Common sense wins the day on the definition of a woman
It's pretty straightforward to decide who comes out best from the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict on, believe it or not, 'what is a woman?'.Obviously and certainly in my opinion the vast majority of women everywhere will reckon they do and, of course, so will the four women who took their fight all the way to the UK's highest court and won.
In terms of those who sprinkled stardust of their campaign JK Rowling was a brilliant advocate for the cause and seemingly content to accept all the slings and arrows from her opponents, who included, incredibly, Nicola Sturgeon, the then first minister of Scotland. And let's not forget Joanna Cherry, an indefatigable legal eagle who never for a second retreated from her principled opposition to the changes her own party was seeking to make even if it did lead to bitter denunciations from former colleagues.
Politically, of course, it's the SNP that deserves all the brickbats for seeking to foist on Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK an alien form of public behaviour that would have allowed trans women, who remained biological males, access to hitherto female only facilities – such as toilets and changing rooms.
But right at the top of the list of victors should go good old-fashioned common sense. That's what Wednesday's learned judgement delivered. It is a ridiculous situation that should never have reached the highest court in the land: it shouldn't have been judges deciding what is or isn't a woman. Biology and nature, combined with common sense should have made that abundantly clear to everyone.
As far as politics is concerned, there is no doubt that the Scottish Tories win hands down, at least in relation to the attempted legislation that ultimately took the trans issue all the way to the Supreme Court. This involved – who else? – Ms Sturgeon and her ill-fated and badly thought out Gender Recognition Bill for which only three Tory MSPs voted and one of them has subsequently defected to the Lib Dems.
But the former first minister didn't give up when that measure was blocked by the UK government and her administration then 'persuaded' the Scottish courts that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate were entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.
That was the verdict that the Supreme Court overturned thanks to the persistence of the For Women Scotland activists.
There is no ambiguity in the mind of Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader. In his reaction to the verdict he said that First Minister John Swinney 'now needs to respect women's rights and get rid of the dangerous gender policies which have become embedded in Scotland's public institutions'.
Meanwhile, for his part Mr Swinney said his Government accepted the Supreme Court's decision, saying it provided 'clarity' but added that 'protecting the rights of all' would continue to underpin its actions.
It is difficult to see from this distance what effect Wednesday's decision will have on political popularity in Scotland. The latest opinion poll, which aimed to judge where the parties stand as they begin their preparations for the next Scottish Parliament election, now just over 12 months away, delivered very bad news for Unionists.
It suggested that those parties which support Scottish independence, which include Alba and the Scottish Greens, as well as the SNP, stand to gain an overall majority of 29 over the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Reform in Holyrood – more than enough, they'll claim, for another referendum on breaking up the UK.
However, we won't have to wait until next May to test the parties' strengths. There is to be a by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse on June 5, following the death of popular Christina McKelvie, a popular SNP minister who had a 4,500 majority over Labour at the last Holyrood election.
The SNP will be favourites again, but with Reform on the list and with Nigel Farage, the party leader, announcing that he'll be campaigning, there is set to be a lot of drama. The Tories have no chance of winning but will be doing their utmost to at least top the Reform candidate's vote, a tall order.
Labour have selected a strong local candidate in Davy Russell but can't really mount an all out attack on the SNP over their trans policies as most of Scottish Labour's MSPs voted for Sturgeon's controversial Bill. We're told that wiser counsels have now prevailed in Labour's ranks but what the Scottish party really needs is a firm statement and guidance from Sir Keir Starmer over what Labour's policy is on the trans issue.
Is that forthcoming?
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries set to go into effect Monday
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term, announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the United States and those from seven others would face restrictions. The ban takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m., a cushion that avoids the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signaled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. Some, but not all, 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video released on social media, Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa. Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired. 'I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people,' he said in his proclamation. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Trump's first term, was included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the U.S. illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a U.N.-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Trump wrote. The list results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban,' was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at ___ Amiri reported from the United Nations. Associated Press writers Ellen Knickmeyer and Danica Coto contributed to this report.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Full List of Countries Affected by Trump's New Travel Ban
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump issued a new proclamation on Wednesday restricting travel by foreigners from 12 countries and partially restricting entry for travelers from an additional seven countries. Why It Matters Since his January 20 inauguration, Trump has cracked down on foreign nationals in the U.S., mainly through executive orders, and has prioritized immigration enforcement as a key pillar of his agenda. He has repeatedly invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law that grants the commander in chief authority to detain or deport non-citizens, to remove migrants from the U.S. The president's authority to invoke the statute has been challenged in multiple court cases related to the Trump administration's deportations. What To Know "During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld," Trump said in his proclamation. The president added that foreign nationals with admitted entry into the United States must not "bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security." Trump said he directed some of his Cabinet to identify countries with insufficient vetting and screening as to warrant a partial or full suspension of admission into the United States. The ban goes into effect 12:01 a.m. on June 9, 2025. CNN reports that it includes exceptions for permanent residents, visa holders and those whose entry would serve US interests. The following countries have been fully restricted, with limited entry: Afghanistan Burma Chad Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen The following countries have been partially restricted, with limited entry: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela This story is developing and will be updated with additional information.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge orders Trump administration to bring Venezuelans back from El Salvador prison
Backed by a Supreme Court order, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration must bring back to the United States hundreds of suspected Venezuelan gang members who were sent to a mega prison in El Salvador without any court review of the criminal allegations against them. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C., said the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were deported in mid-March under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act are entitled to filing habeas petitions to challenge the legal basis for their deportation and imprisonment in the notorious facility in El Salvador known as CECOT, the Spanish initials for the Terrorism Confinement Center. Describing the Venezuelans' ordeal as 'Kafkaesque,' the judge noted that while the U.S. Supreme Court in April overturned his injunction stopping the removals of the suspected Venezuelan gang members, the justices ruled that the migrants have a due-process right to contest their detention on an individual basis in the United States. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, [the Trump administration is] are correct that Plaintiffs [Venezuelan immigrants] are gang members,' Boasberg wrote in his 69-page order. 'But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so. 'Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made,' Boasberg added. 'And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' Boasberg's rebuke of the Department of Homeland Security's decision to invoke the the archaic war powers law as grounds for summarily deporting the suspected Venezuelan gang members followed a major ruling by the Supreme Court in April. The court vacated the judge's temporary restraining order that had blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members, giving the Trump administration the green light to use the wartime law to carry out the deportations of certain migrants. The majority ruled that challenges to the detention and removal of migrants using the Alien Enemies Act must be brought as legal petitions in the area where the plaintiffs were held in the United States, not in Washington, D.C., where the American Civil Liberties Union filed its petition. But the majority also found that such migrants are entitled to due process of the law as part of their removal proceedings. The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit in question said they had been wrongly accused of being members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Alien Enemies Act detainees 'must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the act,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. 'The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.' The high court opinion came just as the judge who issued the temporary restraining order was mulling whether to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for violating his order to pause the flights of Venezuelan migrants to the mega prison in El Salvador that began in March. Boasberg originally imposed a 14-day temporary restraining order halting the deportations of alleged members of Tren de Aragua. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that all nine members of the Supreme Court agree that judicial review is available to migrants. 'The only question is where that judicial review should occur,' Kavanaugh wrote. Among the immigrants sent to the prison in El Salvador was a Maryland man. In a related legal dispute, the Trump administration admitted that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native, was deported there due to an 'administrative error' — despite an immigration court order that he not be removed from the United States. Another federal judge ordered the Trump administration to bring him back to the U.S. The Supreme Court affirmed the judge's order directing the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Garcia's release, but he's still imprisoned in El Salvador.
