Ban on political parties taking part in Pride ‘a retrograde step', says minister
A Government minister has criticised a ban on political parties taking part in annual Pride marches, as he said the month of LGBT+ celebration and activism is as important as ever.
Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant said the decision by organisers in five cities was a backwards move as he suggested activists did not give sufficient credit to politicians for law changes in recent decades. He was met with agreement by Conservative shadow culture secretary Stuart Andrew.
Sir Chris said Pride is important so young people do not 'internalise hatred and scorn', and hit out at Reform-led councils which have removed Pride flags from display in recent months as he praised the importance of visibility.
Organisers of events in Birmingham, Brighton, London, Manchester and Oxford said they had suspended political party involvement in events in 'unequivocal solidarity' with the transgender movement. June is Pride month, with marches and events taking place over the summer.
Sir Chris was asked by Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent East, whether he regretted the bar by Pride organisers.
Ms Butler said: 'Does (he) feel sorry that they've now said that no political parties are allowed to march, because of how the LGBTQI+ community has been treated? I will still be marching, because I normally march with groups, but does he agree with me that this is a sad state of affairs?'
Sir Chris said: 'I think we should be absolutely proud of the fact that politics has changed the law in this country and political parties were absolutely essential to that.
'Of course I pay tribute to everybody in my political party who for many, many generations fought for equality. But it's true in the Conservative Party as well where people in many cases had to be even braver than they did in the Labour movement, and of course in many other political parties as well.
'So yes, I think it's an entirely retrograde step to ban people from political parties from taking part in Pride marches.'
Mr Andrew said: 'I do want to comment that I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year's parades.
'LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, the Lib Dems, not allowed to attend, and like (him), I would also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes that we enjoy today.
'And as Jo Cox said, there is more than unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step.'
Former Green Party co-leader Sian Berry (Brighton Pavilion) said she could understand the decision, telling MPs: 'I fully support these decisions being made by the major Pride organisations telling us as political parties we are not welcome this year on their parades or marches.
'Is the minister not as sad as I am about the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights which has directly led to this action?'
Sir Chris, who entered the Commons in 2001, said: 'When I was first elected as the member of Parliament here there was still many laws in this country that dramatically and drastically affected the rights of LGBTQ people in this country, and it's because of political parties that we changed the law in this country, and we shouldn't discard the democratic process, it is absolutely essential… to secure our rights.'
The fallout from the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex hung over the debate, with the Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, Ben Maguire, calling prominent gender-critical campaigner JK Rowling 'desperate for attention and relevance'.
He said: 'As well as politicians, public figures desperate for attention and relevance like JK Rowling and others have poisoned the public discourse with attacks on our trans community, all under the false dichotomy that you cannot be a true feminist and protect women's rights without attacking and abusing the trans community.
'A phoney culture war which has left trans people fearful just to be themselves.'
Sir Chris said: 'We reject any attempts to weaponise this ruling to roll back the hard-won dignity and inclusion of trans people. This is not, and must never become, a zero-sum debate.
'We can protect single-sex spaces based on clear lawful criteria whilst also protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people who… are amongst the most marginalised and misunderstood in our society.'
Speaking from the despatch box, he said the Government would be bringing forward a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices within the next nine months.
'These so-called therapies are nothing less than abuse, they do not work, they cause deep-lasting harm and their continued existence is a stain on any society that claims to be inclusive,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Entrepreneur
27 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
UK Invests £1bn in New National Biosecurity Centre
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. You're reading Entrepreneur United Kingdom, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. The UK's pandemic preparedness received a major boost today with the government announcing a £1bn investment in a new National Biosecurity Centre, forming a key pillar of the updated National Security Strategy. The funding will deliver the next phase of a state-of-the-art scientific campus in Surrey, set to become the UK's leading facility for animal biosecurity. The centre will focus on detecting, monitoring, and controlling high-risk diseases that pose a growing threat to public health, food security, and the wider economy. Animal-borne diseases now account for around 60% of all known human infections, with three-quarters of emerging diseases - including COVID-19 - originating in animals. Ministers say the new centre will improve the UK's ability to respond to threats like avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, and African swine fever, helping to prevent simultaneous outbreaks and protect key industries. Biosecurity failures could cost the UK billions in lost exports, damage to rural communities, and disruptions to supply chains. Livestock and animal-product exports alone contribute £16bn annually to the national economy. Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: "The first role of any Government is national is why we are making a record investment into the nation's biosecurity capabilities, and in turn our national security, after years of chronic and food producers will now be better protected from diseases, our food security strengthened, and public health better safeguarded against future pandemics. This government is getting on with delivering on our Plan for Change." The new National Biosecurity Centre will play a critical role in tackling the full spectrum of biological threats facing the UK, including those posed by hostile states. Designed to secure the nation's long-term resilience, the centre will ensure the UK maintains the scientific expertise, infrastructure, and global leadership needed to detect, manage, and contain emerging disease threats for years to come. Part of the Government's Plan for Change, the investment also aims to create jobs and support economic growth, while establishing the UK as a global leader in biosecurity.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine concerned about 'retaliation' following U.S. strike on Iran
Gov. DeWine is concerned about "retaliation" following the U.S. strike on Iran, says the Department of Public Safety is looking into possible vulnerabilities.
