Latest news with #EqualityNetwork
The Herald Scotland
31-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
There never was a right for a man to enter a woman's changing room
Of course, Equality Network was itself free to intervene but chose not to. Mr Hopkins is in a better position to explain this failure but I'd suggest its unwillingness to accept that self-declaration of sex was firmly off the table at the outset hampered any legal argument its members were prepared to accept. Finally, there was no human rights breach. Had there been so, the Supreme Court would have been obliged to issue a declaration of incompatibility. It was never a 'right' for any man to enter women's changing rooms or other spaces and the absurdity of such an argument was laid bare in the court's painstakingly detailed judgment. Anyone now asking the UK Government to amend the Equality Act has the hopefully-impossible task of explaining exactly why basic human rights for women should be removed. In the meantime, women such as Sandie Peggie and Fiona McDonald ("Activist sues own union over gender beliefs",The Herald, July 26) will bravely keep holding employers and unions to account, despite unwarranted and ridiculous 'anti-trans' slurs. All power to their elbow. Trina Budge, Director, For Women Scotland, Edinburgh. Read more letters Blame the activists Tim Hopkins took over a third of a page on Tuesday to spout utter drivel. He talks utter nonsense about the Supreme Court judges not being properly informed, ignoring the wishes of Parliament (and, God forbid, Hansard), about them knowing better what the wording of various pieces of legislation mean, about ignoring other pieces of legislative interpretation, and, almost unbelievably, stating that their judgment contained a "staggeringly naive claim". I suppose we should all be glad that we have the likes of Mr Hopkins, who is clearly a much better-read and learned man than any of our highly skilled judges, to interpret the law. As far as I am aware the trans population in this country is tiny. They should of course have the same and equal rights as the rest of us, that is not in question. They do however appear to be disproportionately represented by a large number of very loud activists. I'm sure Mr Hopkins will know many of them from his past life. Without them the trans community would probably not be in this predicament. Finally, he wants Parliament to "urgently amend the Equality Act... to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and privacy". Where will that leave women, Mr Hopkins? Gregor McKenzie, East Kilbride. Privacy is theirs to own Tim Hopkins pleads for "Parliament to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and (where they wish) privacy". There is nothing and never was anything to stop them doing just that. An issue has been raised that never needed to see the light of day. All it has done is create division and dissension. That was all it was intended to do and the trans community were the chosen vehicle. Politicians, in attempts to unravel the Gordian knot that is humanity, find themselves entangled within it. The learned gentlemen of the bench attempted to offer clarity on what was established in law and on the statute books. In contrast to incoherent interpretations delivered by the political class, the Supreme Court judgment was concise, almost simplistic. However, the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 grants provision to the transgender community and the Equality Act of 2010 protection, thus logic supports a claim that it "would not be disadvantageous to trans people". Mr Hopkins claims: "It is fundamentally changing the situation for trans people across Britain, potentially affecting their access to services from healthcare to toilets." "Potentially" is not reality and the reality is that nothing has changed. Transgender people are perfectly free to live in peace and privacy is theirs to own. Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown. Ignore this deflection Sandie Peggie, a veteran nurse who was suspended by NHS Fife for objecting to a young, male-born, trans-identifying doctor being in a female changing room while she was undressing, has enjoyed a groundswell of public support. However, NHS Fife's defence lawyer, Jane Russell KC, came up with two witnesses, both former colleagues and friends, who portrayed Ms Peggie in a supposedly new light ("Nurse Peggie recalled after claim she called trans doctor a 'weirdo'", The Herald, July 29). Their evidence mainly consisted of personal characterisations of Ms Peggie based on some politically incorrect banter at some point in the past. Ms Peggie actually didn't deny this and admits that it was in bad taste. Arguably Ms Russell's detailed questions about Sandie Peggie's menstrual flow and who is paying for her case weren't exactly tasteful either. Yet nothing of this should deflect from the matter at hand. What Employment Judge Sandy Kemp will have to decide is not whether Ms Peggie deserved to be suspended due to a supposedly flawed character. He will decide whether NHS Fife acted fairly and lawfully when suspending a nurse for