Judge orders schools to provide single-sex toilets
The local authority had installed only gender neutral toilets at the replacement Earlston primary school, which recently opened.
Parents Sean Stratford and Leigh Hurley complained to the council about the policy at the school their son had previously attended, but it was rejected.
But at the Court of Session in Edinburgh the council conceded that they had a legal obligation to provide male and female facilities.
The move comes after judges at the UK Supreme Court last week unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
Rosie Walker, of law firm Gilson Gray which is representing the parents, said: "This case will have far reaching implications."
BBC Scotland News understands that the Scottish government is confident that the vast majority of schools in Scotland already offer single-sex lavatories.
Ministers are still considering the implication of the Supreme Court judgement and whether any changes will have to be made to toilet provisions.
Ms Walker said all schools in Scotland would now have to "urgently review" whether half of their toilets are for boys and half for girls, as is required by the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967.
She added: "This case, on top of the Supreme Court decision last week, gives focus to the importance of protecting sex-based rights and single-sex spaces."
A council spokesperson said: "Prior to the hearing, SBC had accepted and acknowledged the decision that was being sought was correct and therefore did not seek to defend this in court.
"Moving forward, SBC will revisit and reconsider the complaint and respond in due course."
The Scottish government said it would carefully consider the implications of that ruling.
A spokesperson added: "Local authorities have statutory responsibility for the school estate, including provision of toilets.
"The Scottish government is committed to ensuring that our Transgender Guidance for Schools remains up to date and fit for purpose.
"As with any significant legal or policy developments, we will consider whether the guidance requires to be updated to reflect upon these."
They added the social justice secretary and the health secretary will meet with the Equality and Human Rights Commission - which will soon publish guidance on the issue - on Thursday.
Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says
Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman
Women's campaigners celebrate court win - but what will it change?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
23 minutes ago
- Politico
Appeals court panel clears way for Trump admin to end TPS for Hondurans, Nepalis and Nicaraguans
'The thing we had in the Supreme Court had nothing to do with these at all,' Arulanantham told the judges. Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, decried the 9th Circuit ruling Wednesday, particularly the judges' lack of explanation for their conclusion. 'The court's failure to provide any reasoning for its decision, including why this was an 'emergency,' falls far short of what due process requires, and our clients deserve,' Arulanantham said. 'The decision simply sanctions the government's power grab, exposing tens of thousands of people to illegal detention and deportation. They deserve better than what this court has done today.' Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. TPS status for Nepalis was set to expire Aug. 5, so they could be required to leave the country immediately. Protections for Hondurans and Nicaraguans are now set to end Sept. 8, barring further court action. However, not all of the roughly 63,000 immigrants covered by the ruling Wednesday face the prospect of immediate deportation. Some have pending claims for asylum or withholding of deportation, which could allow them to remain in the U.S. In its emergency stay request, the Trump administration asked the panel to halt further action in the lawsuit pending in the district court and said the government planned to make a rare request to remove Thompson from the matter, citing her use of 'extreme rhetoric with no bearing on this case.' The 9th Circuit panel declined to put a hold on the proceedings before Thompson, saying such a move wasn't justified simply because DOJ might move to disqualify her in the future.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US attorney will no longer bring felony charges against people for carrying rifles or shotguns in DC
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors in the nation's capital will no longer bring felony charges against people for possessing rifles or shotguns in the District of Columbia, according to a new policy adopted by the leader of the nation's largest U.S. attorney's office. That office will continue to pursue charges when someone is accused of using a shotgun or rifle in a violent crime or has a criminal record that makes it illegal to have a firearm. Local authorities in Washington can prosecute people for illegally possessing unregistered rifles and shotguns. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a statement that the change is based on guidance from the Justice Department and the Office of Solicitor General and conforms with two Supreme Court decisions on gun rights. Pirro, a former Fox News host, has been a vocal critic of local officials' crime-fighting efforts since Republican President Donald Trump installed her in office in May. Her policy shift means federal prosecutors will not purse charges under the D.C. law that made it illegal to carry rifles or shotguns, except in limited cases involving permit holders. The change also overlaps with Trump's declaration of a crime emergency in the city, flooding the streets of Washington with patrols of hundreds of federal agents and National Guard members. The White House says 76 firearms have been seized since the crackdown started this month. The new policy also coves large-capacity magazines, but it does not apply to handguns. 'We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms, and to vigorously prosecute all crimes connected with them,' Pirro said, adding that she and Trump "are committed to prosecuting gun crime.' Pirro said a blanket ban on possessing shotguns and rifles violates the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022 that struck down a New York gun law and held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. She also pointed to the high court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller striking down the city's ban on handguns in the home.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Texas judge blocks Ten Commandments in public schools with epic ruling that quotes Sonny & Cher, Kurt Vonnegut and Billy Graham
