Harvie: Holyrood trans toilet ban may breach human rights
Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex?
MSPs express 'deep concern' over trans toilet ruling
Holyrood adds gender-neutral toilets after sex ruling
Mr Harvie is one of 17 MSPs to have signed an open letter criticising the recent change in policy.
The letter—also signed by 30 staff members, most of whom work for MSPs—was organised by the Good Law Project.
It described the new rules as 'transphobic', warning their implementation would be 'deeply invasive' and risk 'humiliation, harassment or worse'.
During an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie cited former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who has said that organisations are permitted—but not obliged—to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces.
Mr Harvie told MSPs: 'In making the decision to take this exclusive, exclusionary approach, I am concerned that the SPCB is risking taking us back to the breach of human rights which existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and a position that just as little as 10 years ago was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the US Republican Party.
"It is not enough to use words like inclusive experience and welcoming environment."
He asked whether the corporate body recognised the impact the changes had already had on 'those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities like toilets on the same basis as everyone else, and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace'.
Holyrood adopted the policy following the Supreme Court ruling (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Responding on behalf of the SPCB, SNP MSP Christine Grahame said it was 'rather unfortunate' that Mr Harvie had used such language, and insisted the corporate body had acted 'in a tolerant and sensitive manner, in a very delicate and balanced manner'.
'The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect the founding principles and to be an open, accessible institution to promote participation and equal opportunities,' she said.
'We remain deeply committed to these principles and to provide—I know you do not like this word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary community, feel supported and welcome to work and visit.'
The changes, which came into effect earlier this month, follow the Supreme Court ruling that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender.
An interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa.
Under the new policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' at Holyrood are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament has increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating three public toilets and two private facilities used by MSPs and staff.
Ms Grahame said Parliament would not 'police' toilet use, but a complaints process was available. 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities,' she said. 'This is not going to be policed by the corporate body.'
Several MSPs, including the SNP's Emma Roddick, questioned whether the decision had been made prematurely and whether it risked creating a hostile working environment.
Ms Roddick asked: 'Does [the SPCB] recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put [trans and non-binary staff] in an impossible situation and potentially a hostile working environment?'
Ms Grahame replied: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anyone in this Parliament in a hostile environment. That is not the culture within this building.'
READ MORE
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton asked that 'no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future'.
Green MSP Lorna Slater asked how trans people would be expected to 'prove' their right to use a facility.
'Members in this chamber may be aware of the lively internet conspiracy that I myself am a trans woman,' she said. 'If a complaint is made about me using a woman's toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use this toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination?'
Ms Grahame replied: 'No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything, and I fully intend to use the gender neutral toilets myself.'
Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said the discussion was a 'farcical waste of time'.
'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children's education, getting a GP appointment, fixing the roads, keeping communities safe—yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.'
His colleague Craig Hoy questioned whether the decision had been unanimous, which would suggest Green MSP Maggie Chapman had 'both supported these measures and also wrote a letter in opposition to them'.
Ms Grahame responded: 'Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote—they are made by consent.'
A full consultation by the SPCB is expected later this year, once a revised statutory code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been finalised and approved by ministers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Ivan Mishchenko: ‘War shows you who you really are'
I van Mishchenko used to have the 'ordinary, busy life of a judge and father of three children — wishing there was a 25th hour in each day'. But that was before Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. The 44-year-old was made a Supreme Court judge in Ukraine in 2017 — but after President Putin's troops crossed the border, he was among thousands of civilians who joined his country's territorial defence force, swapping his judicial robes for battle dress and a gun. Despite the huge build-up of troops along the border in the months before the invasion, Mishchenko — like most Ukrainians at the time — did not imagine that the Russians would invade. 'Nobody believed that a big war could happen. It was a surprise,' he says, attributing the failure to 'the generational illusion that we were in'.
