Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex.
Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday.
The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.'
It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities.
The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'.
A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling.
The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling.
'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment.
'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government.
'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.'
The government has been approached for further comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Compassion should be at the heart of welfare reform
We must remember that people affected by these issues are already struggling to cope: 67% of those seeking advice from a Scottish CAB have a disability or long-term health condition which adds significant financial and emotional cost to their lives, especially for those in remote and rural communities. People don't have enough to live on; many are grappling with debt and destitution. And such poverty is both a consequence and cause of disability and ill health, meaning the need for social security has grown alongside poverty rates. As things stand, there will be no changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) until a review has been completed in late 2026. Importantly, the UK Government has now pledged in the meantime to engage in meaningful consultation with disabled groups about future welfare provision. This is vital. It should have happened in the first place. Sick and disabled people must be able to help shape the policies that will have such a profound effect on their lives and livelihoods. We hope the review will learn from a similar review conducted into Scotland's equivalent of PIP, Adult Disability Payment. It remains unclear what impact the reforms will have on devolved social security in Scotland. Complexity could be added to the system, making it more difficult for people to claim payments they're entitled to. It is imperative the UK Government works closely with the Scottish Government to avoid this. The bill now moves to the next stage of Parliamentary scrutiny; there will be more opportunities to shape the legislation in the coming months. We remain deeply concerned about many of the changes, and the holes that they could create in the social security safety net. Holes that many could fall through, including people with fluctuating health conditions, or those who experience sudden injury or illness and are unable to work or need recovery time. Social security is an investment in all of us. It should be both a safety net and a springboard; enabling people to realise their potential and providing support during the storms of life that any of us could experience. The UK Government must work collaboratively now; to map out how social security can be reformed in a way that's not just about cost-cutting but social justice too. We're talking here about some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Compassion should not be an optional extra in this process. It should be right at the heart of it. Erica Young is part of the social justice team at Citizens Advice Scotland
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
Palestine Action terrorist ban comes into force
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. READ MORE: RECAP – Palestine Action in court to challenge UK Government's terrorist ban They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. READ MORE: The National set to launch collaboration with Declassified UK Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' READ MORE: More than 600 Gaza killings recorded at aid sites and humanitarian convoys, UN says She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
The winners (and losers) from major Supreme Court decisions
But advocates for migrants, LGBTQ+ rights activists and others were left shaking their heads and vowing to find other ways to keep fighting on issues that went against them. And an appeals court that is proving to be more conservative than the Supreme Court racked up more losses. Here is a list of winners and losers from the court's term that began in October. Winners President Trump The president called a surprise news conference soon after the Supreme Court issued its final rulings of the term to praise the justices' work, including an opinion "that we're very happy about." "The Constitution has been brought back," Trump said about the conservative majority's decision limiting the ability of judges to block his policies from taking effect while they're being litigated. The opinion, which left uncertain which babies born in the United States will automitially become citizens, set off shockwaves among migrant communities. Even before that decision, the Supreme Court had helped Trump by lifting through emergency orders many of the pauses lower courts had put on Trump's efforts to slash and restructure the federal government and to rapidly deport migrants. The Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett trio There's no doubt about who was in control of a court that continues to move the law in a conservative direction though not as much as some justices want. Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority on nearly every decision, followed closely by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. On the decisions that divided the court, they sometimes sided with the three other conservatives including when they ruled that lower courts likely went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship. The six conservatives were also united against the three liberals when they backed bans on gender affirming care for minors, age verification requirements for pornographic websites, states' efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and parents' desire to remove their child from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. But at times Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined with the court's liberals - and against Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Those decisions included rejections of conservative challenges to Obamacare and to a federal subsidy program for internet and phone services for poor and rural communities that is funded by user fees. Don't like the Supreme Court's rulings? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts Religious groups Religious groups continued their recent winning streak at the high court though with an exception. On the biggest of the three cases brought by religious groups - the Oklahoma Catholic Church's bid to create the nation's first religious charter school - the court deadlocked 4-4. But that's because Barrett recused herself from the case, and the issue is expected to come back to the court with different participants that don't have ties to Barrett. The court has already teed up another religion-based case for the fall, whether prison officials can be sued for violating the religious rights of a Rastafarian inmate whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. TikTok The court in January unanimously upheld a law intended to effectively ban TikTok in the United States. So why is TikTok and its tens of millions of users a winner? Because Trump has repeatedly declined to enforce the law, saying he's working on an alternate solution to the national security concerns. More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Losers 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals The appeals court that is arguably the most conservative in the country did not fare well again. The justices agreed to hear more appeals from the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals than from any other circuit and reversed more of its decisions, according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog. The times they did so included in rulings upholding the Biden administration's regulation of untraceable "ghost guns, the Food and Drug Administration's rejection of fruit- and candy-flavored vaping products, and Obamacare's requirement that insurers have to cover cancer screenings and other preventive care services recommended by a task force. Environmental regulations The court continued a years-long trend of narrowing federal protections for the environment, including taking away a tool the Environmental Protection Agency used to control water pollution. The court also let federal agencies scale back their environmental reviews of projects in a case involving construction of a railway in Utah. And the court said fuel producers can challenge California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law. LGBTQ+ rights Five years after ruling that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace, the court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, The ideologically divided court said the ban does not discriminate against transgender people because the restrictions turn on age and the purpose of the medical treatment, not whether the patient is transgender. In a different case, the court said parents with religious objections to books with LGBTQ+ characters must be allowed to remove their children from class when those books are being used. And in an emergency order, the court allowed Trump to enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military while that policy is being challenged. Days after adjourning for the summer, the court announced it's taking up next term states' bans on transgender athletes joining female sports teams. Mixed results Gun regulations While the court said "ghost guns" can be subject to background checks and other requirements, it rejected Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence caused by Mexican drug cartels armed with their weapons. But gun violence prevention groups were relieved that, in siding with the gunmakers, the court didn't give the gun industry the broad immunity it sought. The groups are hopeful they can continue to hold gun makers accountable if they break the law. Parental rights While the court ruled against the Tennessee parents who want to get gender affirming care for their children, the justices backed parental rights in the case about LGBTQ+ storybooks. And the court's decision upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites may have been foreshadowed during oral arguments when Barrett said she knows from her experience as a parent of seven children how difficult it is to keep up with the content blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. Disability rights The court sided with a Minnesota teen trying to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue her school for not accommodating her rare form of epilepsy that makes it difficult to attend class before noon. That decision will make it easier for families to use the ADA to sue schools for damages over the lack of an accommodation for a learning disability. But the court sided against a retired firefighter who argued the ADA protects retirees as well as those able to work. The justices said the firefighter, who left the force due to Parkinson's disease, could not sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees.
