The trans war tearing Labour apart
'He laughed when I challenged him,' she told the auditorium. 'You know this is wrong. You know this is illegal. You know that women very rarely challenge big men in the toilets because women are socialised not to challenge men when they are in a vulnerable situation.
'I am here to tell you that there are many, many women within our union, within the Labour movement and within the trade union movement, who welcome the Cass Review, who welcome the Sullivan Report and who definitely welcome the Supreme Court ruling because it clarifies everything for all of us.'
Her defiant speech was punctuated with loud boos and jeers from several of the delegates in the room. Yet many others applauded and approached her afterwards to express their support.
It was a moment that might illustrate just how divided unions – and indeed the Labour Party itself – have become when it comes to the issue of gender identity and women's rights.
Last month, when the Supreme Court ruling clarified that sex in law meant 'biological sex', some naively assumed that it might finally put to rest this thorniest of issues in Labour's side. But it seems that if anything, tensions have been ramped up rather than tempered.
This week, the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) voted that women officer roles and all-women shortlists would be limited to biological women. It was a remarkable volte face from its 2018 decision that 'self-identifying' trans women (biological men who could simply declare themselves women without any surgery or medical treatment) were eligible for Labour's all-women shortlists and other roles.
In a further twist, the NEC also decided to postpone the women's conference planned for September – leading to criticism from both trans activists (who had been planning to protest at the event) and women's groups alike.
Labour Women's Declaration, which campaigns for women's rights, said that while it was pleased that the party 'had at long last decided to follow the advice we had been giving them since 2019 and comply with the Equality Act 2010', it added that the cancellation of the conference was 'ridiculous and unnecessary'.
'The absence of the democratic process for women this year, as a result of this postponement, is appalling and fails to recognise the importance of women's voices within the Labour Party,' they said in a statement. 'The party must now address this as a matter of urgency.'
Meanwhile, LGBT groups such as Pride in Labour condemned the new emphasis on biological sex as a 'blatant attack on trans rights' and 'an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the labour movement more widely'.
Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, who has been a fierce critic of her former party on the issue of women's rights, says that the decision to postpone the conference was 'shameful and potentially unlawful'.
'This is reminiscent of another century,' she says. 'There has been no clear reason given for the ban, so is it simply because the Labour Party refuses to exclude men, as the law states, or that they are afraid of potential male protests, or even violence and are refusing to deal with that?
'Either way, I no longer equate being a feminist with being involved with the Labour Party, who still so obviously have a serious problem with women, which comes from the very top. It shows the utter disregard they still have for women's place within the Labour movement, and women's political activism.
'For years, we had to fight for recognition within unions, to organise together, for greater representation in politics. And now that the law couldn't be clearer, they have effectively silenced women yet again.'
While Sir Keir Starmer and colleagues such as Wes Streeting and Bridget Phillipson have publicly welcomed the clarification of the law, opposition to the ruling within the party seems to run deep.
Last month, four Labour MPs – Charlotte Nichols, Kate Osborne, Olivia Blake and Nadia Whittome – signed a trans-rights pledge that appeared to criticise the ruling.
Front benchers Chris Bryant and Dame Angela Eagle also railed against remarks made by Baroness Falkner, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). She had said the ruling meant trans women would be banned from women's single-sex spaces. In a leaked WhatsApp message, Eagle warned that EHRC guidance on the issue might be 'catastrophic' and warned that there were 'signs that some public bodies are overreacting' to the Supreme Court decision.
Mandy Clare, a former Labour councillor from Cheshire, was elected onto Labour's National Women's Committee in 2020 but left the party after being deselected and taken through a disciplinary for alleged transphobia.
'I highly suspect the cancellation of the women's conference this year is yet another cynical, controlling and possibly vindictive move by the party, at the behest of activists, to again remind women of their place,' she says.
'Women within the Labour Party have to dance to the men's rights tune or expect to be abused and discarded.'
Clare, who is now a councillor for Reform, believes that some Labour MPs have 'emboldened' trans activism with their behaviour.
'Starmer owes all women an apology,' she says. 'Those Labour MPs who have called women names and decided we were witches, without even bothering to check basic crime statistics and evidence, not only lack common sense or any respect or understanding for what it means to be a woman in a world that is still male-dominated, they have – by their actions – emboldened the type of man who threatens to hang or punch women and allowed this go unpunished. It's hard to compute what we have been living through – and it's not over.'
Some insiders even claim that because of the magnitude of the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on Labour, party figures are working behind the scenes to undermine it.
