Latest news with #RosieDuffield
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The trans war tearing Labour apart
Earlier this week, Jan Baxter stood on stage at the Public and Commercial Services Union conference at the Brighton Centre and spoke about an encounter she'd had the previous day with 'a male-bodied person' in the female toilets at the venue. 'He laughed when I challenged him,' she told the auditorium. 'You know this is wrong. You know this is illegal. You know that women very rarely challenge big men in the toilets because women are socialised not to challenge men when they are in a vulnerable situation. 'I am here to tell you that there are many, many women within our union, within the Labour movement and within the trade union movement, who welcome the Cass Review, who welcome the Sullivan Report and who definitely welcome the Supreme Court ruling because it clarifies everything for all of us.' Her defiant speech was punctuated with loud boos and jeers from several of the delegates in the room. Yet many others applauded and approached her afterwards to express their support. It was a moment that might illustrate just how divided unions – and indeed the Labour Party itself – have become when it comes to the issue of gender identity and women's rights. Last month, when the Supreme Court ruling clarified that sex in law meant 'biological sex', some naively assumed that it might finally put to rest this thorniest of issues in Labour's side. But it seems that if anything, tensions have been ramped up rather than tempered. This week, the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) voted that women officer roles and all-women shortlists would be limited to biological women. It was a remarkable volte face from its 2018 decision that 'self-identifying' trans women (biological men who could simply declare themselves women without any surgery or medical treatment) were eligible for Labour's all-women shortlists and other roles. In a further twist, the NEC also decided to postpone the women's conference planned for September – leading to criticism from both trans activists (who had been planning to protest at the event) and women's groups alike. Labour Women's Declaration, which campaigns for women's rights, said that while it was pleased that the party 'had at long last decided to follow the advice we had been giving them since 2019 and comply with the Equality Act 2010', it added that the cancellation of the conference was 'ridiculous and unnecessary'. 'The absence of the democratic process for women this year, as a result of this postponement, is appalling and fails to recognise the importance of women's voices within the Labour Party,' they said in a statement. 'The party must now address this as a matter of urgency.' Meanwhile, LGBT groups such as Pride in Labour condemned the new emphasis on biological sex as a 'blatant attack on trans rights' and 'an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the labour movement more widely'. Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, who has been a fierce critic of her former party on the issue of women's rights, says that the decision to postpone the conference was 'shameful and potentially unlawful'. 'This is reminiscent of another century,' she says. 'There has been no clear reason given for the ban, so is it simply because the Labour Party refuses to exclude men, as the law states, or that they are afraid of potential male protests, or even violence and are refusing to deal with that? 'Either way, I no longer equate being a feminist with being involved with the Labour Party, who still so obviously have a serious problem with women, which comes from the very top. It shows the utter disregard they still have for women's place within the Labour movement, and women's political activism. 'For years, we had to fight for recognition within unions, to organise together, for greater representation in politics. And now that the law couldn't be clearer, they have effectively silenced women yet again.' While Sir Keir Starmer and colleagues such as Wes Streeting and Bridget Phillipson have publicly welcomed the clarification of the law, opposition to the ruling within the party seems to run deep. Last month, four Labour MPs – Charlotte Nichols, Kate Osborne, Olivia Blake and Nadia Whittome – signed a trans-rights pledge that appeared to criticise the ruling. Front benchers Chris Bryant and Dame Angela Eagle also railed against remarks made by Baroness Falkner, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). She had said the ruling meant trans women would be banned from women's single-sex spaces. In a leaked WhatsApp message, Eagle warned that EHRC guidance on the issue might be 'catastrophic' and warned that there were 'signs that some public bodies are overreacting' to the Supreme Court decision. Mandy Clare, a former Labour councillor from Cheshire, was elected onto Labour's National Women's Committee in 2020 but left the party after being deselected and taken through a disciplinary for alleged transphobia. 