Pedro Pascal slams J.K. Rowling over anti-trans stance
Pedro Pascal is making headlines again—not just for his acting, but for taking a bold public stance in support of the transgender community.
While attending the UK premiere of Thunderbolts on April 22, 2025, Pascal wore a 'Protect the Dolls' t-shirt, a pointed show of solidarity following controversial statements from Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling.
Rowling recently praised a U.K. Supreme Court ruling that interprets the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act to mean biological women and sex assigned at birth—legislation widely criticized as anti-trans. Sharing a photo of herself smoking a cigar, Rowling captioned the post, 'I love it when a plan comes together,' a quote from The A-Team, with hashtags #SupremeCourt and #WomensRights.
Actor and activist Tariq Ra'ouf called the post 'some serious Voldemort villain s–t,' accusing Rowling of fueling hatred and misinformation about the trans community.
Pascal responded directly to Ra'ouf's Instagram Reel, calling Rowling's celebration 'heinous LOSER behavior' and agreeing with the sentiment that her actions were 'awful disgusting s–t.'
Pascal has long supported LGBTQ+ rights and has spoken publicly about his sister, Lux Pascal, who came out as a transgender woman in 2021. He previously condemned anti-trans rhetoric in February 2025, saying, 'I can't think of anything more vile and small and pathetic than terrorizing the smallest, most vulnerable community.'
Also speaking out was Bridgerton star Nicola Coughlan, who dismissed Rowling's new Harry Potter projects, saying, 'Wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.'
Pascal's vocal support has further solidified his role as one of Hollywood's most outspoken allies for trans rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
17 hours ago
- Business Recorder
KSA envoy calls on CJP
ISLAMABAD: Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Nawaf bin Saeed Ahmad Al-Malkiy on Friday called on the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Yahya Afridi, at the Supreme Court, Islamabad. The chief justice warmly welcomed the ambassador and expressed appreciation for the longstanding, historic, and fraternal ties between Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, rooted in shared faith and mutual respect. During the meeting, both dignitaries discussed avenues for strengthening bilateral cooperation in the field of justice. Emphasis was laid on expanding judicial collaboration under the framework of Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, which includes modernisation and reform of the Kingdom's judicial system. It was noted that Pakistan holds Saudi Arabia in high esteem and values the opportunity to learn from each other's judicial systems and experiences. Both sides agreed that meaningful collaboration through exchange programmes and partnerships between judicial academies can significantly enhance capacity building and promote shared learning. Joint training initiatives were also discussed to equip judicial officers and legal professionals with modern tools and comparative legal perspectives. The discussion further covered areas such as the modernisation of judicial processes, establishment of specialised commercial and labour courts, collaborative research in Islamic jurisprudence, and comparative legal studies focusing on interfaith dialogue. The possibility of jurisprudential dialogue on thematic legal areas, regional judicial engagement, and hosting a Regional Judicial Conference also featured prominently. The chief justice reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to fostering closer institutional linkages with the Saudi judiciary and underscored the importance of shared legal values in promoting regional stability, justice, and the rule of law. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CB mulls SC powers for 'complete justice'
Some members of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court raised a number of questions with regard to the SC's powers to ensure "complete justice". They also asked how non allocations of reserved seats to the PTI could be called a violation of fundamental rights. PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab's counsel Salman Akram Raja on Friday resumed his arguments in support of the SC's July 12 majority order in the reserved seats case before the 11-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan that is hearing review petitions against the verdict. Raja, in his arguments, stated that it is the responsibility of this court to protect fundamental rights and this responsibility is assigned to it by the Constitution. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how Article 187 applies in this case. Article 187(1) gives the Supreme Court the power to issue any order or direction necessary for doing complete justice in any case pending before it while Article 187(2) gives it the powers as a civil court to enforce its decisions, including issuing orders to any person or authority. Raja replied that he would explain this in detail later. He said the Supreme Court has broader authority and can use Article 187 together with Article 184 to deliver complete justice. Justice Mandokhail asked whether Article 184(3) is used in public interest cases. Salman Akram Raja responded in the affirmative. He said the SC can use Article 184(3) for public interest and fundamental rights. "When there is destruction or crisis, one does not ask which article appliesthen the Supreme Court must step forward and do what is necessary." Justice Mandokhail asked whether, if a constitutional violation occurs but no specific article applies, the SC should still take action. The lawyer said in such a situation, the SC should do whatever is necessary. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that Article 199 cannot be read together with Article 187. He remarked that under Article 199, the high court has powers that even the Supreme Court does not possess. Article 199 of the Constitution outlines the writ jurisdiction of the high courts. It empowers high courts to issue various writs (orders) to enforce fundamental rights and ensure lawful conduct by authorities. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar asked what, in his view, are the limits of the Supreme Court's powers. Justice Jamal Mandokhail said, "My brother judge suggests that there must be some limit to the powers. Does the Supreme Court have unlimited powers in every case?" He then asked whether any constitutional or legal violation occurred in the majority decision of the reserved seats case. Salman Akram Raja said, "There was no overreach in the Supreme Court's decision." Justice Mandokhail remarked that the Constitution itself gives parties the right to join within three days. Justice Aminuddin Khan interjected.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
