Latest news with #ForWomenScotland
Scotsman
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
How SNP's dithering over single-sex spaces and JK Rowling's generosity could cost taxpayers dear
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The announcement last week from the author JK Rowling that she has established a women's fund to support legal cases for women who wish to protect their sex-based rights should be causing sleepless nights for Scottish Government ministers, and for the finance directors of public bodies such as local authorities and NHS boards. All these organisations are now at risk of litigation which could see extensive payouts of taxpayers' cash to women whose rights have been denied. Rowling's generosity is entirely in character with her robust stance in speaking up for women who have suffered discrimination because of their gender-critical views. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This latest initiative will mean that those, like NHS Fife nurse Sandie Peggie, who have lost out simply because they refused to quietly share spaces with biological men, will now be able to access funds to help them stand up to authorities who have endless sums of taxpayers' money to defend legal cases. Members of the For Women Scotland campaign group celebrate the Supreme Court ruling about the definition of the word 'woman' (Picture: Henry Nicholls) | AFP via Getty Images Serious legal consequences It comes in the wake of the interim guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in response to the Supreme Court judgment in the For Women Scotland case. That guidance makes it clear that public bodies must ensure that workplaces have single-sex toilets and changing and washing facilities should these be required. For providers of services that are open to the public, these do not have to be provided on a single-sex basis, but a woman could have a claim for indirect sex discrimination if the only provision is mixed-sex. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Despite this interim guidance being issued more than a month ago, and having serious legal consequences, public bodies in Scotland have been slow to adjust their practices. To give just one example, my own local authority, Perth and Kinross Council, in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Free Speech Union Scotland, has stated that individuals are permitted to access single-sex facilities that align with their self-identified gender. This position is entirely contrary to the law as stated by the Supreme Court, and fails to provide adequate protection for female workers. Holyrood's swift action One body which moved quickly, and appropriately, to ensure that the law was complied with was the Scottish Parliament itself. Earlier this month the Presiding Officer, Alison Johnstone MSP, set out an interim position in response to the court ruling, making it clear that toilets designated as male or female only are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, whilst ensuring that there will be gender-neutral facilities available to everyone, including members of the trans community. This ruling has now been challenged by some 17 MSPs from the SNP, Green, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties (no Scottish Conservatives were daft enough to sign up) in an open letter expressing 'deep concern' about the decision, which they claim risks exposing trans and non-binary individuals to humiliation, harassment or worse. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The letter has been written on the basis of legal advice from the ironically titled Good Law Project, headed up by the one-time fox-killer Jolyon Maugham KC, currently involved in an online spat with Rowling which might well end up with him being on the wrong end of a writ for defamation. Far better lawyers than either I or the Good Law Project have been clear that the EHRC's interim guidance accurately interprets the Supreme Court judgment, and it is disappointing to see this group of MSPs relying upon such poor-quality legal advice. Bizarrely, one of the signatories to the letter is Green MSP Maggie Chapman, herself a member of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, and therefore of the group who took the decision to issue the new 'transphobic toilet rules' (sic) which are being complained about. In an unexpected twist, Ms Chapman now appears to be disagreeing with herself. Tip of the iceberg The more serious issue is what exactly this means for public bodies and their finances. There is the potential here for a whole series of compensation claims from female workers in local authorities, in the NHS, or in other public bodies, who have been denied their gender-based rights. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We have already seen with the Sandie Peggie case that an individual is able to challenge an NHS board which does not properly protect a woman concerned about having to share changing facilities with a biologically male trans woman. This case could be simply the tip of the iceberg with many hundreds or thousands of similar claims to follow. Now a female prisoner is threatening to sue the Scottish Prison Service after being forced to share a cell with a transgender woman. Jane Sutherley, in jail for culpable homicide, could be in line for a payout of taxpayer funds due to the SPS adopting a policy of gender self-identification – a policy which we now know is unlawful. Any female employee who has had to share toileting or changing facilities with a biological male identifying as a woman, whether or not that individual holds a gender recognition certificate, could potentially have a compensation claim. And any public body not moving immediately to fully implement the EHRC interim guidance puts itself at risk from a flood of litigation. JK Rowling's generosity means that any woman in that position will not lack the resources necessary to take a legal case. The cost to the public purse, both in terms of legal fees in defending any such actions and then in potential compensation payouts, could be enormous. The lack of awareness of the risks here – and the apparent absence of any sense of urgency – from both the Scottish Government and public bodies is quite staggering. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
