Quote: Amanda Amaeshi

“Issues of equality and justice can easily be sidelined in terms of self-interested party politics. But justice has to be braver than that. It has to put people and their dignity at the centre.”

Background music lyrics:

“We’re musicians in exile and this is the song of hope saying…”

Jen Ang

Welcome to the Lawmanity podcast where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress but can also lead to real social change. 

I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and activist based in Scotland and your host on the Lawmanity podcast. We’re back this week with more one-to-one guest interviews. And kicking things off is today’s interview with Amanda Amaeshi: activist, law graduate and – as announced a couple of weeks ago – Lawmanity’s new Legal Caseworker. 

Amanda writes and campaigns on gender equality, anti-racism and youth political participation. Her advocacy journey began as a Year of Young Person 2018 Ambassador and a member of the Girlguiding UK Advocate Panel. For her work, Amanda has won numerous awards including the Young Women’s Movement 30 Under 30 list for 2020, the Glasgow Times Young Scotswoman of the Year award in 2021 and in November 2024 she was named My Life My Say’s Next Generation Changemaker of the Year. 

Last year Amanda graduated with an LLB from the University College London. She currently serves as a trustee for the Young Women’s Movement and until recently – alongside me – as a member of the First Minister’s Advisory Council for Women and Girls in Scotland. 

I’m delighted to welcome Amanda to the show today, and also to her new role as Legal Caseworker at Lawmanity.

Jen Ang

Just to get us started or warmed up, I have a kind of surprise opener question which was indeed a surprise for you today, and it is this: so a good friend of mine told me that our sense of smell is our oldest sense as a species, because it connects really quickly to deep memories that we might have of a place or a time. So I like to ask people, what is a smell that is meaningful to you? Maybe one that you like or one that just, you know, takes you to a place in your memories or your imagination that you like to go to?

Amanda Amaeshi

I thought this was quite a funny question because I notoriously have quite a bad sense of smell! But, I was trying to think of something quite recent, actually I went, I went to this candle-making session at UCL East with my friend a couple weeks ago. So we got to make our own candles. And I remember the scent that I picked out was like chamomile and lavender, I think. And I just really liked that smell. And I thought it was quite peaceful and it was a really nice, relaxing activity to do with my friend in the midst of assessment season, all these deadlines, all the stress, and also because I made the candle for my mum, so I just felt this is something that she really likes. It was kind of like that combination of doing the nice, fun activity and then also making something that would be for someone that’s really meaningful to me. It brings back lots of nice memories.

Jen Ang

Oh, that’s lovely. Those are such soothing smells, aren’t they? Very much. It reminds me of, I have a sleeping time tea and chamomile lavender is very much a part of that.

Amanda Amaeshi

Yeah. Because I know my mum really likes chamomile tea. So I felt like she would like it. And I mean, she did like it. She was really delighted when I brought it back.

Jen Ang

Oh, star gift. Star gift and lucky mum. Thank you so much for sharing that. 

So now we’re going to turn from fun opener into kind of, you know, why we’re here. Ah, so the first question, it’s a big one. Okay, so the first question is basically, do you feel that the law treats you or your community equally? So does it work equally for you or your community, however you wish to define that and why or why not?

Amanda Amaeshi

I was thinking about this, I thought about my community as like… I’m a young Black woman, so I was thinking about it through those lenses of youth, of race, of gender. And I mean, there’ll be plenty of ways where the law does work, but, I focused on examples where I found that it hasn’t worked so well. 

And, one of the first things that came to mind is just how the legal system is failing survivors of gender-based violence in regards to their access to justice is being denied because – legal aid is technically available for these cases [but] – nearly a third of survivors were forced to represent themselves in courts in 2023, which has nearly doubled since 2011. And this means that survivors are having to navigate these complex, and often retraumatising, legal processes, and they have to face their abusers without that legal representation. And also Rape Crisis England & Wales has also raised concerns about how the asylum system retraumatises survivors of sexual violence, particularly those who are housed in unsafe and unsuitable accommodations by the Home Office. This shows the overlap between gender and then race and migration status as well. And whilst these people are trying to face or trying to seek protection, they’re met with these systems who are then compounding their trauma rather than alleviating it. 

Another thing that I found was in regards to policing, policing is actually one of the first things that came to mind because anytime I see police in the street, even though I’ve never personally had a bad experience, just instinctively because I know about the rates of over-policing in Black communities, I always feel a bit unsettled whenever I see them about… but there’s been civil orders like the Serious Violence Reduction Orders which have been disproportionately targeting Black communities and particularly Black men.

Jen Ang

That is a long and sobering list of really poignant I suppose statistics just to illustrate the wide range of ways in which the law may not equally protect or equally support women. You’ve highlighted as a community, so women survivors of violence but also Black communities and migrant communities.

Do you then as an activist and a law student, you know, knowing that the law doesn’t treat communities that you care about equally, do you see the law as more of a tool or a barrier for change or maybe a little bit of both?

Amanda Amaeshi

I think it’s definitely both. Like it’s a barrier and a tool.

In regards to being a tool obviously people go to court, have a case and especially with cases of like strategic litigation where individual cases can be leveraged to advocate for wider legal precedents that can address broader systemic issues. And there’s also legal protections embedded in anti-discrimination legislation like the Equality Act for example, which equality is in the name. So I suppose in that sense it’s definitely a tool but I think it can also be a barrier as well. 

So firstly in regards to the practical barriers, so I thought about this through – I’ve volunteered over the past year at UCL’s Integrated Legal Advice Clinic. So it’s located in East London in Stratford and the clinic offers legal aid and also pro bono support in regards to housing, welfare benefits, community care and education. And so I had the opportunity to volunteer there both as an admin volunteer and also through one of my final year modules which is called Access to Justice and Community Engagement. So I got to help out the lawyers with their casework.  

So I guess thinking about that experience, it really illuminated for me the practical, barriers that come with accessing law. 

First off, to do with the cost: the fact that so many people are having to access legal clinics like UCL’s iLAC, it shows that just accessing legal support is really prohibitive if private legal services are charging exorbitant fees and it just becomes really inaccessible. 

And then even where obviously Legal Aid does exist and the aim of that is supposed to be to provide access for those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford it, Legal Aid is being slashed. There’s been lots of cuts and it’s had a major impact on the sustainability and Legal Aid sector. And as a result I’ve seen that there are relatively few services offering free legal assistance, especially when it comes to ongoing support or representation beyond initial advice. And the limited numbers of clinics that do exist, like UCL’s iLAC are often inundated with inquiries and they have no option to signpost clients elsewhere. And especially when I was working on the telephones, answering client enquiries, I found myself having to do this a lot, having to do some research to find other places that the enquirers could go to. But then it also becomes a kind of inescapable loop because I remember quite a lot of the times I would say, “oh, maybe you can go here or you can go here”. And then the enquirer would be like, “oh, I’ve already been there and they already didn’t have capacity and in fact they were the ones that told me to come to you”. It almost becomes a bit hopeless. You’re kind of just going round and round in circles

And if you are lucky enough to get that support, there’s then so much bureaucracy and opaqueness within the legal system. Statutes, regulations, guidance, it’s often difficult to find and even more difficult to understand, lots of technical language. And I remember I was helping out with the casework, having to come up with legal arguments and I’d spend ages reading these documents. And even for me as a law student and even talking to the other lawyers as well, it wouldn’t always be so straightforward to figure out what does this mean? So if it’s already difficult for those of us who have some experience already with the law, then how much more difficult would it be for those who are in a legal crisis and then in a heightened state of vulnerability and perhaps with other compounding inequalities on top of do with race or disability or age, how are they supposed to navigate this system? 

