UK ranked second-worst in western Europe for LGBT+ laws
Despite coming in first place in 2015, Britain has slipped further down the index every year since and is now ranked as the second worst country in western Europe and Scandinavia for LGBT+ legal protections, with a score of only 46%.
Beating only Italy in the ranking, the UK fell six places this year as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding transgender people and the Labour Government's subsequent response.
READ MORE: Graham Linehan pleads not guilty to harassment of transgender woman
Rebecca Don Kennedy, CEO of the Equality Network, said: 'It is shameful that having been ranked best in Europe for LGBT+ laws ten years ago, we have fallen so far.
'For our treatment of trans people, after the Supreme Court ruling we are now known as one of the worst countries in the whole of Europe.
'The UK must do better.'
ILGA-Europe — the international human rights group behind the index rankings — noted that, while hate crime law in Scotland improved with the introduction of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, it had little effect on the UK's overall score.
Don Kennedy added: 'Scotland, when analysed separately, has in the past been considered progressive and a beacon of LGBTI+ equality and human rights.
'That seems to be quickly deteriorating – we ask the Scottish Government to act now and do everything they can to improve the lives of LGBTI+ people in Scotland and to not submit to growing anti-LGBGI+ narratives both globally and right here in Scotland.
'We call on the Scottish Government to lead, and to fight for a future Scotland that cares.'
READ MORE: Keir Starmer 'completely rejects' comparisons with Enoch Powell
The top five countries on the index — Malta, Belgium, Iceland, Denmark and Spain — almost double Britain's score, with theirs ranging from 78% to 89%.
The European transgender rights network (TGEU) said: 'Previously a frontrunner on equality, the UK now has a Supreme Court, Prime Minister, and equality body singing from the same hymn sheet as anti-trans campaigners.
'The UK Supreme Court's decision, which defined a 'woman' for the anti-discrimination law, has severely undermined legal certainty for trans people.'
You can click here for the full European Rainbow Index.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reform the NHS, not our shopping baskets
This week, the NHS will publish its 10 Year Health Plan. The most we can expect from this exercise in Soviet-style planning is tinkering around the edges of an edifice that was erected when Joseph Stalin ruled in Moscow. By 2035, the end date of this 10-year plan, the country will almost certainly be unable to afford the NHS in its present form – if, indeed, it hasn't collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions by then. Unable to address the fundamental problems of the NHS, the dirigistes of Whitehall have come up with a new plan to direct us how to lead our lives – telling us what we should or shouldn't be allowed to choose to put in our shopping baskets. Supermarkets will be expected to cut 100 calories from the average shopping basket by limiting sales of sugary and salty snacks or other 'junk food'. Ever since Napoleon Bonaparte sneered at England as 'a nation of shopkeepers', we have worn his insult as a badge of honour. We are proud to be a people who earn our living by trade and we cherish the liberties that are the glory of a commercial society. Even those of us who are not shopkeepers are at least customers. So little does this Labour Government know the British people that it is about to resort to distinctly Napoleonic measures to punish both retailers and consumers. Yet previous attempts to control consumption have never succeeded in changing enduring patterns of behaviour rooted in human nature. It is outrageous that officials feel empowered to tell us what we can, and cannot, eat. The public is being infantilised and robbed of agency. Centuries have passed since Parliament abandoned sumptuary laws that prohibited the lower orders from imitating the luxurious dress of the aristocracy. But the bureaucratic mind is obdurate in its disdain for popular tastes in food and drink. Combined with Labour's instinct to meddle, along with its insatiable fiscal appetite, it is no surprise that, as we report today, a modern version of the sumptuary laws is about to land on an unsuspecting nation. Obesity is a genuine and growing problem, but, hitherto, all attempts to address it by fiscal means have failed. The latest obesity tax – supermarkets will be fined if they don't reduce the nation's calorie intake, and this will inevitably be passed on to consumers – now emerging from the bowels of the Health Department and the Treasury, claims to be aimed directly at our waistlines. In reality, like all its predecessors, it will target our wallets. There is a certain grim irony in the fact that this policy should have been adopted at the same time as the decision by the NHS to prescribe the weight-loss drug semaglutide (contained in Ozempic and Wegovy). It is fairly obvious that the underlying rationale of the new regulations is less about obesity than about the Government's failure to control spending. No doubt figures will be trotted out about how many lives will be saved by cutting consumption of ultra-processed foods or any other category of comestible that attracts the ire of the health bureaucrats. But the truth is that new rules are being concocted because the Government is running scared of its own MPs, who have effectively imposed a veto on cuts in welfare spending. What would genuinely make a difference to life expectancy and health outcomes would, of course, be a radical reform of the NHS, a more active population, and a reduction in the numbers wasting their lives on benefits. Rachel Reeves has just poured another £29 billion into the health service, without any clear cost-benefit calculation. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is intelligent enough to know that he has inherited an obsolete behemoth that is crying out for root-and-branch reform. But building a new consensus for a new NHS would require the Labour Party to rethink its assumptions about the social contract, as well as the role of insurance and individual responsibility. The original 1946 NHS Act created 'a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales'. Today, the nation's health is not safe in the hands of a dysfunctional Labour Party that would rather do anything – even introducing an assisted-dying service – than take on the overdue task of making the NHS fit for purpose. These new directives are at best a displacement activity, at worst an act of fiscal condescension. A nation of shopkeepers deserves better than to be bossed around by its own government.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chief Justice Roberts: Don't blame judges for applying the law
