Gender critical group threatens legal action over court judgment implementation
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against the government, has sent ministers a formal 'letter before action'.
In April, the Supreme Court said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex – a ruling which had implications for access to single-sex spaces.
Sex Matters argue the Scottish Government is failing to implement the ruling in the public sector, though ministers including John Swinney have said they accept the judgment and are waiting for further guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission before taking the next steps.
The letter, seen by the PA news agency, says the government must implement the ruling 'without delay'.
It also says the government's guidance in a document called 'Supporting transgender pupils in schools' is 'wrong and must be withdrawn with immediate effect'.
The charity's chief executive Maya Forstater spoke to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland radio programme on Wednesday.
She said: 'The Supreme Court has made the law absolutely clear: men are male and women are female and both have a right to dignity and privacy in things like toilets and changing rooms as well as specialist services like women's refuges.
'The Scottish Government is dragging its feet, it hasn't changed its policies.'
Ms Forstater said the Government had not implemented the ruling in schools or in its own facilities.
She said the Government has 14 days to reply to the letter, adding: 'All we're asking them to do is put a simple statement on their website which says that their facilities are separated by sex and they also provide unisex facilities so everyone's included.'
A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment. We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment.
'This will prepare us to take all necessary steps when the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, publishes its revised statutory code of practice and associated guidance for services, public functions and associations.
'The EHRC is currently consulting on this revised Code of Practice.
'The Scottish Government's approach is aligned with that of the UK Government and Welsh Government in awaiting the EHRC's revised statutory code of practice.
'We will respond to the letter in due course.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
LIZ SMITH: SNP's shameful betrayal over winter fuel will not be forgotten - or forgiven
Yesterday's latest U-turn by John Swinney over his government's policy on the universal winter fuel payment was, if anything, even more humiliating, unprincipled and deceitful than the one Rachel Reeves performed last week. The SNP furiously protested after the UK Chancellor's shameful decision to abolish the allowance last year that they had no option but to follow suit. That is always the first rule in the Nationalists' playbook – blame someone, anyone, else rather than accept responsibility for unpopular decisions. The reality is that the SNP had the money to make the payment this year. They had the devolved power for future years to continue providing a winter fuel payment – just as they do with a number of other benefits. The fact that some of them are financially irresponsible and place an unsustainable strain on public spending doesn't seem to hold them back. But provided with Labour's example, they had no hesitation in following suit. Then, when the impact of their policy on the most vulnerable pensioners became clear and – more importantly, from their point of view – it also became apparent just how unpopular it was, the Nats suddenly announced that they would reintroduce payments. And, John Swinney declared with great fanfare, it would be universal. Though he made less noise about the fact that some people would see the payment cut by £200. Now, in a broken promise which is breathtaking even by the First Minister's standards, he's changed his mind about that. We learned yesterday that hundreds of thousands of pensioners will not, after all, qualify for the SNP's version of the allowance. At the same time, he's announced two separate rates, at £203.40 and £305.10 – figures which seem to have been picked solely so that the SNP can claim that they are being more generous than the UK government. That childish and cynical attempt at one-upmanship and deliberately misleading rates is exactly the sleight-of-hand approach that the Nationalists took with income tax, when they made Scotland the highest taxed part of the country. Mr Swinney constantly claims most Scots pay less, but never mentions those sums are a few pounds, while the majority of working Scots, who are hit by their punitive rates, are often paying several thousands more. The Labour government's decision to abolish the universal winter fuel payment was, of course, a straight betrayal of their election promises. It was a cruel and vindictive assault on vulnerable pensioners. And, as we've learned from its reversal in Rachel Reeves' spending review, it was all completely unnecessary. We were told at the time that it was essential to plug an unexpected 'black hole' in the public finances. That contradicted what Rachel Reeves said before the election, when she accepted that there couldn't be any surprises because of the Office for Budget Review's (OBR) figures. And the OBR, it turned out, couldn't find any sign of the black hole she blamed. Now the Chancellor claims that she has fixed this imaginary shortfall and put the economy on a sound footing, so she can afford to reverse the cut. It is impossible to find a single credible economic analyst who does not say that this is obvious nonsense. The economy is stalling. Economic inactivity is worsening. Borrowing is going through the roof. All the economic experts are united in the view that the Chancellor will be back in the autumn, and that she will be announcing very substantial tax rises. But in SNP-run Scotland – where the government has already made emergency budgets an annual event – things will be even worse. The economic pain will be amplified by the SNP's wasteful and irresponsible spending which, even with the Union dividend and John Swinney's punitive higher taxes, greatly exceeds their income. Over the course of this disgraceful policy shambles, Labour's approach has been dishonest and needlessly created real suffering and anxiety for pensioners. But, if anything, the SNP have managed to make matters worse. The constant chopping and changing by ministers is causing more needless anxiety for Scottish pensioners. Their latest announcement is confusing. But one point is clear – hundreds of thousands of Scots will not have the payment even partially restored – despite John Swinney's promise that they would. It's a shameful betrayal that will not be forgotten or forgiven by Scotland's pensioners.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
