
First Minister says it's ‘unfortunate' after Education Minister moves on Supreme Court gender ruling ahead of rest of Executive
Stormont's First Minister also warned there should be 'no knee jerk reaction' to the decision of the highest court in the UK that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
Ms O'Neill's response comes after Education Minister Paul Givan said he had already instructed his officials to ensure that all schools comply with the law ahead of guidance expected from the Equality Commission on the issue – a move she described as "unfortunate".
The Sinn Fein vice president and the DUP MLA were both at the official sod-cutting for the £375m Strule Shared Education Campus today along with Deputy First Minster Emma Little-Pengelly.
Although Northern Ireland is governed by its own equality laws, and the relevant provisions of the Equality Act do not apply in the region, Mr Givan has already moved ahead with plans to provide 'absolute clarity' in educational settings, saying that boys who identify as girls should not participate in girls sports, not use girls changing or toilet facilities.
'I absolutely do believe that we need to be uniform and across the board,' Ms O'Neill said.
'The Supreme Court has made its ruling. It's now for the Equality Commission to provide us with guidance as to what that means for us on a day-to-day basis, and across all of our departments and all of our public services.
'I would ask people to stop knee-jerking, and I would ask people to await the Equality Commission guidance, and then let's have a uniform approach.
'I think it's unfortunate that others have taken a different approach on this to this point.
'This is about compassion. This is about people out there in society who are fearful for their own safety.
'Let's be a bit compassionate for people. Let's actually take our time, don't knee-jerk to this, and actually understand the ruling and what it means for us here.'
Ms O'Neill said it was 'unfortunate' that the Education Minister had taken a decision ahead of ministers receiving guidance on the court decision from the Northern Ireland Equality Commission.
But Mr Givan remained resolute in his decision.
'Each minister and every department and indeed public organisation is under their own individual responsibility to ensure that they're complying with the law,' he said.
'The UK Supreme Court has now made it clear what the law is when it comes to sex, and it's biological sex based upon male and female.
'So, I'm not going to wait for the Equality Commission, who can provide advice, but it's for those who are responsible to take decisions. I will be taking decisions around this, and then that will need to be reflected in the guidance that operates within our education system.
'I think it's incumbent on all ministers to reflect the outworkings of the UK Supreme Court, and that's what I'm going to do.'
Ms Little-Pengelly backed the Education Minister, saying it was 'for individual departments to obtain their own advice'.
'The Equality Commission, or any of these bodies, they are advisory, they're there to give some guidance, but that doesn't stop departments or agencies or bodies either from seeking their own advice and obtaining that advice but, of course, they also have those individual responsibilities under what the law is,' she said.
'So of course this is an urgent matter, and I have no doubt that organisations will be taking their own advice on this.
'It's important that our public bodies do follow what the law is on this.
'I do feel very strongly that there needs to be those safe spaces for women. Women can be very vulnerable in particular situations.
'Women have had their own personal experiences and will want, of course, to have those safe spaces and women-only spaces.
'I think that's absolutely right. I think that's common sense and I think that's what the Supreme Court very clearly set out.
'So, of course, the departments and bodies and organisations should follow that.
'I have no doubt that we will see much more discussion and debate about this over the next number of weeks.'
Ms O'Neill was also asked about the protests by some camogie players against the enforced wearing of skorts during matches.
'I won't be getting involved in telling the governing body what they should and shouldn't do, but I do believe girls and young women should have their choice respected,' she said, echoing a call from SDLP MLA Cara Hunter earlier this week.
Ms Hunter backed the protesting players, saying: 'Women should have the choice to wear what makes them feel most comfortable, particularly when competing in sports.
'We want to see more women and girls celebrated in sport, allowing this decision is a part of that.
