Latest news with #JudiciaryandCourts(Scotland)Act2008
Spectator
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
The Maggie Chapman saga is a new low for the Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament's equalities committee has voted against removing Green MSP Maggie Chapman as deputy convenor following her attack on the Supreme Court. At a rally in Aberdeen in the wake of the judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers, in which Lord Hodge found for a unanimous panel that the term 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex, Chapman, an outspoken advocate of gender ideology, decried 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court'. This prompted the Faculty of Advocates to call for Chapman's resignation as deputy convenor of the Holyrood committee responsible for equalities legislation, human rights and civil justice. The legal body accused the Green MSP of an 'egregious breach' of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which states that MSPs 'must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.' Chapman has been defiant, saying that she appeared at the rally not in her capacity as deputy convenor but as an MSP representing her trans and non-binary constituents.
Daily Mail
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Maggie Chapman is a political horror show who would embarrass a parliament more worthy of the name
I have spent longer than I care to remember documenting the ineptitudes and inadequacies of the Scottish Parliament. Years upon years given to gathering evidence of the sundry ways in which an over-sold institution has under-delivered — and then some. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of columns marshalling my case that devolution was a historic error and that, far from closing the 'democratic deficit', it has rent open a new chasm between the Scottish public and a remote, unaccountable elite at Holyrood. A life's work. And along comes Maggie Chapman and makes my job obsolete. Because who needs me to point out the absurdity of a parliament to which Chapman is capable of getting elected? Who needs to be told that Holyrood's committee system is weak, ineffectual and unfit for purpose when Chapman is not only a member of the equalities, human rights and civil justice committee but its deputy convenor? Chapman is not some oddity who wandered in off the street. She is the living, breathing, rainbow-lanyarded embodiment of devolution and its elevation of a class of self-righteous mediocrities and self-deluding cranks who believe they can solve world peace when they can't even solve A&E waiting times. The Scottish Green MSP will face an attempt this week to remove her as deputy convenor. The Conservatives want her gone for her outrageous comments on the Supreme Court in the wake of its landmark ruling clarifying that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. At a rally of gender activists in Edinburgh, Chapman decried the 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court'. I'm with the Tories on this one: Maggie, Maggie, Maggie — out, out out. And not just the Tories. The Faculty of Advocates issued a rare statement denouncing her 'appalling comments' as 'outrageous' as well as 'irresponsible and reprehensible'. The legal professionals' association accused Chapman of 'fail[ing] to respect the rule of law', 'creat[ing] a risk of danger to the members of the Court', and even 'an egregious breach' of the law. The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 says members of the Holyrood parliament 'must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary'. The Faculty has called her comments 'incompatible' with her continued role as deputy convenor. There are some who view this as a freedom of speech issue, and it's important to address that charge. Judges should not be above reproach. In an open society, people must be at liberty to critique, decry, mock and insult all aspects of the state, and that includes the courts. That goes for a member of the public just as much as a renowned legal scholar. If anything, we are a little too delicate about adverse commentary on the judiciary, who are a more resilient lot than they're given credit for. The difference here is that Chapman is an MSP and, what's more, deputy convenor of a committee intimately involved in equalities legislation. She has obligations under the 2008 Act. Still, in the view of this layman, these obligations should not preclude MSPs from critiquing judgments. Criticising court rulings does not imperil the independence of the judiciary where those criticisms relate to the proper application of the law and are expressed in measured, respectful tones. If Chapman believed the Court had erred in its interpretation of, say, the Sex Discrimination Regulations 1999, and had said so in those terms, there would have been none of this furore. Instead, she attacked the motivations of the justices in the most incendiary way possible. Words have meaning and the meaning of the words she used is difficult to dispute. