Transgender women's rights protesters gather in Cardiff
Huge crowds of LGBTQ+ protesters and allies gathered today in Cardiff to take a stand against new legislation surrounding transgender rights.
Thousands of protesters in disagreement with the supreme court's definition of 'a woman' took the streets.
Thousands of protesters in disagreement with the supreme court's definition of 'a woman' took the streets (Image: Supplied) According to the court the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act only 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex.'
The new controversial motion passed on April 16 now means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
Equalities minister Bridget Phillipson said the ruling means transgender women should use male toilets, but suggested businesses should ensure 'they have appropriate provision in place' for all customers.
That could mean the wider use of unisex facilities in cafes, pubs and restaurants in order to ensure 'dignity' for all people.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the court's ruling was clear that 'services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex', meaning transwomen should usually use male toilets if there is no alternative provision.
Thousands of protesters in disagreement with the supreme court's definition of 'a woman' took the streets (Image: Supplied) In his first public comments since the justices' decision on April 16, the Prime Minister said he is 'really pleased' with the clarity that the court's ruling offers.
Sir Keir, who has previously said 'transwomen are women', was asked to repeat that statement but instead said: 'I think the Supreme Court has answered that question.'
A member of Wales LBGTQ+ community said: 'In the last few days a following a massive step back in transgender rights following a recent supreme court ruling, thousands of people across the UK have been protesting in support of Transgender rights.
'In Cardiff today thousands of people marched in support of Transgender Women's rights to exist and women.
'Recent events across the world have rocked LGBTQIA+ rights, today's protest demonstrated the volume of support to Trans people.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
40 minutes ago
- NBC News
What comes next in the Trump-Musk feud: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Kristen Welker dives into what comes next in the breakup between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Plus, our Capitol Hill team examines the senators who could make or break Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' And Shannon Pettypiece answers this week's reader question on the U.S.-China trade war. Before we dive into all that, two bits of breaking news this Friday afternoon: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whose erroneous deportation to El Salvador gave way to a protracted battle over due process, has been returned to the U.S. to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee. The Supreme Court allowed members of the Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. — Adam Wollner What's next in the feud between Trump and Musk? By Kristen Welker The feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump erupted yesterday in an epic clash between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man — and it's not clear yet where the confrontation will go next. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told me this morning that there are 'no plans' for a phone call between Trump and Musk today, despite at least one report that it was a possibility. But just because there's nothing on the books doesn't mean the two men won't have an impromptu call. After all, Trump has a personal cellphone where he often talks to everyone from world leaders to reporters. And one administration official told me anything can happen, and they'd like to 'de-escalate a very unfortunate situation.' While the White House may be looking to turn down the temperature, some of the president's allies were quick to go after Musk. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House adviser, told me the president should 'pull every contract associated with Elon Musk' and start major investigations 'immediately.' Bannon also said, 'Thus spake the ketamine,' in a sign that some of Trump's allies are zeroing in on Musk's alleged drug use. (Musk has said he took ketamine to treat depression.) At stake in all of this is the future of Trump's signature legislation, which includes tax cut extensions, an elimination of tax on tips and overtime, and cuts and changes to federal programs including Medicaid and food stamps. Musk has trashed the 'big, beautiful bill,' arguing that it would balloon the country's debt. Sources from the White House and on Capitol Hill have told me that while Musk's opposition might embolden Republican senators who are already opposed to the measure, Musk is not flipping any more votes to the 'no' column at this point. I'm also told that if these senators had to choose between Trump and Musk, they'd choose Trump every time. We'll talk more about the next steps for Trump's domestic policy bill on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday, with exclusive interviews with Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla. and Cory Booker, D-N.J. Behind the scenes: Trump's team is taking the feud seriously: White House aides scrambled into at least two closed-door meetings Thursday to strategize about whether and how to respond to Musk's social media barrage. Vice President JD Vance was with Trump on Thursday when the tweets began and they spoke multiple times in the afternoon, according to a person familiar with the day's events. Trump encouraged Vance to be diplomatic about Musk if asked about him, the person said. Meanwhile, Trump is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla that he purchased in March, according to a senior White House official. By Sahil Kapur, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V Amid the back-and-forth between Donald Trump and Elon Musk this week, Senate Republican leaders have been juggling a host of competing demands as they prepare to take up — and make changes to — the House-passed 'big, beautiful bill.' They can ultimately afford to lose just three GOP votes on the Senate floor, assuming all Democrats oppose the package as expected. Here are the senators who could make or break the bill: Rand Paul: He's the only Republican senator who has voted against this legislation every step of the way. He has blasted the spike in military spending, the huge increase in deficits and, in particular, the $5 trillion debt limit hike. Paul does support a key part of the package — an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts — but he wants to offset it with trillions of dollars in additional spending cuts, on which the GOP has no hope of finding consensus. Susan Collins: The Maine senator is the sole Republican to represent a state that Democrats consistently win at the presidential level. And she faces re-election this year. Her trajectory has been revealing, from supporting the initial budget resolution to voting against the revised version. A key reason for her opposition? Concerns that the Medicaid cuts would harm low-income and older constituents. Lisa Murkowski: When she voted for the budget blueprint in April that kick-started the process of writing the legislation, the Alaska Republican quickly followed it up with a broad set of grievances that will need to be addressed, or she'll be 'unable to support' the final product. That includes the changes to Medicaid, the cost of the tax cuts and the phaseout of clean energy tax credits that benefit her state. Ron Johnson: The Wisconsin Republican has railed against the bill and its estimated $2.4 trillion contribution to the deficit, insisting he can't vote for it as written. He has slammed the idea of a megabill, calling for breaking it up and limiting the debt ceiling hike. Trump asked him to be 'less negative' during a meeting at the White House this week, Johnson said. ✉️ Mailbag: Who loses in a U.S.