Green MSP Maggie Chapman vote result confirmed after Supreme Court 'bigotry' row

Maggie Chapman has survived a crunch vote to keep her top job on Holyrood’s Equalities Committee following her controversial comments about the Supreme Court.

The Scottish Greens MSP had faced attacks from Gender-critical campaigners, the legal profession and political opponents after she accused the Supreme Court of "bigotry, prejudice and hatred".

Maggie Chapman. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Ms Chapman had faced a vote to remove her from Holyrood’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, brought by Tory MSP Tess White. The motion was defeated by four votes to three after the committee's SNP members backed the Green MSP.

Speaking before the vote, Ms White said: “Her outburst was shocking and a totally unjustified attack on the rule of law. Her comments about the Supreme Court weren’t just rabble-rousing, they were dangerous and incendiary.

“She is not a private individual, she is a legislator, and as a deputy convenor of the equalities committee, there is a high bar for conduct. Words matter, tone matters. There must be boundaries around behaviours and rhetoric.

“No apology has been forthcoming. Instead, Ms Chapman has doubled down on her remarks and refused to reflect on her position. She is devoid of remorse, and in doing so, her position as a member of this committee is clearly untenable.

“The judiciary cannot defend itself publicly, but she used words like prejudice and hatred, which suggests animus on the part of the Supreme Court judges. “In doing so, she attacked the judges perceived motivations, rather than critique the substance of the ruling.

People from the transgender community hold a protest against the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images | Getty Images

“Words matter, especially when they’re weaponised. Rather than take the heat out of the situation, Maggie Chapman doused it in petrol.

“How can anyone working in the civil justice system have confidence in the committee following her remarks?

“Think about the precedent her comments will set if Maggie Chapman’s comments go without challenge or consequence?”.

Scottish Labour MSP Paul O'Kane urged Ms Chapman to withdraw her comments.

He said: “It would be immensely helpful to me if the deputy convenor would take this opportunity on the record in the committee to withdraw her remarks relating to the Supreme Court, and state her respect for the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary without qualification.

“I recognise that many view her as an advocate, and a passionate voice for them, but fundamentally I believe in order to retain confidence in terms of this committee’s role on civil justice, she must take the opportunity to clarify the points I have raised. In taking that opportunity to do so sufficiently, I believe we can move forward as a committee, otherwise I believe we have no choice but to refer this matter to the consideration of the whole parliament, with a recommendation for the removal of the member”.

Responding via video link from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Ms Chapman was defiant and repeatedly stressed her support for the trans community.

She said: “I want to begin my contribution by expressing my solidarity with trans and non-binary people across Scotland. I have spoken to many over the past weeks and months and they consistently say the same thing, they feel under attack, that they have been cast as a group as a threat to others, when we know they are not and just want to live their lives as who they are, like any of us.

“I am very grateful to the many trans people who have been in touch with me over the last nearly two weeks, to tell me their stories. It’s devastating to hear about the exclusion and prejudice that they or their loved one have faced, and how worried they are for the future.

“I have never questioned the court's right to make the ruling that it did, but that does not mean that I must agree with it. I don’t, and I’m very concerned about the impact it will have.

“I have and always will stand up and advocate for trans and non-binary people not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is also my job to stand up for my constituents.

“We’ve probably all criticised court judgements in the past when racist or homophobic laws were upheld.”

Ms Chapman then referenced cases against the coal miners in the 1980s, as well as women failing to get justice in the face of abuse or violence.

She added: “This isn’t really about me, it’s about what message our parliament sends and what we do for people who feel under attack and who are worried about what their future holds.

“I do respect the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. I have never questioned the Supreme Court’s constitutional right to make judgements that they have made on this. I will consider and reflect on what people have said this morning.””

She made her comments after the Supreme Court rules that sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Trans people can legally live in their acquired gender through the UK-wide Gender Reform Act.

Speaking after the verdict, Ms Chapman thanked the committee.

She said: “I am grateful that the Committee has rejected this motion and the attempt to remove me.

“Over recent years a toxic culture war has seen trans people and their loved ones being targeted and demonised by too many politicians and large parts of the media.

“I will always stand up and advocate for trans and non-binary people. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is also my job to stand up for my constituents.

“Some of my constituents are trans or non-binary. Others have trans or non-binary children, parents, siblings, friends. They deserve representation as who they are. I will not stop being a vocal trans ally.”

First Minister John Swinney had previously lashed out at Ms Chapman, insisting she was “wrong” to question the impartiality of the courts.

Mr Swinney said: ”I think it is wrong to do that because at no stage should we question the independence of the judiciary and the judicial system.

“It operates in everybody’s interests, in an entirely neutral fashion in accordance with the rule of law.”