Latest news with #JoannaCherryKC
Scotsman
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: Deluded gender activists need to be brought to book
A reader hits out at the National Library of Scotland's decision to pull The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht from its 'Dear Library' centenary exhibition 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... It is outrageous that the chief executive of the National Library of Scotland (NLS) has been so craven as to withdraw from its 'Dear Library' exhibition of 200 noteworthy books the much-praised The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht. This, as much as the Sandie Peggie case at NHS Fife, tells us how far a determined and deluded minority has permeated our institutions and, playing the victim, bullied people who should know better into acceding to their unjustified demands. First, this minority flies under the LGBT+ flag, but clearly its only interest is in the 'T.' Some lesbians, prominently Joanna Cherry KC, are strongly opposed to allowing biological males claiming to be women invading women's spaces, and are targets for trans activists. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Second, the NLS has 'an LGBT+ staff network', and also 'LGBT+ partners'. What does this mean? Has the NLS other 'networks' and 'partners' who can blackmail its management into anathematising inoffensive (to most) books? Wester Hailes librarians Jessi Dimmock and Susannah Leake celebrate the opening of the centenary exhibition 'Dear Library' on the main staircase of the National Library of Scotland (Picture: Neil Hannah) And now an Edinburgh Fringe venue, Summerhall, has apologised for allowing Kate Forbes to appear at one of their events because of her Christian views on sexuality. Those objecting to her presence were so fearful – presumably of contamination – that they established a 'safe room' while she was in the building. What a piece of nonsense! Clearly, they are so insecure in their views that they cannot contemplate engaging in dialogue or debate with those whose only sin is to disagree with them. If these people are so confident in their views, why do they need to silence and cancel those who have not shown or threatened violence of any kind but merely stated fundamental truths: biological fact is not an 'anti-trans ideology'; and you cannot change your sex. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh Turn back tide This state of affairs simply cannot go on ('School trans toilet advice is not lawful, says council', Scotsman, 15 August). Scotland's credibility has reached a tipping point with not only this fightback against the law but with ridiculous judgements being made to cancel shows, remove books or ban certain people's attendance at the Edinburgh Festival, all in the name of very flawed political 'correctness'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad By chance, the architect of much of this is appearing at this very festival to promote her new book. Nicola Sturgeon must take a huge amount of the responsibility for creating such a maelstrom of confusion. It is very simple. The majority decision of the public against this utter confusion is final. That is the only outcome that can possibly work. Why isn't Holyrood being recalled from its break to please get its act together and stop trying to fight against the tide? With power comes a huge responsibility to fix the mess it has created. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Legacy of fear Neil Anderson states that, re Nicola Sturgeon, 'evidence suggests that she went out of her way to keep Scotland informed in her clear communicative style' (Letters, 15 August). My take on this, and something I have heard many others say, was her drive to keep the nation petrified with a daily update of the number of cases, deaths and continually ordering the nation to stay at home, inducing maximum stress to those most vulnerable – the elderly and infirm, many of whom to this day are still in a state of worry and anxiety. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Now, we see a different Nicola – one where, Frankly – everyone is a bully, she was a victim. She has no legacy, only quotes which enraged a majority of the nation if you disagreed with her gender nonsense, a photoshoot of a ferry with painted-on windows and a cardboard funnel and a lot of taxpayers' money down the drain fighting unwinnable court cases. From day one in power, it was all about her, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps a decent legacy would be to apologise personally to Kate Forbes for creating the framework for her cancellation at Summerhall – or perhaps she too is 'terrified' to go anywhere near Scotland's only 5ft 2in ultimate street fighter! D Millar, Lauder, Scottish Borders Reid remembered George Reid was, as you rightly reported (14 August), an outstanding public servant. He was also my oldest friend stemming from 1959 when he was president of the Students Representative Council at St Andrews University and I held the same position at Edinburgh University. As students we travelled together with Donald Dewar to Kyiv, Leningrad and Moscow. Our wives Judy and Daphne happened to be at school and in the Guides together in Stirlingshire and we stayed with them in Geneva when George ran the International Red Cross. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We served together in the Commons and in the first Scottish Parliament he was my deputy and in the second my successor as Presiding Officer. I was pleased when the late Queen appointed him to join us as a Knight of the Thistle. We often talked about how our view of politics was similar though he started in the Labour Party and then moved to the SNP. He will be sorely missed. Lord Steel of Aikwood, Selkirk, Scottish Borders Picking cherries Oh dear! Andrew HN Gray, never one to get pesky facts get in the way of climate change denial and being anti-anything that looks suspiciously 'eco', has reiterated the internet legend cherry picking newspapers articles regarding the Arctic Seas getting 'hot' in 1922 and the Arctic melting in 1949 (Letters, 14 August). The point has always been that between then and now that process has sped up so drastically, in such a short space of time, it cannot be anything other than man-made, not a 'natural cycle', and it is long past the stage those old enough to know better ceased their tiresome fingers in ears la-la-laing just because they dislike the sandal-wearing