And sometimes, maybe I’m being a bit cynical, but it also sometimes seems that this opaqueness and difficulty to navigate the system is not just a flaw, but kind of a purposeful design. I remember there was a client we had once needed to challenge a decision, regarding the Department for Work and Pensions. And the deadline for submitting the application to challenge the decision had technically passed. But the lawyer who was supervising me said that appeal could probably still be made because of exceptional circumstances, in this case to do with recent house moves and disability-related difficulties. It raised the question for me of who gets the benefit of this procedural flexibility? And the fact that late appeals could be accepted suggested to me that deadlines could function more as deterrence as opposed to absolute cutoffs, which could potentially discourage claimants who assume that they have no further options after they’ve gotten this decision.

And if there is this flexibility in regards to extenuating circumstances, why isn’t this more explicitly communicated? Why is this something that claimants actually have to fight for and in this case fighting for with the support of the legal professionals? It’d be even worse if the claimant was trying to do it by themselves. It almost seemed that the system is designed in a way that if there are fewer, challenges and it becomes like a more manageable caseload. But that’s not how justice is supposed to work, is it?

Jen Ang

As I listened to you talk about your experience at the UCL clinic, I mean, what you’ve described feels very, very familiar. in terms of my own observations from frontline advice, work and legal casework, all of those frustrations around potential clients not being able to find anyone to help them. So just a total lack of access to advice. But then also raising that question about whether access to justice, of the law working unequally for people is not just kind of an accident or not just because of quote, like barriers, like capacity barriers, but whether there’s actually something baked into the way that some of the process works.

Amanda Amaeshi

I mean there have definitely been good things as well. It’s been really, throughout my year of volunteering nurse, it was also really great to just see how many people the clinic were able to help in terms of getting a case outcome that was desirable or even just the clients feeling more confident and empowered to advocate for their rights and for the rights of their community. 

I remember actually getting a phone call from a client, her case had actually been resolved and she was actually saying, oh, someone else from her community had a similar issue. And she knew because her lawyer that she had at iLAC had really empowered her, really given the confidence, not just the practical advice of what to do, but also just making her feel heard and respected, that she knew, I have to send my friend here as well, because they were able to help me, maybe they can help her as well, my friend as well. So there’s definitely positive sides to it as well.

Jen Ang

That leads nicely on to my next question, which is, in light of what you’ve seen and learned, what do you think is the role of lawyers and the legal system in supporting social justice movements? Just bearing in mind that when we talk about the law and the legal system, both the actors within the system and also our opponents in the system are all lawyers. So it’s a broader question, for you, what do you think is their role?

Amanda Amaeshi

This question really, drew my mind back to some conversations I’ve been having during the seminars that I’ve had as part of the Access to Justice module. This idea of, what are lawyers supposed to do? Are they supposed to simply just advocate for their client in regards to how the law currently is, or is there kind of like a broader role as well of like, advocating for social justice? And I think it was called cause lawyering. And so that’s what this question really got me to think about. 

And I remember coming across a quote when I was reading, from an academic called James Douglas. And he said that a lawyer’s role in society is not to change the rules of the game, but to assist in maintaining the rules and to help resolve conflicts established under the rules. And I guess to an extent I can kind of, I can understand the logic behind the view. Like, it reflects a very traditional procedural understanding of the legal profession. And basically lawyers keep the system stable and functional by working within the rules that currently exist and in theory it makes the law predictable and fair and perhaps would increase public trust. Especially since lawyers are supposed to be seen as neutral figures to represent their clients, not to advance their personal ideologies. So it would ensure that everyone, no matter their background, can expect an objective and fair representation. And there’s also the constitutional argument that you don’t want lawyers or the judiciary to step over too much into what could be considered the role of legislators, like creating policy. 

But… so I think about these points and I get it, makes sense. I mean, it’s what I’ve been taught to think, from a very traditional law degree. But at the same time I also feel like it paints a fairly narrow picture of what the legal profession can be, because it assumes that the legal system is fixed and unchanging. But in reality it always evolves and sometimes I think it has to be challenged head-on when it fails to deliver justice. And I think lawyers are very uniquely placed, particularly those who are on the frontline of issues like housing or immigration, welfare or criminal justice. So in regards to housing and welfare, again I’m thinking back to the lawyers at the legal clinic. These lawyers in particular are often able to see the real-world effects of legal gaps and injustices and so then to suggest that their role is only to uphold the system no matter how flawed, it ignores the deep ethical questions that arise when the rules themselves are actually part of the access to justice problem. And laws, a lot of the time they aren’t just imperfect, they’re inherently outdated or harmful. Especially if they’re designed by decision makers that don’t have lived experience or don’t actively attempt to engage meaningfully with those with lived experience. So upholding these laws blindly, laws that are really outdated and harmful… in my view. It conflicts with the profession’s broader commitment to justice. Because if lawyers can’t or don’t challenge these unjust laws or practices, then, especially with their knowledge and their unique positioning, then who else will? And I think it is possible sometimes that lawyers can do both, still advocate for your client, but then also kind of pushing the boundaries when justice demands of it. 

So there’s another quote, from Jennifer Gordon, in her article ‘The Lawyer Is Not The Protagonist’. And then she outlines what she calls the conventional narrative, where a social problem arises, a lawyer steps in to fix it, the lawyer identifies the legal strategy, and either the case is won or lost. But I really liked how she challenged that whole framing and she offers an alternative view where the community group instead is the protagonist and the lawyer is instead part of the supporting cast. So the lawyer is not supposed to take over and be like, oh, ah, I’m the one that knows all the legal information, I’m the one that knows the fancy words, all the arguments. It’s not about that. So the question that the lawyer should be asking is not “how do I fix this?” But “what can legal tools do to support the broader strategy of the community?” And I thought it was really great rethinking because law can be used as a really good tool, but it’s not just law in isolation that could solve the big societal problems. Legal work has to be in service of a much bigger vision which is in line of collaborative community action, community-oriented actions as well… like getting rid of the top down solution, which is quite patronising I think and kind of like having the humility to lean in more to these grassroots movements and using law and using that legal expertise as one of many tools in a toolbox to help that process.

Jen Ang

That’s.. I’m sort of, I’m sort of in awe because that was first a very powerful critique of your view around the obligation of lawyers to think critically about whether to participate in injustice. And then a description of what movement lawyering or community lawyering could look like. That was really quite inspiring actually. It’s also a hopeful message for me to hear you describe that and to hear that vision as something that you think is possible or it’s possible for us to get better at moving towards. 

My last big question is a big question, and it’s this: in light of everything you’ve described about inequalities in the law itself, inequalities in access to the law and the role of lawyers, what for you does justice look like for you or your community?

Amanda Amaeshi

It’s a very big question. But I think it’s something that’s really important to think about because when it comes to dealing with problems it’s very easy to focus on the negatives and be like: oh we don’t like this, we don’t like this. But if you don’t have a clear idea of how do we want things to be instead then can be easy for the action that is happening to… fizzle out a little bit, without that kind of sustained hope of this is what we’re fighting for. 

