logo
Big Brother star 'terrified' as she fights tears over feeling forced to leave the UK

Big Brother star 'terrified' as she fights tears over feeling forced to leave the UK

Daily Mirror25-04-2025
Big Brother winner Nadia Almada has revealed that she's contemplating leaving the UK after the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Equality Act. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms "women" and "sex" in the Equality Act referred to biological women and biological sex.
Speaking on Good Morning Britain, Nadia opened up about how she no longer felt safe as a transgender woman in the UK. "It's terrifying times for me," she said. "The whole idea that we are not women for that matter based on our sex is terrifying. For me and for us, my generation who have lived with those experiences of being discriminated and now having those protected rights taken away from us. It's very very dehumanising."
Nadia added that if she was taken into the male ward of a hospital as a result of this ruling, she would refuse life-saving treatment. "The idea of waking up in a male ward - I would rather refuse treatment than be subjected to that," she said. After challenged by host Adil Ray, Nadia explained: "The moment that Supreme Court ruling happened, it was super dysphoric for me. You have to understand, I've been trying to work through this and tried to be not super vigilant and hyper sensitive about things.
"I've embraced all parts of who I am but once this happened, it triggered the whole idea of how feminine am I, how people will see me, do I have the right to Westernized views of what a woman should look like?"
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase
DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase

The Independent

time3 hours ago

  • The Independent

DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase

In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski thanked the people of Florida for killing him "in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible," breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and became the 27th person put to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida has executed nine people in 2025, more than than any other state, and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country, more people have been put to death in the first seven months of this year than in all of 2024. Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican President Donald Trump has urged prosecutors to aggressively seek the death penalty and as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand the category of crimes punishable by death and the methods used to carry out executions. John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. 'The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,' Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases 'very seriously.' 'There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty,' DeSantis said, adding: 'these are the worst of the worst.' Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing the April execution of the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. 'It's done,' she said. 'My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again.' The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called 'secretive' and 'arbitrary.' According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his 'obligation' to oversee executions, which he hopes provide 'some closure' to victims' families. 'Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances,' DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a 'political tool,' adding it's 'a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials.' Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the year the governor challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's 'sensibilities.' 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. 'He's the one person who can stop this,' she said. ___

Sydney Harbour Bridge march: Pro-Palestine protesters given the green light to shut down landmark
Sydney Harbour Bridge march: Pro-Palestine protesters given the green light to shut down landmark

Daily Mail​

time6 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Sydney Harbour Bridge march: Pro-Palestine protesters given the green light to shut down landmark

A pro-Palestinian rally across the Sydney Harbour Bridge has been authorised by a court with thousands of protesters likely to gather. NSW Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg rejected a police application to prohibit Sunday's planned rally due to public safety risks. Thousands of anticipated protesters are expected at the demonstration to highlight what the United Nations has described as 'worsening famine conditions' in Gaza. Organised by the Palestinian Action Group Sydney, the protest has garnered support from activists nationwide, human rights and civil liberties groups as well as several MPs and public figures such as former Socceroo Craig Foster. Arguments were presented to the court on Friday with Justice Rigg choosing to reserve her decision until Saturday morning. In her judgment, she refused the police commissioner's application, saying arguments the rally would cause disruption on the bridge were not sufficient reason to bar the protest. 'It is in the nature of peaceful protests to cause disruption to others,' she said. In solidarity with their interstate peers, protesters in Melbourne are gearing up to rally through the city's CBD, aiming to reach the King Street Bridge. A last-minute application on Friday was also lodged with police by a pro-Israel fringe group for a counter-protest in the tunnel under Sydney Harbour, the court heard. Police confirmed to AAP the group withdrew the application soon after. Meanwhile, more than 60 per cent of Australians want tougher government measures to stop Israel's military offensive in Gaza, a poll has found. Respondents to the YouGov survey published on Friday and commissioned by the Australian Alliance for Peace and Human Rights believed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's condemnations of Israel had fallen short. 'While the government has recently signed a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire, 61 per cent of Australians believe this is not enough,' the alliance said. '(Australians) want to see concrete economic, diplomatic and legal measures implemented.' The alliance called for economic sanctions and the end of any arms trade with Israel, which the federal government has repeatedly said it has not engaged in directly. The poll surveyed 1,507 Australian voters in the last week of July, coinciding with a deteriorating starvation crisis and while diplomatic efforts from countries such as Canada have ramped up. Some 42 per cent of polled coalition voters supported stronger measures and more than two thirds of Labor voters, 68 per cent, are pushing their party to be bolder in placing pressure on Israel. An overwhelming number of Greens voters (91 per cent) wanted a more robust suite of measures as did 77 per cent of independent voters. The results highlighted how the nearly two-year long war on Gaza had resonated with Australians, YouGov director of public data Paul Smith said. 'This poll shows there's clearly across the board support for the Australian government to be doing much more in response to the situation in Gaza,' he told AAP. 'Sixty-one per cent shows the depth of feeling Australians have towards this issue.' More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed including more than 17,000 children, according to local health authorities, with reports of dozens of people dead in recent weeks due to starvation. Israel's campaign began after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, reportedly killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostages.

US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law

Reuters

time7 hours ago

  • Reuters

US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store