MSP who accused Supreme Court of 'bigotry and hatred' survives vote
A Green MSP who accused the UK Supreme Court of 'bigotry, prejudice, and hatred' at a rally in Aberdeen has survived a committee vote to remove her.
Maggie Chapman, the deputy convenor of Holyrood's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, hit out at the Supreme Court over its ruling on the definition of a woman earlier this month.
The North East Scotland MSP previously said she would not apologise, stand down or reconsider her role in the face of the controversy.
Conservative MSP and committee member Tess White laid a motion to have Chapman thrown off the committee.
But Chapman survived the vote by four votes to three – backed by the SNP members.
'Maggie Chapman's comments were utterly outrageous and totally inexcusable for any MSP to make,' White previously said.
The motion comes just days after Scotland's top lawyer called for a 'fulsome and swift apology' from Chapman and questioned whether she could continue as deputy convenor.
'These are appalling comments to come from any elected politician,' Roddy Dunlop KC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said.
'They are all the worse when they come from someone who holds the post of deputy convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.
'It really should not require to be said, but the Supreme Court – indeed, all judges – are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath.
'For Ms Chapman to claim that they were swayed by 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' is outrageous. We are talking about the apex court of these islands, in this instance made up of a bench which included two of Scotland's finest legal minds, as well as two women.
'No sensible person could read their dispassionate analysis and conclude that they were swayed by such matters.' Watch
Colin Mackay quizzes Maggie Chapman on Supreme Court ruling comments
First Minister John Swinney said that Chapman's comments were 'wrong' in that she questioned the independence of the judiciary.
On Friday, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar was asked about Chapman's position as deputy convener of the committee.
He said: 'Ultimately, this is a matter for the committee and for structures of the Parliament.
'But I think there is a broader point here which is people have strong views, and I am perfectly relaxed with people having strong views, people can have big disagreements, that's part of our democracy, part of debates.
'But when we get into the place of attacking the judiciary, attacking law officers, attacking judges, undermining the rule of law and calling people bigoted or racist or sexist based on judgments made on the evidence of the law, I think that takes us down a very, very dangerous route.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
As a former judge, I used to defend Britain's rights – mine are now at risk
Before being a judge, I represented a rape victim who was deaf and unable to speak. She was so badly traumatised that, in a cry for help, she took a kitchen knife out in public and tried to kill herself. She was arrested and brought to court. She did not get bail. The probation officer – before even meeting me – told me she had decided to oppose bail. A cruel pre-judgment: custody would immediately end her job and change her life. Law has no feeling; it embodied the passive-aggression of society to disabled people and women: it processed her, like meat for dogs. Two weeks ago, the UN Special Procedures group – 19 specialists in fields including freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion and expression, and violence against women and girls – issued a statement of human rights concern about the UK, towards transsexual and other trans people. It came in response to the infamous, deeply confused decision of the UK Supreme Court in April in For Women Scotland, where trans people and the vast bulk of women and lesbians were not heard. We were judged by a court packed with non-trans pressure groups, and human rights were scarcely mentioned. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision forced on women the notion that they are inescapably defined by biology, presumably basic urges and wandering wombs, for sexual relationships, free association and equal rights. It reversed more than 20 years of peaceful co-existence between the trans community and others. The UK is beyond crisis: the economy is down, inflation is up; electricity and gas are unaffordable. Violence against women is up. Men are discarded, angry. Such a country becomes vulnerable to extremism and minority-blaming. In 2021, European parliament research revealed how foreign actors use media to stir LGBT+ hate. It is in Russia's interest to damage our social fabric, rendering us dysfunctional and divided, as there is evidence it did, too, with Brexit. This LGBT+ emergency is ripping apart tolerant British values. It follows the rise of the Gender Critical Ideology Movement (GCIM). I need not go into suggestions that GCIM is sometimes used as cover for people seeking LGBT+ conversion practices – or that some groups oppose banning conversion therapy towards trans people. Let us note, however, that GCIM did not seem to exist until around 2016, when