'An interesting aspect of this is because Labour is one of the few political parties which has extensive positive actions policies for women in terms of lists and quotas and women's branches, women's officers etc, it is more heavily impacted by the Supreme Court ruling,' says one source.
Another claims: 'The Labour Party will push through the fully trans inclusive conversion therapy Bill as well as the data Bill, which is effectively self-identity. There are many LGBT+ Labour activists running the show who have very serious influence at Labour Party HQ and they're invested in achieving LGBT+ aims. Worse is yet to come.'
Labour's data Bill, which is in its final stages before becoming law, will allow people to prove their identity and facts about themselves by using a new voluntary Government app. Women's rights campaigners have been warning ministers that the legislation will play havoc with the ability of companies such as gym chains and public bodies like the NHS and police to ascertain someone's sex – just after the Supreme Court ruling intended to bring much-needed clarity.
Dee McCullogh, a member of Lesbian Labour, says that the division and tension within the party needs to be tackled from the top – putting the spotlight on Starmer.
'For 15 years the law has been incorrectly administered and finally we have some clarity – which is great – but then the Labour Party has a knee-jerk response [by cancelling the women's conference] and it feels like a kick in the stomach,' she says. 'It's like saying to women: 'Yes of course you can play football but you can't have any matches'. It's so insulting.
'This whole thing has been about capitulation to the bullying from a loud group of trans activists, not the tiny percentage of people with genuine gender dysphoria. Lesbians in particular were central to the Supreme Court ruling and no one has apologised to us for the distress and harms caused to lesbians, who, over the last 15 years have lost our community and single sex spaces.
'The Government really needs to clamp down on this bullying. You can't have MPs and people within the judiciary saying they are not going to follow the law. What sort of democracy can you run if people are simply going to say they know the speed limit is 30mph but they are going to drive at 60mph anyway? The Labour leadership needs to listen to its membership, not just the bullies because as You Gov polls show, the majority of people agree with the Supreme Court decision.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Democrats try to force nuns to pay for abortions. Sounds authoritarian to me.
Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone – and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. The Little Sisters of the Poor are back in the news. In case you've forgotten who they are and why they matter, let's briefly review what they're all about. According to the group's website, the Little Sisters' mission is to ensure that "the elderly and dying are cared for with love and dignity until God calls them home.' The Little Sisters work in 31 countries and began work in America in 1868. Today, the nuns operate about 20 homes in the United States. It's a lovely mission and one that they should be allowed to do in peace, free from interference from the government. No such luck, however. Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters alone and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. Since the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act birth control mandate that required employers to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plans, the Little Sisters have been locked in a legal battle for the past 14 years. Despite clear wins for the nuns and religious liberty at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 and 2020, Democrats continue to persecute the Little Sisters. Will they ever stop? Will the Little Sisters have to make a third trip to the Supreme Court? That's 'absurd.' A federal district court in Philadelphia has revived the vindictive fight, siding with Pennsylvania and New Jersey against a 2017 Trump administration religious conscience rule, which offered the nuns and other religious groups protection from the mandate. Now, these states want the Little Sisters to offer contraception and abortion drugs or face millions of dollars in fines. 'The district court blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty,' Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, said in a statement. 'It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue.' The Little Sisters will appeal this decision, but it truly is ridiculous that they must waste time fighting the government in this way, when all they want to do is serve people in need. And lest you think it's odd to be talking about nuns and contraception, the Little Sisters employ lay people who work as nurses, cooks and serve other roles in the group's homes for the elderly. The nuns don't want to be complicit in providing services that directly violate their deep belief in the sanctity of life, which guides their work. They shouldn't have to. There are other ways the government could provide contraceptives to these employees without pushing the nuns to do it. Progressives claim Trump is an authoritarian. They should look at themselves. For all the times we've been scolded about how Trump and his supporters are fascists and Nazis, progressives ought to take a hard look at themselves first. Democrats have decided their views on culture are the only ones that should matter, religious liberty be damned. Look at how liberal governments have gone after Catholic adoption agencies, Christian bakers, website designers and farmers and tried to force them to betray their faith just to participate in the public square. These are often yearslong court battles, much like the Little Sisters have undertaken. Thankfully, we have a strong First Amendment that protects our speech and religious freedom. And the Supreme Court keeps ruling on the side of protecting these essential liberties, which are promised in our Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing the majority for the 2020 case, observed that the Little Sisters 'have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.' Five years later, the fight continues. It's time for Democrats to leave these nuns alone. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The tax traps Reeves must fix to grow the economy
