Nicola Sturgeon says Supreme Court ruling 'massively misinterpreted'
The former first minister was speaking at the How the Light Gets In festival in Hay-on-Wye on Saturday, and said she would 'always be an ally of the trans community'.
The Sunday Times reports that Sturgeon told the festival the Supreme Court judgment set out 'what the law is, there is no gainsaying that'.
But she added it was the job of politicians to 'decide what the law should be or has to be'.
READ MORE: Zarah Sultana: UK halting Israel trade talks is 'irrelevant'
We told how Lady Hale, the first female president of the Supreme Court, said the ruling had been 'misinterpreted',
and that there was 'nothing in that judgment that says that you can't have gender-neutral loos'.
In the weeks following the judgment, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released interim guidance that banned transgender people from using the bathroom of their acquired gender.
The guidance was described as 'cruel', 'authoritarian' and 'segregation'.
Trans women were subsequently banned from playing women's football and cricket.
Sturgeon referenced Hale's comments, adding: 'That judgment, I think, has been massively overinterpreted in terms of some of the immediate reactions to it.
'But if it is the case that the judgment means we have to move to a situation where trans lives are almost impossible to live then I'm sorry but the law has to change because that is not an acceptable way to be.'
The Glasgow MSP previously told journalists in Holyrood that it 'doesn't make a single woman any safer' to make trans people's lives 'almost unliveable'.
In April, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010 a woman is defined by 'biological sex' and does not include a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
This decision went against how the law had been interpreted across public and private bodies in the UK for the past 20 years.
READ MORE: Fears 'rigged' Scottish Labour voting system boxes out left-wing MSPs
Sturgeon, who is standing down at the next Holyrood election, said that despite abuse she had received she would 'always' be an ally to the trans community 'no matter how difficult that might be'.
'Many of those who are on the other side [of the issue] say it is all about protecting women,' she said.
'Isn't it ironic that I have probably had more misogynistic abuse as a result of this issue than on any other issue in my entire political career. Go figure.'
For Women Scotland, an anti-trans campaign group who took the gender case to the Supreme Court, originally after challenging the inclusion of trans women on gender quotas for public boards in Scottish Government guidance, criticised Sturgeon's comments.
(Image: PA)
Susan Smith told The Times: 'It would be quite ironic, although not unexpected, if the first female first minister was resolutely sticking to the notion that biological sex is some nebulous concept,' she said.
'There has indeed been a great deal of misrepresentation of the Supreme Court ruling, but the most egregious has come from trans activists who have spun the most outrageous interpretations.'
Sturgeon was first minister when the Scottish Parliament passed its Gender Recognition Reform Act in 2022, which would allow transgender people to self-identify and simplified the requirements to acquire a GRC, before it was blocked by Westminster from becoming law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
20 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will Trump pardon Diddy? Trial could end, experts say
According to Kalt, Trump -- who appears to be in the middle of a pardoning spree -- would be within his presidential rights to extend a preemptive pardon to fellow New Yorker Combs, who has been described by witnesses so far as violent and abusive. "These are federal charges (against Combs), so that's the main limit. The matter has be federal, it has to be criminal vs. civil, and related to something that's already been done," says Kalt. "But the person doesn't have to even be charged yet, or convicted. The Supreme Court has said preemptive pardons are OK." Typically, one of the last gestures from an outgoing president is a pardon. In President Joe Biden's final days in office, he famously pardoned his son, Hunter, convicted of federal gun felonies and federal tax charges. At the end of Trump's first term, he granted clemency to political allies such as Roger Stone, found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and related offenses. But pardons can take place during a president's term, says Kalt. The right was established in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which among other things gives the president "power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Kalt says the power to pardon is derived from the British monarch's historic right and stems from a recognition that criminal law was often too harsh, and it was important to have a safety valve. "The president was the best person to be that safety valve because of his political accountability," he says. But that's where things get murky, he adds, noting that Republican lawmakers "don't appear willing to hold the president accountable" for granting pardons, meaning they aren't costing him in terms of political capital. In contrast, President Gerald Ford's controversial pardoning of disgraced President Richard Nixon was perceived so negatively "that it probably cost Ford re-election in 1976," Kalt says. In just over 100 days since taking office, Trump has issued pardons to a broad range of personalities. They include Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the reality show "Chrisley Knows Best," who were convicted in 2022 of swindling $36 million from Atlanta banks and being tax evaders, and rapper NBA YoungBoy, who in 2024 was sentenced to two years in prison for weapons possession. He also pardoned former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of wire fraud and extortion, and Jan. 6 participant and "Bob's Burgers" actor Jay Johnston. The reason many presidents issue pardons at the end of their terms is precisely to avoid political fallout, says Kalt. In that sense, Trump's brash approach suggests he has no concerns about such ramifications. "I don't agree with these pardons on their merits, but the fact that he did them when he is politically accountable as opposed to slinking out the door does add some legitimacy to them in that sense," he says. "With pardons, you don't need Congress, you wave your magic wand and it happens. You can see the appeal for a president, particularly one like Trump." One can also see the appeal for those such as Combs, whose ordeal could end instantly should Trump's pardon "wand" wave his way.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump's mass firings of federal workers must remain on hold, court rules
