John Swinney refuses to say if trans women are women again
John Swinney has again refused to say whether transwomen are women. The First Minister avoided a "yes or no" question on the subject in Holyrood on Thursday afternoon. Instead he stated that the Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Courts judgement "that a woman in the Equality Act 2010 is defined by biological sex." Swinney had previously avoided the question during his anti-Reform summit on Wednesday. Scottish Tory MSP Douglas Ross asked during First Minister's Questions: "This is a very straightforward question . "Does the First Minister believe that a trans woman is a woman: yes or no?" Swinney replied: "I've set out that the Scottish Government accepts the judgement of the Supreme Court which ruled that a woman in the Equality Act 2010 is defined by biological sex." On Wednesday, April 16, the country's top judges unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law in a case brought against the Scottish Government by the group For Women Scotland. A judge also ordered that Scottish schools must provide single-sex toilets on Wednesday. At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scottish Borders Council conceded that they legally need to provide male and female toilets. Parents had brought the case to court after the authority only installed gender neutral toilets. Alba MSP Ash Regan urged for such policies to be withdrawn during FMQs. Regan said: "The Court of Session ruling against Scottish Borders Council marks yet another legal failure to uphold long-standing protections for women and children - this time involving a primary school child. "It exposes this broader pattern of public bodies disregarding the Equality Act of 2010 and other regulations in place since 1967. "The undue influence of activist lobby groups, like LGBT Youth Scotland, has led to policies breaching single-sex safeguards. "All such policies must now be withdrawn. "Will public funding finally be withdrawn from organisations that are wrongly advising that gender self-ID is lawful in Scotland when it never has been?" Swinney replied: "Throughout this whole discussion I have made clear that the rule of law must be the central consideration of the actions of government. "That is what we will take forward in all of our judgements . "I am aware of the judicial review announcement which was announced by the Court of Session yesterday in relation to Scottish Borders Council. "That is not a judgment that involves the Government. It involves Scottish Borders Council. "But of course the government will consider the issues that arise out of that as we consider all aspects of the reform of regulation that is required." To sign up to the Daily Record Politics newsletter, click here
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
St Mirren land dispute judgment a 'crucial precedent' for free speech
The claim for damages surrounded comments made by Mr Wardrop around the legality of an application for public funds for a regeneration project including a well-being centre on what appeared to be club land. Lord Clark dismissed Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan's claim for damages, which might have amounted to £80,000 because he believed that Mr Wardrop's comments made surrounding the legality of the application in were in the public interest and were honestly held based on the evidence he had at the time - both defences under the Scottish law around defamation damages. Campbell Deane, head of BKF and Co who represented Mr Wardrop, said: "This case sets a crucial precedent in the application of Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, particularly the public interest defence. READ MORE by Martin Williams "The ruling underscores the legal protection available to individuals who responsibly raise issues of public concern – even if they are ultimately mistaken in their claims. It affirms that Scottish defamation law now balances reputation rights with the importance of free expression in democratic discourse." Alan Wardrop (left) and St Mirren directors and Kibble execs Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan (Image: Damian Shields) Mr Deane represented former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale in a successful defamation case battle in 2020, an appeal case of Wings over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell, who claimed Ms Dugdale defamed him in a newspaper column three years ago. Mr Campbell lost the defamation case and demand for £25,000 in reputational damages at Edinburgh Sheriff Court when it was decided that while Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply Mr Campbell was homophobic, she was protected under the principle of fair comment. Mr Deane in the Wardrop case said it was a defence to a defamatory statement if it relates to publication of a "matter of public interest and the defender reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest". He said: "This defence is designed to protect freedom of expression on issues that affect the public, so long as the individual making the statements acts responsibly, seeks to verify the facts, and is not motivated by malice. This ruling makes clear that raising concerns about governance, charity involvement, or the use of public funds can fall within the scope of public interest. "This ruling confirms that the defender does not need to be correct in the allegations. Rather, the defender must show that their belief in the truth and public value of the statements was formed through reasonable effort. "As the first judicial interpretation of this new defence in Scotland, the decision is likely to have a significant impact on how future public interest defences are framed." Stuart Munro of Livingstone Brown, solicitor for Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan, said: 'My clients required to bring this action after Mr Wardrop wrongly accused them of having a 'secret plan' to build on land owned by St Mirren FC and of lying about it. 'They are extremely pleased the judge, having heard detailed evidence from numerous witnesses, made it clear in his written judgment that there was no such secret plan, thus setting the record straight. 'Furthermore, the judgement underlines that Mr Wardrop's very public allegations were, as my clients have consistently stated, both untrue and defamatory. "The judge also agreed that Mr Wardrop's untrue and defamatory statements caused serious harm to their reputations. 'Notwithstanding the finding that Mr Wardrop was entitled to publish, the judge made it very clear that, the true facts having now been established, any future repetition of his claims would have serious consequences.' Alan Wardrop (Image: .) But Mr Wardrop said: "As a lifelong St Mirren supporter this entirely unfounded and misconceived court action has unquestionably proved difficult. To be banned from attending home football matches and have my motivations put under the spotlight, when all I was doing was trying to shine a light on a significant issue concerning St Mirren has been taxing. "Prior to applying to join the SMISA board, I had conducted detailed investigations as to the whereabouts of the land forming part of Kibble's applications for a well-being centre. I had done this, having been met with a wall of silence from the Kibble directors of St Mirren Football Club, Jim Gillespie and Mark McMillan to my repeated requests for information." He said he had maintained throughout the process that what he said in relation to the land dispute was "honest opinion" and what he brought into the public forum was "in the public interest". "I am delighted, but not in any way surprised, that the court has accepted that it was in the public interest to publish what I did. The law promotes free speech, and based on all my thorough and detailed enquiries, what I wrote was clearly a statement on a matter of public interest and I believed in the public interest to publish," he said.