Spectator
10 hours ago
- Spectator
Ofcom still isn't sure what a woman is
Earlier this week, GB News again found itself at odds with Ofcom. The channel had written to the broadcast regulator asking if, in light of the Supreme Court judgment affirming that the word 'sex' in the Equality Act means biological sex, it could now treat the dispute between trans-rights activists and gender-critical feminists as a 'settled' matter. 'Broadly settled' was the phrase Ofcom applied to the 'theory of anthropogenic global warming' in a guidance note issued in 2013 stating that broadcasters were no longer under an obligation to be impartial when discussing the issue. GB News wanted to know whether the regulator would extend the same latitude to debates about sex- and gender-based rights. Incredibly, Ofcom's answer was 'no'. Indeed, it described GB News's view that the word 'woman' should be defined in reference to biological sex – and that it was acceptable to refer to athletes by their biological pronouns – as 'dogmatic propositions'. Such editorial judgments, it said, 'require nuanced decision-making'. So, to be clear, the regulator thinks the view that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming is so scientifically robust that broadcasters are under no obligation to present alternative opinions, but the notion that sex is binary, immutable and biological is so contentious that if GB News interviews some heretic who thinks trans women aren't women it has to interview someone alongside them who thinks they are. Presumably, that means if the channel interviews, say, Sharron Davies on why women should not have to compete against trans-identifying men in swimming competitions, it should also feature a bloke with a beard who identifies as a woman making the opposite case. Oh, and if a GB News presenter refers to said bloke as 'he/him' rather than 'she/her', he could complain to Ofcom and it would likely be upheld. We're through the looking-glass in which television viewers are expected to believe six impossible things before breakfast. This decision is bizarre, not least because, among scientists, the claim that carbon emissions have caused the average global temperature to rise over the past 150 years is far from 'settled'. Ofcom's decision may have been influenced by the infamous 2013 paper which claimed 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that 'climate change is real, man-made and dangerous', to quote Barack Obama. But that paper itself is highly contested, with an army of climate sceptics lining up to debunk it. My go-to document to disprove the 'settled science' claim is the World Climate Declaration, signed by almost 2,000 scientists, which points out that natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming, the growth in average global temperatures is slower than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that CO2 is not a pollutant but essential to life on Earth, and that global warming is not causing more intense hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. In short, the notion of a 'climate emergency' is bunkum. I'm not arguing for putting the trans debate in the same 'settled' basket as climate change, although I admire GB News's chutzpah for suggesting it. But if either is to be regarded as beyond debate, surely it's the biological reality of sex? Until about ten minutes ago, that really was a settled issue among scientists. Now we're told it needs to be handled with kid gloves. I suppose we should be grateful that Ofcom has at least moved away from the position its chief executive took five years ago when the regulator was a Stonewall Diversity Champion. In a discussion with the SNP MP John Nicholson, Dame Melanie Dawes agreed that it was 'extremely inappropriate' for the BBC to 'balance' the arguments of trans activists with the views of gender-critical charities like the LGB Alliance. She affirmed that for the BBC to feature 'anti-trans' voices when discussing sex- and gender–based issues was no more appropriate than including 'anti-gay' voices in a documentary about homosexuals. 'I can only agree with you,' she told Nicholson. It seems extraordinary that the head of Ofcom should have once regarded an organisation like the LGB Alliance as beyond the pale. I imagine that's because she never left her metropolitan echo chamber, where such views are rarely challenged. But that's all the more reason for broadcasters to feature people on both sides of such debates instead of regarding one side as 'settled'. I hope Ofcom reflects on its absurd response to GB News and issues a new guidance note restoring the obligation to be impartial when discussing issues like net zero.
NBC News
20 hours ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down state's 1849 near-total abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday formally struck down an abortion ban from 1849 that had technically retaken effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights. In a 4-3 decision that came down across ideological lines, the court's liberal majority affirmed a lower court ruling that overturned the 176-year-old ban and left in place a more recent law in Wisconsin allowing most abortions until about the 20th week of pregnancy. "We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the 'who, what, where, when, and how' of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion," liberal justice Rebecca wrote in the majority opinion. "Accordingly, we hold that the legislature impliedly repealed [the 1849 ban] to abortion, and that [that law] therefore does not ban abortion in the State of Wisconsin." The ruling is a win for abortion rights activists the battleground state, where Democrats had put the issue at the forefront of many statewide elections — including two races in 2023 and 2025 that recalibrated the state Supreme Court's ideological balance — in the years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The state's 1849 law — enacted the year after Wisconsin was granted statehood — banned abortion in almost all cases by making performing an abortion a felony. Under the law, doctors who perform the procedure technically faced up to six years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. The law included an exception for abortion care only to save the life of the woman, but not for her health or for rape or incest. As was the case in many states with similar older laws, or newer so-called trigger laws, the ban technically snapped back into effect almost immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. In short order, the decision prompted Planned Parenthood's Wisconsin operations to suspend abortion services in the state. But a series of legal developments unfolded shortly thereafter, which ultimately ended with the question of the law's future before the state Supreme Court. Shortly after the Roe decision, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats, filed a suit arguing that the law had been effectively deemed invalid by more recent, more lenient abortion restriction legislation in the state. Evers and Kaul said at that time, in 2022, that they wouldn't enforce the law. Both won re-election later that year and have maintained their promise. But a state judge ruled on the case in July 2023, declaring that the 1849 law did not apply to consensual medical abortions — (the judge in that case found that the original law intended to outlaw attacks on women that were intended as attempts to kill her unborn child) — prompting abortion providers to resume care in the state in September 2023. The district attorney of conservative Sheboygan County, Joel Urmanski, backed by abortion opponents and other Republican attorneys, appealed that ruling, arguing that the 1849 ban should remain the law of the land, eventually elevating the case to the state Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in a separate case, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit in February asking the state Supreme Court to decide on the question of whether a constitutional right to abortion care exists in the state. Arguments haven't been scheduled. But part of Wednesday's decision could well forecast how judges decide on that case. The new decision is the latest consequence of liberals having regained the majority of the technically nonpartisan court for the first time in 15 years in a bitter and expensive 2023 election that ended with progressive Janet Protasiewicz's victory. The race was largely defined by Protasiewicz's support for abortion rights and opposition to the state's heavily gerrymandered legislative maps. Both issues quickly came before the court following the election, both of which ended with victories for the liberal parties in the cases. The issue of abortion played a prominent role in this year's state Supreme Court race as well: On that ended with a Susan Crawford win, allowing liberals to maintain their narrow majority. Crawford will be sworn in next month and did not participate in Wednesday's decision. The issue could also animate yet another race for a seat on the high court next year. Conservative justice Rebecca Bradley has announced she won't run for another, triggering what promises to be another expensive and contentious race. State Supreme Court elections are scheduled in Wisconsin each year from 2026 to 2030.