'They've been very vocal that they want change and our players should be supported.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Courier
6 hours ago
- The Courier
Dundee Pride organisers 'rescind' Lord Provost's invite to lead city's equalities march
Dundee Pride organisers have told Lord Provost Bill Campbell he is no longer invited to lead this year's Pride march in the city. Organisers argue 'there has been a clear and vocal consensus that this year's Pride event should remain entirely free from political representation whether local or national, elected or otherwise'. Dundee Pride's secretary wrote to the Lord Provost on June 5. The decision comes as part of a larger political fallout surrounding a recent UK Supreme Court ruling. The ruling states that a woman is defined by biological sex at birth, meaning transgender women are not considered to be women under the Equality Act. Following the ruling, national advocacy group Trans Pride Collective issued an open letter urging Pride event organisers to 'show solidarity with the trans community.' They asked march organisers to 'ban all political parties from officially marching with you and having stalls within your event spaces.' The ban does not prevent politicians from attending Pride events as individuals, as long as they are not acting in their elected capacity. On May 25, Dundee Pride joined other Pride events across Scotland in in enforcing the ban at this year's LGBTQ+ protest. This came after local group Transdonians called out Dundee Pride bosses for not taking action sooner in response to the ruling. Dundee Pride organisers told The Courier: 'We are deeply saddened and outraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision—a ruling that once again fails the trans community and betrays the fundamental duty of those in power to protect the rights and safety of all people.' 'This decision has emboldened a wave of hateful rhetoric. We must be clear: Pride has always been a protest. 'While it's often portrayed as a celebration of 'Love is Love' wrapped in rainbow colours, the truth is more urgent—our community is still fighting for its very survival. 'This ruling has placed a spotlight on the broader struggle for LGBTQ+ rights at a time when far-right ideologies are gaining momentum. We cannot afford to be complacent. 'Now more than ever, individuals, communities, and allies must stand united in unwavering solidarity.' In accordance with the ban, Dundee Pride wrote to Lord Provost Bill Campbell to 'rescind' his invitation to lead the Pride protest march through the city. He was also due to make a speech, which he has done annually since coming into post in 2022. The organisers emphasised the decision was not personal. They wrote in the letter: 'While we fully acknowledge and sincerely appreciate your personal support, enthusiasm, and civic leadership, we must honour the values and voices of the LGBTQ+ community we serve. 'We remain thankful for your support and understanding. We hope to continue working together in other ways to champion inclusivity and equality in Dundee.' Lord Provost Bill Campbell told The Courier: 'It has been an honour and a privilege to lead Dundee Pride events in support of the LGBTQ+ community. 'However, I respect the decision made by Pride events across the country not to involve political and civic representation this year. 'I wish everyone at Dundee Pride the very best for this year's event.' The Courier reached out to Transdonians for comment via email on June 5 2025.


The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
NHS body revokes guidance advising hospitals to allow trans people to use chosen bathrooms
An NHS body has been criticised after it quietly withdrew guidance advising hospitals to allow trans people to use bathrooms and changing rooms of their choice. The NHS Confederation - which represents NHS trusts across the UK - confirmed to The Independent that it had removed the guidance from its website as it became 'dated' after April's Supreme Court ruling. The judgment found that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, sparking disputes on how Britain should treat its equality policy. In the weeks after the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance which stated that trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services such as shops and hospitals'. The guidance is being legally challenged by trans-rights groups. The NHS Confederation said it had withdrawn its previously trans-inclusive advice and will issue new guidance when the EHRC updates its official Code of Practice. But trans rights groups have warned guidance on access to single-sex spaces is currently a legal 'minefield'. "The Supreme Court decision about the Equality Act doesn't mention toilets - not even once - and their provision is governed by separate legislation,' founder and executive director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham KC, told The Independent. 'What the Supreme Court was very careful to say is that its judgment about the meaning of "woman" was solely about that word in the Equality Act. The 'toilets question' will be determined in judicial review proceedings that Good Law Project is filing today. 'For the NHS (or any other service provider) to take a position before the outcome is known is to invite lawsuits against it and risk wasting money that ought to be spent on patient care in the pursuit of ill-advised culture wars." TransActual, an organisation that supports the rights of trans people, said the development highlights the confusing implications of the ruling. "This decision may - or may not - be required as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling,' a spokesperson said. 