Trans people must accept perceived reduced rights, EHRC commissioner
Speaking at a debate about the repercussions of April's ruling by the Supreme Court, Akua Reindorf said trans people have been misled and 'lied to over many years' about what their rights actually were.
Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and is drawing up the official post-ruling guidance, added that there 'has to be a period of correction' and believes the fault lay with trans lobbyists.
Reindorf was reportedly speaking in a personal capacity, but has been criticised as the director of the trans campaign group TransActual said the commissioner's remarks were profoundly unhelpful.
READ MORE: John Swinney defends 'two-horse race' comments after by-election loss to Labour
Human rights campaign groups Liberty and Amnesty have also called on the EHRC to safeguard the rights of trans people and to make sure they are properly considered when it draws up guidance for public bodies on how to implement the changed legal landscape.
Speaking at an event organised by the London School of Economics law school, Reindorf argued that the impact of the ruling was clear.
Reindorf condemned what she called 'this huge farce with organisations up and down the country wringing their hands and creating working groups and so on, and people in society worrying that they will have nowhere to go to the toilet'.
Asked by an audience member about worries the ruling could reduce the rights of trans people, another panellist, the barrister Naomi Cunningham, reportedly said trans people 'will have to give way'.
Cunningham added: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.'
Reindorf then agreed, as she said: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are.
'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that.
'They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights.'
Reindorf said her comments reflected the fact that before the ruling, the law had been commonly misunderstood because pressure groups argued that trans people who self-identified should be treated as their identified sex, when this was in fact just the case for people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
Reindorf added that the Supreme Court decided that this mix of different rights made the Equality Act unworkable and called it 'the catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place'.
She said: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without GRCs were being grievously misled about their legal rights.
'The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people.
'This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.'
In April, the EHRC released interim, non-statutory advice about how to interpret the ruling, which set out that transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they cannot use toilets of their birth sex.
A number of critics have since called the advice oversimplistic, with legal campaign groups saying they plan on challenging the verdict.
Chiara Capraro, head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.'
Akiko Hart, Liberty's director, said: 'Any updated guidance from the EHRC must respect and uphold the rights of everyone in society. The supreme court's judgment was very narrow, and there are a lot of very legitimate questions about how it's implemented that must be carefully considered.'
A director of the trans campaign group TransActual, Jane Fae, rejected Reindorf's argument, stating: 'The characterisation of what was previously a widely held view both by the EHRC as well as by civil servants and lawyers working in the field of equality as 'lying' is profoundly unhelpful.
'Prior to the ruling of the supreme court in April, trans people just wanted to live their lives within the framework as it was understood.
''Activism' has only really come into being over the last few years in response to a never-ending campaign designed to deprive trans people of rights.'
A spokesperson for the EHRC said: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online.
'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the act.
'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's big win and other takeaways from final Supreme Court decisions
Last year, the court said formers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And Trump has also been on a winning streak on emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments. Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess. But June 27 was the final day for decisions on cases the justices have been considering for months. In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions about LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, online porn, Obamacare and internet subsidies. Here are the highlights. Justices halt nationwide blocks on Trump policies from lower courts Rather than deal directly with birthright citizenship, the high court instead ordered lower courts to review nationwide blocks on Trump policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Judges have 30 days to review their rulings. "These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump said. "This was a colossal abuse of power." Attorney General Pam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming "emperors." But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision. "Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from the Supreme Court faster. "The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions," Chilakarmarri said. "But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold - making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies." The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whether Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship for the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October. Conservaties like Amy Coney Barrett again Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will stop being vilified by Trump supporters. Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that the Trump administration has to pay foreign aid organizations for work they already did for the government. But Barrett authored the big win for Trump. Conservative commentator Sean Davis said on social media that in Barrett's opinion "nuking universal injunctions," she also "juked" the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly," Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a "squishy" or "rattled" law professor. "I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have," Trump said. "Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts." Liberals said conservatives gave in to Trump's 'mockery' of the Constitution While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term. In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other. In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president "has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution." "Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way," she wrote in her dissent. In response to the majority upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content. In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education." Conservatives joined with liberals to reject conservative cases Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason. Three of the court's conservatives - Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh - joined the three liberals in rejecting conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an internet subsidy program. The court's other three conservatives - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - dissented. In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act - commonly known as Obamacare - the majority turned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, the majority said Congress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. In a surprise, the court punted on a racial gerrymandering challenge The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. Instead, the court said it wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline "in due course." The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters. The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district. Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court birthright ruling leaves migrant groups shocked, scared
The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts. Among those suing to stop Trump's plan is "Liza," a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child's birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland. Liza's baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit's of Trump's plan. Liza said she was "sick with worry" that the courts would rule before her baby was born. "Thankfully our baby was born health and happy ... we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby's citizenship," she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling. "I'm sad about what today's decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children's future." SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship changes nothing immediately In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court's decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately. "It is really scary for people who are having children right now ... that someone would want to take away this fundamental right," said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. "I don't see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear." Birthright citizenship - explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment - says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld. But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court's decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president's plan over the next month. "Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day," said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. "It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them." What does ending birthright citizenship mean Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency. Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president's plan. If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump's order could create "stateless" people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits. "We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President's approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States," Platkin said on X. "We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts." Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe. Trump has promised to deport 1 million people annually, and ending birthright citizenship would make it easier for federal officials to remove entire families. Historically, parents of U.S. citizen babies have often been allowed to remain in the country even if they entered illegally themselves.
