Latest news with #Article2
Belfast Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Belfast Telegraph
DUP MP hits out over latest twist to Supreme Court gender ruling as Windsor Framework causes NI uncertainty
The DUP MP spoke out after the commission said the ruling, which determined the legal definition of a woman was based on biological sex, would have applied in Northern Ireland if it was not for the Windsor Framework. Instead, the matter will brought before the High Court in Belfast, which will likely take more than a year. The Supreme Court judgement has implications for transgender people's access to single-sex spaces. As the ruling relates to an interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which does not apply in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission has to assess how it may be interpreted here. It believes the judgment will be 'highly persuasive' in Northern Ireland courts, but the situation is 'much more nuanced and complicated, and there is significant uncertainty due to our unique legal landscape,' chief commissioner Geraldine McGahey said. Specifically, the Supreme Court did not consider Article 2 commitments under the Windsor Framework agreed between the UK and EU in 2023. Article 2 underlines the Government's commitment to ensure that people in Northern Ireland do not lose equality and human rights contained in the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement is underpinned by EU law, and under the Windsor Framework, aspects of EU law continue to apply to Northern Ireland. Ms McGahey said much local equality legislation used words such as 'sex', 'men' and 'women' without providing 'comprehensive definitions'. But Ms Lockhart said the Supreme Court judgment was a 'victory for the rights of women and girls', and it was 'deeply regrettable' that the commission's response 'appears to cast doubt on the implementation of this landmark decision'. She continued: 'The suggestion that EU law should continue to dictate matters of such importance to women's rights in Northern Ireland is entirely unacceptable. 'Whether it be immigration policy, equality protections or indeed any other area, the Windsor Framework should not be seized upon to place the rights of local people in limbo. Article 2 is about 'no diminution of rights', yet the Equality Commission does not seem able to set out in plain terms which right was in place and has now supposedly been lost. 'The Government must act swiftly and decisively to make it absolutely clear that EU law is not binding in respect of the Supreme Court judgement and cannot stymie efforts to reassert and protect the hard-won rights of women and girls in our society.' Scott Cuthbertson, of the Rainbow Project, said: 'We have worked hard to understand the ruling and communicate our view, and welcome that the Equality Commission has accepted that Article 2 of the Windsor Framework could have implications for how this judgment is read in Northern Ireland. 'We're working through the commission's paper, including its interim guidance for employees and service providers, and considering its implications for trans people as well as our next steps to defend their rights.' Hundreds of trans rights activists descend on City Hall to protest Supreme Court ruling The commission said it would ask the High Court in Belfast to issue a declaration to clarify key questions. Given the unique legal landscape, the commission said it was possible 'sex' could be interpreted differently in Northern Ireland to how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court. Ms McGahey said if it wasn't for Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, 'we would actually be saying very clearly that the Supreme Court judgment applies here in Northern Ireland'. She added: 'That is why we're saying it's highly persuasive for our courts and tribunals here in Northern Ireland. 'Article 2 is about ensuring there's no diminution of rights that are protected or safeguarded within the Good Friday Agreement.' Ms McGahey said there was a debate as to which rights were being referred to, civil rights or rights relating to gender discrimination. Until the High Court process is completed, the commission can only issue 'interim guidance' to employers and service users. One suggestion is for employers to consider universal shower and toilet facilities, consisting of self-contained lockable rooms that can be used by one person at a time, regardless of their gender. The intention of this would be for these universal facilities to be designed 'so no one could infer a person's gender or sex simply because they were selected', thus avoiding risking 'outing' transgender people.