'I highly suspect the cancellation of the women's conference this year is yet another cynical, controlling and possibly vindictive move by the party, at the behest of activists, to again remind women of their place,' she says. 'Women within the Labour Party have to dance to the men's rights tune or expect to be abused and discarded.' Clare, who is now a councillor for Reform, believes that some Labour MPs have 'emboldened' trans activism with their behaviour. 'Starmer owes all women an apology,' she says. 'Those Labour MPs who have called women names and decided we were witches, without even bothering to check basic crime statistics and evidence, not only lack common sense or any respect or understanding for what it means to be a woman in a world that is still male-dominated, they have – by their actions – emboldened the type of man who threatens to hang or punch women and allowed this go unpunished. It's hard to compute what we have been living through – and it's not over.' Some insiders even claim that because of the magnitude of the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on Labour, party figures are working behind the scenes to undermine it. 'An interesting aspect of this is because Labour is one of the few political parties which has extensive positive actions policies for women in terms of lists and quotas and women's branches, women's officers etc, it is more heavily impacted by the Supreme Court ruling,' says one source. Another claims: 'The Labour Party will push through the fully trans inclusive conversion therapy Bill as well as the data Bill, which is effectively self-identity. There are many LGBT+ Labour activists running the show who have very serious influence at Labour Party HQ and they're invested in achieving LGBT+ aims. Worse is yet to come.' Labour's data Bill, which is in its final stages before becoming law, will allow people to prove their identity and facts about themselves by using a new voluntary Government app. Women's rights campaigners have been warning ministers that the legislation will play havoc with the ability of companies such as gym chains and public bodies like the NHS and police to ascertain someone's sex – just after the Supreme Court ruling intended to bring much-needed clarity. Dee McCullogh, a member of Lesbian Labour, says that the division and tension within the party needs to be tackled from the top – putting the spotlight on Starmer. 'For 15 years the law has been incorrectly administered and finally we have some clarity – which is great – but then the Labour Party has a knee-jerk response [by cancelling the women's conference] and it feels like a kick in the stomach,' she says. 'It's like saying to women: 'Yes of course you can play football but you can't have any matches'. It's so insulting. 'This whole thing has been about capitulation to the bullying from a loud group of trans activists, not the tiny percentage of people with genuine gender dysphoria. Lesbians in particular were central to the Supreme Court ruling and no one has apologised to us for the distress and harms caused to lesbians, who, over the last 15 years have lost our community and single sex spaces. 'The Government really needs to clamp down on this bullying. You can't have MPs and people within the judiciary saying they are not going to follow the law. What sort of democracy can you run if people are simply going to say they know the speed limit is 30mph but they are going to drive at 60mph anyway? The Labour leadership needs to listen to its membership, not just the bullies because as You Gov polls show, the majority of people agree with the Supreme Court decision.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Chancellor sidesteps calls to reverse cuts to winter fuel allowance and benefits
