Joanna Cherry slates Nicola Sturgeon response to Supreme Court ruling
The top court's ruling was seen as a major defeat for the trans rights movement – and the former SNP first minister broke her silence on the issue on Monday.
Sturgeon said the judgment, which said women were defined in law by biology and which has triggered a roll-back in trans rights, could make trans people's lives 'unliveable'.
Cherry, one of the former FM's fiercest critics within the SNP, accused Sturgeon of 'fatuous hyperbole'.
She said 'To say that The Supreme Court judgment means we are 'at risk of making the lives of trans people almost unliveable' is the sort of fatuous hyperbole that she has indulged in in relation to these issues from the outset and it is deeply irresponsible for any politician to so misrepresent the judgment.'
Nicola Sturgeon reacts to UK Supreme Court judgement on the definition of a woman. Warns equalities watchdog guidance could make trans lives 'unliveable'. pic.twitter.com/YZcVEVusoa — Craig Meighan (@craigymeighan) May 6, 2025
The former SNP MP, who lost her seat at last year's General Election, also claimed Sturgeon was trying to 'rewrite history' by saying that all sides of the debate had been listened to when drawing up controversial trans rights laws, which have since been shelved.
The SNP's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which sought to make the process of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate easier, was criticised by gender critical feminists for promoting 'self-ID' practices, which they said would mean anyone who claimed to be a woman would be considered one in law.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon breaks silence on Supreme Court gender ruling
Cherry added: 'It's simply not true to say that all opinions were taken account of in this debate.
'She branded the views of those of us who pointed out the implications for the rights of women, including lesbians, as 'not valid' and she called us transphobes bigots, racists and homophobes.'
Speaking to reporters in Holyrood as John Swinney prepared to set out the SNP's legislative agenda, Sturgeon (below) also claimed that the Supreme Court ruling had contributed to the Scottish Government shelving its plans to make misogyny a specific hate crime.
(Image: Andrew Milligan)
Cherry said: ''Her snide suggestion that the Supreme Court judgement has stymied the Misogyny Bill has no basis in fact unless, of course, she is referring to the fact that misogyny was going to be defined as including hatred against men.
'She seems also to be forgetting that it was her Government that prevented sex being included as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime Bill.
'Nicola Sturgeon is trying to rewrite history in relation to these matters, but those of us who fought her every inch of the way in her attack on the rights of women and LGB people will not let her do so.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says
Transgender people were misled about their rights to female only spaces by lobby groups, according to a senior member of an equality watchdog has said. In April a Supreme Court ruling confirmed the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Akua Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said trans people had been deceived about their rights were. Speaking in a personal capacity during a debate about the recent ruling, she said there must be a 'period of correction' to acknowledge women's right to women-only spaces. The decision made it legal for trans people to be banned from women-only sports teams, and from using bathrooms and changing rooms for the gender they lived as. These terms were later supported by interim non-statutory advice given by the EHRC last April. When an audience member at the debate raised fears about the recent Supreme Court ruling and how it could strip away trans peoples rights, barrister and panellist, Naomi Cunningham said: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' In agreement with her fellow panellist, Ms Reindorf said she believed trans lobbyists were at faults for the misunderstanding. 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are,' she said. 'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights' She claimed it boiled down to the law prior to the Supreme Court ruling being misunderstood due to groups contending trans people who self-identified should be treated as their preferred gender. However, this was only the case for the those who had obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The barrister said the amalgamation of different rights made the Equality Act nonviable from a personal capacity. 'The catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place,' she said. As such, the feeling of a loss of right of trans people was due to an overwhelming product of 'misinformation' perpetrated by 'lobby group and activists'. Author JK Rowling backed the barrister's recent comments, saying lobby groups lied 'about what the law said'.' However, the head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, Chiara Capraro, hit back Ms Reindorf's comments. She said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.' A spokesman for the EHRC told The Guardian: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online. 'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the Act. 'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trans people have been lied to on legal rights, says equalities chief
Transgender people must accept a 'period of correction' over their rights after the Supreme Court ruling on gender because they have been 'lied to' about their legal status for years, an equalities chief says. Akua Reindorf, who is drafting guidance on how to treat trans people following April's ruling on the definition of a woman, added that the blame lay with their lobbyists. Ms Reindorf, a barrister and one of eight commissioners on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), made her remarks in a personal capacity during a debate hosted by the London School of Economics. She said: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are.' The EHRC has been given the task of developing new guidelines on transgender people for public buildings such as cafes, schools and hospitals, after the Supreme Court ruled transgender women are not legally women. Shortly after the ruling the EHRC released interim guidance advising: 'Trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities.' Ms Reindorf's words came as the NHS Confederation, which represents hospital trusts, scrapped its old guidance allowing transgender patients to use the toilets of the sex they identify with. A spokesman for the NHS Confederation said their old guidance is now 'dated' and requires updating to align with the Supreme Court ruling. The two developments will be seen as a major blow to transgender activists, who have been petitioning for public organisations such as the NHS to ignore the court's decision. The Girl Guides and Refuge, the largest domestic abuse charity for women, have both said they have no intention in changing their policy on allowing trans women to use their female facilities. Ms Reindorf described their approach as ridiculous, arguing it amounted to a 'huge farce'. She said transgender people 'have been lied to and there has to be a period of correction'. She added: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without Gender Recognition Certificates, were being grievously misled about their legal rights. 'The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. 'This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled
The Supreme Court will consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled, according an order released early on Friday after an apparent technological glitch. The justices' action comes in an appeal from Alabama, which is seeking to execute Joseph Clifton Smith. He was sentenced to death for killing a man in 1997. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and thus can't be executed. When it's argued in the fall, the case could be the first in which the Supreme Court cuts back on its 23-year-old landmark ruling that barred the death penalty for people who are intellectually disabled. At issue is what happens in borderline cases, when scores on IQ tests are slightly above 70, which is widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. In 2014 and 2017, the court somewhat eased the burden of showing intellectual disability in those cases. It's the second time in about a year that an online error resulted in an early release from the high court. An opinion in an abortion case was accidently posted on its website a day early in June 2024. The court's landmark opinion overturning abortion as a constitutional right also went out early, though those circumstances were different because the case was leaked. This time, the court released a set of orders set for Monday after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications.