-China trade war? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. 'Who is in worse shape if the two countries don't trade any longer?' To answer this, we turned to senior policy reporter Shannon Pettypiece, who has been covering the ins and outs of Trump's tariff agenda. Here's her response: Both the U.S. and China have a lot to lose by cutting off trade ties with each other, but in some ways, not as much as they did before the first wave of China tariffs Trump imposed in 2018. Chinese companies have been shifting production offshore, to neighboring countries like Vietnam and even Mexico, while Chinese officials have worked to boost trade with other trading partners, like the European Union. The share of total Chinese exports to the U.S. has dropped to an estimated 14% in 2024 from 19% in 2018. Across China's entire economy, U.S. exports account for 3% of China's gross domestic product, and a sustained U.S. tariff rate of 60% could reduce China's GDP by 2 percentage points, according to Goldman Sachs. In short, that would be bad for China's economy, but not entirely crippling. China's economy isn't on the strongest footing at the moment. Its growth has slowed since the Covid pandemic and the country is grappling with a collapse in its real estate market, which has wiped out the savings for many Chinese. The U.S. has also been working to lessen its dependence on China in recent years, and U.S. companies have increasingly been shifting their manufacturing out of China. China accounts for about 15% of total U.S. imports, down from about 22% in 2018. But the U.S. is still heavily dependent on China in a number of key areas, like rare earth metals crucial for U.S. manufacturing of cars and defense equipment. About a third of U.S. imports from China are in product categories where the vast majority of those items come from China, according to Goldman Sachs. That means, even a temporary halt to shipments from China could lead to supply chain shortages, like those seen during the Covid pandemic. But who blinks first or offers more concessions in a trade standoff could have just as much to do with politics as economics. China removed term limits on President Xi Jinping in 2018, essentially allowing him to remain in power for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. will have midterm elections next year and another presidential contest in 2028.
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Whitehall attendance slumps in spite of Labour's pledge to crack down on civil servants working from home
Working from home in the Whitehall Blob is making a comeback under Labour, despite its promises of a crackdown. As a number of civil servants continue to shun returning to the office, attendances fell or remained static in more than half of government departments over the first three-month quarter of this year. The Treasury and Home Office were among 11 of 20 departments where attendance failed to improve despite the faltering economy and record numbers of migrants arriving this year. Chancellor Rachel Reeves 's office had the worst attendance rate among major departments (63 per cent), despite having to compile next week's spending review – when brutal cuts to some departments will be announced. Attendance also dropped at Bridget Phillipson's education Department (71 per cent to 67 per cent), which helped oversee a hike in VAT on private school fees, as well as at Home Secretary Yvette Cooper 's department (78 per cent to 76 per cent). The departments where attendance rates lowered were the Northern Ireland Office, which fell from 65 per cent to 57 per cent, and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales, which plummeted from 81 per cent to 60 per cent. While attendance improved in some, the average rate across all departments fell from above to below 75 per cent from January to March. Meanwhile, between January 2024 and May 2024 – the months before the snap general election called by former Tory PM Rishi Sunak – attendance across Whitehall had an average of 77 per cent. The appalling figures come despite Sir Keir Starmer hitting out at civil servants in December. He said: 'Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline.' He also pledged to increase public sector productivity after it dropped to 8.5 per cent lower than just before Covid-19. But critics said the latest analysis of official figures, carried out by the Mail, showed Labour was going soft on productivity. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Mike Wood said: 'This Labour Government is not serious about delivering the reform the civil service so desperately needs. 'The last Conservative government had a plan to not only get civil servants back to the office, and increase productivity, but also to cut the bloated size overall – but Labour has totally failed to grip this issue or follow through. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Mike Wood said: 'This Labour Government is not serious about delivering the reform the civil service so desperately needs. 'It is not surprising attendance rates are down when Labour supports lazy initiatives such as part-time work for full-time pay' 'It is not surprising attendance rates are down when Labour supports lazy initiatives such as part-time work for full-time pay. 'Taxpayers are being taken for a ride. Only Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives are serious about clamping down on this sort of nonsense.' William Yarwood, of the TaxPayers' Alliance campaign group, said: 'The last government had some success in its war of attrition to get bureaucrats back behind their desks. 'But instead of building on those efforts, Labour has taken its foot off the gas. 'Labour ministers need to realise that if they want civil servants delivering on their priorities they need them in their office.' A Government spokesman said: 'Like at any organisation, small fluctuations in office occupancy can occur from month to month due to holiday, sickness or other events.'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