insisting on her sex-based rights, no more, no less. His conclusion will ultimately guide public perception of the case. Regina Erich, Stonehaven. Nurse Sandie Peggie arriving at the employment tribunal in Dundee (Image: PA) End No 10 veto over Scotland I feel that we Scots are now like mushrooms over the constitution: kept in the dark and fed manure, by both politicians and the media. The concept of governance by consent seems to have been discarded by a simplistic numbers game. Labour claims an overwhelming 'mandate' on a third of the votes, while the SNP asserts only an elected majority of them can deliver on independence. Unionist governments lose support in Scotland when they are perceived to have failed and the [[SNP]] suffers the entropy of longevity in office when more things go wrong or are reported as such by an overwhelmingly unionist media. Ireland has the legal right to hold a border poll, when a polling majority is considered in favour of a united Ireland. This should also be the situation in Scotland, and when polling suggests a stable majority in favour of independence, it should happen. An impartial constitutional commission should be set up, by the UK and Scottish governments, to advise whoever is Secretary of State for Scotland on the constitutional etiquette. The days when incumbents of No 10 (especially one who boasts of being leader of the self-proclaimed 'England's Patriotic Party'), hold a veto over Scotland should be consigned to the bin of history. GR Weir, Ochiltree. Let's unite to oust the SNP First Minister Swinney has decided that he has an updated strategy for achieving Scottish independence. More fool him. He may have forgotten that the UK Supreme Court's ruling was quite clear in that there can only be another referendum on such a matter if the UK Government agrees. If the efforts of Alex Salmond and his prodigy Nicola Sturgeon failed to convince the people of Scotland that independence would be to their advantage, then obviously John Swinney is on a hiding to nothing. The Holyrood elections in May 2026 will hopefully see off the [[SNP]] for a very long period. Let us hope that after whatever alliance of political parties is needed to achieve this objective that we will see radical changes put into effect at [[Holyrood]], and also at local council levels. Fellow Scots, let us all be fully supportive of whatever alliance of political parties is needed to oust the SNP. Unless radical changes are put into effect at Holyrood, then the only answer to Scotland's dilemma is to return all political powers to Westminster. Hopefully that will not be the only option. Robert I G Scott, Ceres, Fife.
The Herald Scotland
06-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Rushing Supreme Court trans judgement is likely to breach human rights
The commission rushed out an 'interim update' that lacked clarity, nuance, human rights considerations, nor the full range of what may be appropriate within the law. They opted for blanket exclusion of trans people – and rightly have faced considerable challenge. We then saw their public consultation on their draft Code – this too told only half of the likely legal story. It detailed how services could exclude trans people but not how they might remain inclusive, as per their human rights duties. We do not believe that the Supreme Court's ruling implies blanket exclusion; if it does, the law needs to be changed as soon as possible. Read More: The ruling said that 'sex', for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, means 'biological sex'. It did not then follow this statement with 'and that means that trans women cannot access women's services.' It didn't even define biological sex, nor woman - other than when it is used in the provisions of the Equality Act. It did say, clearly, that trans women should not be subject to discrimination. The court also said that they had a 'more limited role which does not involve making policy.' Their ruling did not ascribe ANY policy changes. Organisations must follow the law, sure - but what does that look like in practice? There isn't certainty about what those changes should be that would mean people are indeed doing so. It is important that there is clarity on what the law really means in practice for all. The primary legal narrative being pushed by some is the one suggesting that all trans people should be segregated and / or that trans people should be barred from accessing services that they need. This is dangerous, seemingly ignorant of human rights obligations and an incomplete narrative. Though it may be fair for the commission to say that their final code cannot cover every service and every eventuality, it surely must enable people to make lawful decisions, and to decide whether they will or will not allow trans people to use services in line with who they are. We believe this can be done lawfully, but this part seems to be missing. At Equality Network we agree (even with those people with whom we profoundly disagree about what the changes should entail) that all organisations need to be operating within the law. We too are very aware that the law effectively 