Press and Journal
an hour ago
- Press and Journal
David Knight: Being fined at the faffing-about early stages of Aberdeen bus gates has had me simmering every day for three years
Whenever I approach a hooded and disabled roadside speed camera – with 'not in use' on it – I slow down instinctively. There are a few of them dotted around Aberdeen. Like Daleks from Dr Who; temporarily rendered harmless, but still menacing. I suppose it's some kind of reverse psychology going on: our brains are still wired to be wary of speed traps. You'd think I'd speed up rather than decelerate. Or maybe I don't really believe the 'not in use' signs and suspect it's some kind of trick. My journalistic mind always suspects that the authorities are up to something. My standard starting point is that they are trying to hide important things from the public and so a permanent state of scepticism is healthy. To challenge things all the time. After all, there is a lot to process in Aberdeen right now, especially with bus-gate and LEZ (Low Emission Zone) fines popping through letter boxes at an alarming rate. The Post Office's immediate future as a viable going concern must surely be guaranteed thanks to this lucrative line of mail-delivery business. I gazed at a P&J colour-coded graphic shape depicting a myriad of current traffic restrictions around Aberdeen, including bus gates and LEZs. Stretching like a green medieval gauntlet around all the city centre's major streets – choking the life out of them, some might say. The first salvos in a legal challenge by local businesses against the profit-draining gates are expected in the Court of Session soon. My beef with council bus gates always has been whether correct processes – democratic and procedural – were followed. That should interest all citizens. Meanwhile, the first wave of data on Aberdeen LEZs is being digested on the first anniversary of their introduction. A hefty £4.5million in LEZ fines dominates the debate, but important health information about reductions in potentially lethal emissions must also be evaluated. My health was not helped by pondering over not one, but four fines which arrived at my door. Two were imposed in Aberdeen, but are now a bit old. I don't bear grudges, but I have been simmering about them every day for three years. The other two were just a matter of weeks ago. Not in Aberdeen, but in a galaxy far, far away in England. Parking fines administered while I was on a mercy mission to visit a sick elderly relative. Twice for the same offence, in effect: once the night before and again in a dawn swoop by a patrol the next day before I awoke. They had me bang to rights, but surely not twice overnight? With my legal magnifying glass to hand I spotted one ticket had recorded me mistakenly as being at another car park half a mile away. It was enough: a legal technicality, but my challenge in writing was upheld and one fine was quashed on appeal. Hardly the case of the century, but again shows that challenging things is healthy – and reading small print is always essential. This recent saga made me think back to that old pair of fines from years before. I managed to incur two Aberdeen bus-gate fines in the same spot within days of each other; that took a serious level of ineptitude on my part, you might think. But shell-shocked and bewildered, I returned to the scene of my 'crime' to walk slowly through the bus-gate zone instead to discover where I went wrong. I still couldn't make sense of it due to shambolic signage which drew much criticism. I thought of this again after the lawyer leading the legal battle reckoned bus-gate fines would have to be refunded to motorists if he won in court. However, he was only talking about fines dating back to when the 'experimental' status of the current bus-gate layout was made permanent earlier this year. But what about me and many others? I fell foul of what I describe as a 'pre-experiment' experimental stage of this troubled project when a pilot bus-gate was trialled temporarily at one end of Union Street. It was the embryonic forerunner of what you see today, but also triggered a furore of protest and many fines. I hate to take issue with the legal expert, but surely as these people were punished during an earlier chaotic faffing-about stage of bus gates – before they became legally binding – they actually have a stronger argument for recompense? Paying a fine is hardly a matter of life or death, you might say. But it might be if you were breathing in exhaust emissions in what are now LEZs. Early evidence shows some reductions. Good news, but we must bear in mind that the smallish Aberdeen LEZs seem harsher and more intense than elsewhere in Scotland. So it begs a challenging question: have they got the balance right? David Knight is the long-serving former deputy editor of The Press and Journal
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Is Reform a right-wing party?
If the problem with Labour is that it believes in nothing, the problem with Reform is that it believes in everything. The dispute over the burqa is only the latest example. In pushing Keir Starmer to ban the burqa 'in the interests of public safety', new MP Sarah Pochin undoubtedly spoke for a significant section of the party's supporters. For that matter, polling has previously indicated the British public's backing for a ban. For some, it is indeed a safety issue: presented with a stranger, covered head-to-foot, identifiable only by their eyes, how can we know who that person is, whether they ought to be there, and what their intentions are? For others, it's a symbol of the cultural separatism that sees entire communities of Muslims live parallel lives in Britain, indifferent or hostile to our inherited customs and conventions.