UK-US movements arose preaching traditional sex roles. Let me concentrate on the immediate UK human crisis. The government ruled that people like me, previously legally female and (still!) having female anatomy, at risk of assault as with all women, must henceforth change in men's changing rooms, use men's loos in pubs and be excluded from female rape services. Despite my female birth certificate, I am apparently a 'man'. The EHRC followed suit. The police confirmed that people who are (or seem to be, one assumes) 'trans' shall be strip searched only by men, anatomy be damned. Such sexual assault of 'unfeminine' women may now be the law on the ground. Women with mastectomies are confronted, accused of 'transness'. Trans people not 'out' at work face disclosure of pariah status. Non-feminine women are confronted by other women in loos. A database has been proposed to enforce segregation. A fund has been created support civil legal enforcement of the new 'sex-based' rights. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, wants to segregate trans people in hospitals. Bridget Phillipson, our equalities minister, is MIA. I formed the Trans Exile Network for those leaving the UK now. Heterosexual families with kids, where, say, the husband is trans, have been re-designated as 'lesbian' because the court redefined 'lesbians' as well as 'women'. Nobody asked them, of course – unlike the 2004 Act, which was with national consent and consultation. Trans people are now two sexes at once: one for equalities law (I am now unable to claim equal pay rights as a woman) and one for everything else. Nobody at the top cares: it is 'clarification', says Keir Starmer, ignorantly. Now the GCIM want this rolled out across Europe. Next stop: Ireland. I've been contacted by suicidal people and the parents of kids who have been denied medical treatment. Parents fear for the future of their kids: if not helped now, they face forced puberty against their medical best interests and a harder life. Puberty delaying hormones are reversible and have been used upwards of 20 years to 'buy time' until kids are adults and can make decisions. The court must have assumed that the EHRC is neutral. More fool the court. But the biggest victim is our country – which I served as a judge for more than 18 years – and truth and humanity in public life.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
I had gender reassignment surgery – then the Supreme Court said I wasn't a woman
On 16 April this year, I held my phone in one hand as a kindly nurse, Sofia, removed my surgical dressings. 'Huh,' I said. ' The Supreme Court has just ruled that I'm a man, apparently.' 'Well, you have a lovely new vagina,' Sofia replied. The timing was so on-the-nose I wouldn't dare include it in a script. It would be naff. Sometimes, I guess, life is naff. Why on earth would I share something so personal? It seems that politely asking for a dignified life has fallen on deaf ears, so I'll be undignified for a second. I was filled with hope when Labour came to power, but it's now clear that the party is happy to throw trans people under the bus for a quiet life. So while politicians certainly aren't welcome at Pride this year, I think Pride month is important. In fact, I think it's more important than ever that we dig out our Asos mesh tops and denim cut-offs. Why? Because this is how we've always done it, and this is how we win. Joy triumphs hate, and it seems to me we have two choices: we can either sit on X, spewing increasingly unhinged tweets, or we can go dance to Jade at Mighty Hoopla. I know which looks more fun. It's hard, though. What I want to do is panic. If one uses the word 'fascism', people accuse you of hysteria – but isn't this precisely what fascism looks like? A minority group is unfairly demonised until public opinion sours sufficiently for lawmakers to impose restrictions on said group. Well, that's where we're at right now. While some may find trans people icky or weird, we overwhelmingly haven't actually done anything wrong. It's a mess. While so far, nothing has changed in law, there's sufficient confusion that lesbians are being challenged in Boston restrooms, hate crimes against trans people are soaring, and health secretary Wes Streeting seems to have a personal vendetta against trans youth. I share in the confusion: I changed my passport in 2015, but now I can't get a visa to the USA for my book tour unless I say I'm male? Will I get detained at JFK? My birth certificate was lawfully reissued in 2018 as a female birth certificate, but now I'm not a woman legally? My view is that despite the law being very clear, actually, a few very determined transphobes have crawled their way to the heart of the law like maggots in an apple. A system that has been working perfectly well since 2010 has now been unnecessarily tampered with – and Starmer has capitulated because he's spineless. Look, I can't speak for all trans women, but I just want to live my life the way I always imagined it. I have become the version of myself I wanted to be when I was four. This is who I wanted to be. I wear what I want, and eat what I want. I have two dogs and spend my money on expensive cocktails and rare Bratz dolls from 2001. Choices. I have the same choices