'What is a woman?': Court ruling reopens the 'gender war' in the UK
The sun was shining and the smiles were wide. On April 16, in front of the UK Supreme Court – a neo-Gothic architectural gem across from the Palace of Westminster – Susan Smith and Marion Calder, two founders of the group For Women Scotland, celebrated their victory. Surrounded by photographers, they toasted and then sang their rallying song, "For Women's Rights," to the tune of the famous Scottish melody "Auld Lang Syne." After five years of legal battles with the Scottish government, the country's highest court ruled in favor of these so-called "gender critical" feminist activists, who believe gender is not a perception but a biological reality, by offering a definitive answer to a seemingly basic question: "What is a woman?"
The Equality Act 2010, the country's main anti-discrimination law, had not, until now, defined the term "woman." In its April 16 decision, which carries the force of law, the Supreme Court restricted the definition to "biological sex." The court rejected the previously prevailing interpretation that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate – which legally acknowledges their change of gender – are also considered women and therefore entitled to access women-only spaces such as toilets, locker rooms or prisons. "This is a victory for common sense," declared the founders of For Women Scotland after the hearing, surrounded by banners in purple and green – the colors of the suffragettes, those early 20 th -century campaigners for women's right to vote, whose memory remains cherished in the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
8 hours ago
- LeMonde
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke legal protections from 500,000 migrants
The Supreme Court on Friday, May 30, again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision comes after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented. The administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. The Justice Department argues that the protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the Biden-era policies weren't in line with immigration law. "We are confident in the legality of our actions to protect the American people and look forward to further action from the Supreme Court to vindicate us," she said. But Karen Tumlin, founder and director of Justice Action Center, said the decision has "effectively greenlit" deportation orders for a half-million people. "I cannot overstate how devastating this is," she said. The court "allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities." Promise to deport millions of people Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the US. In a 2024 presidential debate, Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio, including those with legal status under the humanitarian parole program, were abducting and eating pets, court documents note. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent to Friday's ruling that the effect of the high court's order is "to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims." Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what US District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in a ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift it. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, did allow the Trump administration to revoke parole, but on a case-by-case basis. But the Trump administration argued the parole was granted en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a "gargantuan task," and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. The high court's decision could ultimately affect another ruling from Talwani this week in favor of other people covered by humanitarian parole policies, including Afghans, Ukrainians and children from Central America. Joe Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations' Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with "instability, dangers and deprivations," as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the US at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves "the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history." The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
France 24
10 hours ago
- France 24
US top court lets Trump revoke legal status for 500,000 migrants
The decision puts 532,000 people who came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to the United States under a two-year humanitarian "parole" program launched by former president Joe Biden at risk of deportation. And it marked the second time the highest US court has sided with Trump in his aggressive push to deliver on his election pledge to deport millions of non-citizens, through a series of policy announcements that have prompted a flurry of lawsuits. But the opinion sparked a scathing dissent from two justices in the liberal minority who said the six conservatives on the bench had "plainly botched" their ruling and undervalued the "devastating consequences" to those potentially affected. The revoked program had allowed entry into the United States for two years for up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries, all of which have dismal human rights records. But as Trump takes a hard line on immigration, his administration moved to overturn those protections, winning a ruling from the Supreme Court earlier this month that allowed officials to begin deporting some 350,000 Venezuelans. The latest case resulted from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceling an 18-month extension of the temporary protected status of the migrants, citing in particular the "authoritarian" nature of Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela. The department gave them 30 days to leave the country unless they had legal protection under another program. 'Needless human suffering' "The court has plainly botched this assessment today," Justices Ketanji Brown Jackon and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in their dissent. The justices said the migrants face being wrenched from family and returning to potential danger in their native countries -- or opting to stay and risking imminent removal. "At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgment regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to that kind of practical impact," Jackson said. None of the other justices gave reasons for their decision, and the court was not required to make the vote public. The district court that barred the administration from revoking the migrants' status had argued that it was unlawfully applying a fast-track deportation procedure aimed at illegal immigrants to non-citizens protected by government programs. At the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the "district court has nullified one of the administration's most consequential immigration policy decisions" by issuing the stay. The high court's decision means the Trump administration can go ahead with its policy change, even as the litigation on the merits plays out in lower courts. Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, evoking an "invasion" of the United States by hordes of foreign criminals. Among other measures, he invoked an obscure wartime law to fly more than 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. But his program of mass deportations has been thwarted or restricted by numerous court rulings, including from the Supreme Court and notably on the grounds that those targeted should be able to assert their due process rights. And the administration has been berated over its efforts to restrict immigration from poor countries with human rights concerns like Afghanistan and Haiti, while accepting white South African refugees amid baseless claims that they face "genocide." The Trump administration systematically accuses judges who oppose his immigration decisions of plundering his presidential national security powers.
France 24
12 hours ago
- France 24
US Supreme Court gives Trump green light to strip legal status of 500,000 migrants
The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the US Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio, including those with legal status under the humanitarian parole program, were abducting and eating pets during a debate with then-President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the high court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims'. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what US District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of former Democratic president Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. 'Gargantuan task' Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the US at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history'. The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
