Lara Brown

The highest court in the land was set the task of determining: what is a woman? Today it gave its answer: sex in the Equality Act 2010 is biological and immutable and cannot be altered by a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The Supreme Court should be commended for securing women’s sex-based rights – rights to which they have should always have been entitled as a matter of law.   It will come as a surprise to many that a question with such an apparently obvious answer had to be settled in the Supreme Court. But such is the influence of gender ideology on policy that women’s legal rights have often been trampled underfoot.

Three years ago, the Horniman Museum agreed to return 72 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria. The museum's chair hailed the decision as 'moral and appropriate'. Curators were promised that they were handing those artefacts over to the National Commission for Museums and Monuments, a government agency tasked with preserving the country’s heritage. But where are the Bronzes now? The sad reality is it is almost impossible to find out. Since their return, Muhammadu Buhari, Nigeria's President, has signed an official gazette confirming the Oba of Benin, not the National Commission, rightfully own the artefacts.  There is little evidence that they are on display in any Nigerian museums. Have they disappeared into his private collection?

As the old saying goes, ‘when American sneezes, England catches a cold’. This week, the two major city watchdogs announced they will be ditching planned ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ regulation.  The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the regulator for Britain’s financial services sector, first announced their plans to impose extensive new Diversity and Inclusion rules in 2023. After significant pushback at the time, they have finally declared it has ‘no plans to take the work further’. The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the Bank of England’s regulatory arm, has also issued a statement saying that they are not proceeding with similar proposals. Is this the first sign of a turning point in the creeping politicisation of business?

The Prince Albert Memorial is the latest target of activists seeking to denigrate our past. The Memorial has stood in London's Kensington Gardens for over 150 years as a moving tribute to Queen Victoria’s love for her husband. But now it has been branded 'offensive'. Apparently, the sculptures at its base draw on 'racial stereotypes'. Visitors were warned in a post – which has since been taken down – on the Royal Parks' website that the memorial represents a 'Victorian view of European supremacy' which many today consider 'problematic'. Really? Royal Parks have chosen to hunt for remnants of Empire in order to condemn them Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy announced on her first days in office that the 'era of culture wars is over'.

Actions speak louder than words. In one of the first tests of his tenure, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting has put clinical evidence and child welfare above ideology and intimidation in pledging to persist with a ban on the use of puberty blockers for children. Streeting confirmed that he intends to retain a ban on the prescription of puberty blockers to under 18s across both NHS organisations and at private clinics. JK Rowling has described the move as 'humane' and 'considered'. She's right. There are no shortage of challenges facing the new Health Secretary ‘Puberty blockers’ (known more accurately as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) can halt the production of sex hormones.

History, we're told, is written by the victors. But nowadays, it seems it’s museum curators who really have the final word. Across the UK, our much-loved national institutions have been led astray by a minority of campaigners, with no regard for the wishes of the public at large. It has become almost impossible to visit a museum in Britain today without coming across a sign or installation condemning several centuries of scholarship in favour of an activist’s manifesto. Curators of various galleries and exhibits impose modern cultural and ethical values on every time period, denigrating those that don’t meet their standards. On the long march through our institutions, it becomes clear that ideology has won.

Students have had a rough deal over the past years. They’ve had their degrees interrupted by Covid and teaching strikes, they’re set to graduate into an economic crisis, and they’re saddled with record amounts of debt which they’ll repay earlier and for longer. So for many, the proposed ‘marking boycott’ might feel like the last straw.  In April, the University and College Union, which represents academics and university support staff, announced that they planned to stop ‘all summative marking and associated assessment activities/duties’, including ‘assessment-related work such as exam invigilation and the processing of marks’. This decision has left students in limbo, with no idea whether their work will be marked and when they’ll be able to graduate.