Publicly-funded museums body criticises EHRC proposals
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) closed a consultation on proposed changes to statutory guidance last month, following the Supreme Court ruling in April that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the act.
An interim update from the EHRC, published in May, said that 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities'.
However a response from Museums Galleries Scotland (MGS), which supports around 455 non-national museums and is funded by the Scottish Government, said EHRC's proposals may 'force some museums to close', or 'risk leaving trans people with no facilities at all' if changes could not be made.
It urged the UK-wide watchdog to 'understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion'.
A consultation response from Museums Galleries Scotland said: 'We have concerns that the content and process of the EHRC Code of Practice does not uphold the spirit of inclusion.
'There is no guidance on how to include trans people, there is only information on how to exclude them. This has not made sufficient effort to offer advice to organisations who wish to remain or become trans inclusive.'
It warned that due to 'lack of clarity' from EHRC, 'there is a significant potential that human rights of trans people will be impacted for example, being banned from toilets that align with lived gender', and also raised concerns about the responsibilities of front-of-house staff.
The response said: 'When there is a need to 'prove' your sex, what proof will be acceptable given gender recognition certificates are not, nor are altered birth certificates. It is likely this role would fall on front-of-house staff, which we believe puts undue pressure on them.'
It added: 'To avoid discrimination, it would require every person using toilets to be checked, adding substantial workload and staff costs.
'The guidance implies that to allow trans people to use toilets that fit their identity would put organisations at risk of legal consequences. Yet, to not check everyone could lead to individuals in museums taking decisions to exclude trans people based on subjective tests, related largely to appearance.'
It warned this could 'potentially put trans and non-trans people in humiliating and offensive situations', and that some museums may be forced to close 'while they invest time and resources to ensure adequate facilities', and if changes could not be made 'this risks trans people having no facilities to use at all'.
The response said it was aware of the public 'policing toilets at heritage sites by making assumptions based on stereotypes', and said this created an 'environment of suspicion and policing of everyone's gender presentation, and increases the risks of harassment, distress, and offence'.
It added: 'For some museums, they may need to change their toilet facilities to avoid the higher risk of legal consequences, however, there is unlikely to be capacity or resource for many of them to do this, putting them in a difficult position.'
The response concluded: 'We strongly encourage the EHRC to review their processes around this guidance and take the necessary time to understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion.'
Scottish Conservative shadow equalities minister Tess White MSP said: 'Museums Scotland seem to be following the Scottish Government in their mistaken bid to avoid implementing the Supreme Court's verdict. The judgment from the UK's highest court was crystal clear.
'By criticising the EHRC's guidance, Museums Scotland are flouting the law, putting women and girls in danger and laying themselves open to legal challenge. There is no excuse for evasion on this issue.
'Instead of trying to pander to the gender extremists, John Swinney must act now and order all public bodies immediately to comply with the law and provide single-sex spaces.'
The Scottish Government, EHRC, Sex Matters, and Scottish Labour and have been contacted for comment.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
28 minutes ago
- The Sun
Starmer's ‘illegal' proposal to recognise Palestine is yet ANOTHER self-inflicted blunder by PM
Tricky Dicky IT'S funny how the Attorney General has suddenly gone quiet amid claims that Sir Keir Starmer's proposed recognition of Palestine would be illegal. Richard Hermer hasn't previously wasted any time in thwarting plans to protect Northern Ireland veterans or deport foreign criminals as part of his moral crusade to uphold international law. 4 He even insisted we pay billions to give away the Chagos Islands. Indeed, ministers have been complaining for months that every single decision they make must first go through Lord Hermer's office to get his approval. Yet when it comes to the cherished Left-wing cause of Palestine, his Lordship has been seemingly happy to turn a blind eye to illegality. Panicked Cabinet ministers claim recognition of a foreign state is a 'political judgment' — ignoring that it is actually entirely a legal one. It's all pointless anyway as us joining the 147 other countries who already recognise Palestine is a purely performative act that won't do anything to secure peace in Gaza. In trying to appease Labour MPs worried about Muslim votes, the Prime Minister and his human-rights-loving Attorney General are guilty of yet another self-inflicted blunder. Hamas must be delighting in their propaganda coup — and laughing at us. 4 What plan? LABOUR may as well drop the pretence that it can stop the boats. More than 25,000 illegal migrants have now c rossed the Channel this year. While an average of 118 have been arriving every day — one every 12 minutes — the Government has offered only half-baked 'crackdowns'. There's never been even a hint of a deterrent scheme to replace Rwanda. Nor changes to benefit rules or any end in sight to asylum hotels costing £5.7million per week. Crucially, no progress either on quitting the ECHR or teaming up with other European countries to reform it. So what IS the plan? Or do we all just have to keep putting up with this? All blackouts NEW Zealand was left on the brink of blackouts after former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern decided in 2018 that the world had 'moved on' from fossil fuels. Her shift to renewables meant the country no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during cold spells. 4 Ed Miliband 's blind following of the same eco-madness led him to ban new oil and gas drilling. He will end up taking Britain to the edge of darkness, too.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump threatens NHS with higher drug prices