The political tug-of-war at the center of Trump's Iran decision: 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, Andrea Mitchell breaks down the critical decision facing President Donald Trump on the Israel-Iran conflict. Plus, Lawrence Hurley examines the questions that a major Supreme Court ruling on transgender rights left unanswered. Programming note: We're taking a break for Juneteenth tomorrow and will be back in your inbox on Friday, June 20. — Adam Wollner By Andrea Mitchell As President Donald Trump considers whether the U.S. will strike Iran — likely the most important decision of his second term, one that could remake the landscape of the Middle East — allies and adversaries are taking sides, both at home and abroad. 'I may do it. I may not do it,' Trump told reporters outside the White House earlier today. 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' The president openly admired the effectiveness of Israel's initial airstrikes against Iran, even though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly launched his strikes to interrupt Trump's nuclear diplomacy with Tehran. But after being rebuffed in April when he sought Trump's approval for a joint operation against Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu could be on the verge of persuading an American president to provide the B-2s to deliver the 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs capable of penetrating the concrete fortress believed to conceal Tehran's most dangerous stockpile of nearly-weapons-grade uranium, based on new Israeli intelligence. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC today that conflicts with a briefing to Congress this week that the U.S. intelligence has not changed: Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. Israel's argument is that it's now or never. It has decapitated two of Iran's proxies — Hezbollah and Hamas — and toppled the Assad regime in Syria, and its retaliatory strikes last year eliminated many of Iran's air defenses. Israel's air force could damage Iran's above-ground nuclear sites and missile bases if it struck now, before Iran repairs its defenses, but can't eliminate the nuclear threat without U.S. bombs and bombers to reach the most critical underground facility. That has created a political tug-of-war for the heart and mind of Trump, who has publicly yearned for the Nobel Prize, seeing himself as a peacemaker who could bring Iran back into the community of non-terrorist nations and avoid another 'forever war.' Fighting that vision is his competing impulse to join Israel in eliminating the nuclear threat once and for all. And Tehran's leaders clearly misjudged how patient Trump would be with their refusal to compromise in the negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin remains on the sidelines, preoccupied with his own war. Jordan's King Abdullah II and French President Emmanuel Macron strongly oppose U.S. involvement. Trump has been consulting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Gulf's most influential leader. At home, the MAGA base is divided, with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., leading the hawks and a growing cohort of Republican isolationists — even in Trump's Cabinet — opposed. Most prominently, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted a highly produced anti-war video on her official X account, reportedly infuriating her boss. Critics worry about unintended consequences of military action, repeating former Secretary of State Colin Powell's rueful warning before the U.S. war in Iraq. It's like the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you own it. U.S.-backed regime change has a checkered past — Iran may be no different, by Alexander Smith Will Israel's airstrikes cause the collapse of the Iranian regime?, by Dan De Luce and Alexander Smith by Megan Lebowitz By Lawrence Hurley The Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Tennessee law banning certain care for transgender youth left various legal questions open, even as other laws aimed at people based on gender identity, including those involving sports and military-service bans, head toward the justices. That means that even though transgender rights activists face a setback, the ruling does not control how other cases will ultimately turn out. 'This decision casts little if any light on how a majority of justices will analyze or rule on other issues,' said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. Most notably, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, did not address the key issue of whether such laws should automatically be reviewed by courts with a more skeptical eye, an approach known as 'heightened scrutiny.' Practically, that would mean laws about transgender people would have to clear a higher legal bar to be upheld. The justices skipped answering that question because the court found that Tennessee's law banning gender transition care for minors did not discriminate against transgender people at all. But other cases are likely to raise that issue more directly, meaning close attention will be paid to what the justices said in the various written opinions, as well as what they did not say.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Scottish government given deadline to implement ruling on biological sex
The Scottish government has been given a deadline to implement the UK supreme court's ruling on biological sex across all public bodies or face further legal challenges. Sex Matters, the UK-wide gender-critical campaign group, has threatened legal action in 14 days if ministers continue 'intolerable' delays to new policies and guidance required by April's landmark ruling that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 does not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates. The move reflects ongoing frustration among gender-critical campaign groups at what For Women Scotland, who brought the supreme court case, described as 'extraordinary pushback' since the unanimous judgment. Politicians, LGBT+ rights groups and prominent supporters have raised concerns that the ruling could result in the erosion of rights, privacy and dignity of trans people across the UK. These fears were increased after the equality watchdog the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) brought out interim advice soon after the judgment which, they said, amounted to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets of their lived gender, which many in the community said effectively excluded them from public spaces. The ruling has wide-ranging implications for service providers, public bodies and businesses, with the EHRC currently consulting on a revised code of practice that will provide a practical guide on implementation. However, the Sex Matters letter says the consultation is 'not an invitation – particularly to public authorities – to act in a way that is unlawful in the meantime'. Sex Matters intervened in the supreme court case that was brought by For Women Scotland against the Scottish government over a law aimed at improving gender representation on public boards. Maya Forstater, a founder of Sex Matters, said the supreme court was clear that legal protection for trans people 'does not translate into a right to use opposite-sex services', adding that allowing trans women to use women's toilets, showers and changing rooms had 'created a hostile environment for women'. Sex Matters is particularly concerned about the Scottish government's guidance for schools, which encourage teaching staff offer flexible arrangements for young transgender people and states that the use of toilets is governed by social convention rather than law. The Good Law Project, which is challenging the EHRC's interim advice in court next month, revealed earlier this week that the commission appeared to be rolling back on its initial blanket position. Last weekend, For Women Scotland co-director Susan Smith encouraged individuals to 'keep pressure on MSPs and MPs', and make use of the fighting fund announced by the author and activist, JK Rowling, to launch their own actions. Rowling said the fund was 'not going to be sharing any details or figures about applications and inquiries, as it's a private fund, not a fundraising charity, and funding details are strictly confidential'. A Scottish government spokesperson said that they would respond to the letter in due course. They said: 'The Scottish government has been clear that we accept the supreme court judgment. We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment.'
