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meant it was law straight away, and said it would refer Stonewall to the Charity Commission unless the advice was withdrawn.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.'
Stonewall 'contravening charitable objects'
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.'
Charity 'taking legal advice'
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
The ruling on Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. A US justice department spokesperson declined to comment. Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' According to his ruling, no victims gave evidence before the Epstein grand jury. The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay'. The agent gave evidence over two days, on June 18 and July 2 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Judge Berman ruled. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the justice department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Judge Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the justice department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, and the house oversight committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter Maxwell's lawyers, representative James Comer, the committee chairman, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Mr Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
The ruling on Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. A US justice department spokesperson declined to comment. Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' According to his ruling, no victims gave evidence before the Epstein grand jury. The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay'. The agent gave evidence over two days, on June 18 and July 2 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Judge Berman ruled. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the justice department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Judge Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the justice department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, and the house oversight committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter Maxwell's lawyers, representative James Comer, the committee chairman, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Mr Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
US attorney will no longer bring felony charges against people for carrying rifles or shotguns in DC
Federal prosecutors in the nation's capital will no longer bring felony charges against people for possessing rifles or shotguns in the District of Columbia, according to a new policy adopted by the leader of the nation's largest U.S. attorney's office. That office will continue to pursue charges when someone is accused of using a shotgun or rifle in a violent crime or has a criminal record that makes it illegal to have a firearm. Local authorities in Washington can prosecute people for illegally possessing unregistered rifles and shotguns. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a statement that the change is based on guidance from the Justice Department and the Office of Solicitor General and conforms with two Supreme Court decisions on gun rights. Pirro, a former Fox News host, has been a vocal critic of local officials' crime-fighting efforts since Trump installed her in office in May. Her policy shift means federal prosecutors will not purse charges under the D.C. law that made it illegal to carry rifles or shotguns, except in limited cases involving permit holders. The change also overlaps with Republican President Donald Trump's declaration of a crime emergency in the city, flooding the streets of Washington with patrols of hundreds of federal agents and National Guard members. The White House says 76 firearms have been seized since the crackdown started this month. The new policy also coves large-capacity magazines, but it does not apply to handguns. 'We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms, and to vigorously prosecute all crimes connected with them,' Pirro said, adding that she and Trump "are committed to prosecuting gun crime.' Pirro said a blanket ban on possessing shotguns and rifles violates the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022 that struck down a New York gun law and held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. She also pointed to the high court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller striking down the city's ban on handguns in the home.