But for me I’d say that justice looks like a legal system, a political system that is designed by, with and for the people that it aims to serve, especially those who are currently most vulnerable, most marginalised and furthest away from this power. And it’s not just about abstract legal principles which are in legislations or in courtroom decisions. But it’s really about whether the people at the sharpest edges of injustices feel seen, heard and protected. Like the example of like the clients from earlier where they felt heard and empowered in regards to their case. 

And it’s really important that justice has to be intersectional, it has to be collective, it has to be rooted in empathy. And it’s really important that these don’t just become buzzwords. They’re really essential core principles. And there has to be a commitment to listening to communities rather than just prescribing solutions based solely on labels that might be put on them by society. And I think especially the idea of empathy and humanity are really central to this vision. I think throughout my law degree, sometimes it’s kind of the case you have to focus on these, very quote unquote “intellectually serious” ideas, like rationality. But I think throughout the three years, especially in the modules that I’ve taken in final year, it’s really helped me understand this idea of empathy is transformative and it is as intellectually serious as any other idea. And, it’s a rigorous, necessary foundation for legal thinking and legal practice as well. 

And another thing, part of justice is that, something I see right now is that too often legal systems are shaped by fear. And I’m thinking about around the world, the rollback of rights under pressure from far-right movements and how as a result in Scotland and in the UK perhaps laws or policies are becoming a bit weaker in response to that. Issues of equality and justice can easily be sidelined in terms of self-interested party politics. But justice has to be braver than that. It has to put people and their dignity at the centre of the conversation. It can’t just be moved aside because it’s become politically inconvenient. It should always be at the core of what anybody’s doing. 

And as I’ve already alluded to, I don’t think that law alone can carry this burden of striving for justice. It’s definitely an important part. But, I think justice requires more than just legal reform. It needs moral imagination and sustained inclusive activism. And so law is a tool that must be wielded alongside storytelling, organising, mutual aid, education, care, all these other aspects. A lot of it comes from the community and I think that’s how real change and real justice happens.

Jen Ang

Amazing. I was almost again holding my breath, not wanting to interrupt you. But justice has to be, intersectional, collective, rooted in empathy. It has to come from the community. 

So my final, final question is, this: so the Lawmanity podcast will go out to all sorts of listeners and there will be some people out there who will be listening to your thoughts and what you’ve accomplished already as an activist and a law student, and will be wondering how you got here or maybe how to be you. 

So, my question is, what is your advice maybe for your younger self? And I know you’re still probably identifying as young! but you’re still a mentor to some, and if not your younger self, then to other people out there who are curious and who want to do some of the things you’ve been doing.

Amanda Amaeshi

This is a really lovely question and actually I remember last year I wrote an article all about this actually for The WOW Foundation, giving my advice to aspiring changemakers… and then the key points related to identifying one’s key interests and goals, finding the opportunities, building community, dealing with imposter syndrome – especially when you’re doing quite big roles like being on the National Advisory Council – and then also resisting that fear and apathy. So I would definitely encourage interested listeners to check that out. Perhaps that could be linked in the show notes. 

But I wanted to mention one other thing that I feel like I’ve not spoken about elsewhere before. Something new. Sometimes… especially when I’m thinking about younger me, maybe what 14, 15-year-old me would have wanted to hear when I first started doing this activism, advocacy stuff properly is that sometimes not everybody is going to understand why you care so much or why you want to do the actions that you’re doing. I mean, to be fair, a decent amount of people will, this is not to be off putting. I guess the reality is that some people might try to mock you, make fun of you, try to belittle you in the hopes that you might stop doing whatever it is that you’re doing and it can be quite disheartening to be honest. But I think it’s important to remember that advocating for change is never easy. And kind of like facing such remarks from other people is just one part of how it might not always be easy. But it’s really important to try not to let that get to you and just stay true to the value system that’s guiding you. Keep in your mind the changes that you wish to see, which again why I said that, think about the problems, we also have to think about the solutions as well, the ideal scenario, and keep in focus the changes that you wish to see which are possible. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise and find yourself a community of changemakers who you can learn from, who you can seek support and solidarity from, and put in your best ability, and… don’t let other people’s small minds limit your imagination.

Jen Ang

Ah, that’s brilliant. Wise advice from a wise woman! 

Thank you for that and thank you for taking the time to sit down with me today, and to share with me your thoughts, which we’ll now get to share with a wider audience than just you and me. I could honestly sit and talk to you, Amanda, for, you know, another hour and have lots of questions about everything, but in the interest of letting you get on with your day, I’m going to draw the interview to a close here. But it’s been lovely to see you and I, and probably all of our listeners, will keep an eye out for what you do next because doubtless it will be just as bold and inspiring and interesting as today. 

And that’s a wrap for today’s episode with Amanda Amaeshi, activist, law graduate and my new colleague here at Lawmanity. If you were inspired by what Amanda has shared and want to learn more about the Legal Aid crisis that’s preventing survivors of domestic violence from accessing the legal advice they need, or if you want to explore what it means to be a community lawyer or a cause lawyer, check out the links in our episode notes. And for those of you who are practically minded, reach out to your local Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis organisation or your local Citizens Advice Bureau, educate yourself and others, and maybe consider volunteering. 

We’ll be back again soon with our next episode, an amazing one to one with Davie Donaldson, a young activist from the Scottish traveller community, who shares his perspective on the challenges of preserving and protecting travelling culture under laws that are written and enforced primarily by and for settled people. Davie vividly illustrates what it looks like day-to-day in his advocacy on behalf of his family and his community. 

Thanks for tuning in to our Lawmanity podcast again and if you enjoyed today’s episode, please do hit the like and subscribe buttons and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit more about how law really works in practice and how it can be used to make the world a better, brighter place. 

The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. Shout out to Helena Refai for mentoring us through our first year of this incredible project. And welcome to Amanda Amaeshi, who’s joined the team to support us with graphics and socials. The music you’ve been listening to is Always On The Move by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland. Thanks so much for tuning in today. We hope you enjoyed listening and see you next time.

Quote: Amanda Amaeshi

“Issues of equality and justice can easily be sidelined in terms of self-interested party politics. But justice has to be braver than that. It has to put people and their dignity at the centre.”

Background music lyrics:

“We’re musicians in exile and this is the song of hope saying…”

Jen Ang

Welcome to the Lawmanity podcast where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress but can also lead to real social change. 

I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and activist based in Scotland and your host on the Lawmanity podcast. We’re back this week with more one-to-one guest interviews. And kicking things off is today’s interview with Amanda Amaeshi: activist, law graduate and – as announced a couple of weeks ago – Lawmanity’s new Legal Caseworker. 

Amanda writes and campaigns on gender equality, anti-racism and youth political participation. Her advocacy journey began as a Year of Young Person 2018 Ambassador and a member of the Girlguiding UK Advocate Panel. For her work, Amanda has won numerous awards including the Young Women’s Movement 30 Under 30 list for 2020, the Glasgow Times Young Scotswoman of the Year award in 2021 and in November 2024 she was named My Life My Say’s Next Generation Changemaker of the Year. 

