Fermanagh and Omagh Council chief apology over plans for Supreme Court gender ruling
The chief executive of Fermanagh and Omagh Council has apologised for any hurt caused by a statement that said the council planned to implement the provisions of the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman.
The council said it would be developing guidance for the use of changing rooms and toilets at leisure facilities.
A small protest was held outside the council building in Enniskillen by Omagh Pride ahead of Tuesday night's meeting in support of the transgender community.
The meeting was also told that no formal decisions have been made and the council will be reviewing its policies in light of the judgment. It said it will wait for Equality Commission's guidelines that are set to be published in June.
Last month, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
The case was brought against the Scottish Government by the campaign group For Women Scotland.
Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: Labour's new equality law is a bureaucratic nightmare dressed up as progress
You've probably never heard of the so-called 'socio-economic duty', and nor should you have. It's a left-over clause from the Equality Act passed by Labour in 2010, which was so obviously misguided that we Conservatives blocked it from being enacted for 14 years. The clause demands that when local and public bodies make a decision, they must assess whether it increases or decreases inequality resulting from socio-economic disadvantage. It is ideological dross. Worse than that, it threatens to submerge the nation in a bureaucratic nightmare dressed up as progress. How so? It means your council obsessing over 'impact assessments' while local roads decay, schools spending money on 'equality training' instead of textbooks, government departments taking more time analysing postcodes than fixing real problems. When Labour came up with 'socio-economic duty' during its last period in government, its own ministers called it 'socialism in one clause'. They weren't joking. We know it's bad policy because it's already been enacted in Scotland and Wales. The results were exactly what you'd expect: More red tape and no constructive results. The Equality and Human Rights Commission reviewed its effectiveness north of the border and couldn't find a single tangible benefit. But this Labour government doesn't care. Looking busy matters more to it than being effective. The 'socio-economic duty' clause ticks all the boxes – literally! It gives civil servants and consultants endless forms to fill in, reports to write and new jobs in such voguish fields as 'class-equity strategy'. Your taxes will fund more consultants, more HR seminars, more circular discussions about 'lived experience' – all while frontline services are stretched to the limit. When I was Equalities Minister, I fought this sort of nonsense every day. When I tried to protect women's spaces by legislating to enforce female-only toilets, I was told by civil servants that doing so might be 'hostile' to other groups. Time and again, I found common-sense decisions were being held up by an impact assessment drawn up by a diversity officer who'd never set foot in a women's shelter. The 'socio-economic duty' is more of the same. It will paralyse our public services and hand more power to unaccountable quangos. The state needs to do less, and do it better. We need schools pushing children to achieve, not consulting on how 'class background' affects their homework. We need doctors focused on saving lives, not paperwork. We need police stopping criminals, not second-guessing who might be offended. But this government is bereft of ideas. With the economy nose-diving due to a toxic cocktail of tax rises and billions in bungs to the public sector, it is busying itself with ideological rubbish nobody asked for. Giving away British territory in the Chagos Islands while paying £30billion for the privilege. Decriminalising abortion and euthanasia. And changing its mind about how many pensioners to deprive of their winter fuel allowance. Labour has four more years to dig up every bad idea it has had and force it through Parliament. I will keep calling it out. Loudly, clearly, and without apology – because Britain deserves better than this.
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump toy tariffs: Supreme Court won't speed decision on challenge
More: Hasbro layoffs: Toymaker restructures due to tariff struggles and weak demand The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on May 29 that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the Supreme Court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. More: 'Two dolls instead of 30': Trump acknowledges prices will force consumers to cut back More: Second federal court blocks Trump tariffs, this time for Illinois toy importers Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson questions if `monied interests' are favored by court
Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a "troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals - Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. "And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's "remarkably lenient approach" to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the "stern stance" it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls "In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing," Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. "The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders," he wrote.
