IT has been reported in The National and elsewhere that the Scottish Government is “determined” to press ahead with the proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act (SNP women’s group warns of ‘predatory men’ risk over GRA reform, February 24).
As someone who has contributed to the current consultation on the proposed changes, I’m greatly concerned that the government seems intent on proceeding with them regardless – if this is the case, then why are they bothering to have this further consultation? Is it just some token gesture, made because some rightly pointed out that the earlier consultation had failed to include some women’s groups etc?
READ MORE: SNP group says GRA reform may expose women to 'predatory' men
I very much support the right of people who identify as trans, non-binary or who are otherwise gender-nonconforming to a life free from discrimination, transphobic bullying, harassment, abuse and violence. But I believe the proposed reforms will roll back existing sex-based rights and protections for women and girls and are fundamentally ill-conceived for this and other reasons.
As a young woman I experienced a sexual assault by a complete stranger in the street in the west end of Glasgow (a male stranger, needless to say). I have major concerns about the proposed reforms to the GRA, in particular around the issue of safe spaces and single-sex services for those of us who are female.
Shirley-Anne Somerville is quoted as saying there have been a “lot of misunderstandings” about the proposals. Having read the plethora of information accompanying the consultation, I can assure her – there is no misunderstanding on my part: indeed, there is much at stake here for women, including young women and girls. I would urge those who haven’t already done so to have a look at the consultation, which remains open until March 17, and make up their own minds. As to whether the Scottish Government are genuinely open to my and others’ responses and shared concerns – it doesn’t sound like it, does it?
Mo Maclean
Glasgow
REGARDING the letter from Lesley J Findlay (February 24) on new ideologies, she seems to suggest that if you don’t believe in a religion you are probably a bully. I do not have a religion and have never forced my opinion on anyone.
May I take this opportunity to explain to Lesley that transgender people and secularists have been with us since time began – although they were usually burned at the stake by religious people – whereas religions are very modern man-made cults which have lasted because lots of blood was shed to make sure they did. I haven’t heard of a crusade of secularists yet; in fact I don’t even think they have formed a group.
READ MORE: Letters, February 24
On many occasions I have been told how this loving god would inflict punishment on me for not believing; I’ll face that with bravery, I hope. As for “not respecting others’ consciences”, I was brought up to believe that a god would not forgive you for any wrongs done and that what you did was entirely a matter for your own conscience, so let’s have less of the nonsense that people are being attacked for their religion when it is usually the other way round.
Rosemary Smith
East Kilbride
READING in The National that John Sauven faces up to two years in jail, and Greenpeace unlimited fines for contempt of court, one could think it right that a commercial company should be able to go about its lawful business (Jail call as boss of Greenpeace in Scots court over North Sea protest, February 24).
However, I’m minded to consider that our planet was inhospitable to natural life during its development to where it is now. Nature thankfully contrived to bury and store carbon underground to deliver the planet that life can thrive on today. Why therefore are we working to release it and create a toxic atmosphere we could not survive in?
READ MORE: Greenpeace boss faces jail time over North Sea oil protest
Isn’t climate change a sign that we are getting it wrong? More than 250 years of burning fossil fuels to power industrial revolution, and 100 years of the combustion engine efficiently releasing carbon back into our atmosphere, has left us where we are today. And doesn’t that seem like an assiduous attempt to return our planet to an environment humans are not designed to live in?
Surely capitalism’s biggest failure is that the profit motive takes no heed of public need. Without taking account of the common good, isn’t failure our only sure destination? Isn’t jailing John Sauven no better than nailing Christ to the cross? He leaves the stage, but the message becomes stronger, and resonates louder.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
AS someone who got his lifelong love of the outdoors from school visits to centres in our countryside, I feel for the future generations of youngsters who’ll miss out on that opportunity. I often pass the Blairvadach Outdoor Centre on my way to visit Faslane Peace Camp, just along the Gareloch. The Westminster government easily finds many billions of our tax pounds to fund pointless and immoral weapons of mass destruction at Faslane and nearby Coulport while doling out a block grant to Scotland that isn’t enough to even give our school pupils a brief chance of adventure and a change of scene.
Malcolm Bruce
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel