Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman faces widespread criticism and calls for removal from the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee following inflammatory comments on a Supreme Court ruling affirming biological sex in law. Her remarks, condemned by legal authorities, have sparked debate on parliamentary standards and respect for the judiciary.
Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP and deputy convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, has ignited a firestorm of controversy following her inflammatory comments on a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning gender law. Her outrageous rhetoric has rightly led to widespread calls for her removal from this influential committee position.
The uproar began after the Supreme Court issued a clear and crucial decision affirming that the term ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex—an essential recognition of objective reality amid ongoing ideological confusion. Chapman’s response at a gender activists’ rally in Edinburgh was abhorrent, condemning the ruling as steeped in “bigotry, prejudice and hatred.” Such reckless language not only disrespects the judiciary but dangerously undermines public confidence in the rule of law.
The Faculty of Advocates, Scotland’s foremost legal authority, did not mince words in condemning Chapman’s remarks as “appalling,” “irresponsible,” and “reprehensible.” Their stinging denunciation underscored how her words threaten the integrity of the Court and violate standards expected of a committee member who oversees equalities legislation. It is clear her continuation in this role is utterly incompatible with maintaining respect for our legal institutions.
This episode epitomises the failure of a certain political faction to accept democratic and judicial outcomes that challenge their controversial ideology. Genuine criticism of the judiciary must never cross into unfounded accusations of bias or hatred—which is exactly what Chapman’s conduct represents, recklessly casting aspersions on impartial justices.
The controversy is compounded by Chapman’s earlier incendiary social media post following the devastating October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, where she shockingly framed the massacre of over 1,200 innocent Israelis as “decolonisation.” Such a posture not only distorts reality but emboldens extremist narratives, showing a dangerous disregard for truth and human suffering.
Chapman’s track record is equally troubling. She supported a divisive motion aimed at severing ties with political colleagues over alleged “transphobic rhetoric,” pushed for reducing the legal age for changing sex to as young as eight, and dismissed reservations about transgender education in schools as exaggerated. This relentless pursuit of radical social engineering risks alienating the public and destabilising longstanding social norms.
Born in what is now Harare, Zimbabwe, Chapman has become emblematic of the extremist views undermining Scotland’s institutions. Conservative voices—and indeed many concerned citizens—are rightly calling for her immediate removal from her committee role, to restore dignity and common sense to Holyrood’s proceedings.
As the Scottish Parliament prepares to vote on Chapman’s fate, it must confront larger questions about governance, parliamentary decorum, and the urgent need to uphold respect for the judiciary. The electorate deserves representatives who prioritise truth, justice, and social cohesion over divisive ideological posturing. This controversy underscores why emerging political forces advocating for a return to rational, evidence-based policymaking and proper respect for institutions are resonating more than ever with voters.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/04/21/green-msp-urged-quit-after-accusing-supreme-court-trans/ – This article reports on the controversy surrounding Maggie Chapman’s comments on the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding trans women, which aligns with her criticism of the judiciary as ‘bigotry, prejudice and hatred’.
- http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/why-scottish-green-msps-attack-on-gender-ruling-judges-was-straight-out-of-trumps-playbook-5094580 – This piece criticizes Maggie Chapman’s attack on judges, highlighting that her rhetoric adds toxicity to an already contentious issue.
- https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-green-msp-maggie-chapman-accuses-supreme-court-of-bigotry-over-trans-ruling-4246486 – This article discusses Maggie Chapman’s accusations against the Supreme Court following the gender ruling, which resonates with the controversy described.
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67438335 – This link would typically provide information on recent political developments in Scotland, potentially including the reaction to Maggie Chapman’s statements.
- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parliamentary-committee-member-told-to-resign-after-row-over-supreme-court-ruling-cfx98rr7w – This news article likely addresses the calls for Maggie Chapman’s resignation from her committee role due to her controversial remarks.
- https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/21063441.green-msp-maggie-chapman-facing-calls-quit-supreme-court-comments/ – This article reports on the backlash Maggie Chapman faced following her critical comments about the Supreme Court, aligning with the public reaction to her statements.
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14653315/STEPHEN-DAISLEY-Maggie-Chapman-political-horror-embarrass-parliament-worthy-name.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490 – Please view link – unable to able to access data
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The controversy is linked to a recent Supreme Court ruling and Chapman’s current role in the Scottish Parliament, suggesting recent events. However, without specific dates in the narrative, it is challenging to determine if the information is entirely current.
Quotes check
Score:
6
Notes:
There are no specific quotes from individuals that can be verified through online sources. The narrative mentions Chapman’s comments but does not provide direct quotes that can be traced back to the original source.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, which is a well-known publication. However, the reliability can vary depending on the specific topic and author’s perspective.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative aligns with reported controversies involving political figures and judicial decisions. The specifics, such as Chapman’s comments and the backlash, are plausible given the context of political and social debates.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative appears to be based on recent political controversy, though specific dates and quotes are not verified. While the source is well-known, the reliability depends on the context. The plausibility of the claims is high, but without more concrete evidence, the assessment remains open.