'changed' when the judges made their ruling. It of course turned previous understanding of how the Equality Act was meant to work with regards to trans people on its head. We, among thousands of others, were surprised at this new revelation - and apparent decades of misunderstanding and implementation. Despite the fact that it was a profound change to how people had previously understood the law to work, this change only applied to the question of whether trans people with gender recognition certificates (GRCs) (which is a tiny percentage of trans people) were to be considered as their birth sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Prior to the judgment, people who had a GRC were believed to have changed their sex in the law (all law), and that sex was protected by the 'sex' part of the Equality Act. However, with sex now being understood for the purposes of the Act as 'biological sex', this is no longer the case. Though the court confirmed that trans people ARE still protected by Gender Reassignment (GR) protections. However, a much larger percentage of trans people do not have a GRC – these people are of course also still protected by GR protections within the Equality Act. Nothing here has changed following the ruling. Given that the huge majority of trans people, before the Supreme Court ruling, were already considered in the act to be their "biological sex", it isn't at all clear that there is now a legal requirement to exclude trans people from all services that align with their gender identities, nor force them to use only segregated spaces and /or services or spaces exclusively aligned with their 'biological sex' as recorded at birth. There wasn't this requirement before, and nothing has changed about that part of our understanding of how the law works. So while we totally agree that organisations should follow the law, it is patently obvious from the vast and various responses and debates among people of many stripes and flavours about what it means, that anyone who is selling certainty (and pushing demands for trans people to be excluded and segregated in all circumstances as what is actually required) is massively, and harmfully, overplaying their hand. Organisations are being pressured to change the way they operate to become less inclusive despite it being patently evident that this would be deeply harmful to trans people, and without alternative to better that situation. Many, rightly so, are in no rush to do that ahead of sight of complete finalised guidance that incorporates full and accurate information on how the law stands - and on how they might go about delivering their inclusive services within the law. The implications of the Supreme Court judgment, and the developing guidance on its implementation, will have a significant impact on the lives of trans people. This must be recognised and given due time and consideration. From some (loud and impatient) quarters there is a push to implement exclusionary practice now. But it remains unclear that the law allows or even supports that. We don't believe it does. As it stands, the draft code is unworkable and harmful. It details only how services can be exclusionary and asks, 'is that clear?' It is as clear as mud. We hope that it is fixed ahead of being laid at UK Parliament for approval. If it isn't, it will be necessary to clarify the law by adjusting the Equality Act. Otherwise, trans people are at serious risk of multiple breaches to their human rights to safety, dignity and privacy. We would hope for a code from our national equality and human rights body that considers the equalities and human rights of those most marginalised and details how services can cater for all whilst remaining lawful. If the Code doesn't do this, it is not doing its job, and nor is the commission. The Code of Practice consultation has only just closed, with over 50,000 responses in total. To analyse those properly will take time. In the meantime, despite what some may say, there is not legal clarity. To push for exclusionary implementation, with significant likelihood of harm, having not first analysed the responses to develop a comprehensive and legally holistic code, is deeply concerning. The commission should be supporting public bodies to carry out their responsibilities effectively and inclusively for everyone. Nobody, not even they, know yet how inconsistencies in the draft code are to be resolved, and how the code is to be made compatible with human rights requirements. Only with such an explanation will public bodies be in any position to responsibly 'follow the law'. Dr Rebecca Don Kennedy is chief executive of the Equality Network
The Guardian
28-06-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Transgender campaigners call for European rights body to report on UK