A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked state law requiring the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom, setting up a possible Supreme Court showdown after several Republican-led states have tried, and failed, to implement similar laws. The Texas law, which was set to take effect September 1, likely violates the First Amendment's prohibitions against government interference and endorsement of religion, according to Tuesday's order from District Judge Fred Biery. His colorful 55-page ruling quotes from Sonny & Cher, Greta Garbo and Kurt Vonnegut as well as Supreme Court rulings, historians and prominent faith leaders, from Billy Graham and Pat Robertson to the Buddha. 'Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque,' he wrote, referencing her line 'I want to be alone' from the film Grand Hotel. 'They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government-run schools.' Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will appeal, his office told The Independent. Under legislation approved by Texas lawmakers and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott earlier this year, all public elementary or secondary schools must 'display in a conspicuous place in each classroom of the school a durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments.' A lawsuit was filed by a group of Texas families with Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious backgrounds, including clergy, with children in public schools. The judge agreed with plaintiffs that those displays 'are likely to pressure' children 'into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption' of the state's favored religious doctrine while 'suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs,' according to the judge. Biety also agreed that 'these matters of individual conscience and the soul should be free of government interference and coercion.' The Ten Commandment won't necessarily be taught in schools, but 'the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer,' according to the judge. 'Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: 'Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?'' the judge wrote. 'Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues … and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.' Biety's ruling — which traces the history of religious observation and persecution— asks whether that 'violent history gives rise to the question: 'Haven't we evolved?''' 'Other than size and longevity, the answer clearly is: 'Of course not,'' he wrote, adding 'The Beat Goes On' — with a footnote referencing the song from Sonny & Cher. He notes that 'those who immigrated to Texas were neither the first nor the last group to come to America in search of freedom from government-controlled religion,' pointing to a long line of state-imposed persecution. 'So it goes,' he wrote — with another footnote referencing Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. Rabbi Mara Nathan, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that 'children's religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools.' Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said the ruling 'ensures that our clients' schools will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state's preferred religious beliefs.' In his conclusion, the judge offered an olive branch to his critics. 'For those who disagree with the Court's decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you,' he wrote. 'May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be reconciled one to another. Amen.' In a statement to The Independent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said 'the Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of our moral and legal heritage, and their presence in classrooms serves as a reminder of the values that guide responsible citizenship.' 'Texas will always defend our right to uphold the foundational principles that have built this nation, and I will absolutely be appealing this flawed decision,' he added. Lawmakers in Arkansas have advanced similar legislation, and Oklahoma's chief school officials mandated copies of the Bible and Ten Commandments in all classrooms with 'immediate and strict compliance.' Last year, District Judge John Wheadon deGravelles paused a similar Louisiana law that had swiftly drawn legal challenges from civil rights groups anticipating a Supreme Court battle. Legislation to incorporate Christian teachings in public schools joins a nationwide effort from conservative special interest groups to move public funds into religious education, dovetailing with efforts by Donald Trump's administration and across the country to let families use taxpayer funds to send their children to private schools. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reached a surprise tie in a case that could decide whether Oklahoma could open the first-ever taxpayer funded Catholic public charter school, which triggered a high-profile legal battle to decide whether public funds can be used to create religious schools — setting up a major test to the First Amendment's establishment clause. The 4-4 decision, from which Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, upheld a lower-court ruling that effectively blocked the school's opening — for now. Solve the daily Crossword