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines bigotry as 'the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life'. Similarly, it describes prejudice as 'an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge'. As for hatred, it is 'an extremely strong feeling of dislike'. Each term identifies the Court with instincts and biases that are at odds with a judicial temperament. To use such language against Lord Hodge and his colleagues is to imply they were not interpreting statutes but substituting their own personal, hateful preferences. They were, in effect, discriminating against trans people from the bench purely because they don't like them. Every MSP who votes to keep Chapman on as deputy convenor is endorsing this character assassination. They are saying that this is acceptable behaviour in politics, that their committee aspires to the lofty discursive heights of an ill-tempered Facebook post. They are also setting a precedent for parliamentarians to speak in similar terms about court judgments they disfavour. An MSP who accuses judges of a 'two tier' approach to sentencing could expect a scolding from the Faculty of Advocates but no one who backs Chapman would have any standing to do likewise. Lower standards for your mates and you lower them for your foes too. Maggie Chapman is not worth lowering your standards for. She is a political horror show who would embarrass a parliament more worthy of the name. In response to the October 7 attack on Israel, she shared a tweet from another X user that read: 'Don't let the Western media fool you into thinking it's terrorism, this is decolonisation.' October 7 saw Palestinian terrorists slaughter 1,200 Israelis, including children, while also raping women, kidnapping babies, and shooting family pets. Chapman later expressed 'regret' that her soft-peddling of the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Shoah caused 'significant upset and anger for some'. She supported a 2022 Scottish Green motion to suspend ties with the Green Party of England and Wales over its supposed 'transphobic rhetoric and conduct'. Asked whether the age limit should be lowered to allow eight-year-olds to change their sex legally, she said: 'I think in principle we should be exploring that.' When Pam Gosal objected to LGBT Youth Scotland promoting 'trans ideology' in primary schools, Chapman said the Tory MSP's complaint was 'categorically more of a risk to children'. Chapman was born in what is now Harare, Zimbabwe. It's some achievement to be the most ludicrous politician your country has produced when the competition is Robert Mugabe. The equalities committee ought to ditch its deputy convenor in favour of someone less prone to throwing tantrums when a court won't give them their own way. A committee that keeps Chapman on as deputy convenor is either saying it agrees with her or that it can't find someone capable of replacing her. I'm honestly not sure which is worse. Whatever faith I had in Holyrood's ability to drag itself out of the mire and become a parliament Scotland could respect has long since depleted. But MSPs owe it to the people who send them there to at least try to improve the quality and the dignity of the institution. Standing up for the independence of the judiciary should not be a daunting task for parliamentarians who care about the rule of law. I doubt any Supreme Court justice had heard of Maggie Chapman before this row erupted. Judges are not the audience MSPs are being asked to consider. When they come to vote on Chapman's future, it is the Scottish public who will be watching and hoping their representatives do something right for once.
The National
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The National
Green MSP 'breached law with attack on Supreme Court gender ruling'
Maggie Chapman, an MSP for North East Scotland and deputy convener of Holyrood's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, sparked anger after addressing a trans rights protest held in Aberdeen over the weekend. She told activists opposing the ruling that sex in the 2010 Equality Act is biological: 'We say 'not in our name' to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society. Not in our name, never in our name.' READ MORE: Labour 'set to oversee highest child poverty levels ever,' Keir Starmer warned The Faculty of Advocates, a historic body which represents Scotland's lawyers, has now intervened with a damning letter to Chapman accusing her of breaching the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 – under which MSPs must uphold the independence of the judiciary. The faculty's dean, Roddy Dunlop, also wrote to SNP MSP Karen Adam – the convenor of Holyrood's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee – asking her to consider Chapman's position as her deputy. Dunlop said the Faculty of Advocates was fulfilling 'its duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary when it comes under attack: especially given the constitutional restrictions which prevent the judiciary from defending itself publicly'. Roddy Dunlop is the dean of the faculty of advocates (Image: Faculty of Advocates) He went on: In light of the above, it was with considerable concern and dismay that we read reports of Ms Chapman MSP addressing a public gathering in the wake of the recent ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. In video footage which is circulating widely online, she is seen to condemn what she claims is the 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court'. 'These are appalling comments to come from any elected politician. They are all the worse when they come from someone who holds the post of deputy convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. 'It really should not require to be said, but the Supreme Court – indeed, all judges – are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath. 