Donald Trump is pressuring the world's biggest drug makers to raise prices outside of the US in a threat to the NHS. The US president has written to pharmaceutical companies including Britain's GSK and AstraZeneca to demand they lower prices for Americans, suggesting they should pay for it by charging higher fees abroad. It raises the threat of higher costs for the NHS, which is one of the biggest buyers of pharmaceuticals in the world. In the letters sent to the bosses of 17 pharmaceutical companies, Mr Trump demanded that they 'negotiate harder with foreign freeloading nations' and said that 'increased revenues abroad must be repatriated to lower drug prices for American patients and taxpayers'. He also demanded a 'binding commitment' to these goals and declared that 'other nations have been freeloading on US innovation for too long'. Mr Trump made clear that he would use tariffs to push through higher prices if countries resisted. The White House said the president was prepared to use 'trade policy to support manufacturers in raising prices internationally provided that increased revenues abroad are reinvested directly into lowering prices for American patients and taxpayers.' Drug companies have been set a 60-day deadline to 'step up' and meet the president's demands. He has also called for a commitment that companies 'will not offer other developed nations better prices for new drugs than prices offered in the United States.' Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said it was clear Mr Trump wanted companies to charge higher prices in the UK and Europe. Alex Schriver of US drug industry body PhRMA said: 'To reduce price differentials with other countries, policymakers should rein in health care middlemen driving up costs for Americans and get foreign countries to pay their fair share for innovative medicines.' Mr Trump has already targeted NHS drug prices as part of his tariff policy. Last month the Telegraph reported that the White House expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of US corporates. Documents released after the US-UK trade agreement was signed earlier this year said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. Thursday's letter was sent to drug companies including Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer and Sanofi. Share prices slumped after Mr Trump published his letters on his Truth Social account. AstraZeneca and GSK both fell by more than 4pc, while Pfizer was down by more than 2pc. Mr Trump has long expressed rage about the fact that drug companies make between half and 70pc of their profits in the US despite the country accounting for only a fifth of global sales. Drug prices outside of the US can be as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Profits from the US are used to fund drug research and development that the rest of the world benefits from. Mr Trump has claimed that US citizens effectively pay for foreign healthcare systems through higher drug prices. He said in 2020: 'In case after case, our citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill, from the same factory, effectively subsidising socialism aboard [abroad] with skyrocketing prices at home. 'So we would spend tremendous amounts of money in order to provide inexpensive drugs to another country.'
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It's time Labour told us: whose side are they on?
There are two ways the Government could have chosen to deal with the mass migration crisis (and it is a crisis). It could have taken voters' concerns seriously. It could have tried to understand and empathise with the concerns of those who are angry at the use of local hotels for housing asylum seekers who should surely have claimed asylum in France when they had the chance. It could even have shared the anger of parents in Southport last summer – not the anger displayed in response to the riots or the demonstrations. Rather, ministers could have echoed the rage felt by residents who had just been told about the murders of three young girls. Instead, ministers adopted a different approach. As revealed by The Telegraph, the focus of government activity was apparently less about addressing the public's concern over immigration and more about targeting social media posts that criticised migrant hotels or complained of 'two-tier policing'. It has been revealed – courtesy of a US congressional committee rather than Whitehall sources – that civil servants working for the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, flagged videos with 'concerning narratives' to social media giants including TikTok, warning that they were 'exacerbating tensions' on the streets. But you know what is even more likely to exacerbate tensions on Britain's streets than a TikTok video? The maintained presence of 'asylum seekers' from developing countries whose cultural values are sometimes at odds with Western liberal values. Which is more damaging to the fabric of our society, the accusation on social media that police officers deal more harshly with some protesters than others, even if their actions are the same, or the Afghan rapist who blamed cultural and language differences between him and his victim? The leaked emails from the Government's National Security and Online Information Team (NSOIT) were centred on last year's protests following the killings in Southport. It's possible the same unit was back on the case during the recent demonstrations at an asylum hotel in Epping, around which police had to erect a ring of steel in order to protect guests from the anger of protesters. But to what extent did ministers seek to understand the rage felt by parents following the revelation that an Ethiopian asylum seeker at the hotel had been reportedly charged with sexually assaulting a schoolgirl just days after arriving in the UK? Were they more concerned about the damaging narrative of the event as portrayed on social media? Ministers still seem not to have got the message. When foreign, undocumented, unvetted young men are placed in any local community, residents' fear and suspicion is an inevitable consequence that must be acknowledged and addressed, not suppressed. Where evidence emerges of sexual assault by one of those young men, public outrage is a natural response. The days of not looking back in anger are far behind us. Silencing critical voices is not only anti-democratic, it is positively harmful and destructive to the social contract. Rather than risk its total destruction, the Government needs to repair it. It could start by reassuring the country whose side it is actually on.
