DUP MLA hits out over latest twist to Supreme Court gender ruling as Windsor Framework causes NI uncertainty
Instead, the matter will brought before the High Court in Belfast, which will likely take more than a year.
The Supreme Court judgement has implications for transgender people's access to single-sex spaces.
As the ruling relates to an interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which does not apply in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission has to assess how it may be interpreted here.
It believes the judgment will be 'highly persuasive' in Northern Ireland courts, but the situation is 'much more nuanced and complicated, and there is significant uncertainty due to our unique legal landscape,' chief commissioner Geraldine McGahey said.
Specifically, the Supreme Court did not consider Article 2 commitments under the Windsor Framework agreed between the UK and EU in 2023.
Article 2 underlines the Government's commitment to ensure that people in Northern Ireland do not lose equality and human rights contained in the Good Friday Agreement.
The agreement is underpinned by EU law, and under the Windsor Framework, aspects of EU law continue to apply to Northern Ireland.
Ms McGahey said much local equality legislation used words such as 'sex', 'men' and 'women' without providing 'comprehensive definitions'.
But Ms Lockhart said the Supreme Court judgment was a 'victory for the rights of women and girls', and it was 'deeply regrettable' that the commission's response 'appears to cast doubt on the implementation of this landmark decision'.
She continued: 'The suggestion that EU law should continue to dictate matters of such importance to women's rights in Northern Ireland is entirely unacceptable.
'Whether it be immigration policy, equality protections or indeed any other area, the Windsor Framework should not be seized upon to place the rights of local people in limbo. Article 2 is about 'no diminution of rights', yet the Equality Commission does not seem able to set out in plain terms which right was in place and has now supposedly been lost.
'The Government must act swiftly and decisively to make it absolutely clear that EU law is not binding in respect of the Supreme Court judgement and cannot stymie efforts to reassert and protect the hard-won rights of women and girls in our society.'
Hundreds of trans rights activists descend on City Hall to protest Supreme Court ruling
Scott Cuthbertson, of the Rainbow Project, said: 'We have worked hard to understand the ruling and communicate our view, and welcome that the Equality Commission has accepted that Article 2 of the Windsor Framework could have implications for how this judgment is read in Northern Ireland.
'We're working through the commission's paper, including its interim guidance for employees and service providers, and considering its implications for trans people as well as our next steps to defend their rights.'
The commission said it would ask the High Court in Belfast to issue a declaration to clarify key questions.
Given the unique legal landscape, the commission said it was possible 'sex' could be interpreted differently in Northern Ireland to how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Ms McGahey said if it wasn't for Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, 'we would actually be saying very clearly that the Supreme Court judgment applies here in Northern Ireland'.
She added: 'That is why we're saying it's highly persuasive for our courts and tribunals here in Northern Ireland.
'Article 2 is about ensuring there's no diminution of rights that are protected or safeguarded within the Good Friday Agreement.'
Ms McGahey said there was a debate as to which rights were being referred to, civil rights or rights relating to gender discrimination.
Until the High Court process is completed, the commission can only issue 'interim guidance' to employers and service users.
One suggestion is for employers to consider universal shower and toilet facilities, consisting of self-contained lockable rooms that can be used by one person at a time, regardless of their gender.