The Independent
a day ago
- General
- The Independent
Liberty in legal action against equalities watchdog over gender consultation
Human rights group Liberty has accused Britain's equalities watchdog of trying to 'speed through sweeping changes' to guidance after the Supreme Court's ruling on biological sex. The campaign group said it has submitted legal papers to the High Court alleging the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) six-week consultation period on the new guidance is 'unlawful', with anything less than 12 weeks 'wholly insufficient'. The Supreme Court ruled in April that said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The equalities regulator published lengthy draft guidance earlier this month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports. The commission at that stage said it had tripled the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks, 'in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society'. But Liberty is arguing this is not long enough and 'there is no good reason why it should not be' at least 12 weeks. The human rights organisation said it sent a pre-action letter to the EHRC earlier this week and has now submitted legal papers to the High Court and is waiting to see if a judge decides whether to proceed to a hearing based on its arguments. The group said it is also arguing that by having a consultation period shorter than 12 weeks, the commission is 'in breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED)' to 'eliminate unlawful discrimination'. The latest attempted legal challenge comes two weeks after campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) said it had taken the first step of a legal challenge against the commission over the aspect of the guidance related to trans people's use of toilets, which it is arguing is 'wrong in law'. The interim guidance said trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets, although it added that trans people 'should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use'. More detailed draft guidance earlier this month indicated a birth certificate could be requested by a sports club or hospital if there is 'genuine concern' about what biological sex a person is. It said people can be asked to confirm their birth sex if it is 'necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations'. It cautioned that any such question 'should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'. The commission added that if there is 'genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested'. The consultation on the draft guidance runs until June 30, with women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson likely to be presented with the finished guidance for approval in July. Akiko Hart, Liberty's director, said: 'We have taken legal action today because the consultation period set out by the EHRC is unlawful. 'As a public body, the EHRC has a legal duty to conduct a fair and lawful consultation process that allows everyone affected by a decision enough time to respond to it. 'Instead, they have tried to speed through sweeping changes to their guidance, initially giving just two weeks to people to respond to nearly 60 pages of amendments when printed out. Anything less than a minimum of 12 weeks on this issue is wholly insufficient and simply does not comply with the law. 'The EHRC's guidance will have life-changing implications for how all of us access vital services, from jobs, schooling, social clubs we might join, all the way up to how the armed forces operate. In particular, it will fundamentally change the ways in which trans people are able to safely participate in society, as well as how businesses and service providers operate. 'It is a fundamental part of our democracy that we are all given a fair opportunity to make our voices heard about any decision that impacts us. We urge the EHRC to extend the consultation period to at least 12 weeks, just as its previous consultation on this code of practice was. There is no good reason why it should not be.' An EHRC spokesperson said: 'We are unable to comment on any legal action at this stage.'
STV News
a day ago
- Politics
- STV News
Scottish Government ordered to pay For Women Scotland's legal costs
The Scottish Government has been ordered to pay For Women's Scotland's legal costs from the landmark definition of a woman Supreme Court case. In April, the UK Supreme Court unanimously sided with the campaign group For Women Scotland and determined that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological women and sex. It has already affected how both governments and public bodies manage access to single-sex spaces like toilets and changing rooms. Following the ruling, a court order was handed down on Tuesday ordering the Scottish Government – who lost the case – to pay for at least part of the campaign group's court costs. The price tag for taxpayers is still unknown, but For Women Scotland estimated that it will cost a 'minimum of £250,000'. 'The courts have a basic formula to be followed in calculating the amount to be paid by the Scottish Ministers and that will also be subject to some negotiation between the two legal teams before a final figure is agreed,' a spokesperson for the campaign group said. For Women Scotland said they will likely bill the Scottish Government for about 60-70% of the actual costs, and they spent approximately £417,000 over the course of both the Supreme Court and Court of Sessions cases. It will be some months before this total is known and finalised, but these costs are likely on top of the case's previously reported £157,816 price tag for the Scottish Government. Earlier this month, a freedom of information request revealed that the Government had spent at least £374,000 fighting the landmark definition of woman case. The most recent UK Supreme Court case was set to cost the taxpayers £157,816 in legal fees, on top of the previously documented £216,182 costs from the initial legal challenges. 'Final costs in relation to the case are still being determined and are not yet available,' the Scottish Government said. 'We will publish the total cost of the case when it is fully complete.' The Supreme Court has stated that the total will be negotiated by For Women Scotland and the Scottish Government. The Court said it will step in and assess the costs if an agreement is not made. A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: 'The Scottish Government has received the Supreme Court's order in respect of costs and final costs for this case will be calculated and published in due course.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Popular UK festival angers fans with 'discriminatory' trans toilet policy