A collection of groups campaigning on transgender issues have urged Europe's main human rights body to investigate the UK over the implementation of the supreme court's ruling on gender. In a joint letter to the Council of Europe, the organisations said the situation in which transgender people were likely to be barred from using toilets of their acquired sex or joining single-sex organisations placed them in an 'intermediate zone' of gender, saying this was a violation of the European convention on human rights (ECHR). The five groups, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, TransActual, Equality Network and Scottish Trans, Trans Safety Network and Feminist Gender Equality Network, have asked the council to report on trans rights in the UK, adding: 'We note that the situation is urgent and that without intervention, it seems likely to further deteriorate.' The letter follows April's landmark supreme court ruling that 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex. In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word 'biological' did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, 'the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman'. If 'sex' did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face 'practical difficulties', it said. The justices added: 'Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.' According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is consulting on the formal post-ruling guidance, due out later this summer, transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets or changing spaces of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they also cannot use toilets of their birth sex. The letter argues that this would leave transgender people reliant on gender-neutral facilities, which are often unavailable 'and mandating their usage may require trans people to out themselves'. It argues that this, plus the post-ruling interim advice that transgender people would not be allowed to join single sex associations of their acquired sex, would place them in an 'intermediate zone' on sex, a violation of their right to respect for private life under article 8 of the ECHR. The convention is interpreted by the European court of human rights, part of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU and to which Britain remains a member. Jess O'Thomson from Trans+ Solidarity Alliance said trans people had already experienced 'a huge rollback' of rights even before the final guidance on implementing the ruling had been published: 'We are asking for a report to be opened into the state of trans people's human rights in the UK, in the hope that this will encourage our politicians to listen and take action.' Rebecca Don Kennedy, chief executive of Equality Network, said: 'Trans people and their allies all over the UK are horrified with the recent chain of events following the supreme court ruling in April. The threat to trans people's autonomy, freedom and dignity should concern anyone who values equality and human rights. 'Trans people have a right to public life, and dignity in social interaction, they have a right to use the toilet safely, to leave their homes knowing that they can. They have a right to privacy, a right to engage with the world as themselves, to join clubs that fully celebrate and welcome them as who they are.'
Scotsman
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Edinburgh Pride: 10 best photos from Edinburgh's first ever Pride march in 1995, 30 years ago
June 17, 1995 was a real landmark occasion, as it was the day Scotland's capital conquered prejudice with a resounding display of Pride, as more than 3,000 people triumphantly marched together from Broughton Street to the Meadows via Princes Street. Fast forward to today, and the longest-running LGBTQIA+ celebration in Scotland has grown massively since 1995. This year's event is a weekend-long affair, which includes the annual march through the streets of Edinburgh on Saturday, June 21. As thousands of people gather to celebrate diversity, we look back to that first ever Pride march in the city. Take a look through our photo gallery for a nostalgic trip back to 1995 – and let us know your own memories in the comments section before you go. 1 . Remembering Edinburgh's first ever Pride march Browse our gallery to see 10 of the best photos from Edinburgh's first ever Pride march in 1995. Photo: Third Party Photo Sales 2 . Pride Scotland 1995 The march took place in Edinburgh in June 1995. Photo: Tina Norris Photo Sales 3 . The Mound A huge crowd make their way up the Mound to show their support. Photo: Equality Network Photo Sales 4 . All bar nun The inclusive event saw thousands take to the streets in an effort to conquer the prejudices felt by the LGBT community. Photo: TINA NORRIS Photo Sales Related topics: EdinburghScotland
The Herald Scotland
06-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
It's time to stop the scaremongering over heat pumps