Last year Amanda graduated with an LLB from the University College London. She currently serves as a trustee for the Young Women’s Movement and until recently – alongside me – as a member of the First Minister’s Advisory Council for Women and Girls in Scotland. 

I’m delighted to welcome Amanda to the show today, and also to her new role as Legal Caseworker at Lawmanity.

Jen Ang

Just to get us started or warmed up, I have a kind of surprise opener question which was indeed a surprise for you today, and it is this: so a good friend of mine told me that our sense of smell is our oldest sense as a species, because it connects really quickly to deep memories that we might have of a place or a time. So I like to ask people, what is a smell that is meaningful to you? Maybe one that you like or one that just, you know, takes you to a place in your memories or your imagination that you like to go to?

Amanda Amaeshi

I thought this was quite a funny question because I notoriously have quite a bad sense of smell! But, I was trying to think of something quite recent, actually I went, I went to this candle-making session at UCL East with my friend a couple weeks ago. So we got to make our own candles. And I remember the scent that I picked out was like chamomile and lavender, I think. And I just really liked that smell. And I thought it was quite peaceful and it was a really nice, relaxing activity to do with my friend in the midst of assessment season, all these deadlines, all the stress, and also because I made the candle for my mum, so I just felt this is something that she really likes. It was kind of like that combination of doing the nice, fun activity and then also making something that would be for someone that’s really meaningful to me. It brings back lots of nice memories.

Jen Ang

Oh, that’s lovely. Those are such soothing smells, aren’t they? Very much. It reminds me of, I have a sleeping time tea and chamomile lavender is very much a part of that.

Amanda Amaeshi

Yeah. Because I know my mum really likes chamomile tea. So I felt like she would like it. And I mean, she did like it. She was really delighted when I brought it back.

Jen Ang

Oh, star gift. Star gift and lucky mum. Thank you so much for sharing that. 

So now we’re going to turn from fun opener into kind of, you know, why we’re here. Ah, so the first question, it’s a big one. Okay, so the first question is basically, do you feel that the law treats you or your community equally? So does it work equally for you or your community, however you wish to define that and why or why not?

Amanda Amaeshi

I was thinking about this, I thought about my community as like… I’m a young Black woman, so I was thinking about it through those lenses of youth, of race, of gender. And I mean, there’ll be plenty of ways where the law does work, but, I focused on examples where I found that it hasn’t worked so well. 

And, one of the first things that came to mind is just how the legal system is failing survivors of gender-based violence in regards to their access to justice is being denied because – legal aid is technically available for these cases [but] – nearly a third of survivors were forced to represent themselves in courts in 2023, which has nearly doubled since 2011. And this means that survivors are having to navigate these complex, and often retraumatising, legal processes, and they have to face their abusers without that legal representation. And also Rape Crisis England & Wales has also raised concerns about how the asylum system retraumatises survivors of sexual violence, particularly those who are housed in unsafe and unsuitable accommodations by the Home Office. This shows the overlap between gender and then race and migration status as well. And whilst these people are trying to face or trying to seek protection, they’re met with these systems who are then compounding their trauma rather than alleviating it. 

Another thing that I found was in regards to policing, policing is actually one of the first things that came to mind because anytime I see police in the street, even though I’ve never personally had a bad experience, just instinctively because I know about the rates of over-policing in Black communities, I always feel a bit unsettled whenever I see them about… but there’s been civil orders like the Serious Violence Reduction Orders which have been disproportionately targeting Black communities and particularly Black men.

Jen Ang

That is a long and sobering list of really poignant I suppose statistics just to illustrate the wide range of ways in which the law may not equally protect or equally support women. You’ve highlighted as a community, so women survivors of violence but also Black communities and migrant communities.

Do you then as an activist and a law student, you know, knowing that the law doesn’t treat communities that you care about equally, do you see the law as more of a tool or a barrier for change or maybe a little bit of both?

Amanda Amaeshi

I think it’s definitely both. Like it’s a barrier and a tool.

In regards to being a tool obviously people go to court, have a case and especially with cases of like strategic litigation where individual cases can be leveraged to advocate for wider legal precedents that can address broader systemic issues. And there’s also legal protections embedded in anti-discrimination legislation like the Equality Act for example, which equality is in the name. So I suppose in that sense it’s definitely a tool but I think it can also be a barrier as well. 

So firstly in regards to the practical barriers, so I thought about this through – I’ve volunteered over the past year at UCL’s Integrated Legal Advice Clinic. So it’s located in East London in Stratford and the clinic offers legal aid and also pro bono support in regards to housing, welfare benefits, community care and education. And so I had the opportunity to volunteer there both as an admin volunteer and also through one of my final year modules which is called Access to Justice and Community Engagement. So I got to help out the lawyers with their casework.  

So I guess thinking about that experience, it really illuminated for me the practical, barriers that come with accessing law. 

First off, to do with the cost: the fact that so many people are having to access legal clinics like UCL’s iLAC, it shows that just accessing legal support is really prohibitive if private legal services are charging exorbitant fees and it just becomes really inaccessible. 

And then even where obviously Legal Aid does exist and the aim of that is supposed to be to provide access for those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford it, Legal Aid is being slashed. There’s been lots of cuts and it’s had a major impact on the sustainability and Legal Aid sector. And as a result I’ve seen that there are relatively few services offering free legal assistance, especially when it comes to ongoing support or representation beyond initial advice. And the limited numbers of clinics that do exist, like UCL’s iLAC are often inundated with inquiries and they have no option to signpost clients elsewhere. And especially when I was working on the telephones, answering client enquiries, I found myself having to do this a lot, having to do some research to find other places that the enquirers could go to. But then it also becomes a kind of inescapable loop because I remember quite a lot of the times I would say, “oh, maybe you can go here or you can go here”. And then the enquirer would be like, “oh, I’ve already been there and they already didn’t have capacity and in fact they were the ones that told me to come to you”. It almost becomes a bit hopeless. You’re kind of just going round and round in circles

And if you are lucky enough to get that support, there’s then so much bureaucracy and opaqueness within the legal system. Statutes, regulations, guidance, it’s often difficult to find and even more difficult to understand, lots of technical language. And I remember I was helping out with the casework, having to come up with legal arguments and I’d spend ages reading these documents. And even for me as a law student and even talking to the other lawyers as well, it wouldn’t always be so straightforward to figure out what does this mean? So if it’s already difficult for those of us who have some experience already with the law, then how much more difficult would it be for those who are in a legal crisis and then in a heightened state of vulnerability and perhaps with other compounding inequalities on top of do with race or disability or age, how are they supposed to navigate this system? 

And sometimes, maybe I’m being a bit cynical, but it also sometimes seems that this opaqueness and difficulty to navigate the system is not just a flaw, but kind of a purposeful design. I remember there was a client we had once needed to challenge a decision, regarding the Department for Work and Pensions. And the deadline for submitting the application to challenge the decision had technically passed. But the lawyer who was supervising me said that appeal could probably still be made because of exceptional circumstances, in this case to do with recent house moves and disability-related difficulties. It raised the question for me of who gets the benefit of this procedural flexibility? And the fact that late appeals could be accepted suggested to me that deadlines could function more as deterrence as opposed to absolute cutoffs, which could potentially discourage claimants who assume that they have no further options after they’ve gotten this decision.

