I don't, and I am very concerned about the impact it will have and is already having.
'Over recent years a toxic culture war has seen trans people and their loved ones being targeted and demonised by too many politicians and large parts of the media.
'I will always stand up and advocate for trans and non-binary people. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is also my job to stand up for my constituents.
READ MORE: 'Careless' guidance on Supreme Court sex ruling slammed by former EHRC solicitor
'Some of my constituents are trans or non-binary. Others have trans or non-binary children, parents, siblings, friends. They deserve representation as who they are. I will not stop being a vocal trans ally.'
White hit out at the SNP MSPs on the committee who had voted her motion down, saying that had 'put political allegiance before parliament'.
The Tory MSP added: 'Maggie Chapman voted to save her own skin. A disgraceful outcome which sets an alarming precedent for our parliament and the rule of law.'
Her colleague Gosal added: 'It is absolutely shocking that SNP MSPs voted to keep Maggie Chapman on the Equalities Committee. The Bute House Agreement may have ended a year ago, however the SNP and Greens still go hand-in-hand…'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
BRASILIA, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations.
Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
Council statement over asylum seekers 'misinformation' as bids to buy student halls
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A council has released a statement to address "misinformation" over its bid to buy up a block of student halls in Bangor. Cyngor Gwynedd is in negotiations about purchasing the Ty Glyn building in the city. The property was once a tax office but later became student halls. The 60 bedroom site has been on the market for £4.5m. It is currently marked as 'Sold STC' (subject to contract) although remains student accommodation at this time. Cyngor Gwynedd are reportedly the ones buying the site which has triggered rumours about their plans. This has led to social media reports that asylum seekers could be housed in the building in the future by the council. It comes at a time when UK Government is under intense pressure to reduce the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. Join the North Wales Live WhatsApp community group where you can get the latest stories delivered straight to your phone In a statement Cyngor Gwynedd said: "Cyngor Gwynedd is in negotiations to buy the Tŷ Glyn building in Bangor for the purpose of meeting the housing needs of Gwynedd residents. The Council has no intention of housing asylum seekers or refugees in this building. "We appreciate the questions residents have raised and remain committed to ensuring open and transparent communication. However, it is important not to speculate or spread misinformation in the community." About 200 hotels were housing more than 30,000 asylum seekers in England and Wales at the end of March 2025, although it is understood less than 100 of those migrants are housed in Wales. This compares to a peak of 56,000 asylum seekers in 400 hotels back in 2023 under the last Conservative government. Senedd member Sian Gwenllian said: "Misinformation of this kind is harmful and risks fuelling unnecessary tension within our community. I urge everyone to pause and think carefully before sharing unverified rumours. My thanks go to Cyngor Gwynedd for their clear statement." Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox Find out what's happening near you
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Labour braced for wave of legal action over migrant hotels as immigration crisis deepens
Labour is bracing for a wave of legal action that could displace thousands of asylum seekers after councils across England signalled they could seek to ban hotels for migrants. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis has said that the government is working on contingency plans for housing asylum seekers after Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction, forcing the removal of the 136 migrants who live there, in a landmark ruling on Tuesday. The order blocks asylum seekers from being housed at The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which has been the site of a series of violent protests that have seen police officers injured and multiple people arrested for disorder in recent weeks. Former Tory immigration minister Robert Jenrick called for 'all patriotic councils to follow Epping's lead and pursue injunctions', and deputy leader of Reform, Richard Tice, urged residents to protest at hotels housing migrants to force their removal. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp has demanded Labour hold an emergency cabinet meeting to address the 'migrant crisis', and called on home secretary Yvette Cooper to commit that none of the asylum seekers in The Bell would be moved into hotels, houses, apartments or social housing. He cited Tory plans to use larger sites to house asylum seekers, despite the National Audit Office finding use of former military bases to be significantly more expensive than paying for hotel accommodation. Analysis of Home Office figures by The Independent shows that the government has already made progress on cutting the asylum backlog, with the number of people waiting for initial decisions on their applications dropping to 78,000 from its peak of 133,000 in 2023 under the Tory government. While over 100,000 asylum seekers are being housed by the government as they wait for their claims, just a third - 32,345 people - are in hotels. In London, as many as 65 per cent of asylum seekers are housed in hotels as the government scrambles for limited accommodation. Hotels cost the government up to £170 a night per asylum seeker – around six times higher than other forms of accommodation, according to the Migration Observatory. At least eleven district or borough councils – including some Labour-led ones – have now said that they will assess their legal options after the Epping ruling, two more are in conversation with the Home Office about changes to hotels in their area, and a further four said they would monitor developments in the legal bid. Reform-run county councils have also said they will push for legal action against any hotels in their areas, however, decisions to bring a legal challenge over planning restrictions will be down to individual districts. Charity Refugee Council said that 'everyone agrees that hotels are the wrong answer' and called on the Home Office to resolve asylum applications quickly, so 'people can either rebuild their lives here or return home with dignity'. Steve Smith, CEO of Care4Calais, said that ministers had 'failed in its first duty to protect the residents of The Bell Hotel' and subjected them to 'weeks of hate'. He added: 'It's the government's failure to protect the residents that opened the space for a challenge on planning grounds, which has handed the far-right something to claim victory on'. Mr Jarvis, the security minister, said that asylum seekers in Epping would be 'appropriately accommodated' at other sites – but failed to rule out that they would not simply be moved to other hotels. He added that 'we'll see over the next few days and weeks' whether more legal cases will follow. Spelthorne borough council said it was 'working closely with legal counsel in light of the recent High Court ruling', which it said 'may have significant implications' for a hotel in Stanwell. A Labour council leader in Tamworth, Staffordshire, where violence broke out against asylum seekers in hotels during the riots last year, said that they were reviewing legal options in light of the Epping judgement. Carol Dean said the council hadn't sought an injunction against the hotel in its area when it was first used in 2022 because other legal challenges had been unsuccessful, but that they would be 'reviewing our legal position in light of this significant ruling'. Labour-led Wirral council also said it was considering its options after being told by the Home Office at the end of June that a former hotel in the area will soon be used to house single male asylum seekers. The former hotel is currently being used to house asylum-seeking families, and no planning application has been made to change the use of the hotel, the council said. In South Ribble, Lancashire, the council said that use of asylum hotels in its area had been 'imposed on us by government', and it would 'explore all of our options'. Simon Tagg, leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, said that while there are no asylum hotels in their area, they had continuing concerns about the use of Houses of Multiple Occupation and short-term lets for migrants. Leader of Newcastle City Council, Cllr Karen Kilgour, said that the use of hotels for asylum seekers was 'not appropriate or sustainable' and added that the council were in 'active discussions with the Home Office' about getting more control over the placement of asylum seekers in the city. In South Norfolk, the council said it had already issued an enforcement notice on the owners of an asylum hotel in early August, requiring them to submit a planning application for a change of use. In the Epping case, the hotel's owners Somani Hotels Ltd failed to apply for a change of use after they received advice that it would not be necessary. Mr Justice Eyre ruled against them on Tuesday, saying that there was an arguable case that The Bell was no longer a hotel. Several councils contacted by The Independent said that while they had asylum hotels in their area, they had no intention of seeking legal action to move refugees out.