Belfast Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Belfast Telegraph
DUP MLA hits out over latest twist to Supreme Court gender ruling as Windsor Framework causes NI uncertainty
The DUP MP spoke out after the commission said the ruling, which determined the legal definition of a woman was based on biological sex, would have applied in Northern Ireland if it was not for the Windsor Framework. Instead, the matter will brought before the High Court in Belfast, which will likely take more than a year. The Supreme Court judgement has implications for transgender people's access to single-sex spaces. As the ruling relates to an interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which does not apply in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission has to assess how it may be interpreted here. It believes the judgment will be 'highly persuasive' in Northern Ireland courts, but the situation is 'much more nuanced and complicated, and there is significant uncertainty due to our unique legal landscape,' chief commissioner Geraldine McGahey said. Specifically, the Supreme Court did not consider Article 2 commitments under the Windsor Framework agreed between the UK and EU in 2023. Article 2 underlines the Government's commitment to ensure that people in Northern Ireland do not lose equality and human rights contained in the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement is underpinned by EU law, and under the Windsor Framework, aspects of EU law continue to apply to Northern Ireland. Ms McGahey said much local equality legislation used words such as 'sex', 'men' and 'women' without providing 'comprehensive definitions'. But Ms Lockhart said the Supreme Court judgment was a 'victory for the rights of women and girls', and it was 'deeply regrettable' that the commission's response 'appears to cast doubt on the implementation of this landmark decision'. She continued: 'The suggestion that EU law should continue to dictate matters of such importance to women's rights in Northern Ireland is entirely unacceptable. 'Whether it be immigration policy, equality protections or indeed any other area, the Windsor Framework should not be seized upon to place the rights of local people in limbo. Article 2 is about 'no diminution of rights', yet the Equality Commission does not seem able to set out in plain terms which right was in place and has now supposedly been lost. 'The Government must act swiftly and decisively to make it absolutely clear that EU law is not binding in respect of the Supreme Court judgement and cannot stymie efforts to reassert and protect the hard-won rights of women and girls in our society.' Hundreds of trans rights activists descend on City Hall to protest Supreme Court ruling Scott Cuthbertson, of the Rainbow Project, said: 'We have worked hard to understand the ruling and communicate our view, and welcome that the Equality Commission has accepted that Article 2 of the Windsor Framework could have implications for how this judgment is read in Northern Ireland. 'We're working through the commission's paper, including its interim guidance for employees and service providers, and considering its implications for trans people as well as our next steps to defend their rights.' The commission said it would ask the High Court in Belfast to issue a declaration to clarify key questions. Given the unique legal landscape, the commission said it was possible 'sex' could be interpreted differently in Northern Ireland to how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court. Ms McGahey said if it wasn't for Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, 'we would actually be saying very clearly that the Supreme Court judgment applies here in Northern Ireland'. She added: 'That is why we're saying it's highly persuasive for our courts and tribunals here in Northern Ireland. 'Article 2 is about ensuring there's no diminution of rights that are protected or safeguarded within the Good Friday Agreement.' Ms McGahey said there was a debate as to which rights were being referred to, civil rights or rights relating to gender discrimination. Until the High Court process is completed, the commission can only issue 'interim guidance' to employers and service users. One suggestion is for employers to consider universal shower and toilet facilities, consisting of self-contained lockable rooms that can be used by one person at a time, regardless of their gender. The intention of this would be for these universal facilities to be designed 'so no one could infer a person's gender or sex simply because they were selected', thus avoiding risking 'outing' transgender people.
Axios
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Mike Johnson calls War Powers Act "unconstitutional"
Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday called the War Powers Act "unconstitutional" amid a bipartisan push to check President Trump's authority to carry out unilateral military strikes on Iran. Why it matters: Johnson's (R-La.) comments are his strongest signal yet that he's against an effort to use the law to assert Congress' authority to rein in the president's use of military force. "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional," Johnson told reporters Tuesday. He added: "I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." Driving the news: Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) — the lone GOP sponsor of a resolution to limit Trump's ability to escalate in Iran — indicated he would back off his push to force a vote after Trump announced Monday that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. But congressional Democrats are still forging ahead in an effort to send a broader message about Congress' authority to declare war. A vote on Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) war powers resolution could happen as soon as Wednesday, although a decision to delay a planned Tuesday afternoon Iran briefing could affect timing. Catch up quick: Johnson and many other Republicans have insisted that Trump had the authority to take action against Iran — and dismissed lawmakers who have demanded that Trump seek congressional approval. "The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within President Trump's Article 2 powers as commander in chief. It shouldn't even be a dispute," Johnson said Tuesday. The other side: Democrats, and some Republicans, have argued the president violated the Constitution when he carried out strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities without Congress' explicit authority.