And if there is this flexibility in regards to extenuating circumstances, why isn’t this more explicitly communicated? Why is this something that claimants actually have to fight for and in this case fighting for with the support of the legal professionals? It’d be even worse if the claimant was trying to do it by themselves. It almost seemed that the system is designed in a way that if there are fewer, challenges and it becomes like a more manageable caseload. But that’s not how justice is supposed to work, is it?

Jen Ang

As I listened to you talk about your experience at the UCL clinic, I mean, what you’ve described feels very, very familiar. in terms of my own observations from frontline advice, work and legal casework, all of those frustrations around potential clients not being able to find anyone to help them. So just a total lack of access to advice. But then also raising that question about whether access to justice, of the law working unequally for people is not just kind of an accident or not just because of quote, like barriers, like capacity barriers, but whether there’s actually something baked into the way that some of the process works.

Amanda Amaeshi

I mean there have definitely been good things as well. It’s been really, throughout my year of volunteering nurse, it was also really great to just see how many people the clinic were able to help in terms of getting a case outcome that was desirable or even just the clients feeling more confident and empowered to advocate for their rights and for the rights of their community. 

I remember actually getting a phone call from a client, her case had actually been resolved and she was actually saying, oh, someone else from her community had a similar issue. And she knew because her lawyer that she had at iLAC had really empowered her, really given the confidence, not just the practical advice of what to do, but also just making her feel heard and respected, that she knew, I have to send my friend here as well, because they were able to help me, maybe they can help her as well, my friend as well. So there’s definitely positive sides to it as well.

Jen Ang

That leads nicely on to my next question, which is, in light of what you’ve seen and learned, what do you think is the role of lawyers and the legal system in supporting social justice movements? Just bearing in mind that when we talk about the law and the legal system, both the actors within the system and also our opponents in the system are all lawyers. So it’s a broader question, for you, what do you think is their role?

Amanda Amaeshi

This question really, drew my mind back to some conversations I’ve been having during the seminars that I’ve had as part of the Access to Justice module. This idea of, what are lawyers supposed to do? Are they supposed to simply just advocate for their client in regards to how the law currently is, or is there kind of like a broader role as well of like, advocating for social justice? And I think it was called cause lawyering. And so that’s what this question really got me to think about. 

And I remember coming across a quote when I was reading, from an academic called James Douglas. And he said that a lawyer’s role in society is not to change the rules of the game, but to assist in maintaining the rules and to help resolve conflicts established under the rules. And I guess to an extent I can kind of, I can understand the logic behind the view. Like, it reflects a very traditional procedural understanding of the legal profession. And basically lawyers keep the system stable and functional by working within the rules that currently exist and in theory it makes the law predictable and fair and perhaps would increase public trust. Especially since lawyers are supposed to be seen as neutral figures to represent their clients, not to advance their personal ideologies. So it would ensure that everyone, no matter their background, can expect an objective and fair representation. And there’s also the constitutional argument that you don’t want lawyers or the judiciary to step over too much into what could be considered the role of legislators, like creating policy. 

But… so I think about these points and I get it, makes sense. I mean, it’s what I’ve been taught to think, from a very traditional law degree. But at the same time I also feel like it paints a fairly narrow picture of what the legal profession can be, because it assumes that the legal system is fixed and unchanging. But in reality it always evolves and sometimes I think it has to be challenged head-on when it fails to deliver justice. And I think lawyers are very uniquely placed, particularly those who are on the frontline of issues like housing or immigration, welfare or criminal justice. So in regards to housing and welfare, again I’m thinking back to the lawyers at the legal clinic. These lawyers in particular are often able to see the real-world effects of legal gaps and injustices and so then to suggest that their role is only to uphold the system no matter how flawed, it ignores the deep ethical questions that arise when the rules themselves are actually part of the access to justice problem. And laws, a lot of the time they aren’t just imperfect, they’re inherently outdated or harmful. Especially if they’re designed by decision makers that don’t have lived experience or don’t actively attempt to engage meaningfully with those with lived experience. So upholding these laws blindly, laws that are really outdated and harmful… in my view. It conflicts with the profession’s broader commitment to justice. Because if lawyers can’t or don’t challenge these unjust laws or practices, then, especially with their knowledge and their unique positioning, then who else will? And I think it is possible sometimes that lawyers can do both, still advocate for your client, but then also kind of pushing the boundaries when justice demands of it. 

So there’s another quote, from Jennifer Gordon, in her article ‘The Lawyer Is Not The Protagonist’. And then she outlines what she calls the conventional narrative, where a social problem arises, a lawyer steps in to fix it, the lawyer identifies the legal strategy, and either the case is won or lost. But I really liked how she challenged that whole framing and she offers an alternative view where the community group instead is the protagonist and the lawyer is instead part of the supporting cast. So the lawyer is not supposed to take over and be like, oh, ah, I’m the one that knows all the legal information, I’m the one that knows the fancy words, all the arguments. It’s not about that. So the question that the lawyer should be asking is not “how do I fix this?” But “what can legal tools do to support the broader strategy of the community?” And I thought it was really great rethinking because law can be used as a really good tool, but it’s not just law in isolation that could solve the big societal problems. Legal work has to be in service of a much bigger vision which is in line of collaborative community action, community-oriented actions as well… like getting rid of the top down solution, which is quite patronising I think and kind of like having the humility to lean in more to these grassroots movements and using law and using that legal expertise as one of many tools in a toolbox to help that process.

Jen Ang

That’s.. I’m sort of, I’m sort of in awe because that was first a very powerful critique of your view around the obligation of lawyers to think critically about whether to participate in injustice. And then a description of what movement lawyering or community lawyering could look like. That was really quite inspiring actually. It’s also a hopeful message for me to hear you describe that and to hear that vision as something that you think is possible or it’s possible for us to get better at moving towards. 

My last big question is a big question, and it’s this: in light of everything you’ve described about inequalities in the law itself, inequalities in access to the law and the role of lawyers, what for you does justice look like for you or your community?

Amanda Amaeshi

It’s a very big question. But I think it’s something that’s really important to think about because when it comes to dealing with problems it’s very easy to focus on the negatives and be like: oh we don’t like this, we don’t like this. But if you don’t have a clear idea of how do we want things to be instead then can be easy for the action that is happening to… fizzle out a little bit, without that kind of sustained hope of this is what we’re fighting for. 

But for me I’d say that justice looks like a legal system, a political system that is designed by, with and for the people that it aims to serve, especially those who are currently most vulnerable, most marginalised and furthest away from this power. And it’s not just about abstract legal principles which are in legislations or in courtroom decisions. But it’s really about whether the people at the sharpest edges of injustices feel seen, heard and protected. Like the example of like the clients from earlier where they felt heard and empowered in regards to their case. 

And it’s really important that justice has to be intersectional, it has to be collective, it has to be rooted in empathy. And it’s really important that these don’t just become buzzwords. They’re really essential core principles. And there has to be a commitment to listening to communities rather than just prescribing solutions based solely on labels that might be put on them by society. And I think especially the idea of empathy and humanity are really central to this vision. I think throughout my law degree, sometimes it’s kind of the case you have to focus on these, very quote unquote “intellectually serious” ideas, like rationality. But I think throughout the three years, especially in the modules that I’ve taken in final year, it’s really helped me understand this idea of empathy is transformative and it is as intellectually serious as any other idea. And, it’s a rigorous, necessary foundation for legal thinking and legal practice as well. 