Rachel Reeves has sidestepped calls to help those in fuel and food poverty by reversing winter fuel allowance cuts and the two-child benefit cap. The Chancellor said she would 'never' make a policy commitment without being able to say where the money is coming from after claiming the Government has 'returned stability back' to the UK economy. Ms Reeves also said the Government had to take 'difficult decisions and urgent decisions' following last summer's election as she responded to MPs urging her to change course. Reports have suggested ministers could remove the two-child benefit cap or reconsider its decision to means-test the winter fuel payment for pensioners, as a means of placating rebellious Labour MPs. Ms Reeves told LBC that she is 'listening' to the concerns 'about the level at which the winter fuel payment is removed', which hinted at possible changes to the threshold. Speaking at Treasury questions, Independent MP Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) told the Commons: 'Westminster is once again buzzing with the latest U-turn speculation and briefings over the Chancellor's policies on the winter fuel allowance and the two-child limit benefits cap. 'It's less of a buzz for those visitors to Canterbury Food Bank, however, who last month distributed enough food to make 13,545 meals – a 47% rise on the same period last year. 'Will the Chancellor end the serious anxiety of those experiencing fuel and food poverty now and reverse those policies?' Ms Reeves replied to her former Labour colleague: 'The only reason that we've been able to grow the economy and get those cuts in interest rates, which helped working families in Canterbury and right across our country, is to have returned stability back to our economy and that means never making a policy commitment without being able to say where the money is coming from; that is what got our country into a mess under the previous government. 'So we've set out the policies that we needed to put investment into the NHS and to secure our public finances.' Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Daisy Cooper said: 'Yesterday the Chancellor said that she understands the concerns that some people have about the limit at which the winter fuel payment is removed. 'In light of that, does the Chancellor now agree that restricting the eligibility so tightly was a mistake?' Ms Reeves replied: 'When I became Chancellor last year we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances not at some year in the future but in the financial year that we were already three or four months into. 'It meant that we had to make difficult decisions and urgent decisions to put our public finances back on a firm footing because unlike the party opposite we will never play fast and loose with the public finances.' Labour MP Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) called for a wealth tax. He said: 'To alleviate grinding penury for millions the Chancellor could introduce an annual wealth tax on multimillionaires that would raise approximately £24 billion per annum – yet the Chancellor refuses to entertain this, but does consider cuts to welfare as acceptable. 'Why do 'tough political choices' always seem to impact those who are most vulnerable?' Ms Reeves replied: 'At the budget last year we increased the rate of tax on non-doms, we increased capital gains tax, we increased the carried interest on bonuses and we also introduced VAT on private schools. 'This Government is ensuring that wealthiest pay their fair share because that's a basic Labour principle.' Shadow chancellor Mel Stride pressed Ms Reeves on her future tax proposals, asking: 'Can the Chancellor explain what the economic secretary (Emma Reynolds) meant last week when she said that there will be 'no tax rises on individuals at the autumn budget', and can she similarly confirm that there will be no tax increases on businesses?' Ms Reeves replied: 'In our manifesto we set out that we would not increase taxes on working people – the income tax, national insurance or VAT that they pay – and it's why we also reversed the decision by the previous government to increase fuel duty, which would have had a disastrous effect on working people in our country. 'We will set out all other tax policy at the budget.' Elsewhere in the session, Ms Reeves said the Government believes the UK's new trade deal with the EU will bring down bills for consumers. Labour MP Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) said: 'The European emissions trading scheme has a carbon price 50% higher than the UK's price. 'What assessment has the Chancellor made of the impact of joining this scheme will have on inflation in this country?' Ms Reeves replied: 'Sometimes the UK carbon price has been higher, sometimes it's been lower than the carbon price in the EU. But what this deal will ensure is a bigger market which on average brings prices down. 'We're confident that the deal secured yesterday will bring more good jobs and will bring down bills for consumers.'