Irish Examiner
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Omagh victims intend to use public inquiry to ‘heap shame' on Irish Government
Victims of the Omagh bombing intend to use a public inquiry to 'heap shame' on the Irish Government for its failings over the atrocity, a barrister has said. The inquiry also heard that victims are 'sick and tired of platitudes, false assurances and broken promises' from Dublin over the bombing. The Omagh Bombing Inquiry, chaired by Alan Turnbull, is hearing opening statements from core participants. On Tuesday the focus moved to statements from the legal representatives of bereaved families. The Real IRA bomb in the Co Tyrone town in August 1998 killed 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins, in the worst single atrocity in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The public inquiry was set up by the previous government to examine whether the explosion could have been prevented by the UK authorities. Barrister Alan Kane KC delivered a statement on behalf of the families of Omagh victims represented by solicitor John McBurney. These include the families of Debra-Anne Cartwright, Olive Hawkes, Julia Hughes, Philomena Skelton, Samantha McFarland, Alan Radford, Lorraine Wilson, who were all killed in the massacre, as well as several other people who were injured. He told the inquiry: 'It is important that we always keep in focus that it was republican terrorists under the name Real IRA who planned and planted the Omagh bomb. They alone are responsible for the loss and hurt caused by it. The hearing room at the Silverbirch Hotel in Omagh, Co Tyrone (Liam McBurney/PA) 'On hearing the accounts of so many at the commemorative hearings, it beggars all belief as to what else was intended other than murderous carnage by leaving a bomb in a peaceful town's main street on a busy sunny Saturday afternoon where so many innocent women, children and men were likely to be. 'The preventability of the murders and injuries was at all times within the absolute control of the Real IRA.' He added: 'Our clients are of the clear belief that whatever aspects of preventability may lie at the door of the UK state authorities, blame, to a greater or lesser extent, rests with the state authorities in the Republic of Ireland. 'Our clients again renew their call for a parallel inquiry to be immediately established by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, a call that they should not be required to repeat. 'Our clients remain greatly disappointed at the lack of any commitment of the authorities in the Republic of Ireland to meaningfully assist this inquiry. 'They regard the memorandum of understanding, agreed with the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Ireland as wholly unsatisfactory. 'Our clients wish to use this inquiry to heap shame on the Government of the Republic of Ireland for their failures.' Mr Kane said there was a 'moral, human and legal imperative' on the Government to set up its own inquiry. He said: 'As a country with a professed European inclination, it is extremely regrettable that the Republic of Ireland continues to be in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to ensure there has ever been any effective investigation into the death of the people to whom they owe that duty. 'There are preventability issues which clearly arise from the territorial origin of the Omagh bomb, and the cowardly refuge which its perpetrators enjoyed within the boundaries of the Republic of Ireland.' The barrister said his clients had likened the work of the public inquiry to an MOT vehicle test. Solicitor John McBurney, arrives at the Silverbirch Hotel in Omagh for the Omagh Bombing Inquiry (Liam McBurney/PA) He said: 'To their disbelief, they are told only the engine can be inspected, all that exists beyond the engine, including the body, the suspension, the brakes, the contents of the boot, cannot be examined. 'Such an MOT would clearly be unfit for purpose. 'This inquiry can only examine the parts of the car made in the UK as it were, the preventability, it cannot examine the rest of the car where the terrorists sat, or the boot area where the deadly bomb was hidden. 'If this inquiry could examine the whole car then it would also be able to examine any preventability issues which fall on the Republic of Ireland state authorities and all the faults and defects in the vehicle could be identified.' The barrister referred to comments from former taoiseach Bertie Ahern that no stone would be left unturned to bring those responsible for the 1998 atrocity to justice. He said: 'That is a promise which has significance only for the ignoring and disregarding of it which has taken place over the almost 27 years which has passed since the Omagh bombing.' Mr Kane added: 'I have the authority of those I represent to say they are sick and tired of platitudes, false assurances, broken promises and grand but empty words from the state authorities of the Republic of Ireland. 