Sinn Fein TD apologises for ‘hurt and offence' in post about gender ruling
A Sinn Fein TD has apologised for a social media post about the UK court ruling on excluding trans women from the definition of 'woman' in equality law.
David Cullinane, the party's health spokesman, said the 'complex' issue needs to be approached with 'compassion' and he apologised for any offence caused.
Trans and Intersex Pride Dublin has said it has written to the party asking it to clarify its position and will consider banning it from its parade in July.
The UK Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
This means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms and homeless hostels, if 'proportionate'.
The judges also said transgender people are still protected from discrimination in the same law.
They said they can 'invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination' and are protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.
Authorities including the NHS are examining the implications of the ruling.
A spokesperson for the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland said while the ruling only relates to England, Scotland and Wales, 'our initial view is that the judgment is likely to be deemed by our industrial tribunals and courts to be highly persuasive and, consequently, it is likely to be followed in cases where similar issues arise'.
On Wednesday evening, Mr Cullinane called for the ruling to be 'fully examined in this state'.
The Waterford TD said on social media site X: 'The Scottish Supreme Court ruling on the legal meaning of woman is a common sense judgement.
'The ruling found that for the purposes of equality legislation a 'woman' means a biological woman & 'sex' refers to biological sex.
'It also confirmed that trans people are protected under their Equality legislation in a separate category of gender reassignment.'
The PA news agency contacted Mr Cullinane on Thursday morning to clarify his comments.
In a tweet sent on Thursday afternoon, Mr Cullinane apologised.
'I want to apologise for the hurt and offence that I have caused to the trans community following a tweet I sent last night,' he said on X.
'That was never my intention. This is a complex issue for many but we need to approach it with compassion, understanding and dignity for all.
'I'm sure those in the trans community will feel vulnerable and isolated today in the aftermath of yesterday's judgement, and I apologise that my words added to that.'
Trans and Intersex Pride Dublin said it is not clear whether Mr Cullinane still believes the ruling should be looked at in Ireland.
It said it 'shows the instinct and insensitivity to attack the community by a health spokesperson'.
The group added: 'The decision by the UK Supreme Court opens the door to further attacks on trans rights and has severe consequences for the people of Britain, and a knock-on for Irish trans people.'
It welcomed the decision by different Pride groups in Northern Ireland to ban all Executive parties that had signed off on the temporary suspension of puberty blockers.
Trans and Intersex Pride organiser and co-founder Ollie Bell said: 'We understand that many activists in Sinn Fein may disagree with the party's position, however it would be a disservice to the community we represent if we allow Sinn Fein to march.
'We encourage all Pride marches to consider our decision, in light of the ban on puberty blockers and the kowtowing to anti-trans forces with regards to agreeing with the Supreme Court decision, and join us in this decision.
'We welcome all activists, groups, organisations who genuinely want to fight for trans rights to join us on July 12 in protest against anti-trans attacks everywhere.'
A spokesman for Sinn Fein said: 'We are aware of the ruling from the British Supreme Court.
'It is important that we have effective equality protections that work to protect everyone and we will carefully examine the detail of this ruling in that context.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces. That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner. So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand! A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations. No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month. I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win. In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Equality Act blamed for surge in failed race discrimination cases
Equality laws are causing unsuccessful racial discrimination lawsuits to 'skyrocket', and more claims are made by NHS employees than those from any other organisation, according to a report. Between 2017 and last year the number of employment tribunals that included a claim of discrimination based on the defined characteristic of 'race' in the Equality Act 2010 almost tripled, from 285 to 829, research by the campaign group Don't Divide Us has found. In total, there were 5,523 cases over this period. Despite the rise in workplace discrimination cases, the levels of success have remained more or less unchanged since 2017, the report says. Only 281 claims were upheld in employment courts from 2017 to 2024, 5 per cent of those made. The group said the NHS was involved in more discrimination cases than any other employer, with 488 claims made in the period — of which 19, or 4 per cent, were upheld. Don't Divide Us believes in 'colour-blind anti-racism' and campaigns against 'divisive' political ideas such as critical race theory being imported from America. The findings have been published as part of a wider report on equality laws by the organisation entitled 'The Equality Act Isn't Working: Equalities Legislation and the Breakdown of Informal Civility in the Workplace'. It argues that rather than making society more equal and tackling discrimination, the Equality Act has contributed to a grievance culture in which people resort to legal action to resolve 'petty disputes and imagined slights'. The report says the remit of equality law has come under increasing pressure from lobby groups seeking to 'promote their role in the race-relations sector'. This trend has been exacerbated by the rise of identity politics and the increased politicisation of culture, it adds. Anna Loutfi, one of the report's authors and a barrister specialising in employment, equalities and human rights law, said it was time for the government to review the Equality Act and potentially repeal it. She said: 'The question is: Do we need the law to be based on protected characteristics? The reality of the workplace is that it is not neatly categorisable into people who 'share' protected characteristics and people who don't, though equality law demands that we think that way. 'Equality law is increasingly becoming divorced from reality, as employees rely on protected characteristics to argue poor treatment, rather than relying on the honest facts of their situation. Many litigants may try to rewrite the facts of their case to 'fit' a narrative of discrimination based on race, sex, disability etc. A cross word between two employees of different ethnic backgrounds can be transformed into racial harassment after the fact. 'The inadvertent effect of the Equality Act is to make the workplace environment more toxic, especially when it comes to issues such as race, between people who would have rubbed along fine before becoming aware of their respective 'protected characteristics'. 