In a public conversation with the chief judge of the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts did not discuss any of those decisions, which included a big win for President Donald Trump in his fights with judges who have blocked his policies. Instead, the chief justice was asked how he deals with criticism. More: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile Roberts says he keeps in mind that each case has a winner and a loser - and the loser is not going to like the outcome. "You'd like it to be informed criticism, but it's usually not," he said. "They're naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that's just the nature of what you do." More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Sometimes, however, the criticism comes not from the party that lost, but from other justices. In writing the conservative majority's opinion that judges went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship from going into effect everywhere in the country, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had some strong words about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barret wrote. "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." More: Trump Republicans lash out at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a DEI hire Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president "the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate." "As a result, the Judiciary - the one institution that is solely responsible for ensuring our Republic endures as a Nation of laws - has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy," she wrote. Justice Jackson Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens Sharp divisions at the Supreme Court; sharp words as the year comes to an end Roberts acknowledged that there can be sharp divisions among his colleagues and sharp adjectives employed, particularly at the end of the term. But he said the justices all work hard to understand where they're colleagues are coming from "to see if there's some way to if not bring things together, make the resolution as helpful as possible." "It's important to know, and understand, what Justice So-And-So is thinking about, because that will help you understand a little bit more about yours," he said. "And that's an interesting dynamic that plays out over the course of several months." Roberts also acknowledged that the court waited until the last days of the term to decide some of the biggest cases, saying they will try to spread things out more. "Things were a little crunched," he said, "toward the end this year."
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Without birthright citizenship, these celebs might not be Americans
On June 27, the Supreme Court lifted temporary blocks preventing Trump's order from taking effect, but left it to lower courts to consider the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Whether Trump will ultimately be able to repeal the longstanding legal precedent that grants citizenship to all children born on American soil is unclear. Here are some well-known actors and politicians who would not have been American citizens when they were born if birthright had not existed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 54, is the son of Cuban immigrants who did not become naturalized U.S. citizens until 1975, years after their son was born. Rubio has previously said he does not agree with repealing birthright citizenship. Diane Guerrero Actress Diane Guerrero, who starred in the hit television show "Orange is the New Black," was born to undocumented immigrants from Columbia who were deported when she was 14, she told NPR in 2019. In an interview with the outlet, she said, "This is a country of immigrants. People forget - they like to forget that their ancestors came here with the same dream, with the same hopes, with the same fears. And it's unfair to say that because people are coming later that they don't deserve to be here." Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2024, was born in South Carolina to immigrants from the Punjab region of India, according to her autobiography. In 2015, she told The State news outlet that her parents were in the United States legally but did not become naturalized citizens until after her birth, and the non-partisan American Immigration Council considers her a U.S. citizen because of her place of birth. Bruce Lee Bruce Lee, the martial arts icon who starred in films such as "Enter the Dragon" and "Fists of Fury," was born in San Francisco while his parents were traveling with the Chinese Opera. The National Archives notes that under birthright citizenship he was considered a citizen - though he would not be under Trump's revision to the law. "Lee's parents filed for a Return Certificate on his behalf ... enabling him to return to the United States if he later wished to do so. Lee did return at the age of 18 and grew into the iconic martial artist and film star known across the world." Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship may have been designed explicitly against his November rival for the presidency, former Vice President Kamala Harris. David Bier, of the Libertarian Cato Institute, posted on X the day Trump signed the order: "As I predicted, Trump's birthright citizenship EO includes a Kamala Harris clause, specifically designed to deny the legitimacy of her US citizenship as the child of someone with a temporary status." Trump's order specifies that someone wouldn't be entitled to birthright if their mother was on a temporary visa - like the student visa Harris' mother was on at the time of her birth - and their father wasn't a citizen, as hers wasn't. Vivek Ramaswamy Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech billionaire and 2024 Republican presidential candidate, told NBC News in 2023 that his father never became a U.S. citizen and his mother only naturalized after he was born. Ramaswamy, who Trump endorsed in next year's Ohio gubernatorial race, has repeatedly called for an end to birthright citizenship. Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Eduardo Cuevas, Sara Chernikoff, Ramon Padilla and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