Telegraph
20-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories
The Houses of Parliament have refused to ban trans women from female lavatories despite the Supreme Court's gender ruling. A spokesman told The Telegraph that the House of Commons would be waiting for guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission before changing its rules. He said they wanted to ensure that all are treated in an 'inclusive manner'. The House of Lords said it would be adopting a similar approach. But the women's rights group Sex Matters said the statement was a 'humiliating blow for women who visit or work in Parliament' and risked allowing biological men to enter women's facilities to 'intimidate' them. And former Labour MP Rosie Duffield warned the Commons that it was not 'above the law'. The Supreme Court ruled in April that legally a trans woman does not count as a woman, and that the word 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex and not gender identity. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) then put out interim guidance to organisations to underline that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities'. A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the judgment. The Football Association, for example, has said trans women would be banned from women's sport. But other organisations, including the NHS, have said they are awaiting guidance from the EHRC. Now the Telegraph can reveal that the House of Commons has also refused to change its guidance. A spokesman said: 'Like many organisations, we are awaiting full guidance from the EHRC on this issue. 'However, in advance of that we are reviewing the facilities that are available on the estate and providing support to colleagues where needed. We are committed to treating all those who work in or visit Parliament with respect, and in an inclusive manner.' 'Humiliating blow for women' Asked why the Commons had decided not to follow the EHRC's interim guidance, the spokesman said there was no comment. A spokesman for the House of Lords said the Upper House was 'taking a similar approach to the House of Commons'. Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'These statements from the UK's Parliament amount to a humiliating blow for women who visit or work in the building. 'If one institution in the country should show leadership in following the rule of law, it's the one where the law is made. 'By refusing to set rules that make clear that all men, however they identify, are excluded from women's toilets, the House of Commons is all but guaranteeing that men who identify as women will continue to enter female-only facilities and intimidate any woman who dares to complain. 'The House of Commons is a workplace for thousands of people, many of them women, not to mention the visitors who come and go in large numbers. The Supreme Court's judgment was perfectly clear, as are the Workplace Health and Safety regulations which require separate-sex toilets for employees. 'There is no excuse for waiting, as the EHRC itself made clear. Each day the House of Commons delays putting its house in order is one more day at risk of being on the wrong side of legal action.' Ms Duffield, who says she was driven out of Labour for her gender-critical views, said: 'The House of Commons, like every other UK institution, workplace, sports facility, place of learning and commercial company, has to comply with the law. 'The EHRC will assist people to understand whether they need to make adjustments according to the ruling, but no organisation is above the law.' Several organisations have threatened to disregard the guidance, and the controversial LGBT charity Stonewall has claimed the law is still not settled. Last week the Good Law Project announced plans to challenge equalities minister Bridget Phillipson over her call for toilets to be restricted by biological sex. Public support overwhelming The row came as a major poll found the British public overwhelmingly supports the banning of trans women from female lavatories and sports. Nearly three quarters (74 per cent) back the Football Association's decision to bar trans women from the female game, according to the YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults. Almost two thirds (61 per cent) believe trans women – biological men who identify as female – should not be able to use women's lavatories. And more than half believe passports and driving licences should show the person's biological sex rather than their gender identity. The survey, commissioned by Sex Matters, found that 63 per cent believe the court made the right decision while18 per cent believe it was wrong. The rest did not know. Susan Smith of For Women Scotland, which brought the original case which came before the Supreme Court, said: 'For all the noise created by activists in recent weeks, this polling indicates that most people believe that women's human rights matter and that the court acted correctly in determining that robust, clear definitions were critical to ensuring that lesbians and gay men were not sacrificed or redefined in law. 'We are pleased that there is evidence of heightened awareness of the case in Scotland in particular, which bears out our belief that the more governments push gender identity ideology, the more failings are revealed which strengthens public opposition.' In April Sex Matters wrote to the NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, to demand it withdraw guidance which says trans people can use whichever lavatories and changing rooms they wish. They said female NHS staff were being forced to work in a 'degrading and humiliating' environment because hospitals were still using outdated trans guidance.
