Sturgeon warns trans lives could become ‘unliveable' after Supreme Court ruling
Nicola Sturgeon has warned that trans lives could become 'unliveable' following the Supreme Court judgment on the definition of a woman.
The former Scottish first minister said she was concerned about how the landmark ruling has been interpreted.
But she added that it was not 'inevitable' that the court ruling would make trans lives 'impossibly difficult'.
Last month, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
The Scottish Government lost a court case against For Women Scotland at the Supreme Court last month (Aaron Chown/PA)
The case was brought against the Scottish Government by the campaign group For Women Scotland.
Speaking to reporters at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday, Ms Sturgeon said she would back a further change in the law to improve trans rights, if new guidance put trans people at risk.
ADVERTISEMENT
The former SNP leader's government had previously attempted to push through the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in 2023, which was voted through by MSPs.
But the legislation was revoked by the then Conservative government, which said it violated the 2010 Equality Act – the law the Supreme Court ruled on in April.
Ms Sturgeon also rejected calls for her to apologise to critics of gender self-ID, saying she 'fundamentally and respectfully disagreed' with such calls.
She said: 'The Supreme Court judgment, by definition, is the law of the land.
'The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the country, so there is no gainsaying that.
'The question for me, and I think for a lot of people, is how that is now translated into practice, can that be done in a way that, of course, protects women, but also allows trans people to live their lives with dignity and in a safe and accepted way.
ADVERTISEMENT
'I think that remains to be seen.'
Ms Sturgeon said it was new guidance by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that could put trans people at risk.
Following the court ruling, the EHRC published interim guidance that said 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in places like hospitals, shops and restaurants.
Ms Sturgeon said: 'I would be very concerned if that interim guidance became the final guidance and I hope that is not the case because I think that potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unliveable.
'The EHRC is a statutory body and I respect the role they've got. I'm not going to comment at this stage on where they might go.
'I'm making a general comment that I don't think it's inevitable that we go from the Supreme Court judgment to a situation where trans lives become impossibly difficult – nor do I believe that's what a majority of people want the situation to be.'
Nicola Sturgeon expressed concerns about trans rights following interim guidance by the UK's equalities watchdog (Lesley Martin/PA)
Asked by reporters if she would support a further change to the law to improve trans rights, Ms Sturgeon said she would.
ADVERTISEMENT
She warned that the court ruling was not a 'moral judgment' and said it was not up to courts to make a statement on what the law could be.
'That's not the role of any court,' she said. 'That's the role of politicians and governments.
'I've spent my life campaigning for the protection and the enhancement of women's rights, and I bow to nobody on that, but I also think it's really important that the tiny, tiny number of people who are trans in this country get to live with dignity and in a way, that they feel safe and accepted in society for who they are.
'I don't believe. I've never believed, and I never will believe, that those two things are inevitably in tension.'
The Glasgow Southside MSP said it appeared to her that 'a lot of the most vocal commentators on this haven't read the judgment, having read it', before adding that there was a 'danger' that certain interpretations could put trans people at risk.
ADVERTISEMENT
'If that is the case, then yes, it would be, my view that the law as it stands, needs to be looked at,' she said.
Joanna Cherry criticised Nicola Sturgeon for her remarks in Holyrood (Jane Barlow/PA)
Former SNP MSP Joanna Cherry, a critic of gender self-ID, said Ms Sturgeon's claims that trans lives could be 'unliveable' were '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'.
Scottish Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton added: 'Nicola Sturgeon betrayed women and divided Scotland with her reckless gender self-ID policy, yet she still can't bring herself to apologise.
'For years she arrogantly dismissed the concerns of women and girls that their rights and safety were being sacrificed, as she parroted the views of extremist gender activists and ensured they were adopted across Scotland's public sector.
'Gender self-ID was always nonsense – and now the Supreme Court has declared it unlawful too.
