The Home Secretary has said it is “unacceptable” for a European human rights watchdog to “question the validity” of the Supreme Court ruling on gender.
She also hit back at concerns raised over the the policing of pro-Palestinian protests.
The Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, raised the issues in letters to parliamentary committee chairs and the Home Secretary published last week.
The Supreme Court ruled in April that the words “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said in a letter responding to him: “I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that I consider it unacceptable to question the validity of the Supreme Court in making this decision.
“The court has provided legal clarity on this issue, exactly as they are expected to. I find any attempt to cast aspersion on the Supreme Court’s decision disappointing.”
Mr O’Flaherty’s comments came following his visit to the UK as part of his role to monitor and evaluate human rights situations in member states.
He suggested the Supreme Court “did not engage” with international human rights obligations in its ruling and warned transgender people must not be left in an unacceptable “intermediate zone” in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
He said it is “crucial” that new guidance is clear on “how inclusion of trans people can be achieved across all areas, and how exclusion can be minimised to situations in which this would be strictly necessary and proportionate”.
He also raised a concern about a risk of requiring “trans people to habitually ‘out’ themselves publicly when accessing services or facilities”, arguing that beyond privacy concerns, this could also “significantly increase people’s vulnerability to harassment, abuse and even violence”.
New guidance from Britain’s equalities watchdog including on transgender people’s use of certain spaces is currently under consideration by the Government after being submitted to equalities minister Bridget Phillipson last month.
Ms Mahmood also said Mr O’Flaherty was wrong to suggest that the public could not disagree with the Government’s proscription of Palestine Action.
“Anyone is free to criticise or debate our terror laws. What is not acceptable and what is a crime under the law is to support a proscribed organisation,” she wrote.
Mr O’Flaherty had called in his letter to Ms Mahmood for the Government to ensure that policing of protests over Gaza, since proscribing Palestine Action as a terror group, does not restrict the right to peaceful assembly.
She responded that “freedom of assembly and association is a fundamental right” but that this does not extend to “unlawful behaviour” and emphasised that managing protests is an operational matter for police.
