Pro-trans activists' protest shuts Glasgow City Chambers
The group had planned to stage a 'read-in' inside the chambers but were blocked by security, with the building being closed 'until the end of the day'.
Protesters blocked one of the entrances with flags and banners that read 'Trans Kids Deserve Better' and 'Save Our Libraries," as the group vowed to fight to defend safe spaces for transgender children.
READ MORE: Wikipedia loses Online Safety Act legal challenge
Imogen, the protest organiser, said: 'I always found my school library as a safe haven.
'It's where I found my identity. My school librarian helped me so much with that. I wouldn't be the person I am today if it weren't for her.'
They added: 'Having that space to go read, just to be quiet and have a moment to yourself, outside of the bullying and the harassment, which we face constantly, it's really nice to sort of have that place.'
(Image: NQ)
A council-approved review of library services in February 2024 targeted savings of £100,000, which included proposals to remove librarians from every Glasgow secondary school.
In June, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland wrote to Glasgow City Council expressing "significant concerns" over the local authority's plans to 'de-professionalise a vital service'.
TKDB staged a sit-in at the city chambers last month to demand a conversation with Aitken over the proposals, as they claim she hasn't responded to their request.
SNP councillor Graham Campbell, who spoke to activists outside the chambers, said he expected the local authority to 'hear what their big asks are' and to give a reply.
He added: 'Trans kids are the most pressured kids in the country, so therefore, it's our duty to protect them and to hear their voices when they're advocating for themselves.'
In April, the Supreme Court ruled that women are defined by biology in a landmark judgment, which dealt a blow to transgender campaigners.
The UK's highest court rejected the Scottish Government's arguments that the category of 'woman' included both biological females and biological males who held a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
Campbell said following the Supreme Court's ruling he wants to make sure all spaces are safe for trans kids and not just libraries.
He said: 'I want to make sure that all of the spaces that we have are safe. Now, that's a hard thing to do, and I am aware of that.
'Obviously, there's been a lot of controversy because of the reactionary Supreme Court judgement.
'In my view, if it were up to me, I would utterly defy all of their rulings, because I don't think that their rulings are lawful.
'If it were up to me, I would say the council should make no changes whatsoever in respect of that judgement and keep to what we already have, which is inclusive integrated spaces, we should defend that.'
'If it were up to me, I'd be prepared to defend that court, but I'm not in charge. But I think that should be our sense.'
Imogen said the campaign group wanted to speak with Aitken about the effect the council's proposals to cut funding to libraries will have on trans children.
'We want to tell her that cutting funding for school librarians is having an effect on all trans people,' they said.
'We use those as safe spaces. It's where we find out our identity, where we learn about our history, our heritage, and taking that away from us is just going to cause us more bullying, more harassment for us in our community.'
Glasgow City Council has been asked for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Palestine Action founder attacks 'false' Labour claims about group
Huda Ammori rejected allegations from the top of the Labour Government, made after more than 500 people were arrested under terrorism laws on suspicion of supporting the proscribed group. Asked on Monday whether the UK Government was reconsidering its decision to designate the group as a terrorist organisation following mass arrests on Saturday, the Prime Minister's official spokesperson said they were not. READ MORE: Wikipedia loses Online Safety Act legal challenge 'Palestine Action was proscribed based on strong security advice following serious attacks the group has committed involving violence, significant injury and extensive criminal damage,' the spokesperson said. Downing Street said the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre – an independent authority based within MI5 – had found the organisation had carried out three separate acts of terrorism. The UK Government further said it is unable to provide 'all of the detail at this stage' but the proscription has been made through a 'robust, evidence-based process'. 'We've said that many people may not yet know the reality of this organisation, but the assessments are very clear: this is a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury and extensive criminal damage,' Keir Starmer's spokesperson said. Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones (above) said on Monday that the UK Government had 'credible reports of them targeting Jewish-owned businesses here in the United Kingdom, and there are other reasons, which we can't disclose because of national security'. Ammori said the claims Palestine Action is a violent organisation were 'false and defamatory'. She said: 'Yvette Cooper and No 10's claim that Palestine Action is a violent organisation is false and defamatory, and even disproven by the Government's own intelligence assessment of Palestine Action's activities and the Home Office spokesperson's statement outside court just a few weeks ago.' Ammori said the group does not advocate for violence against persons and the majority of its activities would not be classified as terrorism. 'Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. Disrupting Israel's largest weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems by trespassing on their sites in Britain is not terrorism,' she said. 'It is the Israeli Defence Force and all those who arm and enable their war crimes who are the terrorists.' READ MORE: Labour 'must back probe into Israel's blatant killing of journalists', union says She claimed the reason the UK Government has banned the group is 'because they capitulated to the Israeli embassy, arms manufacturers, and pro-Israeli groups who lobbied them to ban us'. Meanwhile, officers from the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command will be working over the coming weeks to put together case files in relation to the 532 arrests made at a protest in London in Saturday, the force has said. The demonstration, organised by Defend Our Juries, was held in Parliament Square, with the Metropolitan Police warning it would detain anyone expressing support for Palestine Action. The majority of those arrested, 348, were aged 50 or over, according to a breakdown published by the Met on Sunday. Amnesty International claimed that arrests 'for the type of peaceful activity that took place in London over the weekend would violate international human rights law'. Liz Thomson, the charity's acting Scotland director, urged Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate not to follow the London police force's lead. 'Similar scenes should never be replicated in Scotland,' she said. 'Some arrests have been made by Police Scotland in recent weeks, reportedly of individuals displaying messages deemed to be in support of Palestine Action without any incitement to violence. 'Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate must be clear that they have obligations under the Human Rights Act and international law to uphold the right to peaceful protest – and that carrying out arrests for peaceful expression on this issue will be a violation of international human rights law.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Labour is going to have to leave the ECHR