'However, what appears abundantly clear, based on advice from multiple lawyers and experts in this field, is that the supposed 'clarity' welcomed by the prime minister shortly after the ruling is, itself, in need of some clarification. "The law, based on a narrow interpretation of the Equality Act, may support this action. Equally, any future challenges on human rights grounds, which were not considered by the Supreme Court, may lead to a different outcome. It is a minefield. Organisations are damned if they act; damned if they do not. "We sympathise with the NHS Confederation and the position they find themselves in. Nonetheless, we believe they have reached the wrong conclusion - and that will, in turn, lead to significant harm to trans people needing medical care, as they now put off, or refuse treatment that may require a hospital stay." The NHS Confederation - which does not set official NHS policy - said its intention remains to provide its members with 'information that helps them best support their staff and patients', as it confirmed it had taken its previous guidance down. A spokesperson said: 'We will update and reinstate our guide as soon as the EHRC has updated its Code of Practice, which will need to be approved by the UK government, and when NHS England has then updated its guidance for what the changes mean for NHS organisations. 'The withdrawal of our guide does not change our explicit commitment to support our members to reduce the unacceptably high levels of bullying, abuse and discrimination at work that trans and non-binary staff and patients face.' On Monday, a hearing in a case against the EHRC over its consultation period for guidance in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling is set to go ahead. Human rights group Liberty is arguing the equalities watchdog had breached its statutory duties by implementing a six-week consultation period rather than a 12-week one. The EHRC will issue official post-ruling guidance after the consultation period.

The National
a day ago
- The National
Trans people must accept perceived reduced rights, EHRC commissioner
Speaking at a debate about the repercussions of April's ruling by the Supreme Court, Akua Reindorf said trans people have been misled and 'lied to over many years' about what their rights actually were. Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and is drawing up the official post-ruling guidance, added that there 'has to be a period of correction' and believes the fault lay with trans lobbyists. Reindorf was reportedly speaking in a personal capacity, but has been criticised as the director of the trans campaign group TransActual said the commissioner's remarks were profoundly unhelpful. READ MORE: John Swinney defends 'two-horse race' comments after by-election loss to Labour Human rights campaign groups Liberty and Amnesty have also called on the EHRC to safeguard the rights of trans people and to make sure they are properly considered when it draws up guidance for public bodies on how to implement the changed legal landscape. Speaking at an event organised by the London School of Economics law school, Reindorf argued that the impact of the ruling was clear. Reindorf condemned what she called 'this huge farce with organisations up and down the country wringing their hands and creating working groups and so on, and people in society worrying that they will have nowhere to go to the toilet'. Asked by an audience member about worries the ruling could reduce the rights of trans people, another panellist, the barrister Naomi Cunningham, reportedly said trans people 'will have to give way'. Cunningham added: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' Reindorf then agreed, as she said: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are. '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.' Reindorf said her comments reflected the fact that before the ruling, the law had been commonly misunderstood because pressure groups argued that trans people who self-identified should be treated as their identified sex, when this was in fact just the case for people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Reindorf added that the Supreme Court decided that this mix of different rights made the Equality Act unworkable and called it 'the catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place'. She said: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without GRCs 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.' In April, the EHRC released interim, non-statutory advice about how to interpret the ruling, which set out that transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they cannot use toilets of their birth sex. A number of critics have since called the advice oversimplistic, with legal campaign groups saying they plan on challenging the verdict. Chiara Capraro, head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, 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.' Akiko Hart, Liberty's director, said: 'Any updated guidance from the EHRC must respect and uphold the rights of everyone in society. The supreme court's judgment was very narrow, and there are a lot of very legitimate questions about how it's implemented that must be carefully considered.' A director of the trans campaign group TransActual, Jane Fae, rejected Reindorf's argument, stating: 'The characterisation of what was previously a widely held view both by the EHRC as well as by civil servants and lawyers working in the field of equality as 'lying' is profoundly unhelpful. 'Prior to the ruling of the supreme court in April, trans people just wanted to live their lives within the framework as it was understood. ''Activism' has only really come into being over the last few years in response to a never-ending campaign designed to deprive trans people of rights.' A spokesperson for the EHRC said: '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.'