Trans activists install 'third toilet' outside UK Supreme Court after ruling
A trans activist group made their stand by placing a "third toilet" on the steps of the Supreme Court - a direct response to the suggestion to make their own "third space"
Trans advocacy organisation TransActual UK launched its latest campaign right on the doorstep of the UK Supreme Court, and its not something you can miss. On Wednesday, May 21, the "Third Toilet," - which is quite literally, a toilet - was placed significantly on the court steps to highlight the question: where will trans people go... for the 'loo'?
Made by creative agency BBH London, the pink and blue striped toilet, representing the trans flag, posed as both a call for action and demand for a reinforcement of trans rights and the community's protection since the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of what is called the 'gender critical' volunteer organisation For Women Scotland.
The group's appeal fought against the Scottish Government's use of 'woman' in reference to the non-cis community. The Mirror reported on the joint judgement given by Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, with which the other Justices agreed, relaying that a unanimous verdict that the term 'woman' used in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and that alone.
This controversial court ruling created a wave of debate on online platforms, stirring the fears of the trans community in regards of their safety, along with the stigma that trans women are supposedly at fault for women feeling unsafe, particularly in bathrooms.
The court ruling in Scotland has manifested into exclusive bathrooms for cis-gendered men and women, drawing TransActual's question: "Where, exactly, are trans people supposed to go?".
Demand for single-sex places - and comments such as Baroness Kishwer Falkner's, active chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who said that trans rights groups should create a separate "third space" - have resulted in the statement piece dropped deliberately outside Britain's most esteemed court.
TransActual's message? To confront the exclusive ruling which threatens to isolate the minority from the public and social aspect of everyday life. The organisation's director, Hafsa Qureshi, shared a statement which read: "The Supreme Court claimed it brought clarity to an area of difficulty, however, it did the exact opposite," who added that whilst reducing the rights of the trans community, the ruling has already has "devastating" effects.
She continued, saying: "This campaign is a powerful statement – about being forced to exist without safety, privacy, and rights, in full view of a society that refuses to see us".
Two days ago, in act of defiance, Olivia Campbell Cavendish, founder and executive director of the Trans Legal Clinic, made her stand by (in fact) sitting on the Third Toilet. She said: "We need to move the conversation on from ridiculous things like bathrooms and onto the things that matter," before stating that "the safety of trans people everywhere," takes precedence.
Camila Gurgel and Ieva Paulina, Associate Creative Directors at BBH, were clear about the exhibit not being a real victory "when so much has been lost," when the ruling ostracised the community in question from what "directly impacted their lives".
"Our hope is that the Third Toilet installation sparks awareness, conversation, solidarity and inspires more people to stand with the trans community," concluded BBH. To find out more, visit transactual.org.uk.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ice arrests of US military veterans and their relatives are on the rise: ‘a country that I fought for'
The son of an American citizen and military veteran – but who has no citizenship to any country – was deported from the US to Jamaica in late May. Jermaine Thomas's deportation, recently reported on by the Austin Chronicle, is one of a growing number of immigration cases involving military service members' relatives or even veterans themselves who have been ensnared in the Trump administration's mass deportation program. As the Chronicle reported, Thomas was born on a US army base in Germany to an American citizen father, who was originally born in Jamaica and is now dead. Thomas does not have US, German or Jamaican citizenship – but Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency deported him anyway to Jamaica, a country in which he had never stepped foot. Thomas had spent two-and-a-half months incarcerated while waiting for an update on his case. He was previously at the center of a case brought before the US supreme court regarding his unique legal status. The federal government argued that Thomas – who had previously received a deportation order – was not a citizen simply because he was born on a US army base, and it used prior criminal convictions to buttress the case against him. He petitioned for a review of the order, but the supreme court denied him, finding his father 'did not meet the physical presence requirement of the [law] in force at the time of Thomas's birth'. From Jamaica, Thomas told the Chronicle: 'If you're in the US army, and the army deploys you somewhere, and you've gotta have your child over there – and your child makes a mistake after you pass away – and you put your life on the line for this country, are you going to be OK with them just kicking your child out of the country?' He added, in reference to his father: 'It was just Memorial Day [in late May]. Y'all are disrespecting his service and his legacy.' In recent months, US military veterans' family members have been increasingly detained by immigration officials, as the administration continues pressing for mass deportations. A US marine veteran, during an interview on CNN, said he felt 'betrayed' after immigration officials beat and arrested his father at a landscaping job. The arrested man had moved to the US from Mexico in the 1990s without