CB upholds transfer of judges to IHC
In a majority verdict, a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the transfer of three provincial high court judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), noting that these transfers could not be declared new appointments. However, the majority judges partially remanded the matter to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority of the transferred judges after examining and vetting their service record "as soon as possible, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis". Two of the judges — Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed — however, declared the notification for transfer of the judges "null, void and of no legal effect" in their minority order. On February 1, the Ministry of Law issued a notification for the transfer of Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Muhammad Asif — respectively from the Lahore High Court, the Sindh High Court and the Balochistan High Court — to the IHC. Following this transfer, endorsed by the president, the IHC issued a new seniority list, ranking Justice Dogar as the senior puisne judge. Five IHC judges filed representations against this seniority list. However, the then IHC chief justice, Aamer Farooq rejected these representations. After elevation of Justice Farooq to the Supreme Court, Justice Dogar was also elevated as the IHC acting chief justice. The IHC judges and some other petitioners including Imran Khan challenged the ministry's notification as well the new seniority list in the Supreme Court, whose five-member CB heard the matter. On Thursday, three members of the CBJustice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar issued their short order, disposing of the petitions. The order noted that the powers of the president under Sub-article (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution for the transfer of a judge and the provisions contained under Article 175A for appointment of judges by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) are two distinct provisions dealing with different situations. "Neither do they overlap nor override each other. The transfer of a judge by the President of Pakistan by means of Article 200 of the Constitution (permanently or temporarily) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment. "Furthermore, the powers of transfer conferred to the President by none other than the framers of the Constitution cannot be questioned on the anvil or ground that if the posts were vacant in the IHC, then why they were not filled up by JCP through fresh appointments. "One more important facet that cannot be lost sight of is that the transfer from one high court to another can only be made within the sanctioned strength, which can only be regarded as a mere transfer and does not amount to raising the sanctioned strength of a particular high court," it said. It noted that if it is presumed that all posts should be filled by the JCP alone through fresh appointments, then such interpretation or state of mind would not only go against the manifest intention of the framers of the Constitution but will also amount to negating or making redundant the substratum and existence of Article 200 of the Constitution. "The article is absolutely not dependent, concomitant, or at the mercy of Article 175A of the Constitution, but is an independent and standalone provision dealing with the transfer of judges of a High Court (permanently or temporarily) and not the appointment of judges, which assignment has been incontrovertibly conferred to the JCP autonomously in terms of Article 175A of the Constitution." The majority judges, however, partially remanded the matter to the president, without upsetting the notification of transfer, to determine the seniority after examining/vetting the service record of the transferred judges, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis. "Till such time that the seniority and nature of transfer (permanent or temporary) of the transferee judges is determined by the President of Pakistan by means of notification/order, Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, already holding the office of Acting Chief Justice of the IHC, will continue to perform as the acting chief CJ," they added. The dissenting note Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed disagreed with the majority order and declared the notification for transfer of the judge null and void. They stated that Clause (2) of Article 200 of the Constitution is subservient to Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and both are interconnected. "According to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, while interpreting Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, both the clauses have to be harmonized and, being consistent with each other, have to be read in conjunction with each other for giving effect to both without creating conflict or absurdity" "When Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200 are read in conjunction with each other, it provides that when, in exercise of his discretion, the president transfers a judge from one high court to another, during the period for which he serves as a judge of the high court to which he is transferred, the judge so transferred is entitled to such allowances and privileges, in addition to his salary, as determined by the President." The order said the Attorney General for Pakistan conceded and categorically conveyed to the court on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan that the three Judges have been transferred on permanent basis. It said Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, read in conjunction with each other, do not provide for permanent transfer of a judge from one high court to another and it provides for transfer of a judge a period — on temporary basis. It said the permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC has been made in the wrong exercise of discretion under Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and has offended Article 175A of the Constitution, making it redundant. "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is suffering from concealment of relevant and material facts from the transferee Judges, from the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is also lacking meaningful, purposive and consensus oriented consultation with the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and Hon'ble CJP on all the relevant issues," it added. The minority order noted the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, have no role under the Constitution for appointment or transfer of Judges. "Being subordinate to the executive, the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, cannot override the executive, the judiciary, the constitutional bodies and the constitutional office holders," it added.