It is no secret that Rachel Reeves is strapped for cash. Against a backdrop of rising inflation and weak growth, the Chancellor is staring down a black hole that some predict could be as high as £50bn. Worse still, some efforts to save money have already been killed off by Labour backbenchers, while bond market vigilantes have driven up Britain's borrowing costs to their highest level since the 1990s. That is without even taking into account the impact of Reeves's Budget tax raid last year, which has crushed business confidence and dampened investment. All of which means that the Chancellor is now scrambling for reforms that will boost the economy at minimal cost. Here are some of her options. Clean up the income tax trap The top rate of income tax is supposed to be 45pc, but for those earning between £100,000 and just over £125,000, it is in effect 60pc. That is because workers in this bracket lose the tax-free allowance, which applies to the first £12,570 of pay for workers on lower incomes. As a result, it can appear rather unattractive to earn more if most of this extra income will be taken by the taxman. 'Where we have these kinks in the income tax schedule, those will tend to act as a disincentive to people to work more – I might not want to take that promotion, or I might want to go four days a week,' says Isaac Delestre, at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Scrapping this baffling tax quirk would help ease the pain. Smooth out benefits Losing child benefit can see families' effective tax rate rise to almost 60pc. This applies when one parent in a three-child household earns between £60,000 and £80,000. Believe it or not, that is an improvement on the old situation. Before Conservative reforms, a family with three children faced a tax rate of more than 70pc. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor at the time, called the system 'confusing and unfair'. Following changes introduced by the Tories, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) calculated reforms would encourage parents to work more hours, amounting to the equivalent of an extra 10,000 full-time jobs. However, perhaps the most egregious tax trap applies to adults with young children. The Government has ramped up subsidies for childcare in recent years to try to get more parents back to work. Yet for a cohort of highly productive workers, the way the system operates can be an enormous disincentive to seek out a promotion or put in extra hours. That is because the support schemes are withdrawn entirely once one parent's taxable income rises above £100,000. It means an extra penny of earnings can cost a family with two young children £14,500 in disposable income, according to the IFS. The think tank estimates that their disposable income – after tax and childcare – will not recover to its previous level until the parent earns £134,500. These parents have an enormous incentive to cut their taxable income, whether by pouring money into their pension to reduce their taxable income or by cutting the number of days they work each week. Turning the cliff edge into a smooth slope might cost the Treasury money, but would no doubt ease families' worries. Ramp up VAT Companies face similar cliff edges. Small businesses have to register for VAT when their turnover hits £90,000. That creates a huge incentive to stay below that threshold. Businesses and sole traders often stop earning once they edge closer to the limit as they seek to avoid the threat of introducing a 20pc tax on sales. Whether that means working only four days a week or closing for a month to keep takings down, it undermines growth in their business and the wider economy. The Conservatives cited this 'bunching' as a reason to raise the threshold from £85,000, but that just shifted the problem instead of abolishing it. Slashing the threshold would be a blow to small businesses and their customers, but might encourage more growth in the long term by removing it as a barrier altogether. That was the argument of the Resolution Foundation when it was run by Torsten Bell, now a Treasury minister. The think tank previously called the high threshold 'a tax on growth', claiming that: 'The best outcome would be lowering it to the point where almost no business owner would consider the option of deliberately staying below that level of turnover.' Cutting it to £30,000 could raise £1.5bn for Reeves. Cut stamp duty To say that reform of property tax is overdue is an understatement. The IFS has described council tax, which is still based on valuations from 1991, as 'out of date, regressive and distortionary'. The think tank has also branded stamp duty one of Britain's most hated taxes because it penalises people for moving. Back in 1988, a typical homeowner moved house every nine years, according to property website Zoopla. In the first six months of 2022, the gap was 21 years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has previously urged the UK to move away from 'transaction taxes which constrain housing and labour mobility'. Instead of a property sales tax, the Fund suggested adopting a new annual levy based on land or property values – a system some argue this would be fairer. After all, the average London house price is now more than seven times what it was in 1991, compared with a four-fold increase in the North East, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the same time, the distribution of central government funding to local authorities is still based on property values in 1991. This effectively means councils in Newcastle must now levy more tax on a property worth £250,000 than in Kensington and Chelsea to deliver essentially the same on valuations. However, as the think tank points out, any major revaluation would produce winners and losers. Back in 2020, the IFS suggested that a simple revaluation that reflected relative increases in property values would hit homeowners primarily in London and the South East. Back then, it said residents in Hackney and Wandsworth could see increases in their bills of up to 45pc, while people living in Fylde near Blackpool could see a 15pc reduction. A more radical reform that linked bills proportionally to a property's value could see bills in Stoke-on-Trent slashed in half. But it would also see bills quadruple in Kensington and almost double in parts of Surrey. There was a reason that Margaret Thatcher backed away from a poll tax. ... and planning red tape It is not just moving house that matters. Building them would boost the economy too. That is why bats and newts are high up on Reeves's hit list. The Chancellor has repeatedly grumbled about the many obstacles to getting things built in Britain, telling the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month that she cares 'more about getting a young family on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails'. She has a point. In a now infamous example, the chairman of the HS2 rail line admitted it was spending £100m on a shield to protect bats in ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire. Sir John Thompson said this was just one example of 8,276 'consents' required from public bodies, and expressed frustration at red tape across the UK. Reeves also knows there is a big prize on offer if she manages to reduce bureaucracy. The OBR said Labour's planning reforms were already expected to drive an increase in housebuilding of 170,000 homes until the end of the decade, which would in turn increase Britain's medium-term growth prospects by 0.2pc. Reeves has since ordered officials in the Treasury to go further. Prepare for more red tape to be slashed. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.