documentation but was detained by Ice agents this month while doing landscaping work at a restaurant in Santa Ana, California. In another recent case, the wife of another Marine Corps veteran was detained by Ice despite still breastfeeding her three-month-old daughter. According to the Associated Press, the veteran's wife had been going through a process to obtain legal residency. The Trump administration has ramped up efforts to detain and deport people nationwide. During a May meeting, White House officials pressed Ice to increase its daily arrests to at least 3,000 people daily. That would result in 1 million people being arrested annually by Ice. Following the tense meeting, Ice officials have increased their enforcement operations, including by detaining an increasing number of people with no criminal record. Being undocumented is a civil infraction – not a crime. According to a recent Guardian analysis, as of mid-June, Ice data shows there were more than 11,700 people in immigration detention arrested by the agency despite no record of them being charged with or convicted of a crime. That represents a staggering 1,271% increase from data released on those in Ice detention immediately preceding the start of Trump's second term. In March, Ice officials arrested the daughter of a US veteran who had been fighting a legal battle regarding her status. Alma Bowman, 58, was taken into custody by Ice during a check-in at the Atlanta field office, despite her having lived in the US since she was 10 years old. Bowman was born in the Philippines during the Vietnam war, to a US navy service member from Illinois stationed there. She had lived in Georgia for almost 50 years. Her permanent residency was revoked following a minor criminal conviction from 20 years ago, leading her to continue a legal battle to obtain citizenship in the US. Previously, Bowman was detained by Ice at a troubled facility in Georgia, where non-consensual gynecological procedures were allegedly performed on detained women. In 2020, she had been a key witness for attorneys and journalists regarding the controversy. According to an interview with The Intercept from that year, Bowman said she had always thought she was a US citizen. In another recent case, a US army veteran and green-card holder left on his own to South Korea. His deportation order was due to charges related to drug possession and an issue with drug addiction after being wounded in combat in the 1980s, for which he earned the prestigious Purple Heart citation. 'I can't believe this is happening in America,' Sae Joon Park, who had held legal permanent residency, told National Public Radio. 'That blows me away – like, [it is] a country that I fought for.'
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's plot to abolish major right as Supreme Court gives him more power
The US President wants to abolish a right enshrined in the US Constitution for 157 years - and now there's almost nobody who can stop him Donald Trump wants to abolish a major right people born in America have enjoyed for 157 years - and is enshrined in the US Constitution. He's taking his fight against 'birthright citizenship' all the way to the Supreme Court - and won a major victory last night. In a decision that hands him almost unlimited power to change American laws with a wave of his hand, Supreme Court justices ruled that individual federal judges would no longer be allowed to halt or block his executive orders - even if they're unconstitutional. It leaves just the Supremes themselves between him and whatever he wants to do. And the next thing on his list is birthright citizenship - an issue likely to come before the highest court in October. Here's what's at stake for Americans if that happens. What is birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship is the rule that if you're born in the United States, you're a US citizen, regardless of your parents' immigration status. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the US to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of US law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the US to foreign diplomats. Because it's enshrined in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, it should require a congressional supermajority to change the rule - at least that's the theory. Why does Trump want to get rid of it? Republicans have long argued this leads to undocumented immigrants having "anchor babies" - a truly unpleasant term suggesting some people have children to make them harder to deport. And Trump himself has argued, baselessly, that the amendment was only ever intended to cover freed slaves, which ignores decades of caselaw and precedent. How is Trump trying to scrap it? Trump claims he can set it aside with an executive order - and he signed such an order almost immediately upon returning to the White House in January. Trump's executive order would deny citizenship to those born after February 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the US can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. What's the pushback been like? Some 22 states have brought lawsuits challenging the order, with one brought by Washington state, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois heard first in Seattle. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. So is it still blocked? Briefly. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order - yet. Instead, they were asked to rule on the principle of state and district judges blocking orders for the whole country - which the Supremes decided wasn't on, despite being a right enjoyed by judges for decades. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. What happens next? The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As tension between the White House and Iran grows, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
REVEALED: America's most powerful judges who protect the Constitution locked in a toxic, secret battle...