'Nicola Sturgeon needs to hold her hands up and say sorry to the women of Scotland. But she and the SNP never admit to their mistakes or accept accountability when they get things badly wrong.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Trump-Musk spat could have implications for the Scottish Mortgage share price
Since its post-'Liberation Day' low, the Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust (LSE:SMT) share price has recovered 22%. And although it has never quite captured the highs of late 2021, compared to June 2020, it's up 33%. But the trust has stakes in two of Elon Musk's companies — Tesla and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) — that could be affected by Thursday's (5 June) social media spat between the 'first buddy' and President Trump. As the two were publicly trading messages, Tesla's stock tanked 14%. Although the fallout didn't help, I'm sure some of this could have been due to the earlier news that the electric car maker's UK sales were 36% lower in May compared to a year earlier. Okay, the British market accounts for a small proportion of cars sold. But this trend mirrors a similar pattern in other parts of the world. Ironically, it's Musk's close relationship with the US president that's sometimes blamed. At 31 March, Scottish Mortgage's stake in Tesla accounted for 0.8% of the trust's assets. All other things being equal, a 14% fall in the EV maker's stock market valuation would reduce the trust's share price by only 0.11%. More significantly, it has a 7.8% exposure to SpaceX, worth £1.07bn. It's the biggest holding in the trust's portfolio. And Trump's threatened to remove government subsidies and contracts from all of Musk's businesses. Since 2008, the space exploration group has received more than $20bn from NASA and the Department of Defense. But Musk didn't seem too bothered. He posted on X: 'In light of the President's statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately'. Of course, this could all blow over soon. All brothers — that's how one US interviewer recently described their relationship — fall out from time to time. But given the ferocity of the exchanges, it's hard to see how. However, despite Scottish Mortgage's exposure to SpaceX, shareholders don't appear concerned. On the day after the public row, its share price was largely unaffected. But that's one of the advantages of an investment trust. Risk is spread across several businesses, often in different countries and industries. Indeed, Scottish Mortgage has holdings in 95 companies operating in five continents. It seeks only to invest in the world's 'exceptional' growth companies. Currently, the shares trade at a 10% discount to its net asset value (NAV). This implies the trust's undervalued. But it has a large exposure (26.2% of assets) to unquoted companies — including SpaceX — which can be hard to value. If the space group's shares were publicly traded, I'm sure they would have plunged on Thursday. But in the absence of an active market of buyers and sellers, it's difficult to accurately measure their value from one day to the next. Having said that, if SpaceX went out of business tomorrow, over £1bn would be wiped off the trust's asset value. But ignoring Musk's businesses, the trust's impressive track record is one reason for long-term growth investors to consider taking a stake. In the 10 years to 30 April, its share price has increased 260% and its NAV has soared by 318%. It benchmarks its performance against the FTSE All-World Index. Over the same period, this increased by 177%. The post The Trump-Musk spat could have implications for the Scottish Mortgage share price appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool James Beard has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Tesla. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hamilton Spectator
3 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much
Thursday was a surprising day at the Supreme Court, and a religion case was part of the action. The justices released six unanimous or near-unanimous decisions, including in a closely watched battle over the scope of faith-based tax breaks. In that religion case, the full court agreed that Wisconsin officials were unlawfully privileging certain religious nonprofits over others by basing access to religious exemptions on how they expressed their beliefs. Organizations that served only members of their own religion or that openly evangelized were typically eligible for the tax break, while organizations that served all comers with no strings attached often were deemed not religious enough to qualify. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the Supreme Court's opinion, which reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling against a group of Catholic nonprofits. The decision is significant, since it could lead to changes to religious exemptions nationwide. But the fact that it was unanimous isn't as surprising as it may, at first, have appeared. If there's a case to be made that the Supreme Court's ruling was unexpected, it centers on the role religious freedom advocates played in the battle. Faith-related groups did not speak with one voice on how the justices should interpret the First Amendment. They put together competing legal briefs and press releases. More liberal organizations and individuals supported Wisconsin's narrow religious exemption, arguing that an overly broad tax break would harm workers, including people of faith. More conservative groups, on the other hand, said religious freedom law requires broad exemptions, which enable faith-based organizations to operate according to their beliefs. While these arguments were specific to the Supreme Court case on Catholic nonprofits, they should be familiar to anyone who follows faith-related policy debates. Religious groups and faith-related advocacy organizations no longer agree on what religious freedom means — nor on whether or not conservative Christians, in particular, are demanding too many concessions in the public square. Those disagreements help explain why different religious freedom advocates held very different views on President Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during last year's election, as the Deseret News previously reported, and why some faith groups support a push to limit the application of a landmark religious freedom law. More liberal advocates generally believe religious liberty protections work best when they're balanced with other types of protections, including LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, while more conservative advocates generally say religious freedom should win out. If you dig into the justices' track record on religion over the 20 years Chief Justice John Roberts has led the court, you'll find several rulings that reflect this tension. Among other issues, the court has split along ideological lines in cases involving school prayer, state funding for religious schools and the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. In these decisions and others, the court's conservative majority embraced a broad interpretation of religious exercise protections, while the court's more liberal justices called for limitations on religious freedom in their dissents. These split decisions are often what people think of when they think of the Supreme Court and religion — but they're actually the exception, not the rule. From Roberts' confirmation in September 2005 to April 2021, religious freedom claims succeeded in front of the Supreme Court 13 times. Nine of those 13 rulings were either unanimous or from a mixed 7-2 majority, according to a Deseret News analysis from 2021. In the four years since that analysis was released, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religion claims in merits cases seven more times. Four of the decisions were unanimous, while a fifth was 8-1. In other words, the justices are finding ways to bridge the gap between conservative and liberal takes on religious freedom, including in cases involving LGBTQ rights. When you consider the court's record on religion, Thursday's unanimous ruling no longer seems surprising. But it might still feel worth celebrating, especially if you're worried about the state of the religious freedom landscape. Before the Supreme Court enters its summer recess in early July, the justices will have one more opportunity to model consensus-building in a religious freedom case. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court is considering whether the First Amendment gives religious parents a right to opt their kids out of reading or hearing books about LGBTQ issues. During oral arguments in April, the court appeared divided along ideological lines, as the Deseret News reported at the time. More liberal justices seemed to support the school district, which said that religious freedom protects you from being coerced into changing your beliefs, not from being exposed to other ideas. More conservative justices seemed to support the families, who felt like their religious teachings were being drowned out. It wasn't immediately clear what a compromise ruling would look like. But even as Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked tough questions of the school district's attorney, he reminded everyone to keep searching. 'The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win/win,' he said.