And another thing, part of justice is that, something I see right now is that too often legal systems are shaped by fear. And I’m thinking about around the world, the rollback of rights under pressure from far-right movements and how as a result in Scotland and in the UK perhaps laws or policies are becoming a bit weaker in response to that. Issues of equality and justice can easily be sidelined in terms of self-interested party politics. But justice has to be braver than that. It has to put people and their dignity at the centre of the conversation. It can’t just be moved aside because it’s become politically inconvenient. It should always be at the core of what anybody’s doing. 

And as I’ve already alluded to, I don’t think that law alone can carry this burden of striving for justice. It’s definitely an important part. But, I think justice requires more than just legal reform. It needs moral imagination and sustained inclusive activism. And so law is a tool that must be wielded alongside storytelling, organising, mutual aid, education, care, all these other aspects. A lot of it comes from the community and I think that’s how real change and real justice happens.

Jen Ang

Amazing. I was almost again holding my breath, not wanting to interrupt you. But justice has to be, intersectional, collective, rooted in empathy. It has to come from the community. 

So my final, final question is, this: so the Lawmanity podcast will go out to all sorts of listeners and there will be some people out there who will be listening to your thoughts and what you’ve accomplished already as an activist and a law student, and will be wondering how you got here or maybe how to be you. 

So, my question is, what is your advice maybe for your younger self? And I know you’re still probably identifying as young! but you’re still a mentor to some, and if not your younger self, then to other people out there who are curious and who want to do some of the things you’ve been doing.

Amanda Amaeshi

This is a really lovely question and actually I remember last year I wrote an article all about this actually for The WOW Foundation, giving my advice to aspiring changemakers… and then the key points related to identifying one’s key interests and goals, finding the opportunities, building community, dealing with imposter syndrome – especially when you’re doing quite big roles like being on the National Advisory Council – and then also resisting that fear and apathy. So I would definitely encourage interested listeners to check that out. Perhaps that could be linked in the show notes. 

But I wanted to mention one other thing that I feel like I’ve not spoken about elsewhere before. Something new. Sometimes… especially when I’m thinking about younger me, maybe what 14, 15-year-old me would have wanted to hear when I first started doing this activism, advocacy stuff properly is that sometimes not everybody is going to understand why you care so much or why you want to do the actions that you’re doing. I mean, to be fair, a decent amount of people will, this is not to be off putting. I guess the reality is that some people might try to mock you, make fun of you, try to belittle you in the hopes that you might stop doing whatever it is that you’re doing and it can be quite disheartening to be honest. But I think it’s important to remember that advocating for change is never easy. And kind of like facing such remarks from other people is just one part of how it might not always be easy. But it’s really important to try not to let that get to you and just stay true to the value system that’s guiding you. Keep in your mind the changes that you wish to see, which again why I said that, think about the problems, we also have to think about the solutions as well, the ideal scenario, and keep in focus the changes that you wish to see which are possible. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise and find yourself a community of changemakers who you can learn from, who you can seek support and solidarity from, and put in your best ability, and… don’t let other people’s small minds limit your imagination.

Jen Ang

Ah, that’s brilliant. Wise advice from a wise woman! 

Thank you for that and thank you for taking the time to sit down with me today, and to share with me your thoughts, which we’ll now get to share with a wider audience than just you and me. I could honestly sit and talk to you, Amanda, for, you know, another hour and have lots of questions about everything, but in the interest of letting you get on with your day, I’m going to draw the interview to a close here. But it’s been lovely to see you and I, and probably all of our listeners, will keep an eye out for what you do next because doubtless it will be just as bold and inspiring and interesting as today. 

And that’s a wrap for today’s episode with Amanda Amaeshi, activist, law graduate and my new colleague here at Lawmanity. If you were inspired by what Amanda has shared and want to learn more about the Legal Aid crisis that’s preventing survivors of domestic violence from accessing the legal advice they need, or if you want to explore what it means to be a community lawyer or a cause lawyer, check out the links in our episode notes. And for those of you who are practically minded, reach out to your local Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis organisation or your local Citizens Advice Bureau, educate yourself and others, and maybe consider volunteering. 

We’ll be back again soon with our next episode, an amazing one to one with Davie Donaldson, a young activist from the Scottish traveller community, who shares his perspective on the challenges of preserving and protecting travelling culture under laws that are written and enforced primarily by and for settled people. Davie vividly illustrates what it looks like day-to-day in his advocacy on behalf of his family and his community. 

Thanks for tuning in to our Lawmanity podcast again and if you enjoyed today’s episode, please do hit the like and subscribe buttons and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit more about how law really works in practice and how it can be used to make the world a better, brighter place. 

The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. Shout out to Helena Refai for mentoring us through our first year of this incredible project. And welcome to Amanda Amaeshi, who’s joined the team to support us with graphics and socials. The music you’ve been listening to is Always On The Move by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland. Thanks so much for tuning in today. We hope you enjoyed listening and see you next time!

Host: Jen Ang

Davie Donaldson

“So what I would tell a younger version of myself is what you’re seeing around you right now doesn’t have to be that way.”

Satwat Rehman

“Just be true to yourself in what you’re doing, you know, don’t be shaken from that. And be happy in what you do. Yeah, because we don’t struggle for the sake of struggle. We struggle for the sake of everybody having a better life, you know, and so that can’t just be about work and activism. We have to remember what it is we’re fighting for.”

Background music lyrics

“We’re musicians in exile and this is the song of hope saying…”

Jen Ang

Hey, everyone, welcome back – after a bit of a wee break, let’s call this a winter hibernation – to the Lawmanity podcast. 

This week we’re marking the start of the new Lunar Year, the Year of the Fire Horse, as well as the start of Ramadan and of the Lenten season for those of you who celebrate it. For all of these great world traditions, the start of these periods mark a time for reflection, for reconnection and for renewal. We draw close to the people who are important to us. We evaluate the year gone past. We tell our stories, share our wisdoms, recommit to our values and prepare ourselves for the year coming. 
I love these traditions. And in this cycle of human history, these dates also fall near the start of spring in the northern hemisphere: when the cold eases, the days start to lengthen, and we’re greeted by the earliest flowers – in my garden, snowdrops, crocuses and daffodils. 

This year’s resolution for me and with the Lawmanity Project is to sow radical seeds – meaning to dedicate the year to supporting small actions that could lead to radically different futures for someone, somewhere, someday, every single day. And today, my offering to you listeners, with unending gratitude to the activists and friends who helped me to put this together, is an episode titled “Advice to My Younger Self”. 

In today’s episode, we get to hear from a wide range of people who have dedicated their lives to challenging inequality and pursuing justice for others. And I asked them each this simple question: what advice would you give your younger self? Someone just like you, or perhaps someone who wants to be you. I found inspiration, laughter and a great deal of wisdom in their responses, and this is my very favourite episode to date. I hope you enjoy this as much as we have in putting together the show for you. 

Let’s kick off with Davie Donaldson. Davie is a leading Travellers’ rights activist based in Scotland and started his career early at the age of 15, speaking out about the injustices faced by himself and his community – navigating a social, economic and legal landscape that was built for settled people and not in the interests of travelling people.

