The Scottish Parliament’s equalities committee has voted against removing Green MSP Maggie Chapman as deputy convenor following her attack on the Supreme Court.
The fight might not be over
At a rally in Aberdeen in the wake of the judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers, in which Lord Hodge found for a unanimous panel that the term ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex, Chapman, an outspoken advocate of gender ideology, decried ‘bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court’.
This prompted the Faculty of Advocates to call for Chapman’s resignation as deputy convenor of the Holyrood committee responsible for equalities legislation, human rights and civil justice. The legal body accused the Green MSP of an ‘egregious breach’ of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which states that MSPs ‘must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.’
Chapman has been defiant, saying that she appeared at the rally not in her capacity as deputy convenor but as an MSP representing her trans and non-binary constituents. The Scottish Tories’ Tess White moved a motion this morning to strip Chapman of her vice chair position, arguing that her continued presence in the role undermines the perception of the committee, particularly in relation to matters of civil justice.
Today’s outcome – four votes against removal, three for – was no real surprise. The three MSPs from the genderist SNP voted to protect Chapman. (Chapman voted against her own removal, of course.) The two Tories voted for removal, and were joined by Labour’s Paul O’Kane, a long-time supporter of trans rights who cast his vote after Chapman rebuffed his opportunity to withdraw her comments.
The fight might not be over. I understand the Scottish Tories are looking at any procedural moves that could put the matter before the whole parliament, forcing every MSP to take a stance on the record.
Today marks another low for the Scottish Parliament, a category with a lot of competition. MSPs have voted along ideological lines to say that no committee convenor or deputy convenor can be removed for speech made outwith that capacity. The libertarian in me takes some grudging comfort in that but I suspect Chapman’s supporters will come to regret the precedent they have set. This is a parliament which, if the polls are correct, will soon contain a number of Reform MSPs, a category of politician not known for shying away from incendiary comments. No doubt they would find a rationale for punishing an opponent as readily as they found one for excusing a mate, but that would be one more example of a broken, capricious, dishonourable parliament.
Comments