Stonewall charity status under threat unless it respects trans ruling
Sex Matters, the women's rights group, say the controversial LGBT charity has encouraged 'organisations to act unlawfully' by suggesting they delay any changes to female facilities such as toilets and changing rooms.
On Thursday, Stonewall accused the Football Association of rushing into banning trans women, who are biologically male, from the female game.
And they said the Supreme Court's historic judgment – that the definition of a woman was based on biological sex – had not yet become law.
In a letter to Simon Blake, the chief executive of Stonewall, Sex Matters said the ruling meant it was law straight away, and said it would refer Stonewall to the Charity Commission unless the advice was withdrawn.
Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, wrote: 'Stonewall remains an influential institution, which has the legitimacy of charitable status.
'It should not be encouraging employers, service providers, sports governing bodies or individuals to ignore or flout the law.'
On Thursday, the FA decided to follow the Scottish FA in restricting the membership of women's teams to biological women.
Stonewall published a statement saying: 'The FA and Scottish FA's decision to ban trans women from women's football has been made too soon, before the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling have been worked through by lawyers and politicians or become law.
'This is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly complicated ruling and its wide-ranging impact is still being worked through by the legal fraternity.
'All organisations should be waiting to see how and in what way statutory guidance is changed, before making any changes to their policies.'
Ms Forstater warned in her letter that Sex Matters would write to the Charity Commission on Monday unless Stonewall retracted the statement 'by means of a public statement and an email to current and past members of the Stonewall Diversity Champions and other related schemes'.
She went on: 'This advice is wrong and dangerous. The Equality Act has been law since 2010, and the Sex Discrimination Act before that since 1975.
'Before the Supreme Court judgment, there was some uncertainty about how it interacts with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in relation to the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation. This uncertainty has now been resolved by the Supreme Court.
'The judgment is comprehensive, but is not at all complicated…
'Employers, service providers, charities and other duty-bearers under the Act have an ongoing obligation to comply with all relevant laws. There is no justification for waiting, and no ambiguity about what must be done.
'No further commentary or guidance is required, and by telling organisations to wait before acting, Stonewall is encouraging them to act unlawfully.'
Ms Forstater claimed that Stonewall's actions were in direct contravention of its charitable objects, which are to promote human rights, promote equality and diversity, and promote the 'sound administration of law'.
'By telling organisations that the Supreme Court's ruling is not law and that they should wait for changes to the statutory guidance before complying, Stonewall is acting irresponsibly and in direct contravention of its charitable objects,' she said.
'Please act promptly to undo the damage caused by your irresponsible statement, insofar as is possible, by retracting it forthwith and publicising your retraction on all the same channels used to promote it.
'Please also replace the retracted statement with one that is clear and accurate, accompanied by a recommendation that all organisations act swiftly to come into compliance.'
Martina Navratilova, the nine-times Wimbledon singles champion, said: 'Stonewall is stonewalling the UK supreme court. Good to know they know the law so well.'
A spokesman for Stonewall said: 'We are taking time, and legal advice, to fully understand the implications of Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC's interim update and get 'clarity' on the next steps including the timeline of the consultation and on the parliamentary process for a new statutory code of practice.
'We are highlighting that organisations don't need to take any action yet, or change their policies, because no new statutory guidance has been issued. The widespread implications of the ruling are still being considered and there will be a consultation process and a subsequent parliamentary process before any changes to statutory guidance are issued.
'Once, and if, there is new statutory guidance, Stonewall will review its own materials to ensure they reflect the latest legal developments. Stonewall's guidance has always reflected the law.'
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
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pirro to ease prosecutions for carrying registered rifles, shotguns — calls DC law ‘violation of the Supreme Court's holdings'
Registered rifle and shotgun owners may no longer face felony charges for carrying their weapons in Washington, DC due to concerns the district's restrictive gun laws run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro explained Tuesday. The policy shift, first reported by the Washington Post, comes after Pirro said she received guidance from the Justice Department and solicitor general determining that DC's prohibitions on registered, but non-permitted, rifle and shotgun owners violate the Second Amendment. The DC law 'is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court's holdings,' Pirro told the Washington Post, confirming the Trump administration's memo. Advertisement 3 US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference in Washington, DC, on Aug. 12, 2025. REUTERS The Supreme Court struck down DC's ban on handgun ownership in the home for self-defense in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case. The high court further expanded gun rights in the 2022 NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, where a majority of justices determined that the Constitution protects the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in public for self-defense. In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court also found that gun laws must be 'consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Advertisement Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. 'Nothing in this memo from the Department of Justice and the Office of Solicitor General precludes the United States Attorney's Office from charging a felon with the possession of a firearm, which includes a rifle, shotgun, and attendant large capacity magazine pursuant to DC Code 22-4503,' she told the outlet. 'What it does preclude is a separate charge of possession of a registered rifle or shotgun,' she added. DC's stringent gun laws prohibit open carry and, in general, require individuals to obtain a concealed-carry permit – which are not issued for shotguns or rifles – in order to leave home with a firearm. Advertisement 3 A person carries a rifle in public during a Second Amendment protest in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Sept. 12, 2023. AP 3 Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. AP Unlawfully carrying a registered long gun in DC can result in a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. Advertisement In response to a request for comment from The Post, Pirro said: 'Criminal culpability is not determined by the instruments people employ but by the intent and conduct of the actor.' 'Crimes are intentional acts and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent by my office regardless of what instruments of criminality are used,' her statement continued. 'My job is to keep this city, its citizens, its businesses, and its visitors safe from harm and I will do that to the fullest extent of the law.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge rules MS in violation of Voting Rights Act, must redraw districts
U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock on Tuesday ruled that Mississippi's state Supreme Court districts dilute Black voting rights and that the state cannot use the same maps in future elections. In a sweeping 105-page ruling, Aycock, a President George W. Bush appointee, found that the three Supreme Court districts were drawn in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. Aycock asked the Legislature to redraw those districts in the future to give Black voters a fair shot at electing candidates of their choice. Out of the 100-plus justices who have served on the Mississippi Supreme Court, only four have been Black. Mississippi law establishes three distinct Supreme Court districts, commonly referred to as the Northern, Central and Southern districts. Voters elect three judges from each of these districts to make up the nine-member court. These districts have not been redrawn since 1987. The main district at issue in the case is the Central District, which comprises many parts of the majority-Black Delta and the majority-Black Jackson Metro area. Currently, two white justices, Kenny Griffis and Jenifer Branning, and one Black justice, Leslie King, represent the district. Last year, Branning, a white candidate who described herself as a 'constitutional conservative' and was backed by the Republican Party, defeated longtime Justice Jim Kitchens, a white man widely viewed as a candidate supported by Black voters. No Black person has ever been elected to the Mississippi Supreme Court without first obtaining an interim appointment from the governor, and no Black person from either of the two other districts has ever served on the state's high court. 'In short, the evidence illustrates that Black candidates who desire to run for the Mississippi Supreme Court face a grim likelihood of success,' Aycock wrote in her ruling. The lawsuit was filed in April 2022 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Mississippi, the Southern Poverty Law Center and private law firms on behalf of a group of Black Mississippians, including state Sen. Derrick Simmons of Greenville, and Ty Pinkins, a previous Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate. Aycock wrote that the parties will convene a status conference soon to discuss an appropriate deadline for the Legislature to address the districts. The Legislature earlier this year adjourned its regular session, and Gov. Tate Reeves is the only person with the power to call lawmakers into a special session. The state could appeal Aycock's ruling to the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