over my life and body that I would want for every single person on earth. I'm not trying to make a statement about what a woman is, I just want to be one. I don't really care if someone thinks that is biologically impossible; I've got near enough to be wholly satisfied. I am happy. My friends and family are happy for me. To anyone opposed to gender transition, I would ask, why can't you be happy for me too? Why does this boil your p*** so much? So even though I am scared, genuinely, I will celebrate and protest at Pride this year – my cis friends have rallied around me and my trans sisters to ensure we're protected. The celebration IS the protest. This is my invite to readers: join us! Queer people are really, really fun. We were dealt a weird curveball in a straight society, but we come together once a year and rejoice at how we overcame the myriad obstacles that were placed in front of us. We got over them, and now we dance and sing. Those unimaginative, mean-hearted bigots don't want to see us revel in joy, so we absolutely have to.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Public sector struggling to define what a woman is, trans report finds
Public sector workers and trade unions are widely refusing to accept the Supreme Court's judgment on what a woman is, a think tank has warned. A new study by Policy Exchange shows that dozens of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have continued to question the legal meaning of 'a woman', despite the ruling. In April, the court ruled that the term 'woman' refers to a biological female in the Equality Act 2010. The decision means trans women, who were born male, should use men's toilets, changing rooms and other single-sex spaces, contradicting the previous stance of a string of public sector organisations. Policy Exchange's report, the fifth edition of its 'Biology Matters Compendium', compiles examples of organisations refusing to acknowledge the legal force of the court's judgment. These include universities, professional bodies and several trade unions, along with other public bodies. Rosie Duffield, the gender-critical MP who left the Labour Party last year, hailed the report and said it showed that 'radical positions on gender identity have become deeply embedded and it will be the work of years to rectify it'. Ms Duffield wrote in the foreword: 'There should be no illusions that this is over: there will be many more battles to fight before women's sex-based rights are secure.' Lara Brown, the author of the report, said that 'despite progress, our latest edition of the Biology Matters Compendium reveals there is still a great deal of ideological capture in the policy and practice of many public institutions'. 'The defence of sex-based rights does not end with a court ruling. It requires persistent scrutiny, open debate, and the courage to challenge ideological orthodoxy – wherever it may reside. This compendium finds that in this domain, there is still much more to be done.' The report notes that at least seven major trade unions have appeared to question the ruling in recent months. Unison, one of the UK's largest unions, and the University and Colleges Union, which represents academic and support staff in further and higher education institutions, have warned of the judgment's 'harmful implications'. The Fire Brigades' Union has said in response to the ruling that 'the law is not always on the right side of history'. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (Aslef) released a statement on social media saying that it 'recognises the distress and uncertainty that the Supreme Court's ruling about the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 has caused to trans and non-binary communities.' The union declared: 'We have a proud history of championing the rights of our trans and non-binary members and we continue to stand in solidarity with them.' A collection of unions, including Unite, the civil service union PCS, the RMT and the BFAWU, a food industry union, have staged marches against the Supreme Court's decision, with one leading figure declaring that 'the trade union movement will protect and stand with trans people, whether the law cares or not.' Policy Exchange's report also draws attention to professional bodies such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy continuing to describe gender self-identification as 'valid'. After the Supreme Court judgment, a number of public bodies announced plans to change their policies on gender recognition. Within days, the British Transport Police announced that trans women could in future only be strip-searched by male officers. The NHS was also told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the equalities watchdog, to change guidelines that did not fit the newly clarified legal settlement. The Football Association announced that athletes would have to compete in their biological sex categories, going forward. But other bodies were more reluctant to accept the ruling. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union, branded the Supreme Court's decision 'scientifically illiterate'. Meanwhile, the National Police Chiefs' Council said it would 'not rush' to change rules on strip-searching in order to fall in with the court's decision.