Telegraph
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour may cancel women's conference over trans ruling chaos
The Supreme Court ruling that sex in equality law refers to biological sex is said to have prompted chaos within the party, with several members of the NEC and LGBT groups within the party openly criticising it. In contrast, the Government will respect the judgment and it is understood that the party has vowed to comply with the statutory guidance when published. Rosie Duffield, who sits as an independent MP after quitting Labour following years of criticism over her views on gender, said she was 'outraged' but 'not surprised' the party was recommending cancelling the women's conference. 'This shows that absolutely nothing has changed in the Labour party,' she said. 'It is fully immersed in the culture of self-identification and intent on pushing through trans rights over women's rights.' The NEC documents set out the party's 'initial legal analysis' of April's judgment and the impact it has on 'sex-based rights and protections' in equality laws 'including the option for organisations to implement positive action provisions related to biological sex only'. 'Existing positive action' Positive action refers to legal steps taken to address the under-representation of certain groups – such as women-only shortlists for boards – which was the issue at the centre of the Supreme Court case. The NEC advice notes that there will be 'significant scrutiny' on how Labour responds to the judgment and the party could face legal action if it gets it wrong. Positive action measures run by the party include only having women on the National Labour Party Women's Committee and women-only shortlists. The advice notes: 'Historically, these provisions have often operated on the basis of self-identification. 'Given the judgment has now clarified that references to women in the [Equality] Act relate to biological sex at birth, these existing positive action provisions can now only be lawfully applied on the basis of biological sex at birth. 'To do otherwise would expose the party to significant risk of direct and indirect discrimination claims succeeding.' 'Significant risk' It notes that the NEC 'urgently' needs to make a decision on the National Women's Conference 2025, due to be held a day before the main party conference in September. 'National Women's Conference constitutes a positive action measure, and following the judgment there is a significant risk of legal challenge to the event as it currently operates. 'In addition to the legal risk, we can anticipate that due to the visibility of the event and the proximity to the judgment, there may be protests, direct action and heightened security risks to staff and attendees should the event go ahead. 'This would also represent a political risk which would be likely to feature prominently throughout conference week.' It concludes: 'In light of the legal and political risks described above, it is recommended that the NEC AGREES to postpone National Women's Conference 2025 pending the wider review of positive action measures.' It also notes that the judgment 'confirms' it is 'unlawful' to operate all women shortlists and if trans women are included on them 'a man who is excluded from the shortlist could successfully claim for direct sex discrimination'. The NEC is advised to agree that 'pending a wider review, all positive action measures relating to women in the party's rules and procedures shall be interpreted on the basis of biological sex at birth'. A separate option would be to 'suspend all positive action measures relating to women' but the document notes this is 'not our recommended option as we are of the view that it would be a disproportionate response'.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
MP calls for apology over 'Labour hounding'
The MP for Canterbury Rosie Duffield, who left the Labour Party because she said she felt "hounded" over her views on gender, has said she wants an apology from the prime minister. Ms Duffield now sits as an independent MP after falling out with the leadership over several issues, including her stance on women-only spaces. On 16 April the Supreme Court ruled the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, a ruling Sir Keir Starmer has said he agrees with. Speaking to BBC Radio Kent, Ms Duffield said she would like an apology from her former leader for how she was treated, but added it was "pretty obvious he's not going to, isn't it?" "I would like an apology for all of the members of the Labour Party who've been investigated, blocked, barred from being candidates," she said. "That's happened for the last few years and we'll never know the names of a lot of those people, they've had to stay anonymous. "These are people who've lost their jobs in government departments and the NHS, just for stating their views about biological sex, which are actually protected by law." When asked if she thought an apology would be made, she said: "I think it would be nice, but he's not going to, that's just not his style." Ms Duffield quit the party in September after being re-elected as Labour MP for Canterbury in July 2024, and said she could not see herself returning under the current leadership. "I'd like to rejoin, my values are core Labour values, I'm not going to change that, I'm never going to be a member of any other party but I can't imagine being able to do that under Keir Starmer's leadership, if I'm honest," she said. Supreme court backs "biological" definition of a woman Five key takeaways from the Supreme Court ruling Westminster's tortuous battle with the gender question Downing Street declined to give an official response to Ms Duffield's claims, but pointed to Sir Keir's words on the Supreme Court ruling, when he welcomed the decision, as it had given "much needed clarity for drawing up guidance". "A woman is an adult female, the court has made that absolutely clear," the spokesperson added. Follow BBC Kent on Facebook, on X, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@ or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250. 'I will have a stronger voice as an independent' - MP Starmer's Labour about greed and power, says Duffield Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says Labour candidate Rosie Duffield cancels hustings Labour MP considers future after 'harassment' Prime Minister's office