'For Ms Chapman to claim that they were swayed by 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' is outrageous. We are talking about the apex court of these islands, in this instance made up of a bench which included two of Scotland's finest legal minds, as well as two women. No sensible person could read their dispassionate analysis and conclude that they were swayed by such matters.' Dunlop said that Chapman's comments 'not only' breached the 2008 act, but that they 'go further than that, and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves'. 'This behaviour is irresponsible and reprehensible,' he added. Dunlop cited previous moments when the faculty had issued statements on political events, such as when the Daily Mail ran its 'enemies of the people' headline about judges ruling on Brexit, or when the Tories attacked 'activist' lawyers. He went on: 'This is no different. Indeed, in attributing such emotive descriptions as 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' to the judges of the Supreme Court, Ms Chapman's attack is far worse. READ MORE: 'A woman is an adult female': Keir Starmer breaks Supreme Court silence 'In these circumstances, we respectfully request Ms Chapman to reflect on her words, and whether they allow her to properly discharge her responsibilities as deputy convenor in line with the impartiality requirements of the guidance on committees issued by the Scottish Parliament. 'As to the former, we suggest that a fulsome and swift apology is warranted. As to the latter, and notwithstanding that the requirements apply only whilst acting in the capacity of convenor, we suggest that her comments are not compatible with her role as deputy convenor, or, arguably, her continued membership of the committee.' Dunlop concluded: 'Faculty very much regrets having to write this letter. However, Ms Chapman's words have left it with no choice. Her behaviour in this instance is utterly beyond the pale.' The Scottish Greens have been asked for comment.
The Herald Scotland
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Maggie Chapman accuses Supreme Court of 'bigotry'
The court said that 'man' and 'woman' in that Act refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. Speaking at a protest about the judgment in Aberdeen over the weekend, Green MSP Maggie Chapman accused the justices of 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred.' She told the crowd: 'And we say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society.' Read more: The comments were branded 'disgraceful' by Akua Reindorf KC, a Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She said: 'As a lawyer I am deeply concerned to see an elected politician publicly undermining the separation of powers in our democracy with irresponsible and entirely false allegations of bigotry and hatred against the judiciary. Disgraceful.' As a lawyer I am deeply concerned to see an elected politician publicly undermining the separation of powers in our democracy with irresponsible and entirely false allegations of bigotry and hatred against the judiciary. Disgraceful. — Akua Reindorf KC (@akuareindorf) April 21, 2025 Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry said it was 'wholly inappropriate for any parliamentarian to speak about the judiciary in this way.' 'This person is not fit to convene a parliamentary committee on equalities, human rights & justice,' she added. 'She should resign her position.' Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, MSPs have a legal obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. The Green politician could potentially be referred to the Scottish Parliament's Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for possible breaches of the MSP Code of Conduct, which includes duties to uphold the rule of law and respect the institutions of government. The calls for Ms Chapman to quit as deputy convenor come as the Committee also faces mounting criticism over its 2022 scrutiny of the SNP's Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill. At the time, MSPs dismissed and downplayed concerns from feminist groups about the legal significance of the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. In a letter to Ms Johnstone and all members of the Equalities Committee, the policy group Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM) said: 'The Committee not only failed to identify the interaction of the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act as a critical matter for the Bill, but actively dismissed this as a relevant issue,' the group wrote. 'The choices made by the Committee in the handling of the Bill reduced the quality and usefulness of its scrutiny. The Committee became a contributor and key player in increasing tensions around this topic.' READ MORE: MSPs passed the GRR Bill in December 2023. The aim of the legislation was to simplify and speed up the process for a trans person to obtain a GRC and change their legal sex. Under the current system, the process takes at least two years, involves a medical diagnosis, and is only available to those aged 18 and over. The SNP legislation would have cut the waiting time to six months and lowered the age threshold to 16. It also proposed scrapping the medical diagnosis requirement, bringing in a form of self-identification. However, before it could become law, the then-Tory Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, blocked it by using the first-ever order under Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act. During the Bill's passage in 2022, multiple submissions raised concerns about how changing the process to acquire a GRC might affect