lentil-munching smug cultist weirdos that are its loudest mouthpieces. Mark Boyle, Johnstone, Renfrewshire VJ Day While the United States commemorates VJ Day on 2 September, when the surrender documents were signed, it would have been appropriate if President Trump had attended a UK event yesterday – and would also have re-emphasised, before any meeting with Putin, that the aggressor in such unjustified wars must not benefit from subsequent ceasefire and peace agreements. John Birkett, St Andrews, Fife Peace summit Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It's perhaps no coincidence that the Trump, Putin summit in Alaska took place on VJ Day. The horrific destruction, obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, made the world vow 'never again'. Yet we now find ourselves in a world arming itself for a nuclear war. The decision by Europe to increase spending on nuclear weapons, overtly to defend ourselves against Russian aggression, increases its likelihood. An unlikely source of peace comes in the form of Vladimir Putin. While Donald Trump winged it alone for the summit, Putin met with his senior advisors. What emerged from that meeting was the decision to broaden the summit's agenda to include steps back from the increasing nuclear threat. The proposal would be a nuclear weapon control treaty, involving all nuclear powers. It would be ironic in the extreme if Russia offered itself as the world's chief peacemaker. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Reading matters I wonder who was First Minister at the time Learn Together Scotland's schools volunteering scheme folded? To the best of my knowledge there is no current Scottish scheme for volunteers to help children with their reading. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Bookmark Reading Charity (based in London) has a scheme for in-person (in certain areas of England) and online support for children at English schools; they welcome volunteers from Scotland. Reading and book festivals are great – but some children need extra support before they can benefit from them. Libraries and other organisations, such as the Scottish Book Trust, do a great job in helping as best they can. But oh that we had financial and other support for literacy at Scottish Government level! There were, and I am sure still are, volunteers who care enough to give of their time and energy. Moyra Forrest, Edinburgh Flower power There's another reason for letting the second verse of Flower of Scotland be sung a capella at Murrayfield (Scotsman, 15 August). The bagpipes can't play the tune as written. Roy Williamson wrote the song with a very Scottish sounding chord on the word 'think' but the drone bagpipes can't play that chord. Consequently, with the pipe band, you hear the wrong tune, their version being much too cosy and relaxed. However, when the crowd takes over, the full Scottishness of the tune is revealed! So you can see how an initial mistake has given way to a much better rendition. Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh Chips ahoy Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Delighted to see that Bill Greenock's daughter has made a successful transition from a catering course to a stellar career in computing (Letters, 15 August). I daresay I speak for many when I say we're all keeping our fingers crossed that in her new job she doesn't absent-mindedly put the chips into a pan of boiling fat. Robert Menzies, Falkirk Write to The Scotsman
The National
6 days ago
- Politics
- The National
National Library of Scotland debunks claim it 'banned' gender-critical book
The institution came under fire after media claims that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht – a collection of essays written by activists including JK Rowling, former MP Joanna Cherry KC, and MSP Ash Regan – had been excluded from a major exhibition. The Times ran a front page headline which read: 'Censorship row as library bans gender-critical book.' The paper further reported that the National Library had 'banned a book about feminists' fight against Nicola Sturgeon's gender self-ID law'. READ MORE: Negative media attention 'making it hard to recruit staff' to gender clinics The claims centred on the 'Dear Library' exhibition, in which 200 books out of 523 nominated by the public were selected for display to mark the library's 100th anniversary. The other 323 books – one of which was The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht – were placed on shelves in an open reading room, according to the National Library. Refuting that amounted to a ban, a spokesperson for the institution said: "Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book as well as the 200 other titles that were not selected for display. A full list of those publications is available as part of the exhibition. 'Libraries are vital places where people can access all kinds of publications for free, and form their own opinions.' Harry Potter author JK Rowling was one of the contributors to the gender-critical book (Image: PA) Freedom of Information papers reportedly showed that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht book had received four nominations for the 200-title centenary display, while just two were required to secure inclusion. However, bosses at the library decided not to give the gender-critical book a prominent slot after concerns were raised by the LGBT+ staff network. The network had warned on May 27 that they would have 'no choice' but to notify LGBT+ groups of the library's 'endorsement' if it went on display. The previous week, an Equality Impact Assessment had said that excluding the book risked allegations of censorship – but said that there would be a risk of backlash and protest if it was included. READ MORE: Kate Forbes faces ban from major Scottish arts venue over trans views National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to 'the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library'. Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed. Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who edited The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, wrote to National Library bosses with their concerns. 'You felt unable to stand up to these threats from some of your staff, who also invoked the risk of further disruption from external activists, other parts of the local literary establishment and possibly your funders. In response, you sacrificed our book, and your principles,' the pair said.
