The Supreme Court trans ruling must be challenged

The Herald Scotland

4 days ago

Second, the judgment completely ignored the Hansard records of Parliamentary debates in both the Commons and Lords, which confirm that Parliament intended that the gender recognition process would change a person's legal sex for the purposes of equality legislation. The court decided they knew better what the wording of the Gender Recognition and Equality Acts means, and that those Acts do not implement what Parliament clearly intended and understood them to do.
Third, the court apparently ignored the legal requirement, in section 3 of the Human Rights Act, to interpret legislation, if it is possible to do so, compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. That Convention has required, for more than two decades, an effective method for trans people to change their legal sex.
Fourth, the court made the staggeringly naïve claim in their judgment that it "would not be disadvantageous to trans people". In reality, of course, it already has been. It is fundamentally changing the situation for trans people across Britain, potentially affecting their access to services from healthcare to toilets. And, as we have seen, it is a green light for those who want to further restrict trans people, their voices, and the voices those who stand up for them. Had it not been for the first issue above, perhaps the court may have understood this better.
Well done to any union supporting its trans members by pointing out any of these issues. Equality law is reserved to Westminster, so only the UK Government and Parliament can put this situation right. They should urgently amend the Equality Act to restore the original intention of Parliament, to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and (where they wish) privacy.
Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
Read more letters
Superyacht no match for Glen Rosa
You report today that the Russian oligarch-owned £82 million superyacht La Datcha is moored in James Watt Dock, Greenock ("Superyacht owned by Russian billionaire docks in Greenock", heraldscotland, July 28). How ironic that she is berthed next to the eight years' late, drydocked MV Glen Rosa, which is currently priced at £172.5m and whose crew's terms and benefits of employment outweigh that of the superyacht by a large margin.
It was suggested here that the La Datcha should be taken over and given to CalMac but that is unlikely to be attractive as it would require a massive upgrade to the crew accommodation.
Peter Wright, West Kilbride.
Make our pavements safe
We are now controlling pavement parking, so it should be easier for wheelchair users, pram pushers and the like to use them. Indeed our local traffic wardens – called parking attendants for some reason – have been told to prioritise penalties for pavement parking and the misuse of disabled parking bays.
However, what about other pavement obstructions such as hedges which overhang by up to 300mm or low garden trees which cause pedestrians to duck? There are also bicycle and scooter users wheeching past pedestrians without any warning. Worst still, there is one furniture removal or delivery company which erects a long ramp from front doors to the tailgate of its lorry, completely blocking the pavement so pedestrians, wheelchair users and pram pushers have to pass the lorry on the road or cross the road twice to avoid the ramp.
The so-called parking attendants have the powers to issue fines for illegal parking and some traffic offences, as did the former wardens. Can they not attend to the other transgressions mentioned above? We do not have sufficient police presence on our streets, so the wardens seem the best bet for safeguarding our pavements. I know that the present parking attendants can photograph vehicles and troublesome or abusive vehicle owners so they can surely photograph these other transgressors to provide evidence for police action and prosecution.
JB Drummond, Kilmarnock.
Hysteria over the Lionesses
Perhaps unusually for a Scot living north of the Border, I enjoyed the performances of the Lionesses during the recent football tournament and was happy to see them ultimately prevail against Spain ('England fans celebrate Lionesses' Euro win', The Herald, July 28). That said, however, my enjoyment of their sporting success was tempered by the subsequent media hysteria.
An open-topped bus celebration is an expected thank you to the supporters, but do we really need to see the drunken members of the squad screaming at the camera in the post-match hotel party? It brought to mind the 1966 World Cup success of their male counterparts following which the FA generously arranged a free celebratory dinner to which neither the media nor the WAGS were invited.
Things have obviously come a long way since then, but surely there's still a place for privacy and an element of decorum?
David Edgar, Biggar.
The legendary former Hibs manager Eddie Turnbull (Image: SNS)
The trials of Turnbull
Recent letters on grammar and pronunciation brought to mind a story told in football circles in Edinburgh in the 1970s. Eddie Turnbull was a renowned manager of Hibs who had a very good but intractable centre half, whose name will remain secret because I have forgotten it.
Eddie was giving this player a hard time, prompting him to make a written transfer request which contained the following: "Ah umny gonnae play for you nae mair". The player was ever after known as "Big Umny".
Incidentally, that Hibs team contained Alan Gordon, a graduate, to whom Turnbull said: "The trouble wi' you, Gordon, is a' your brains are in your heid."
John Jamieson, Ayr.