Maggie Chapman accuses Supreme Court of 'bigotry'

The Herald Scotland

22-04-2025

The court said that 'man' and 'woman' in that Act refer to biological sex, not acquired gender.
Speaking at a protest about the judgment in Aberdeen over the weekend, Green MSP Maggie Chapman accused the justices of 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred.'
She told the crowd: 'And we say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society.'
Read more:
The comments were branded 'disgraceful' by Akua Reindorf KC, a Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
She said: 'As a lawyer I am deeply concerned to see an elected politician publicly undermining the separation of powers in our democracy with irresponsible and entirely false allegations of bigotry and hatred against the judiciary. Disgraceful.'
As a lawyer I am deeply concerned to see an elected politician publicly undermining the separation of powers in our democracy with irresponsible and entirely false allegations of bigotry and hatred against the judiciary. Disgraceful. https://t.co/SlfR6n1Jtb — Akua Reindorf KC (@akuareindorf) April 21, 2025
Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry said it was 'wholly inappropriate for any parliamentarian to speak about the judiciary in this way.'
'This person is not fit to convene a parliamentary committee on equalities, human rights & justice,' she added. 'She should resign her position.'
Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, MSPs have a legal obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary.
The Green politician could potentially be referred to the Scottish Parliament's Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for possible breaches of the MSP Code of Conduct, which includes duties to uphold the rule of law and respect the institutions of government.
The calls for Ms Chapman to quit as deputy convenor come as the Committee also faces mounting criticism over its 2022 scrutiny of the SNP's Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill.
At the time, MSPs dismissed and downplayed concerns from feminist groups about the legal significance of the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
In a letter to Ms Johnstone and all members of the Equalities Committee, the policy group Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM) said: 'The Committee not only failed to identify the interaction of the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act as a critical matter for the Bill, but actively dismissed this as a relevant issue,' the group wrote.
'The choices made by the Committee in the handling of the Bill reduced the quality and usefulness of its scrutiny. The Committee became a contributor and key player in increasing tensions around this topic.'
READ MORE:
MSPs passed the GRR Bill in December 2023. The aim of the legislation was to simplify and speed up the process for a trans person to obtain a GRC and change their legal sex.
Under the current system, the process takes at least two years, involves a medical diagnosis, and is only available to those aged 18 and over.
The SNP legislation would have cut the waiting time to six months and lowered the age threshold to 16. It also proposed scrapping the medical diagnosis requirement, bringing in a form of self-identification.
However, before it could become law, the then-Tory Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, blocked it by using the first-ever order under Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act.
During the Bill's passage in 2022, multiple submissions raised concerns about how changing the process to acquire a GRC might affect access to single-sex services and legal protections for women under the Equality Act.
Despite this, the Committee accepted assurances from Scottish Government officials and advocacy groups that this was not the case, describing the change as merely bureaucratic.
They also argued that the Equality Act's exemptions — which allow some trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces — would remain in place.'
Then Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison repeatedly told MSPs the legislation would have no impact on the Equality Act.
She said: 'It could not have, because the 2010 Act is reserved, and we would not want it to, because we think that the exceptions are important.'
She continued: 'The fundamental rights that protect transgender people, which are reserved under the 2010 Act, remain the same. They will be the same on the day before the Bill becomes legislation and on the day after it becomes legislation — if it does, as I hope it will.'
However, in court proceedings running parallel to parliamentary scrutiny, the Scottish Government adopted a different position — arguing that someone who obtained a GRC had changed their legal sex under the Equality Act.
MBM said this contradiction was not made clear to MSPs, with the then committee convenor ruling discussion of it "out of scope."
They also accused the Committee of taking 'no action' to ensure members were properly informed of a key Court of Session judgment when, in December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled that sex was 'not limited to biological or birth sex' and could include those with a GRC.
READ MORE:
The Committee recently wrote to several stakeholders asking them to respond to last week's judgment.
MBM said the process appeared selective, noting that several organisations who had intervened in the case — including Scottish Lesbians, Amnesty International, Sex Matters, and the LGB Alliance — were excluded from the initial round of contact.
The Committee gave recipients just three working days to respond.
While letters to ministers in the Scottish and UK governments, the EHRC, and the Equality Network acknowledged the tight deadline and said they understood recipients 'may not immediately be in a position to provide a full response,' the letter to For Women Scotland — the only volunteer group contacted — did not.
MBM said: 'The Committee's failure to discharge its responsibilities properly in 2022 should not be repeated in its handling of the Supreme Court judgment. We are concerned that the letters sent on Thursday evening do not bode well for how some members plan to use their platform on the Committee in the weeks ahead.
'Nor does behaviour now reported by the Deputy Convener this weekend, who referred to 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' coming from the Supreme Court.
'In our view, the Committee now presents an urgent reputational issue for the Parliament as a whole. For that reason, we are copying this letter to the Presiding Officer in her capacity as the chair of the Conveners' Group.
'The people of Scotland are entitled to expect of any committee of the Scottish Parliament a serious, legally well-founded and evidence-based response to the judgment, which fully respects that women have rights based, as the Supreme Court has now left in no doubt, on their sex.'
Susan Smith of For Women Scotland said: 'Naturally, we cannot help but notice the rudeness with which we were addressed compared to the paid lobbyists, and we fear it was deliberate. Clearly, the convener does not consider that our time is valuable.
'The ruling is very clear and we aren't really sure what the committee hopes to understand or if this is simply an opening salvo in a continued determination to ignore or misunderstand the law.
'The inflammatory rhetoric from Maggie Chapman this weekend about the judiciary is damaging to the reputation of Holyrood and to the Committee in particular. It behoves all MSPs to remember that under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, members of the Scottish Parliament must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary."
She added: 'Unless Ms Chapman resigns, we fear that the Equalities and Human Rights Committee will be unfit to oversee the development of human rights legislation in our Parliament.'
A spokesperson for the Scottish Greens said: 'With two public consultations and months of evidence-gathering and committee discussion, the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was one of the most scrutinised bills the Scottish Parliament has ever passed. And it was voted for by MSPs from across the Chamber before being undemocratically blocked by Westminster.
'We have no regrets about backing the reform, which is already normal in a number of other countries. It would have been a simple step that would have made a big difference to the lives of trans people.
'We cannot speak for the Equalities Committee, but we assume that they will be reflecting upon the decision and will provide an update on it in time.
'Last week's ruling has caused a great deal of concern, particularly for trans people and their loved ones who are concerned about seeing long-held rights being rolled back and about the hostility and culture war being waged against them.'
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: 'The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has received correspondence from Murray Blackburn Mackenzie. As with all correspondence, the Committee will consider it and provide a response in due course.'