Want to help?

Click here to find out how you can help

 

Find Us On Facebook

facebook01

Contact Us

Nicola Sturgeon urged to listen to majority of Scots on GRR Bill

Nicola Sturgeon has been urged to listen to the majority of Scottish people who are against the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill.

At First Minister’s Questions, Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said the GRR Bill reduces women’s rights and potentially risks women’s safety.

Polling shows that a majority of Scots are firmly against key parts of the bill, including reducing the time applicants must have lived in their acquired gender to six months, removing the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and lowering the age threshold for a gender recognition certificate.

Douglas Ross also questioned why the SNP Government rejected an amendment from Michelle Thomson and Russell Findlay which would have prevented a scenario where a survivor of rape would have to refer to their rapist as “she”.

Roddy Dunlop, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, has said: “I can conceive of no sensible basis upon which this amendment might be rejected”.

Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said: “Polling shows that a majority of Scots are firmly against key parts of this bill.

“While there may be a majority in this Chamber who support this legislation, a majority of the public oppose this bill.


“That includes most SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters – despite all three parties backing the bill today.

“This bill reduces women’s rights and potentially risks women’s safety.

“The SNP Government has refused to back an amendment that would have prevented the situation where a survivor of rape would have to refer to their rapist as ‘she’.

“Stopping an accused sex offender from changing gender is common sense.

“The SNP Government seems to be saying that this won’t happen. That there’s no chance a violent predatory man will ever try to exploit loopholes to attack or further traumatise women.

“But what if it does happen? Why would we leave any possibility that it could happen? Just once would be once too many.

“What is the First Minister – and parties like Labour and the Liberal Democrats – thinking by leaving open the chance that this happens?

“Why do the First Minister and her allies in this chamber believe they know better than the public?”