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday night that President Donald Trump 's orders for mass removals of federal staff and several agencies will remain on hold. The Trump administration had requested that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals freeze an earlier order from a lower court that put a stop to the mass firings at several agencies, CNN noted. The new court order is a significant step back for the president and his attempt to radically reduce the size of the federal government. The widespread firings, known as reductions in force (RIFs), have remained on hold since May 9, following the earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston stating that Trump needed congressional authorization for such a wholesale makeover of the federal government. The three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit stated in a two-to-one ruling that Trump's executive order in question 'far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution.' The majority found that the challengers could succeed on the merits of their arguments that the mass firings were illegal, and argued that the administration didn't manage to meet the other factors that would have prompted an emergency appellate intervention. The president had previously requested that the Supreme Court take on the case. That request didn't go anywhere initially. It's likely, however, that the issue will end up before the top court in the land once more. The case was put forward by unions representing federal employees, outside groups, and local governments. They challenged the executive order Trump signed in February, which called for a widespread restructuring of the government, along with directives from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget to enact the president's policy. The offices asked that agencies send in plans for how they would implement Trump's order to slash the workforce. The challengers argued that both OPM and OMB were making the final decisions on the size of the firings for each agency. They put forward evidence that proposals for less radical cuts were being shot down, making the firings illegal. The lawsuit also took aim at the involvement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The agencies covered by the previous ruling by Illston, halting the firings, include almost every cabinet department, such as the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Interior, State, Labor, and Treasury. The 9th Circuit said on Friday that Congress, not the president, gave agencies the power to enact widespread firings. Bill Clinton appointee, Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher, said in the majority ruling that the 'kind of reorganization contemplated by the Order has long been subject to Congressional approval.' Fletcher was joined in the majority by a Joe Biden appointee, Circuit Judge Lucy Koh. Dissenting from the ruling was George W. Bush appointee Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan, who wrote that 'the President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct RIFs.' 'We are gratified by the court's decision today to allow the pause of these harmful actions to endure while our case proceeds,' the groups challenging the president's orders said in a statement, CNN noted.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
'Stop letting criminals choose their own gender', UN warns after UK police forces allow 49 rapists to identify as female offenders
The United Nations has warned over letting criminals choose their own gender, after a new report found that 49 rapists were allowed to identify as female offenders in the UK. Reem Alsalem, the UN's special rapporteur for violence against women and girls, said at least a third of UK forces were still collecting data on criminals and victims' self-identified gender rather than their assigned sex at birth. Criticising British institutions, she said that the approach 'neglects women's and girls' specific needs' and increases safety risks, Ms Alsalem said in her interim report, which was published on Friday. Over the last 10 years, 49 convictions for rape have been listed as female, despite the fact the offenders were born male. Ms Alsalem added that the 'lack of legislative clarity on sex hampers data collection on violence against women and girls. 'Police data, while disaggregated by crime and location, often conflates the sex with the gender, for data on victims and perpetrators'. Her remarks come a month after the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of a woman relates to 'biological sex'. Lord Hodge said that five Supreme Court justices had unanimously decided that 'the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a 'biological woman and biological sex'. He recognised 'the strength of feeling on both sides' and cautioned against seeing the judgement as a triumph for one side over another, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination. In an 88-page ruling, the justices said: 'The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.' The decision could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate. The judgement marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and a women's group over the definition of a 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50 per cent female representation on public boards. The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act. In handing down the court's judgement, Lord Hodge said: 'The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex.' 'In a judgement written by Lady Rose, Lady Simler and myself, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree, we unanimously allow the appeal,' he added. Lord Hodge said: 'But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not… 'The Equality Act gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment, in substance in their acquired gender.' He recognised the 'strength of feeling on all sides' which lies behind the case, adding: 'On the one hand women, who make up one half of the population, have campaigned for over 150 years to have equality with men and to combat discrimination based on their sex. That work still continues. 'On the other hand, a vulnerable and often harassed minority, the trans community, struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity.' The judgement was celebrated by women's rights groups, who cheered outside the court, opened a bottle of champagne and broke into song after the ruling was handed down. But a furious protester shouted 'trans rights are human rights' at those gathered, adding: 'Even if you kill every last one of us another will be born tomorrow.'
