Equality Commission to publish guidance on Supreme Court ruling
Northern Ireland's Equality Commission has said it aims to publish new formal guidance in June after the Supreme Court's ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex.
The court had been asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Great Britain, but not in Northern Ireland.
It comes as Fermanagh and Omagh District Council said it would be implementing the provisions of the Supreme Court's ruling across its buildings.
The Equality Commission said it would "advise all employers and service providers, including councils, to review any policies that the Supreme Court judgment may impact on".
"As always, we advise them to come to us for advice relevant to their particular circumstances prior to making any changes," it added.
The Supreme Court ruling has major implications for single-sex spaces in GB, such as female changing rooms and toilets.
BBC News NI's The Nolan Show asked a number of public bodies in Northern Ireland - including health trusts, government departments and councils - how they plan to react to the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Department of Finance, Department for Communities and Department of Health also stated they were considering potential implications.
The Supreme Court ruling gives clarity - but now comes the difficult part
While most council also said they were still considering the ruling's implications, Fermanagh and Omagh said they "will be developing new guidance for the use of changing rooms at leisure facilities and toilets further to the Supreme Court ruling".
The council added that they will "review the equality screening of our policies to identify any anomalies that may have arisen as a result of the Supreme Court ruling".
"Should the screening highlight any particular issues or concerns which require amendment or new policy development, these may be the subject of public consultation."
Alexa Moore is the policy, campaigns and communications manager at the Rainbow Project and said that Fermanagh and Omagh District Council have "jumped the gun".
"It's quite concerning for trans [people], but also wider LGBT communities in Fermanagh because you have to ask the question: 'How is this going to be enforced, are we going to have council workers paid to stand on-site and do genital inspections on people trying to use leisure facilities?'
"It's frankly bizarre and I do think they're really jumping the gun here," Ms Moore said.
In a statement, Omagh Pride said they were "dismayed and angered" by the council statement on the Supreme Court ruling.
"This is yet another decision that would have a deeply adverse impact on trans people, adding to isolation and putting their safety at risk.
"We call on our local elected representatives to immediately and clearly speak out against this statement from Fermanagh & Omagh District Council and to ensure that no changes to policy are implemented which would undermine the rights and risk the safety of trans people."
BBC News NI asked some people out and about in Omagh about the possibility of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council changing its policies.
Mandy McClelland, from Omagh, does not think there should be a "hard and fast rule".
"If you need the toilet – you need the toilet whatever gender you are so that wouldn't bother me in the slightest."
She said would not mind sharing a toilet with a transgender person.
"Live and let live is my motto."
Demi Whelan said if she or her daughter Tilly needed to use the toilet and only the men's was available, they would still use it.
"If it's clean enough for us to use we're going to use it," she said.
"I think if you needed to go to the toilet there shouldn't be any fuss of whether you need to go, if it's available you're more than welcome to use it."
However, Billy Naylor said he does not think a male who has changed their gender to female should be able to use a female bathroom.
"If that's their decision, to be what they want to be, when it comes to public toilets – no, a man's toilet is for a man, a women's toilet is for a woman," he said.
Women's campaigners celebrate court win - but what will it change?
Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman
Transgender guidance scrapped for NI primary schools
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brazil court majority favors tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies like X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet -- a law in effect since 2014 that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without judicial intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and four have yet to express an opinion. "We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom," Judge Flavio Dino said during Wednesday's session, broadcast online. Not doing so would be like "trying to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right of free movement," he added. Google, for its part, said in a statement that changing the rules "will not contribute to ending the circulation of unwanted content on the internet." - Coup plot - Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court's judges, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in the tightly-fought 2022 election against Bolsonaro, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des/nl
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's top court votes to hold social media platforms accountable for user posts
By Ricardo Brito BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazil's Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that social media companies must be held accountable for some types of content published by users on their platforms in the country, but details on the decision have yet to be resolved. Six of the 11 Supreme Court judges voted to hold platforms responsible for third-party content seen as illegal, in a decision that could result in fines against social media companies for not removing some users' posts in the country. The decision could impact the business of platforms including Meta's Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, Elon Musk's X and other internet giants, such as Alphabet's Google, in a market of more than 200 million people. Only one justice so far voted to not change the current law on the matter, which says that the companies can only be found responsible for third-party content on their platforms if the firms do not comply with a legal decision ordering the content removal. Writing for the majority, Justice Gilmar Mendes said current Brazilian law represents "a veil of irresponsibility for digital platforms." "Even if they are informed of the occurrence of crimes on their platforms, they (currently) cannot be held responsible for damages caused by keeping this content online, except in the case of a court order," he said. Asked to comment, Meta sent a 2024 statement where it had said that a decision holding platforms responsible could make them "liable for virtually all types of content even without having been notified." In a statement sent before the vote which gave the court a majority, Google said the current Brazilian law regarding social media can and should be improved, "as long as procedure guarantees and criteria are set to prevent legal uncertainty and the indiscriminate content removal." TikTok and a representative of X in Brazil did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The court did not agree on the scope of the decision, such as what types of content would be considered illegal. The court's head, Luis Roberto Barroso, said he will work with the court members to find a consensus. Four judges still need to vote in the trial, which has been rolling over for months. Votes previously cast can still be changed, although that is not common. The trial is set to resume on Thursday.