The intention of this would be for these universal facilities to be designed 'so no one could infer a person's gender or sex simply because they were selected', thus avoiding risking 'outing' transgender people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
29 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why victory for British trans judge in European Court of Human Rights would be Pyrrhic
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As a highly experienced lawyer, I can only presume retired judge Victoria McCloud has gamed the implications of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex. Even if successful, it could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory and one of the last times the ECHR has anything to do with British laws. There was a time when leaving the ECHR was only the preserve of hard-line Brexiteers, and with the potential to split the Conservative Party had obvious attractions for Sir Keir Starmer and his friends in the human rights industry for whom the ECHR has been such a valuable backstop in derailing repeated attempts by the previous government to tighten up on illegal immigration. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The boot is firmly on the other foot as cross-channel illegal immigration reaches record levels and Labour finds solutions as hard to find as their predecessors. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg | Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images The EU's much-vaunted freedom of movement is now hopelessly compromised as the influx of economic migrants from Africa and Middle East refugees overwhelm local services and the housing supply, laying the foundations for political movements like Alternative für Deutschland which challenged the previous open doors orthodoxy promoted by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Now Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Italy and Slovenia have all introduced border controls, rendering the Schengen Agreement almost redundant. Now departure from the ECHR, or at least its reform, has gone mainstream as the full impact of a supra-national appeals system on democratically elected governments struggling to cope with mass migration is being felt. Court attacked by EU member states In May nine EU members led by Italy and Denmark — supported by Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Austria — signed an open letter which attacked the way the European Court of Human Rights was interpreting the Convention, claiming rulings were going beyond original intentions and threatened their ability to 'protect their democracies and populations'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Off-shore asylum processing hubs, not that dissimilar to the Conservatives' much-derided Rwanda scheme, are being considered by the EU. Italy's deal with Albania signed in 2023 has been repeatedly stymied in the Italian courts, which has only strengthened Prime Minster Giorgia Meloni's hand. The ECHR was accused of over-playing its hand last year when it ruled in favour of two elderly Swiss women who claimed their right to life (Article 2) was being denied by their government which they said was not doing enough to tackle climate change. The Strasbourg judges ordered the Swiss government to do more which it duly snubbed, a decision later backed by a referendum which found a majority felt the government's actions were adequate. The ECHR ruling was widely seen as going well beyond the remit of Article 2 and a direct challenge to a legitimate policy decision made by a sovereign government. Members of the European Court of Human Rights open a hearing in a climate change case involving six young Portuguese citizens against 32 countries, in Strasbourg, in September 2023 | AFP via Getty Images Of course, there will be the Just Stop Oil types who will argue the court's decision was absolutely correct, and failure to do more to tackle climate change is akin to mass murder, just as there is no shortage of activists who argue that men can become women just by thinking about it hard enough. Which brings me back to Victoria McCloud. As Britain's first trans judge she has, for want of a better phrase, skin in the game and argues the Supreme Court undermined her Article 6 rights, to a fair trial, by refusing to hear evidence from her and other trans representatives. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But when the ECHR was being drafted in 1948-50, its authors were thinking more about the ordeal of people like Sophie Scholl, a key member of the anti-Nazi White Rose movement who was ritually humiliated at her trial by the infamous People's Court judge Roland Freisler who then sentenced her and her associates to death. Clearly, Ms McCloud was not on trial, fairly or otherwise. She is also claiming her rights under Article 8 (right to a family life) and Article 14 (protection from discrimination) and again, it's hard to see how the Supreme Court's decision impinges on either, given the judges were unanimous in their view that people who had undergone gender reassignment were protected by the 2010 Equality Act, but that there was a distinction with the Act's sex-based protections which they ruled applied to biological males and females, regardless of gender reassignment. UK government could face impossible position The problem for trans campaigners is really with the legislation, not the Supreme Court interpretation, so their goal should be for repeal or amendment, but as Nicola Sturgeon found to her cost that would not just be political dynamite but a nuclear bomb. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, it's not difficult to see the European judges siding with Ms McCloud but that would put the UK Government in an impossible position, of either snubbing the ECHR like the Swiss, or reforming the law in ways which it is clear from the SNP's attempt to pass the Gender Recognition Reform Act into law would be hugely unpopular and a gift to Reform, if not the Conservatives. Sir Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage | PA Having been instrumental in laying the groundwork for Britain's departure from the EU, I can imagine Nigel Farage secretly willing on Ms McCloud so he can point to another European institution from which we should be decoupled; an unaccountable international court which interferes with the way sovereign states protect their borders, deal with climate change, and police sex-based rights. And this time, prominent EU members would be right behind him.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Planet Normal: Bringing you the best of the Rocket 2025, part 2
