Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex.
Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
John Swinney has said he accepts the ruling (Jane Barlow/PA)
The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday.
The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.'
It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities.
The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'.
A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling.
The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling.
'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment.
'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government.
'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.'
The government has been approached for further comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
44 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Red Arrows: Next generation of jets could be built in Scotland at Prestwick Airport
Prestwick Airport has been selected as the preferred site to build the next generation of Red Arrows jets in a decision branded a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity'. Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... Aviation company Aeralis is in partnership talks with the Scottish Government-owned airport, situated in central Ayrshire, to assemble its aircraft at the site. If secured, it would mean the next squadron of Red Arrows being built in Scotland in a deal that would deliver hundreds of jobs north of the Border. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The company is the only one in the UK that is designing and building a manned light jet aircraft, which could equip the RAF's display team, or be sold on the international export market. Red Arrows flypast after the National Service of Thanksgiving and Dedication for King Charles III and Queen Camilla, and the presentation of the Honours of Scotland, at St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh. Picture:The Red Arrows fly Hawk T1 jets which are several decades old and due to be retired in 2030. Aeralis says components for the replacement jets would be built around the UK before being assembled at Prestwick, where the aircraft would take their first flight. The airport was bought by the Government for £1 in 2013, though officials hope to sell it back to the private sector. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ian Forgie, chief executive of Prestwick Airport, said: 'We are tremendously excited about this agreement with Aeralis and the opportunity it brings to generate jobs, apprenticeships, investment and innovation in the Prestwick area. 'We look forward to working with Aeralis to make this happen.' Scottish Labour MP for Central Ayrshire Alan Gemmell said: 'I am proud to support Aeralis's decision to commit to Prestwick. 'This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring jet manufacturing back to Prestwick and will mean hundreds of well-paying jobs. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The Red Arrows are a global symbol of what's best about our country. I couldn't be happier if they become Scottish as well as British.' A commitment from the UK government to the aircraft is needed to progress plans, Aeralis said. If approved, company bosses said the assembly plans "will clearly return Scotland to its deserved place as a first-tier aviation nation". The existing jets, based at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, cost almost £80,000 a day to run. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The squadron regularly visits Scotland, performing aerial displays coinciding with the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo in August, as well as shows from the northern base of RAF Lossiemouth in Moray. The RAF's aerobatic team was in Scotland last month. Tristan Crawford, chief executive of Aeralis, said: 'Prestwick represents an ideal site for our UK final assembly line. 'The airport has a strong aviation legacy particularly in whole aircraft manufacture, as well as excellent local aerospace manufacturing and MRO [maintenance, repair, overhaul] resources, and an operating model well suited to supporting new aerospace programmes. 'This will provide Aeralis with tremendous operating capability for building, testing and industrialising the new aircraft, meaning Prestwick is the perfect choice for Aeralis.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'As home to Scotland's largest aerospace cluster, Prestwick is an ideal place to locate new advanced manufacturing facilities for the aviation sector. 'News of this potential investment, and ongoing discussions between Aeralis and Glasgow Prestwick Airport to finalise an agreement for the production of training aircraft, are welcome.' The contact would be a massive economic boost for Glasgow Prestwick and provide an added incentive for potential bidders. The Scottish Government told The Scotsman in May the sale process for the nationalised airport was "at its most intensive", prompting Scottish Conservatives Central Scotland MSP Graham Simpson to predict a deal 'could be very close'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ryanair is the Prestwick's sole passenger airline and also has a significant aircraft maintenance base there, while the airport also handles cargo flights.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
It's a stain on US democracy that you can vote a fortnight after election day