A fiery dispute between two of America's most powerful judges was on public display on Friday as the Supreme Court handed down a bombshell opinion on birthright citizenship. The nine justices who sit on the court frequently tout that relationships between them, despite deep ideological divides, are cordial. But as they wrestle with issues that have left the US bitterly divided, not all of the spats between them fall directly along their political party lines - hinting that they might just not like each other on a personal level. The justices' secret personal feuds have seemingly become so fraught that they are counting down the days until the SCOTUS summer recess - which will be a welcome respite from both work and colleagues, according to Chief Justice John Roberts. This week, the court's liberal wing erupted in spectacular fashion against the six-judge conservative alliance during the biggest ruling of the year thus far. Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 53, ripped into liberal dissenter Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's arguments in her 6-3 majority opinion in a major birthright citizenship case, with comments that come close to mocking her intellectual rival. Writing for the conservative majority of the court, Barrett hit back at both Jackson and fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor who dissented. Barrett's scorched earth reply took aim at Jackson mostly, spending 900 words to repeatedly rip into the Biden appointee and the court's most junior member. At one point, Barrett's comments came close to mocking her intellectual rival. She wrote: 'Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Barrett accused Jackson of mounting a 'startling line of attack', which in her view was no 'tethered to any doctrine whatsoever'. Some lines resemble jabs from a political debate. 'Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands 'universal adherence,' at least where the Executive is concerned,' goes one. In perhaps the most sneering comment, Barrett writes: '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. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Jackson had issued ominous warnings in her own blistering dissent. 'Disaster looms,' she said. 'What I mean by this is that our rights-based legal system can only function properly if the Executive, and everyone else, is always bound by law. 'Today's decision is a seismic shock to that foundational norm. Allowing the Executive to violate the law at its prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception—a gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,' she wrote. 'What is more, to me, requiring courts themselves to provide the dagger (by giving their imprimatur to the Executive Branch's intermittent lawlessness) makes a mockery of the Judiciary's solemn duty to safeguard the rule of law,' she added. Jackson, 71, cited a ruling about the 'accretion of dangerous power, and wrote that the Court has 'cleared a path for the Executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution—right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints.' She warned of a 'rule-of-kings governing system' compared to a 'rule of law regime.' 'At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' Jackson even began the opening section of her argument by dispensing with the traditional saying that she 'respectfully' dissents. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent,' she wrote. So did Sotomayor, who wrote simply, 'I dissent.' The decisions handed down this week have continued a trend of the liberal judges in the court often losing rulings in the most impactful cases. Sotomayor dissented in the court's 6-3 decision that public school parents must be allowed to take their kids out of lessons involving LGBT books. In her dissent, she warned of a nightmare for schools, saying the ensuing 'chaos' and 'self-censorship' would threaten to 'end American public education as we know it'. She said: 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' It is not always as clean cut however, with a decision issued on Friday that endorsed a multibillion dollar fund to expand telephone and broadband services being passed through by a coalition of three conservatives and three liberals. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a 'misbegotten tax' on consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the ruling, wrote that Congress had provided ample guidance and constraints on the Federal Communications Commission operation of the fund. 'We hold that no impermissible transfer of authority has occurred,' wrote Kagan, who was joined by her two fellow liberal justices, as well as conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three conservative justices - Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. The birthright citizenship ruling was hailed by President Donald Trump on Friday, who told reporters: 'This was a big one. Amazing decision, one we're very happy about. This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it's all about.' Basking in his victory during an impromptu appearance in the White House briefing room, the president vowed to push through 'many' more of his policies after the court win, including curbs to birthright citizenship. The president said he would 'promptly file' to advance policies that have previously been blocked by judges. He said: 'This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.' Friday's case stemmed from an executive order Trump signed as soon as he took office that ended birthright citizenship - the legal principle that U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of Trump's order purporting to end birthright citizenship and left open a legal path to challenge it.