'Their resolute refusal to institute a parallel inquiry and their ongoing failure to provide real and meaningful cooperation with this inquiry speaks far louder than their words.' The Omagh bombing devastated the centre of Omagh in 1998 (Paul McErlane/PA) The barrister referred to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed between the inquiry and the Government to allow access to material held in Dublin. Mr Kane said the MOU is 'redundant' due to the terms of how it was drafted. He said: 'First because the assessment of relevance is in the power of the Republic of Ireland, secondly because it only relates to relevance concerning preventability by the UK state authorities. 'This is an unacceptable yet significant escape clause for the Republic of Ireland. 'Under the memorandum the Republic of Ireland state authorities, and therefore any information which reflects badly on them, could be determined by them to be irrelevant.' He added: 'This voluntary statement of participation by the Government of the Republic of Ireland lacks any degree of real commitment and does nothing to give our clients any degree of confidence in it.' Read More Canadian police confirm death of man linked to Air India Flight 182 bombing off Cork
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mike Johnson opposes bipartisan war powers resolution to authorize Trump's Iran strikes
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday came out against a bipartisan war powers resolution to prevent U.S. intervention in Iran, a show of support for President Trump as dozens of lawmakers question the weekend strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a libertarian and progressive pair, introduced a war powers resolution last week that would direct Trump to 'terminate the use' of U.S. armed forces from Iran unless Congress authorizes such involvement. Massie said Monday the effort has 57 cosponsors, and he vowed to bring a vote on the legislation. Asked Monday if he would allow the bipartisan measure to come to the floor for a vote, Johnson demurred, suggesting it was a political endeavor, and noted presidents in both parties had authorized military strikes without congressional approval. 'I don't think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don't think it's necessary,' the Speaker told reporters in the Capitol. 'For 80 years, presidents of both parties have acted with the same commander in chief authority under Article 2. You had President Biden used three times in Middle East operations. President Obama went on an eight-month campaign of bombing Libya to take down the regime there.' 'I never heard a Democrat balk about any of that, and suddenly, now, they're just up in arms,' he added. 'It's all politics. This is not a time for politics.' Despite Johnson's opposition, Massie and Khanna can still force their measure to the floor. The resolution is privileged and can be called up for debate and a vote after 15 days of no committee action. The duo introduced the legislation June 17. The pair has not signaled its plans, but Monday, Massie said the resolution would come up for a vote. 'Whether you like it or not Congress will be voting on U.S. hostilities in Iran,' he wrote on the social platform X. 'Under the War Powers Act, the President is required to withdraw from hostilities in Iran within 60 days (+30 day ext.) unless he gets a vote of Congress.' Talk about the war powers resolution is ramping up after the U.S. struck three nuclear facilities in Iran on Saturday, escalating the situation in the Middle East. Tehran retaliated Monday, launching an attack on the Al Udeid U.S. Air Force base in Qatar, an offensive that was thwarted by Qatari air defenses. Reaction to the weekend's U.S. strike on Iran largely broke along party lines, with Democrats criticizing Trump's decision to launch an attack on Iran — without authorization from Congress — and Republicans cheering on the move as decisive in setting back Tehran's nuclear program, and within the president's authority as commander in chief. There were, however, some outliers, including Massie, who had pushed against U.S. intervention in Iran and wrote on X shortly after news of the strike broke: 'This is not Constitutional.' Scores of other Democrats also dubbed the weekend strike as unconstitutional, and at least two — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sean Casten (D-Ill.) — went a step further, saying the attack is grounds for impeachment, a notion Johnson said was 'absolute nonsense.' The Speaker backed Trump on Monday, telling reporters, 'The president made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander in chief.' He noted that he received a classified briefing on the situation early Monday morning. 'The commander in chief has Article 2 responsibilities. They're very serious and important, especially in times like this,' Johnson said. 'I think he used that authority judiciously. I think he, this commander in chief, means what he says, says what he means, and he's trying to protect American assets and personnel.' Asked if the U.S. should respond to Iran's retaliation, Johnson said 'it's up to the commander in chief.' 'He sent a very clear message that they should not,' the Speaker added. 'He wanted Iran to come back to the negotiating table in good faith. The problem is they weren't there in the first place.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
