Readers' Letters: Equalities Committee decision on Chapman 'spineless'

If any doubt remained as to the effectiveness and competence of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee system, then this was surely dispelled yesterday. The vote by the members of the Equalities Committee not to remove Maggie Chapman MSP was as shocking as it was gutless. The three spineless SNP members in effect wholly disagreed with their own leader and First Minister that the comments made by Ms Chapman about the Supreme Court’s decision on gender reform were “wrong”.

Further, Ms Chapman was able to vote on the motion herself. The fact is that her reference to the Judges of displaying “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” were not compatible with her position as Deputy of the Equalities Committee or her position as an elected MSP. These comments were described by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates as “reprehensible”.

It seems our MSPs are free to say absolutely anything they like, however dangerous, damaging and divisive, without repercussions. It seems it will be down to the electorate of the North East of Scotland to demonstrate to MSPs how to remove Maggie Chapman, who is not just an embarrassment to the Scottish Parliament but an embarrassment to the people of Scotland.

Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman yesterday survived a crunch vote to keep her top job on Holyrood’s Equalities Committee after controversial comments about the Supreme Court (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Richard Allison, Edinburgh

Backwards step

Twenty years ago I was the Scotland representative on a UK Government task force which drew up detailed proposals for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Under the subsequent Equality Act 2006, the EHRC has the duty to promote equality (including on grounds of both sex and gender reassignment) and human rights, and in particular, rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The EHRC has just published new guidance about trans people, which asserts, put simply, that trans people must now be barred from any facilities or services, at work or anywhere else, that match their lived gender. The guidance will mean that trans people will be excluded from, and put at risk in, a whole range of services, and their privacy will be fundamentally undermined.

The guidance goes on to say that if I, as a gay man, set up any kind of gay men’s group, and it has more than 25 members, I am now legally barred from letting trans men join. If my husband or partner was trans, even he would not be allowed to join my group.

The guidance amounts to a form of apartheid. It clearly breaches the European Convention, which guarantees to trans people a way to change their legal gender, and privacy about having done so. I am sure that trans people will take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. They will win, and these policies will eventually be overturned. However, that process takes many years, and in the meantime many trans people's lives will be made far more difficult.

Two decades ago I was enthused by the prospect of the EHRC; today I am truly shocked by what it has become – it is now unfit for purpose.

Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh

Difference is real

I am sure many readers have read with horror that the people we used to call “junior doctors” have responded to the eminently grounded decision by the Supreme Court to rule that a woman means a biological woman, not a “trans woman”, by calling it “scientifically illiterate”.

These doctors say the ruling is also “biologically nonsensical”, which is interesting, as it suggest that there is no difference between XX and XY chromosomes in deciding one's sex, or gender, which I would maintain are one and the same thing.

If the Supreme Court's decision is incorrect, perhaps these medical luminaries can explain why there is no point in giving trans women cervical smear tests – because they don't have a cervix, perhaps? – or why it is pointless testing trans men's prostates, because they don't have them either? Both tests are necessary and applicable only to one gender or the other, and can indicate potential threats to the lives of the patients being tested. Surely these basic points highlight the fundamental and obvious difference between men and women in medical terms, proving that defining a woman in biological terms is entirely scientific.

I do not know how many junior doctors voted on this motion, or how junior, “junior” is. Pre-O Grade Biology comes to mind. However, if they are so convinced that something so eminently obvious to the population at large is wrong, I would concur with Helen Joyce of Sex Matters, who commented that “these junior doctors are an embarrassment to their profession”.

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Empty record

A puerile jibe from Alan Woodcock (Letters, 26 April) about unionist correspondent David Millar needing “new glasses to help him see the light” is rather ironic, given that Mr Woodcock suffers from the extreme myopia of Scottish separatism.

Splashing around in toxic, muddy nationalist puddles, he indulges in the usual empty crowing over Brexit and the UK economy being “in tatters”, not to mention familiar far-left whinges about Labour supporting Israel and cutting benefits.

Take a long, hard look at the SNP record in government. Nothing to show for 17 years in power apart from a spiralling social welfare bill, one costly failed extremist policy after the next, deteriorating public services and taxation which disincentivises both investment and private enterprise.

No wonder the CBI has called on tin-eared John Swinney to end “the tax divergence with Westminster” (your report, 28 April).

There’s about as much chance of that happening as there is of the First Minister finally acknowledging that a man does in fact have a penis.

Martin O’Gorman, Edinburgh

Plan for future

The crashing of the US economy by Donald Trump is now predicted and likely. He has created uncertainty and chaos. He has declared a trade war, inflation is hurting the ordinary US consumer, the wellbeing of US companies and their workforces is being threatened. And the likely result is companies not investing. He is busy wrecking the US Revenue Service, which is like the HMRC here, and destroying its ability to collect taxes which he needs.

Unfortunately, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves still want a trade agreement with Trump. It is incomprehensible that they think this will be beneficial to the UK. Mr Starmer will come off much worse in any Trump deal eg selling off the NHS to private US health companies or giving them free passage, including on our health data, giving tax breaks to the massively rich US IT companies and/or downgrading our food standards and undercutting our food products.

Mr Starmer needs to speedily show some political and economic understanding, morality and vision. The UK urgently needs to work with other countries in a protective alliance and he could turn to Europe to uphold the rule of law, democracy and economic and political standards.

For Scotland, independence is our best hope to take control over the economy for the benefit of the majority: nationalising energy and health, supporting Grangemouth, restoring human rights, managing immigration for good and getting away from austerity. The Scottish Government urgently needs to plan and protect Scotland’s future in the face of world events

Pol Yates, Edinburgh

Learn to co-exist

I was appalled to read on the BBC news about the killing of 68 African migrants by a US air strike in Yemen. Another 47 migrants were injured, most of them critically. Donald Trump had ordered an intensification of the air campaign against the Houthis on 15 March, and the strikes were reported to have “killed hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous Houthi leaders”. No mention of the innocent migrants.

One injured man could be heard calling out for “My mother”, in Ethiopia’s official language, Amharic. Reading that brought tears to my eyes. Those young men are sent into war zones, and they have no experience of combat.

No-one who has never been involved in the savagery of warfare could know what was before them when they left their homes to “do their duty”.

The situation in Yemen is appalling. More than 150,000 people are dead, and 4.8 million people have been displaced. Half the population, 19.5m people, are in need of aid. Humans are more dangerous than any other species on our planet. I can’t see any future for us if we don’t learn to co-exist with each other.

Carolyn Taylor, Broughty Ferry, Dundee

Blame Hamas

Ian Petrie writes a pointed letter on behalf of the residents of Gaza but, as always, misses out the elements that don't fit his argument (Letters, 29 April). Israel did not "ruthlessly expel" Palestinians in 1948. The very day the nascent state of Israel was founded it was attacked from all sides by its Arab neighbours, intent on its swift destruction. Similarly, the current war in Gaza was started by Hamas and is only continuing because Hamas is using the Palestinian population as shields, even to this day, and still will not release the hostages.

If Hamas cared about the welfare of the citizens of Gaza the solution would be to give back the hostages unconditionally, not with strings attached. Hamas has used everyone in order to promote its own policy of genocide. Why was Gaza turned into an armed camp from 2006 onwards instead of the peaceful state it could have been? Mr Petrie is blaming Israel but the real culprit is Iran and its proxy.

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and