access to single-sex services and legal protections for women under the Equality Act. Despite this, the Committee accepted assurances from Scottish Government officials and advocacy groups that this was not the case, describing the change as merely bureaucratic. They also argued that the Equality Act's exemptions — which allow some trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces — would remain in place.' Then Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison repeatedly told MSPs the legislation would have no impact on the Equality Act. She said: 'It could not have, because the 2010 Act is reserved, and we would not want it to, because we think that the exceptions are important.' She continued: 'The fundamental rights that protect transgender people, which are reserved under the 2010 Act, remain the same. They will be the same on the day before the Bill becomes legislation and on the day after it becomes legislation — if it does, as I hope it will.' However, in court proceedings running parallel to parliamentary scrutiny, the Scottish Government adopted a different position — arguing that someone who obtained a GRC had changed their legal sex under the Equality Act. MBM said this contradiction was not made clear to MSPs, with the then committee convenor ruling discussion of it "out of scope." They also accused the Committee of taking 'no action' to ensure members were properly informed of a key Court of Session judgment when, in December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled that sex was 'not limited to biological or birth sex' and could include those with a GRC. READ MORE: The Committee recently wrote to several stakeholders asking them to respond to last week's judgment. MBM said the process appeared selective, noting that several organisations who had intervened in the case — including Scottish Lesbians, Amnesty International, Sex Matters, and the LGB Alliance — were excluded from the initial round of contact. The Committee gave recipients just three working days to respond. While letters to ministers in the Scottish and UK governments, the EHRC, and the Equality Network acknowledged the tight deadline and said they understood recipients 'may not immediately be in a position to provide a full response,' the letter to For Women Scotland — the only volunteer group contacted — did not. MBM said: 'The Committee's failure to discharge its responsibilities properly in 2022 should not be repeated in its handling of the Supreme Court judgment. We are concerned that the letters sent on Thursday evening do not bode well for how some members plan to use their platform on the Committee in the weeks ahead. 'Nor does behaviour now reported by the Deputy Convener this weekend, who referred to 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' coming from the Supreme Court. 'In our view, the Committee now presents an urgent reputational issue for the Parliament as a whole. For that reason, we are copying this letter to the Presiding Officer in her capacity as the chair of the Conveners' Group. 'The people of Scotland are entitled to expect of any committee of the Scottish Parliament a serious, legally well-founded and evidence-based response to the judgment, which fully respects that women have rights based, as the Supreme Court has now left in no doubt, on their sex.' Susan Smith of For Women Scotland said: 'Naturally, we cannot help but notice the rudeness with which we were addressed compared to the paid lobbyists, and we fear it was deliberate. Clearly, the convener does not consider that our time is valuable. 'The ruling is very clear and we aren't really sure what the committee hopes to understand or if this is simply an opening salvo in a continued determination to ignore or misunderstand the law. 'The inflammatory rhetoric from Maggie Chapman this weekend about the judiciary is damaging to the reputation of Holyrood and to the Committee in particular. It behoves all MSPs to remember that under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, members of the Scottish Parliament must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary." She added: 'Unless Ms Chapman resigns, we fear that the Equalities and Human Rights Committee will be unfit to oversee the development of human rights legislation in our Parliament.' A spokesperson for the Scottish Greens said: 'With two public consultations and months of evidence-gathering and committee discussion, the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was one of the most scrutinised bills the Scottish Parliament has ever passed. And it was voted for by MSPs from across the Chamber before being undemocratically blocked by Westminster. 'We have no regrets about backing the reform, which is already normal in a number of other countries. It would have been a simple step that would have made a big difference to the lives of trans people. 'We cannot speak for the Equalities Committee, but we assume that they will be reflecting upon the decision and will provide an update on it in time. 'Last week's ruling has caused a great deal of concern, particularly for trans people and their loved ones who are concerned about seeing long-held rights being rolled back and about the hostility and culture war being waged against them.' A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: 'The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has received correspondence from Murray Blackburn Mackenzie. As with all correspondence, the Committee will consider it and provide a response in due course.'