The Home Secretary's extension of the list of countries covered by the 'deport now, appeal later' scheme for foreign criminals, announced this morning, doesn't actually add to the number of undesirables that we can deport. But it could lubricate the process of getting rid of them. For criminals from the new countries just added, which include a number of African and Asian states, India, Canada and Australia, it means that once the Home Secretary rejects an objection based on human rights grounds, physical removal can be automatic. The deportee can still appeal, but any appeal has to be pursued from abroad. This not only saves us the cost of supporting and detaining them here but reduces the possibility of them either disappearing into the black economy, or arguing that the passage of time has itself created of a link with this country so strong as to make their removal inhuman. This is a step in the right direction. But it is a pretty limited one. There are 700-odd prisoners from the new countries in our jails who will be subject to the new rules; but this is around half the number who come from Albania alone, which tops the list of foreign suppliers of convicts to our penal system and which was already part of the scheme even before its extension. One doubts whether extended human rights claims against removal by, say, unwanted Canadians or Australians are a serious problem. By contrast, we have large numbers of Polish, Romanian, Lithuanian, Jamaican, Pakistani and Somali jailbirds on our hands whom we would love to be summarily rid of, but are still not covered. Tough-sounding measures of this kind are all very well. But they have a history of coming unstuck. We have been here before. Legislation in 2014 would have allowed all deported criminals to be put on the first plane out and then appeal from abroad. Unfortunately this very salutary provision was declared non-human-rights-compliant three years later by a liberal Supreme Court unhappy about the difficulties faced by criminal deportees forced into long-distance litigation. The present scheme aims to sidestep this by requiring provisions for pursuing effective online appeals from abroad: countries are not added unless and until these have been agreed. But it would be foolish to rule out a UK court, or the European Court of Human Rights, saying that an applicant has not had a chance to put his case. We also cannot exclude a court staying physical expulsion on the basis that the trauma of immediate removal, say of a criminal with alleged mental health issues, is itself a breach of human rights. This is, in other words, largely an exercise in tinkering. Furthermore, even if it works it will not make a serious dent in the numbers of foreigners who successfully demand to stay despite having grossly abused our hospitality. To do this, the government knows perfectly well about the migrant elephant in the room. In the last resort something must be done about the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether litigation takes place in the Strand or in the legal ether over a Zoom link from abroad is largely beside the point: even where a person otherwise fulfils the criteria for removal, it always remains open under the Convention to argue that if removed their family life would be destroyed, or that they would face ill-treatment abroad. (Some, indeed, have successfully, if impudently, resisted removal precisely because of the hostility they would face at home as a result of their having committed a heinous crime here.) This cannot go on. I can quite legitimately eject someone from my house who has taken sanctuary there if they start smashing up my furniture, even if I know a baying mob outside will brutalise them as a result. The same should go for a country: the right to refuge, even from those out for blood, should be able to be lost as a result of serious misbehaviour. Unfortunately this is what Strasbourg, with its almost religious view of human rights, will not accept. In the end, there is only one way out. Barring a Damascene conversion of the Strasbourg court, something pretty inconceivable (witness its petulant brush-off three months ago of a suggestion from a number of countries including Denmark, Poland and Italy that it should soften its line on migrants' rights), withdrawal is fast becoming not only an option, but the only option. A number of Red Wall MPs, painfully aware of public opinion, are already making noises along these lines. For the moment this is anathema to Yvette Cooper, and even more so to Keir Starmer and Lord Hermer. But sooner or later Labour, if it wants to avoid electoral irrelevance, will have to think seriously about it.
BreakingNews.ie
2 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Wikipedia loses High Court challenge against UK government
Wikipedia has lost a High Court challenge against the UK government over verification requirements in the British Online Safety Act. The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), along with an anonymous editor known as BLN, wanted the website to be exempt from certain regulations that came into force earlier this year. Advertisement They argued that compliance with the new law would mean Wikipedia would have to impose verification on people who did not want it or limit the amount of monthly UK users. But in a judgment on Monday, Mr Justice Johnson rejected those claims, saying there may be ways to work within the law 'without causing undue damage to Wikipedia's operations'. The Online Safety Act has provisions aimed at reducing the spread of harmful content. Part of the regulations classify some sites as category one, which is defined by the number of monthly users a site has as well as the systems through which information is shared. Advertisement Rupert Paines, for WMF, told a previous hearing that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, who were defending the claim, had made the regulations too broad. He said that if Wikipedia is to be classified as category one, and verification is to become mandatory for all users, it would make articles 'gibberish' because content from non-verified users would be filtered out. The regulations were more designed for 'major, profit-making technology companies' such as Facebook, X and Instagram, he argued, while imposing verification on Wikipedia users would be a breach of their human rights. Cecilia Ivimy KC, for the UK government, said ministers reviewed Ofcom guidance and considered specifically whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations and rejected that. Advertisement She said they decided that Wikipedia 'is in principle an appropriate service on which to impose category one duties' and how ministers arrived at that choice was not 'without reasonable foundation nor irrational'. The offices of Ofcom (Yui Mok/PA) Rejecting WMF and BLN's claims, Mr Justice Johnson said his decision 'does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia's operations'. Doing so would mean the UK government would have to justify the imposition as proportionate, he added. The judge also said that the decision to make Wikipedia a category one service now lies with Ofcom. Advertisement If that happens, it may open a possible avenue for further legal action. Mr Justice Johnson said: 'Ofcom's decision as to which services fall within category one is a public law decision which is potentially amenable to the court's review on grounds of public law error.'