If you take away the cost of a gas boiler, which would not be required, this makes the cost difference about £10,000 maximum. Is he suggesting that the housebuilders should leave out the insulation and double glazing as well? The difference in heating costs between a standard house built around 1970 and current standards is significant and I doubt if anyone would want to live in a basic 1970s house or pay the heating bill. The housebuilding standards in the UK for insulation have been extremely poor compared to the standards in Scandinavian countries for at least the last 60 years and we are paying the price now in high retrofit costs to bring them up to a similar standard. Most of the hype about additional measures required to install a heat pump result from this failure in building standards, and any changes to the heat emitters of new-build houses should result in a reduction in costs as less heat output is required. For interest, you only need to replace the heat lost from a building and a heat pump can do this just as effectively as a gas boiler although it may be necessary to increase the radiator size as the flow temperature is lower. This does not apply to new-build and therefore it will not result in additional cost. There was no incentive for builders to build houses with decent insulation and this could have reduced the potential profit per build and it was only when the Government eventually started introducing proper building standards that this situation slowly improved. The before-tax profits of one major housebuilder last year were £359.1 million for 10,664 completions which amounts to £33,674 profit per house (11.1%). Some of these properties will include most of the standards for net zero and should be heat pump-compatible if they are still fitted with gas boilers. I am not suggesting that housebuilders should not make a profit as that is how capitalism works, but perhaps it might put Ross Lambie's claims in perspective. There are lots of reasons why we should be moving from gas to electricity, reducing global warming and saving the planet is only one of them, but misinformation is making a sensible transition more difficult. Iain McIntyre, Sauchie. Read more letters Pride has had its day I found the first half of the letter (June 4) from Rebecca Don Kennedy, CEO of the Equality Network, regarding the removal of Pride flags from lampposts on Arran quite enlightening. I read it thinking that we may well have an outbreak of common sense. Until. The CEO went on to accuse Mark Smith of hypothetical and imaginary views, indeed, accusing him of victim blaming. There then followed a completely non-evidential, truly hypothetical and imaginary reasoning of what someone must be thinking if they dislike a flag. The removal of a flag is straightforward vandalism (if damaged) or theft, and nothing else. Until the perpetrator is found nobody knows what their thought process was. They may just have been having a laugh. Under no circumstances is that then a hate crime. For me, and many like me, I'm afraid that Pride has had its day, and it seems to me that it, and the "inclusive" groups of people behind it, are more about continually causing and promoting division in society. Why can't we all just let people be? Gregor McKenzie, East Kilbride. A Pride march in Glasgow (Image: PA) Frustration over hospital parking Today (June 4) I failed to make a significant appointment at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GRI), booked at a specialist unit in October 2024. I spent two hours attempting to find a parking space, and failed. I recall that there was some problem in making the GRI car park free, which was eventually resolved. As a regular patient, I enjoyed a brief period when outpatients had an allocated parking area: that privilege did not last. A missed appointment costs the NHS around £233 and I have now to wait until at least September for a new appointment. I do not believe that the GRI car park is solely occupied by staff and patients. Glasgow is restricted and punitive in parking, and I suspect that this car park has a high occupancy of selfish non-entitled healthy parasites. Stewart MacPherson, Kilsyth. Dictionary corner The faulty English usage Steve Barnet despairs of (Letters, May 29) doesn't exasperate me as much as the profusion of malapropisms that have become common. Educated writers can no longer use the following, for fear of being misunderstood: apprise, which will be confused with appraise; beg the question will be supposed to mean pose the question; deprecate (an obscure theological term) seems to be supposed to be a posh modern variant of depreciate; enormity is used as a synonym of magnitude; fulsome is used instead of full (it is cognate with foul); ilk is presumed to mean sort; iconic is used as though it means special rather than totally standard; the verb loathe is used where the adjective loth would be correct; the adjective staunch is used where the verb stanch would be correct. This stems from the modern practice of guessing at meanings instead of consulting a dictionary. Some hold that words should mean what people think they mean rather than what a lexicographer declare them to mean, but this leads to degeneration into baby-talk shorn of all subtlety. Robin Dow, Rothesay. Cruise control It annoys me that CalMac ferries, the latest Glens Sannox and Rosa in particular, are referred to by several of your correspondents as "cruise liners". They are actually "crew's liners", a very important distinction and the root of a large number of the problems imposed on CMAL and CalMac by each other. Peter Wright, West Kilbride.