'Overall, protected characteristics in law are not adding to social cohesion; rather, they are inflating numbers of discrimination cases so society appears more and more discriminatory with every passing year, in spite of ever more diversity and inclusion initiatives — that surely can't be right.' Under the Equality Act, it is against the law to discriminate against someone based on nine protected characteristics. These include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. • Loutfi pointed to a recent case in April of a black female employee suing her boss for racism because it had been suggested she had been 'smoking something', which, she said, epitomised the way such protected characteristics were being 'weaponised' in the workplace. In the dispute, Gemma Spencer sued her employers for race discrimination when a company director, Mark Kelly, asked her line manager if she had been 'smoking something' after a perceived error. Spencer, an administration worker, told a panel that she had had her hair in braids when Kelly made the remark. After she accused him of racism, Kelly said he in 'no way meant to make some remark about her being a Rastafarian'. His assertion was rejected by the judge, who said the comment was 'unwanted conduct' that 'violated the dignity' of Spencer, who was awarded £35,109 in compensation. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, director of Don't Divide Us, said: 'The Equality Act has achieved the exact opposite of its stated aim, making the UK a less tolerant and less equal place. It provides the legal scaffolding that supports this surge in workplace discrimination claims, the overwhelming majority of which have been found groundless. 'Instead of bringing greater fairness, equality, and harmony, the [Equality Act] has been a major vector for curtailing the fundamental freedoms for citizens to speak their mind, and to appear before the law as equal.' • Calling female staff 'lads' could be sex harassment, judge says The Equality and Human Rights Commission said: 'We have a statutory duty to monitor and advise on the effectiveness of our equality laws. While progress has been made towards a fairer country, we know challenges to equality remain and our society has not stood still. 'Increases in litigation may indicate an issue with how the legislation is being interpreted, and we consider all evidence carefully when we advise government and parliamentarians on the effectiveness of the Equality Act. However, a post-legislative review of the Equality Act is a decision for the UK government and parliament.' A government spokesperson said: 'The UK has a longstanding history of tackling all forms of discrimination and harassment. 'We are proud of the Equality Act 2010 and the rights and protections it affords individuals of all backgrounds, and will continue to uphold its provisions.'
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Equalities watchdog tells trans activists personal attacks ‘have to stop'
The equalities watchdog has told trans activists that personal attacks on her and her staff have 'got to stop'. Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), appeared emotional as she revealed to MPs that she had to cancel one meeting after police warned of a ' serious risk ' of violence. She said that while feminist campaigners had acted in a 'dignified and respectful' manner, trans rights activists had made it harder for her staff to come to work in safety. 'Personal attacks, libellous attacks, defamation' 'The level of agitation that they can cause in terms of personal attacks, libellous attacks, defamation, where our family members are affected – our intimate family members have to think about how they're going about to their place of work – has got to stop,' she said. 'I didn't come into public life to bleat on about myself and feel sorry for myself… I have chosen not to walk away, I have chosen to deliver in the public interest as has done every member of my board. 'And they don't need to do this, they do it because of a desire for public service, as do my senior staff.' The watchdog also repeated that companies and organisations should be using EHRC guidance on access to single-sex spaces, rather than those of groups such as Stonewall. Baroness Falkner also said guidance would be issued on how to 'respectfully' question transgender people about their biological sex. Women's rights activists who do not believe in gender ideology, the idea that sex is a spectrum and that people can change their gender identity, have had to run the gauntlet of intimidating protests from the trans rights movement for years. After the Supreme Court ruled in April that the word 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, trans rights activists took to the streets, with one carrying a placard showing an illustration of a gallows alongside a slogan suggesting ' the only good Terf (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) ' is a hanged one. In 2022, a group called Pissed Off Trannies left more than 60 bottles of urine outside the EHRC offices and poured some of the contents into the revolving doors. The EHRC has come in for greater criticism from trans rights activists after they published guidance confirming that organisations can bar trans people from toilets and changing rooms meant for the opposite sex. 'Serious risk of violence' Appearing before the Commons women and equalities select committee, Lady Falkner spoke of the effect such violent threats had on her and her organisation. 'Sorry, I'm trying not to be emotional about this because it goes to the heart of what public service is about, and I've been involved in public service for 21 years now,' she said. 'The personal attacks – and I refer to personal attacks as well as the attacks on my staff, because we have a duty of care to our staff and we must ensure that our staff are able to work in a respectable, safe place of work. 'We were due to go to Glasgow for our regular annual board meeting in Scotland, and we were unable to go because the police hadn't been informed and there was serious risk of violence from messages that were seen. 'What bothers me more than my own personal security is that my staff should be able to come to their place of work in safety, and that has been somewhat lacking in the last several years.' Lady Falkner said those on the gender-critical side of the debate, 'who felt disadvantaged or felt the law was not supporting them, did so in a dignified, respectful manner, frequently using the last resort of a tribunal or a court to pursue justice for themselves or their loved ones'. Talking about trans rights activists, she said: 'Here we have a group that I appreciate is vulnerable, but I don't think it is fair because women and girls are vulnerable as well. 'I don't think it is fair to have a balancing act of 'who is more vulnerable'. Victimhood is not the way I approach things. 'The level of agitation that they can cause in terms of personal attacks, libellous attacks, defamation, where our family members are affected – our intimate family members have to think about how they're going about to their place of work – has got to stop.' Lady Falkner was then prevented from continuing to talk about the attacks the EHRC has faced by Sarah Owen, Labour MP and the committee chair. She then bizarrely asked her to clarify that she was not opposed to the right to protest. 'Overly hostile' Last night, Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters, said she was 'shocked' by the 'overly hostile' questioning of some of the members of the committee. 'It was particularly shocking that when Lady Falkner talked about the pressures on EHRC staff of the protests and personal attacks, the chair of the committee, Sarah Owen MP, cut her off,' she said. 'The Supreme Court provided complete legal clarity on the meaning of 'sex' in the Equality Act. Today's proceedings suggest that some MPs simply refuse to accept that.'