Illinois doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to clean elections. The mere mention of the state conjures up memories of Chicago's notorious machine politics under the Daley family, and its sway over the 1960 presidential election. But now the Supreme Court has decided to consider a more recent stain against the state's name. In its next session, it has said that it will hear a case challenging Illinois' practice of counting mail-in ballots (known in other countries as postal votes) that arrive up to 14 days after election day. At stake is the integrity of the democratic process and the reasonable expectation that elections, like any competition governed by rules, should not be open to abuse. The case stems from a challenge by Representative Michael Bost (R-Ill), joined by two presidential electors, to an Illinois law that permits mail ballots to be counted even if they arrive up to two weeks after election day. A panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge on the grounds of standing. But that was a procedural evasion of a question that demands substantive resolution: can we sustain trust in democratic outcomes while tolerating policies that might allow those outcomes to be perverted? Sixteen states plus the District of Columbia currently allow the counting of absentee ballots that arrive late, in most cases so long as they are postmarked by election day. And it's not a typical red state, blue state problem. Like Illinois, Utah also allows these votes to trickle in for up to 14 days. Maryland and Alaska allow 10. Maybe Alaska, given its geographical challenges, should get a pass. But not the other states. California and New York offer a full week for ballots to arrive after election day. Washington State, remarkably, doesn't even specify an arrival deadline – an open-ended invitation to confusion and loss of trust. The defenders of such policies claim that they improve access to voting. When they are criticised, they tend to respond hysterically that stopping them will end up disenfranchising voters. That's absurd. In most western democracies, mail ballots must arrive on election day or before. Also, the United States is uncommon in the world for its 'no-excuse' absentee voting, meaning that someone doesn't have to be out of their voting area or physically unable to vote in person in order to qualify. Voting is a right. Voting by post is a convenience. The distinction is not semantic. Rights are God-given, immutable, and must be protected. Conveniences, even useful ones, are conditional. The wholly reasonable suggestion here is that, if citizens choose to vote by mail, they should bear the responsibility of ensuring their ballot arrives by election day. In Mississippi, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that counting ballots after election day is illegal under federal law. This is not radicalism; it is order. The sooner all states move in this direction, the better. Consider what's at risk. Every late-counted vote has the potential to become, in the public mind, a vote that could be questioned. Certainly, a losing politician has every incentive to cast it as such. Every additional day of counting invites suspicion that the process is not being conducted fairly, especially in a country where almost one-third of voters already doubt the fairness of elections, according to a Pew Research Survey. Thus, timely vote-counting is not merely administrative housekeeping, it's about legitimacy. President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity in March directed the Department of Justice to take appropriate legal action against states that count ballots arriving after election day for federal elections. It also proposes tying federal election funding to compliance with this standard. An election is not a season – it is a day. Election day is known in advance. It does not sneak up on the electorate. The ability to mail a ballot on time is not an undue burden; it is a modest civic expectation. If a voter can't manage that deadline, then perhaps in-person early voting or election day voting is the more reliable option. The Supreme Court, when it takes this case in the term beginning this October, has the opportunity to restore a sorely needed sense of boundaries. Trust in democracy begins not when the last ballot arrives, but when the last valid ballot is counted – on time.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Court bid to block Palestine Action 'terror group' designation fails
That would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Palestine Action was included along two extreme right groups, the Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) and the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM), in the motion which went before parliament, which passed on Wednesday. Neither of the neo-Nazi groups had ever been mentioned in Parliament before, with Palestine Action accusing the government of including them to ensure that the motion passed. No Scottish MPs voted against proscribing the group, with the SNP abstaining. Read More: The motion also passed the House of Lords, meaning it would become law on Saturday once signed into law. Before the initial vote was held, Palestine Action was granted a hearing for temporary relief which would delay the implementation of the proscription pending a potential legal challenge. That took place before Mr Justice Chamberlain at the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday. Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from proscribing it under the Terrorism Act 2000, pending a potential legal challenge against the decision to ban the direct action group. Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori, said: "This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists. "We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, said if a temporary block was not issued and the ban came into effect, the harm would be 'far-reaching', including 'irremediable harm to Palestine Action itself' and 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', causing some to 'self-censor'. Large crowds had gathered outside, including pro-Israel group Our Fight who carried a banner saying 'stop the lies - there is no genocide in Gaza'. Pro-Israel demonstrators outside the court in London (Image: Lucy North/PA Wire) However, the group said that they did not support Palestine Action being designated a terror group. Speaking on the street, Mark Birkbeck told the PA news agency: 'We don't actually support proscribing Palestine Action. We don't think they are a terrorist organisation and in fact, our argument is that it makes a mockery of what terrorism is. 'It's bizarre that (the Government) is presenting this as some kind of aggressive step. 'My suspicion is that Palestine Action are going to run rings around them. 'These people know what they are doing. I don't agree with them, I don't agree with their politics, but they've been doing this for years." Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said that if a temporary block was issued it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the proscription at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.
