Page 12 | Maggie Chapman MSP slanders Supreme Court

Seriestwo · 2025-04-21T12:54:06+00:00

Maggie Chapman has publicly accused the Supreme Court of transphobia. Any lawyers know if this is contempt of court? https://x.com/gussiegrips/status/1914276708951171451?s=46

TWETMIRF · 21/04/2025 14:32

Whenever I see or hear her, all I can think of is that she's so stupid she doesn't know if she's a woman or not.

I'm waiting for her to declare that teaching children to wait for the little green man when crossing the road is transphobic as nobody has asked it how it identifies...

Forgettingblue · 21/04/2025 14:32

She's not one of politics big thinkers is she?

fromorbit · 21/04/2025 14:32

It is not contempt of court. It is however potentially a breach of the rules for MSPs especially as she is The Deputy Convener of the Equalities Committee.

Gethin Chamberlain

Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 members of the Scottish Parliament must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. Accusing the Supreme Court of "bigotry, prejudice and hatred", as Green MSP Maggie Chapman did, would seem at odds with this obligation.

The appropriate part of the act is quoted in the link.

Do we have any legal types that can advise?

You can Complain here:
https://www.parliament.scot/msps/complain-about-an-msp

I think it might be breach of Section 7 of the Code of Conduct.

https://x.com/newsandpics

FizzingAda · 21/04/2025 14:28

No, but she's certainly behaving in a way unbecoming for a politician, and is bringing the Scottish Parliament into disrepute (more than it already is).

lifeinthelastlane · 21/04/2025 14:27

She's a right one isn't she.
i don't see how it's contempt of court, but is it a form of slander? Who knows. I heard her speaking about the environment recently and was really shocked, as I didn't think I'd ever heard her speak about a green policy before.

Original poster

Seriestwo · 21/04/2025 14:24

Lundier · 21/04/2025 14:03

Why would it be contempt of court? She's neither a witness nor a defendant, or commenting on a trial in progress, or defying any court order.

People really can say what they think. They should say what they think and we should support their right to do this, if we also want this freedom. If Maggie Chapman disagrees with the law, she's every right to organise to change it. What she hasn't the right to do is break the law that exists.

Similarly, if the Labour party don't now agree with the Equality Act they themselves enacted, they can legislate to change it. They have a majority and could do this tomorrow. This is how our system works. What they can't do is ignore the law of the land.

It seems odd that a politician, who writes legislation, would call the supreme court “hateful”. Maybe it’s not contempt, but it seems at odds with public office. I’ll google what the oath they make says, I suppose i see this as being contemptuous of the senior court.

OP posts:

Hoosemover · 21/04/2025 14:16

The woman is a deranged as the men she supports. The Scottish Parliament is a dangerous institution for women. That needs to change come the next election.

Lundier · 21/04/2025 14:03

Why would it be contempt of court? She's neither a witness nor a defendant, or commenting on a trial in progress, or defying any court order.

People really can say what they think. They should say what they think and we should support their right to do this, if we also want this freedom. If Maggie Chapman disagrees with the law, she's every right to organise to change it. What she hasn't the right to do is break the law that exists.

Similarly, if the Labour party don't now agree with the Equality Act they themselves enacted, they can legislate to change it. They have a majority and could do this tomorrow. This is how our system works. What they can't do is ignore the law of the land.