2 hours ago
Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada make changes to lure business amid Delaware's ‘Dexit' concern
CLAYMONT, Del. -- Lawmakers in Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada have recently approved changes aimed at helping their states dip into the lucrative side of corporate litigation that Delaware, with a specialized court and business-friendly laws, has dominated as the world's incorporation capital. Concerned that these changes may lure corporations away from Delaware, thereby causing the small state to lose millions in corporate franchise taxes, Delaware officials have responded with their own changes to solidify their status in the business world. In Texas, which opened a business court last year, there was bipartisan support for legislation diminishing shareholder powers and giving businesses more legal protections against shareholder lawsuits. Nevada lawmakers approved a corporation-friendly update to its business laws, also with bipartisan support, and separately moved toward asking voters to consider changing the state constitution to create a dedicated business court with appointed judges. Billionaire Elon Musk had advocated both states as better options for incorporation after a Delaware judge struck down his shareholder-approved $56 billion compensation package from Tesla. Musk's businesses have also changed where they're incorporated: Tesla and SpaceX relocated to Texas, while Neuralink moved to Nevada. Oklahoma also took action to get in the mix, as the Republican-led Legislature sanctioned the creation of business courts in its two most populous counties, a move the governor said would help Oklahoma become the most business-friendly state. 'This is an area in which states, in many ways, are behaving like businesses,' said Robert Ahdieh, dean of the Texas A&M University School of Law. 'Delaware is selling something. Texas is selling something that they hold out to be better. So it is very much a comparative exercise.' Since 2024, several billion-dollar companies including TripAdvisor and DropBox have relocated to Nevada. More than a dozen others, including the AMC theater chain and video game developer Roblox Corporation, have announced plans to incorporate there this year. Latin American e-commerce giant MercadoLibre filed a request for shareholders to approve a Texas relocation in April, citing Delaware's 'less predictable' decision-making process — a common thought among exiting companies. Amid concerns about more companies reincorporating elsewhere in a so-called 'Dexit,' Delaware passed its own legislation to help protect its status as the corporate capital, limiting shareholders' access to records and increasing protections for leadership. Opposition dubbed it 'the Billionaire's Bill.' 'Ultimately, I think the damage is done because businesses successfully undermined shareholder rights in Delaware,' said Corey Frayer, director of investor protection at Consumer Federation of America, who argues that the Delaware bill was a rash acquiescence to 'Dexit' concerns. However, some business law experts, like Ahdieh, say the average shareholder is focused on increasing their returns and does not care about shareholder power or where the company is incorporated. Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer has vowed to win back companies that leave, arguing his state's experience 'beats going to Vegas and rolling the dice.' Companies flock to Delaware for its well-respected Court of Chancery, a sophisticated and separate forum focusing on equity, corporate and business law. This incorporation machine generates $2.2 billion annually, about one-third of the state's operating budget. There is comfort in working in the familiarity of Delaware law, said Ahdieh, but that predictability has come into question in the last decade as corporate leaders grew unhappy over losing precedent-setting court decisions governing corporate conflicts of interest. Widener University Commonwealth law school professor Christian Johnson acknowledged a shift in Delaware but said reincorporating elsewhere might be 'a bit of an overreaction.' Although a few big-name companies have moved, there are still more than 2 million legal entities incorporated in Delaware, including two-thirds of the Fortune 500. Statutes in Texas and Nevada may appear more flexible, but they have not been extensively tested, and their courts are not as experienced working with the larger entities that favor Delaware, Johnson said. In May, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation providing greater securities for corporate officers and adding restrictions to shareholder records requests. The bill also allows corporations to require an ownership threshold, no more than 3% in outstanding shares, before a shareholder can initiate a derivative lawsuit, typically on behalf of the company and against its own board or directors. Restrictions on who can initiate such lawsuits are not uncommon, but Texas' implementation imposes a 'far higher barrier than the norm,' Ahdieh said. Consumer advocates worry the changes endanger shareholder and investor protections by giving owners and directors more protection against lawsuits that could hold them accountable if they violate their fiduciary duty. For businesses, the changes mean potentially saving millions of dollars in shareholder lawsuit settlements and legal fees by mitigating the likelihood of those costly cases reaching court. For the states, attracting the companies means millions in business activity and revenue from regulatory filing and court case fees and taxes. Eyeing a piece of that, Oklahoma is on pace to establish its recently approved business courts in 2026. 'I'm trying to take down Delaware," said Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican. "We want to be the most business-friendly state.' Nevada wants to compete, too. It has run business dockets in Washoe and Clark counties since 2001, and it's in the state's interest to expand operations considering its fast-growing economy and population, said Benjamin Edwards, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas law professor who studies business and securities law. But he said it could take decades to build up a court comparable to Delaware, which has a valuable reputation for handling cases relatively quickly. Nevada's proposed business court wouldn't take effect until 2028 at the earliest and would require amending the state constitution, which would need approval by the 2027 legislature and voter approval in 2028 to allow for the appointment of judges.