The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception. The government's lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can't be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They're asking the justices to overturn the appeals court's decision. Trump's Justice Department has sided with gun owners in other cases The department's defense of the law is particularly notable as the Trump administration has sided with gun rights advocates in other cases – including one in which they declined to appeal a lower court's ruling against a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun. More: Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules But on the issue of drug use, the government is appealing four cases to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to focus on one involving a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was charged with unlawfully owning a Glock pistol because he regularly smoked marijuana. The FBI had been monitoring Ali Danial Hemani because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which the government has designated a global terrorist group, according to filings. The government also alleges Hemani used and sold promethazine, an antihistamine used to treat allergies and motion sickness that can boost an opioid high, and used cocaine, although he was prosecuted based on his marijuana use. Hemani's attorneys said the government is trying to 'inflame and disparage' Hemani's character and the only facts that matter are that he was not high when the FBI found the Glock 19 in his Texas home. Hemani was charged with violating the federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who 'is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.' More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Appeals court ruled past drug use not enough to stop gun ownership The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law can't be applied to Hamani under the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision that gun prohibitions must be grounded in history that is "consistent with our tradition of gun regulation." While history and tradition support 'some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon,' the appeals court said, 'they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.' The Justice Department said the appeals court got it wrong. Laws that existed at the time the country was founded restricted the rights of habitual drinkers, even when they were sober, they argued. 'And for about as long as legislatures have regulated drugs, they have prohibited the possession of arms by drug users and addicts – not just by persons under the influence of drugs,' they wrote. Law used in hundreds of prosecutions, including Hunter Biden's Since the federal government created its background-check system for firearms in 1998, the federal restriction on drug users has stopped more gun sales than any requirement other than the ban on felons and fugitives owning weapons, according to the filing. And it's used in hundreds of prosecutions each year, they said. (Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned by his father during President Joe Biden's final weeks in office, was convicted in 2024 of violating the law by purchasing a gun despite having a known drug addiction.) Hunter Biden trial recap Joe Biden's son guilty on all charges in historic gun case Hemani's lawyers argue that the government's interpretation of the law makes no sense when an estimated 19% of Americans have used marijuana and about 32% own a firearm. That means millions of Americans are violating the law that could put them behind bars for up to 15 years, they said in a filing. The appeals court, Hemani's lawyers said, correctly applied the Supreme Court's past decisions and 'common sense' to rule that 'history and tradition only supports a ban on carrying firearms while intoxicated.' In addition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two other appeals courts have issued rulings that restrict use of the federal ban: both courts ruled there should be individualized assessments of defendants' drug use to determine if their rights could be restricted. Trump administration touts program to restore gun rights The Justice Department argues that 'marginal' cases are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, through a federal program the Trump administration restarted that lets individuals petition to have their gun rights restored. The administration's championship of that program makes it less surprising that the Justice Department is vigorously defending the ban on drug users having guns, said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a research center. In addition, the administration has shown a broad desire to crack down on illegal drug use. 'In some sense, when those two areas are colliding – gun rights and anti-drug policies – it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,' he said. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Willinger said there's a relatively strong chance the Supreme Court will get involved, which the justices tend to do when a lower court strikes down or restricts the application of a federal criminal law – especially if the government asks them to intervene. But the high court could also wait to see how other appeals courts handle similar cases and how well the Justice Department's program for restoring gun rights addresses these concerns, he said. The court could announce whether it will take up the issue this fall.