The Herald Scotland
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Scottish Government ordered to pay For Women Scotland costs
For Women Scotland (FWS) has previously said it expects to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. READ MORE Scottish Government spent £374k on gender court battle Parliament defends 'inclusive' trans toilet ban after MSPs and staff complain 'Not divisive': Tory candidate in Hamilton by-election defends Orange Order ties In a unanimous decision last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The justices concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The decision marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017, 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'. FWS challenged this, arguing that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. After an initial defeat, the group won on appeal in 2022, with judges ruling that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex. Read the exclusive follow up to this story from Andrew Learmonth: FWS launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Although the Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers, 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 FWS. A previous freedom of information request by the Conservative Party revealed that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by FWS. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said the order 'underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
Daily Record
27-05-2025
- 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.
Press and Journal
20-05-2025
- Business
- Press and Journal
St Fittick's Park campaigners lose latest legal bid to overturn council ruling
Campaigners who want to stop the potential development of a beloved city park have lost a legal bid at Scotland's highest civil court to overturn a council ruling about the site. The activists believe Aberdeen City Council shouldn't allow St Fittick's Park in Torry to be developed. They went to the Court of Session in July 2024, hoping that judge Lord Fairley would overturn a decision made by the local authority in September 2023 The campaigners believe that councillors were wrong to give the go head for formal talks with businesses over creating an Energy Transition Zone at the green space. The scheme is seen by its supporters as a means of helping to diversify the North-east economy. Opponents of the scheme maintain that the local authority failed to carry out a public sector equality assessment aimed at finding out the impact it would have on groups such as the young, elderly and disabled. Lord Fairley dismissed the legal bid, saying that the local authority wasn't obliged to conduct such an assessment at that point in time. He concluded that the council at that point in time was gathering information and this meant it didn't have any obligations to conduct this assessment. This prompted the campaigners to go to the Inner House of the Court of Session – Scotland's highest civil appeal court. Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC told judges Lord Malcolm, Lord Armstrong and Lord Clark that their colleague had misinterpreted the law. However, in a written judgement issued by the court on Tuesday, the judges rejected the arguments made to them by Ms Cherry. Lord Malcolm, who delivered the opinion, wrote: 'It is plain that not every decision by a public body requires an equality impact assessment; were it otherwise public administration would grind to a halt. 'The determining factor here is whether the proposition that the resolution was a policy decision which approved development of the Park is well-founded. 'In our view it is not. We have not identified any flaw in the Lord Ordinary's reasoning. The resolution of September 11 2023 concerning the Park occurred in the policy context of it having already been designated in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan as potentially suitable for development, including industrial use. 'That designation was not challenged. Any development of the park is contingent on the grant of planning permission and a Council resolution to lease the Park. Unlike the resolution of September 11 2023, both of those decisions carry the potential to create substantive legal rights. 'However, the resolution under challenge involves no more than the ingathering of information in the light of a policy decision already made and which may, or may not, lead to a process which does engage the public service equality duty. 'It cannot be said that, in the absence of a specific proposal, the view that an equality impact assessment was not required was unreasonable or erroneous in law. 'As submitted for the Council, it was entitled to await details as to any proposed development, including the economic and social effects; potential mitigations; any community benefits; and the potential for re-investment arising from a transaction.' In proceedings last year, solicitor advocate Mike Dailly, for the campaigners, argued that the council failed to carry out an impact assessment and the loss of the amenity could impact health and well-being. The judicial review was carried out in the name of a man called Simon McLean, who was described in Tuesday's judgement as being a resident of Torry and who used the park for 'recreational, health and general wellbeing purposes.' Aberdeen City Council opposed the legal move and maintained that the challenge was 'premature'. Lawyers for the council argued that the decision made by the council meant that it did not need to perform such an assessment. The lawyers argued that the process voted for on September 11 would allow the council to have the information it needed to perform the assessment at a later date. Niall McLean, for the council, said at this stage it was not known what use the site would be put, how it would impact the community or how funds might be available to benefit the community. He said these were all highly relevant factors to be taken into account that an impact assessment was to be carried out. Lord Fairley published a judgment upholding the arguments made to him by the council's legal team. In the latest judgement, published on Thursday, Lord Malcolm concluded that the action must fail. He added: 'For these reasons the reclaiming motion is refused. 'We adhere to the Lord Ordinary's refusal of the petition in his interlocutor of August 7 2024.'