Davie Donaldson

An activist who I look up to in the civil rights movement is Harry Belafonte, right? And he’s famously quoted as saying, “I became an activist because I grew up in poverty,” right? And I think for me, that is a situation… I never chose to be an activist or a campaign or an advocate or whatever title I place on whatever it is that I do, right? But I grew up as a gypsy traveller in Scotland, and I think, by that experience, I recognised that something needed to change so that the next generation didn’t grow up in the way that I did, right? 

So I think for anyone out there who is thinking about becoming a human rights defender or, you know, whether that be at the grassroots level as a community campaigner, as an advocate, as a human rights lawyer even, and, you know, moving into the legal profession, I think do it, right? If you’ve got that calling in you, then there’s something in your lived experience which recognises injustice as injustice, right? And that’s, that’s the basic point of it. You know, you don’t need a particular degree – or you will if you want to be a lawyer, right? But in order to actually campaign on these things, I think it’s important to just have that base level of, here’s where I’m starting from, here’s what injustice looks like and here’s how it needs to change. And that basic human relationship with justice is something which we can all tap into, whether or not we’re legally trained. 

So what I would tell a younger version of myself is: what you’re seeing around you right now doesn’t have to be that way, right? It doesn’t have to be that way. You don’t need to experience the evictions that you’ve experienced. You don’t need to experience the hate, the discrimination, the… the barriers to your culture, to accessing the voices of your ancestors. You don’t need to experience that. And you have the tools, everyone does, in order to move forward and to change that for the next generation and for yourself. You know, let’s… let’s move into a place where we’re not just thinking about fifty, sixty, you know, hundred years, potentially down the line, you know, and the descendants to come. 

Oftentimes indigenous communities, we fall into that perspective of, yeah, we’re doing this for the future. And it’s this quite indistinguishable, ungraspable future, right? Let’s do it for ourselves. You know, why can’t things change now? Why can’t we lead dialogue and conversation which can impact our communities and our families now? And why do we have to face these indignities and sacrifice our own sense of belonging, our own sense of justice, in order for the future? We shouldn’t have to sacrifice that. Let’s claim justice today and make sure that we ourselves can also experience what we believe justice should look like.

Jen Ang

So inspiring and so right. But what advice do our activists have for those of us who know that challenging injustice is important to us, but don’t know how to get started? 
Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Scottish Rape Crisis, reminds us how frontline community activism, including volunteering, can make such a difference, not just to the communities we serve, but also to ourselves.

Sandy Brindley

I think in many ways I’ve been really fortunate about finding a passion. Like not, not many people have a job that they believe in so deeply where you feel like you are able to progress change as part of your job. So I think it is about finding your passion and what you believe in and trying to find a role that’s consistent with your values and with your passion. 

In terms of becoming involved in Rape Crisis, like one of the best ways of becoming involved – and this is not accessible to everybody but – is volunteering, that’s how I started. I started as a volunteer in the helpline. That has been so invaluable to me, that experience, I did that for a number of years. Just that is where you learn, is you learn from speaking directly to survivors. I believe really strongly that’s how legal strategy and policy has to work, is if it’s directly informed by survivors voices. So if this is the work you want to do, your starting point for me is supporting and listening to survivors. And then, I think that then gives you the answers to what needs to happen, which then I think informs your trajectory of how you want to change the world, really.

Jen Ang

Great. But what if you don’t know where exactly your passion lies? Here’s some advice from Talat Yaqoob. Talat is a Scottish political commentator, feminist campaigner and co-Chair of the First Minister’s National Advisory Council for Women and Girls. Her top tip? Stay open to unlikely opportunities.

Talat Yaqoob

Okay, so the somewhat facetious response is sunscreen and moisturiser – and I do wish I had gone back and said that to myself. 

I think, what’s really interesting is that this is not a… I didn’t know this was a career. At no point did I think this was a career. If I was to follow what it was that I thought I’d be doing at the age of 18, I should be a clinical psychologist right now. And so I guess the advice would be if an opportunity presents itself and it lights something, even if it’s not on the plan, do it. Because I very, very easily, and very closely didn’t do it because I was like, well, I’ve got a five-year plan and I meant to go and do a master’s and then I meant to go and become a clinical psychologist and I meant to do my doctorate and… and I, I almost didn’t do it, but then, you know, at university I realised that actually, hold on, my politics has been given an outlet and there are these really great people that I’m able to have conversations with and we’re debating and nobody’s telling me shush, like, like they do at the dinner table at home. Like it’s not. And, and had I not taken that opportunity, that feels kind of exciting but isn’t in the plan, isn’t the status quo, nobody before me has done it… I wouldn’t get to do what I do now. And as hard as it is and sometimes as upsetting as it is, I wouldn’t want to be anybody else, I wouldn’t want to be doing anything else. 

So even if it’s not on the plan, it’s not in the five-year plan or the ten-year plan – and if you’re, you’re like me, you probably have one – if it feels good and it feels exciting, give it a try. Especially if it maybe is a little bit uncomfortable. I would advocate for that because 100% I would not be doing anything that I did if I didn’t go to become, ah, my student union and suddenly get involved and find really awesome people and then suddenly get involved in other campaigns and yeah, give it a try. Even if it’s temporary, it’s something worth learning.

Jen Ang

And once you’ve taken that unlikely opportunity, gotten yourself a seat at the table, then what? 

Let’s hear from one of my very favourite people in the world, Andy Sirel: partner and legal director at the charity Just Right Scotland, and my colleague for many years. 
Andy is a legal expert on human rights, children’s rights and migrants’ rights and has led groundbreaking litigation and campaigns in all these areas. 

I first met Andy when he was himself a young activist and lawyer, and his advice here rings true to how he has grown and shaped a very successful career in law and human rights.

Andy Sirel

You need to be positive. You need to look for opportunities where other people see negatives. And I think that is something that not everyone’s able to do, but we can if we try. 

And, if I’m honest with you, you need to treat everybody, regardless of who they are, regardless of status or position or seniority or age or anything, you need to treat everybody the same with dignity, courtesy, interest. And not only by doing that do you learn a lot, you obtain people’s trust and you’re honest and then doors open and opportunities present themselves. But only by doing that do you get their trust. And that is actually, you know, things go from there. So those are the sort of very simple pieces of advice I would give.

Jen Ang

And what if you’re in the room, have something to say and you start feeling the fear?
Let’s hear next from Lily Greenan. Lily’s career in Scotland has encompassed feminist activism in the violence against women and girls movements. And from 2006 to 2015 she was the chief executive of Scottish Women’s Aid. 

In her early career, along with other lesbian and gay rights activists, she also led opposition to Margaret Thatcher’s anti-gay Section 28 law. Towards the end of this quote, she mentions Lark in the Park, which was the first major public gay rights event in Scotland, taking place on 28th May 1988 in Edinburgh. 

Here’s Lily on her advice to young activists.