Following the UK Supreme Court's ruling in favour of For Women Scotland, Download festival shared its new policy to exclude trans people from their preferred bathrooms Download festival has caused a major uproar online after it made a controversial stance on attendee safety. The rock and metal festival in Donnington Park, Leicestershire, will host headliners Green Day, Poppy, and KoRn featuring Weezer, Sex Pistols with Frank Carter, and more between June 13 and 15. However, instead of the usual guidelines warning of heatwaves and crowds, Download festival has attempted to assure customers on their safety via bathrooms, promising to abide by biological toilets. The festival said in a statement: "We are proud of the reputation the Download community has in terms of diversity, and will always look to promote the safety and comfort of all festival attendees, including transgender and non-binary customers," before adding that they "will be following the interim guidance by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on April 25, 2025". This guidance states that "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities". Their new implementation appears to be influenced by the UK's Supreme Court's ruling in favour of the so-called 'gender critical' volunteer organisation For Women Scotland. This ruling defined 'woman' as a term categorised by a person's sex alone, thereby excluding the trans and non-binary communities from everyday spaces, such as public bathrooms. Ironically, the festival will be held right in the middle of Pride month, and trans acts and allies are not happy. Musician and singer, NOAHFINNCE took to socials on May 27 to speak out against the festival's policy. He posted on his Instagram story, writing: "Hey @downloadfest, what the f--k are you doing inviting trans people to play your festival but not allowing them the simple right of using the correct bathroom?" The singer also added that they had "a great time playing last year but will not be attending again if [they] have to queue up for the ladies' bathroom". Outraged over his "trans sisters hav[ing] to risk outing themselves in the men's bathroom," Noah stated that "all this does is put trans people in danger". Having came out to the public as a transgender man in 2017, he called others to join him in holding the festival accountable, writing: "If you're playing @downloadfest, attending it or even just aware of it, say something about it". NOAHFINNCE also tweeted on X, adding: "What the f--k are you doing? How have you got the gall to invite trans people like me to play your festival and then ban them from using the toilet? If the only way we can piss is by outing ourselves then you've created an unsafe environment". The festival 's previous act, American rock band, Pinkshift, also said that whilst playing at Download last year was "fun," the new decision is "crazy and so unsafe". On their Instagram story, they said: "What f--king music festival polices gendered bathrooms?" They proceeded to thank Noah "for being the only artist [they]'ve seen talk about this… if Download is part of your life then speak up, they think they can get away with discrimination in the ripe year of 2025". In response, Download told NME they "want everyone to feel safe, supported and welcome at the festival" and reassured festival goers that "the majority of toilets will be gender neutral and available to all" and that single sex toilets will also be provided. 'Download Festival has always been and remains for everyone. We sincerely apologise that a previous communication on this was not clear. We are looking forward to seeing you at Download this year," the statement concluded. The Mirror have reached out to Download festival for a response.
Daily Record
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Record
Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling
A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session. The Scottish Government has been ordered to pay costs and expenses to For Women Scotland after they brought a landmark legal case over the definition of a woman to the UK's highest court. A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session. Previously the campaign group said it expected to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. The Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act in a unanimous decision last month. They concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. For Woman Scotland revealed a screenshot of the court order - which marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017 - in a post on X. The dispute was sparked when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation. The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. For Women Scotland challenged this. They argued that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. The group, after an initial defeat, won on appeal in 2022 as judges ruled that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex - however, For Women Scotland launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers - but the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments. The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'. It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'. The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of For Women Scotland. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said: "Final court order underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success. Now indeed the rights of women (and LGB rights) 'merit some attention'." The Conservative Party previously revealed through a freedom of information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by the campaign group.