On this second of three summer specials of the Planet Normal podcast, which you can listen to using the audio player above, columnists Liam Halligan and Allison Pearson speak to Leader of The Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, who gives her take on Prime Minister, Keir Starmer's, vote of support for the Supreme Court verdict on the definition of 'man' and 'woman' in regards to the Equality Act 2010. Also on the rocket is former Conservative councillor, Ray Connolly - husband of Lucy Connolly, who was sentenced to 31 months for posting a tweet in response to the tragic death of 3 girls in Southport last year. Ray discusses the devastating impact of Lucy's ongoing incarceration on their family.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
'Independence first, everything else later' is doomed to fail
In their view, Scotland should focus purely on achieving a Yes vote, leaving all questions about what an independent Scotland would look like to be settled afterwards. But that's a losing strategy, one that kept us stuck in a self-destructing UK back in 2014 and is keeping us stuck there now. In 2014, the campaign's instinct was to avoid scaring voters. We were told to 'reassure', to keep the pitch narrow, and avoid anything controversial. The hope was that by keeping our plans bland, we would make independence a safe, neutral choice. It didn't work, we offered a technical case (Scotland's Future publication) without painting a compelling enough vision of what life would be like after independence. The Yes campaign lacked any vision for radical change even though most independence supporters had their own personal vision founded on their personal core beliefs but we've been conditioned to be scared to share it, when speaking from the heart is what makes the difference. READ MORE: UN case will determine who is entitled to call an indy referendum We've got to stop trying to run the most conservative independence campaign in political history. Believe in Scotland is publishing the results of our 2025 Big Indy Survey. We posted that 92% of 7200+ Yes supporters want Scotland to be a republic, many commented that it harmed the cause to say so, as we need to stick to the 'independence first, everything else later' mantra. Wrong: in December we commissioned a poll by Norstat and the standard Yes/No question came back 54% Yes. When we asked the same respondents the Yes/No question if independence meant Scotland becoming a republic, Yes rose to 59%. The evidence for going big on key policies SINCE 2014, we've tested different messages and the evidence is clear. When we combine independence with bold, popular policies, independence support rises. A Republican Scotland: Polling shows that independence support increases 5% when tied to the promise of becoming a republic. This is because it's not just about removing the monarchy, it's about building a modern democracy, a society based on wellbeing and merit and not one headed up by inherited political power and massive wealth by birthright. Rejoining the EU: Brexit has been a disaster, and a clear majority in Scotland wants back in the EU. Linking independence directly to rejoining turns it from a vague change into a concrete route back to freedom of movement, cooperation, and prosperity. Thought to be worth 5% to the Yes cause as most new indy supporters cite Brexit as the reason for their change of heart. Wellbeing Economy and Wellbeing pension: A wellbeing economy, one that measures success by health, happiness, and fairness and not just GDP speaks directly to people's concerns. Coupling that with a wellbeing pension, protected from Westminster cuts, older voters will see that independence improves their standard of living. These policies connect to voters' real hopes and fears. They make independence a means to an end, not an end in itself. Takes independence support to 66%, (+12%). The trap of process-only politics SOME argue that adding specific policies now will 'divide the movement.' They fear alienating potential Yes voters who disagree on one or two points. But the truth is the opposite. A 'vote Yes, then we'll decide' approach alienates people by asking them to commit without knowing what they're signing up for. By refusing to commit to a bold vision now, we risk signalling that independence might just be the status quo with a saltire on top. That's not inspiring, the undecided will just see a set of Westminster politicians they don't trust, losing powers to a set of Holyrood politicians they don't trust – big deal. Breaking out of the deadlock BREAKING the deadlock means making independence the delivery vehicle for the radical changes that people desire for Scotland. We are selling a new Scotland so our campaign must be a campaign for a better Scotland and not just for a technical exercise in constitutional change. A winning vision – based on the will of the people. Building it with the people is the solution and that's why Believe in Scotland is campaigning for a Scottish Citizens' Convention. The Citizens' Convention is key to engaging the public in a new national conversation just as we did in 2014 when grassroots supporters moved the polls by sharing their hopes and dreams for a better, fairer, prosperous Scotland. It's a democratic process bringing together civic Scotland and citizens' voices from across Scotland to design the type of Scotland we want. Workers, communities, businesses, academics, and campaigners all have a seat at the table. And you will absolutely find that if we get the nation dreaming of a better Scotland that they will dream of an independent Scotland. READ MORE: Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? A legal expert explains This is how we co-create a credible, inclusive vision with the people. And here's the crucial part: the outcome can be put back to the people as a manifesto for independence. Because more than 80% of what the people will say they want can't be delivered without independence. That makes independence not just a political pitch, but a nation in agreement on what independence will deliver from day one. It should also lead to a festival of democracy– a series of confirmatory referendums on the key issues, such as joining the EU etc, so the people can say yes to the bigger picture but reject individual parts of it if they want to. The cost of timidity IF we stick with 'independence first, everything else later,' we risk another 2014. We'll be cautious when we need to be bold, defensive when we need to be visionary, on the backfoot in every debate like we were in indyref1. And we could lose again, not because independence isn't the answer but because we refused to give independence a moral purpose, and failed to give them a reason to believe. The stakes are too high, we are not just fighting for some academic technical constitutional change. We are fighting for the chance to transform Scotland into a fairer, greener, happier, healthier and more democratic place to live and work. That transformation must be built into the case for independence from the very start and the Citizens' Convention is the best tool to do that. Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is an economist, the CEO of Business for Scotland, the founder of the Believe in Scotland campaign consisting of 143 local and national Yes Groups, and the author of Scotland the Brief