Lily Greenan

I think advice from my younger self would be be less afraid. Yeah, I was anxious 20-year-old, for lots of reasons. And since then… I didn’t grow up in a religious household, but I heard someone who was Quaker talking about the feeling of being moved to speak in worship, in a meeting for worship, which is a silent meeting unless someone feels moved to speak. And someone who I knew well described it. And I thought: oh, I, I know that feeling. And it’s that I was anxious and worried about doing the wrong thing in whatever context, socially and academically and like whatever, I worried about doing things wrong. And I would still be a bit plagued by that after I got involved with Rape Crisis, and other sort of bits of activism. So what would happen is that I would be really wound up, really anxious and then I would just have to speak. And my back used to spasm. It was that extreme. Like I would stand up and speak and when I sat down my back would be in spasm because I was so wound up. 

And I think I would love it if younger people coming into this kind of work, could learn ways to be more relaxed about it, because it really wasn’t that big a deal, most of the time. I think it held me back from doing maybe more than I did and, you know, and I got past it, but it took a while. 

And the other is write stuff down. I’m sitting in my attic office at home, looking at the archive boxes that I have to sort. I’ve been keeping… I wouldn’t call it a diary – I keep notes at meetings, I take notes at meetings. It’s partly because I’ve always had a bit of a shit memory, so I needed to be able to remind myself what. And what I have realised over the last few years is that I can go back and find the notes from that meeting in 2010 and, you know, something will happen. It allows me to connect the dots. If I need to, I can go back and check, you know, like, that’s there. I don’t know what I’m going to do with them because there’s quite a lot of notebooks. But they’re a useful personal archive and a resource about how the different areas of the work connect up. Because they’re not just about, they’re not just notes I took in meetings I was being paid to attend. I’ve been doing it, you know, sort of since the early 80s. And, yeah, or find, find some way to, to document what you’re doing and to be able to go back now and again and remind yourself that you’ve learned a few things since then. And that you maybe wouldn’t approach the problem in quite that way now. But also there’s some good ideas in there that you forget because you move on and you do other things. So there’s something that I would encourage people to document and not just for ourselves. 
There are areas of our activist histories that are just not visible. The Scottish Homosexual Action Group, I went looking for some information about Lark in the Park and it’s attributed to the other more established group, as the group that organised it on Wikipedia, because the Scottish Homosexual Action Group wasn’t that organised with documenting. So I’m going to learn how to edit Wikipedia, so I can fix that because… you know, it’s a small thing, but I was like, they didn’t do it, we did that, you know. And I, thought, yeah, okay, it’s, it’s worth taking some notes and, for… well, for future generations as well, you know, there are libraries. 

I hope that we will always have libraries of some sort, and we need to be able to learn what worked and what didn’t work. So even if it’s not stuff that’s going to be published, being able to share it somehow, finding a way to share what you’ve done that worked that was successful, and what you did that just landed flat and left everyone feeling a bit yuck because activism, you mentioned joy earlier and yeah, the picnic in the park was all about… like we’re going to have a party, they’re telling us we’re not real, we’re going to have a party. And finding ways to hold on to those bits of joy and successes is worth it. Other people need to know.

Jen Ang

Something that all our activists recognise is that caring about the world and trying to change it is hard. And the more visible you are, the more you personally and voluntarily shoulder the burden of sticking out, saying different, being perceived as different, and sometimes suffering for it. How to cope with that? 

Here’s some wise words from Amanda Amaeshi. Amanda is an award-winning activist, campaigner and writer who focuses on gender inequality, anti-racism and youth voice and political participation. She’s been an activist since her teens with the Girlguiding movement and has recently graduated from the UCL with a degree in law.

Amanda Amaeshi

This is a really lovely question and actually I remember last year I wrote an article all about this actually for The WOW Foundation, giving my advice to aspiring changemakers… and then the key points related to identifying one’s key interests and goals, finding the opportunities, building community, dealing with imposter syndrome – especially when you’re doing quite big roles like being on the National Advisory Council – and then also resisting that fear and apathy. So I would definitely encourage interested listeners to check that out. Perhaps that could be linked in the show notes. 

But I wanted to mention one other thing that I feel like I’ve not spoken about elsewhere before. Something new. Sometimes… especially when I’m thinking about younger me, maybe what 14, 15-year-old me would have wanted to hear when I first started doing this activism, advocacy stuff properly is that sometimes not everybody is going to understand why you care so much or why you want to do the actions that you’re doing. I mean, to be fair, a decent amount of people will, this is not to be off putting. I guess the reality is that some people might try to mock you, make fun of you, try to belittle you in the hopes that you might stop doing whatever it is that you’re doing and it can be quite disheartening to be honest. But I think it’s important to remember that advocating for change is never easy. And kind of like facing such remarks from other people is just one part of how it might not always be easy.

But it’s really important to try not to let that get to you and just stay true to the value system that’s guiding you. Keep in your mind the changes that you wish to see, which again why I said that, think about the problems, we also have to think about the solutions as well, the ideal scenario, and keep in focus the changes that you wish to see which are possible. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise and find yourself a community of changemakers who you can learn from, who you can seek support and solidarity from, and put in your best ability, and… don’t let other people’s small minds limit your imagination.

Jen Ang

Don’t let other people’s small minds limit your imagination. Love that so much. 
Need a little more advice to bolster yourself against those doubts that creep in, those tiny criticisms from others that amplify in your mind and the self-doubt that so many of us never really shake? Let’s hear next from Pheona Matovu. 

Pheona is a social entrepreneur and co-founder of Radiant and Brighter, an anti-racist educator and advocate. She is completing a PhD at the University of Glasgow on how workplaces can take actions against racism and has also recently published a book, the Radiant and Brighter Antiracism Journal. Pheona talks to us about turning 50 and the realisation that the biggest and most important job is that you can have is learning to be you and then to be more you.

Pheona Matovu

One of the things that happens when you take a challenging journey or when you get to the age I am, which is, for those who will be listening, I made 50 this year. So can I just say, when I talk about making 50, I speak about it with, with appreciation. I know that people usually are cautious about their age. But just before I made 50, a few people I knew personally, left and they’re no longer with us and I became more appreciative and I started to think I’m glad that I am here at 50. So that’s why I have made a big deal of it than probably anybody else I know!

But when you get to the age I am, you realise all that all the while it was okay to just be you, just be you. And also, and I completely and totally believe, it’s important to have integrity and to be authentic. Now some of the things that we, that I’ve had to be part of, they’re great things, they’re amazing things… there is a stage at which you need to know who you are and make decisions based on what you believe in. If you don’t focus on understanding and knowing yourself and the values, or you don’t get the opportunity to, because of circumstances or situations or the environments we find ourselves in, which is which… it’s difficult to know who you were when everything is screaming at you and trying to make you somebody else and to be who you were when you have to… you know, try and work within an environment that does not perhaps accept you or… but I think it’s okay to remove yourself from situations, people, environments that seek to fix you when you, when you are okay. 

So I would say be you. If you don’t know who you are, take time to know who you were. Allow yourself to just know yourself and be you. And at this age, it’s something that I am learning still, but it’s a very powerful tool because you don’t have to try and be somebody else. You don’t have to try and fight things a certain way. Some people fight a certain way, others fight in different ways, others don’t fight at all. Others do not have the tools and what they need to fight. And it’s okay. It’s just okay. Just okay.

Jen Ang

Oh, are we feeling emotional yet? 

As I mentioned earlier, putting together this episode has been such a treat. A little bit like writing a collective love letter to ourselves as young activists, and also to those people out there, young or old, who are just starting out on your activism journeys.
So when the going gets tough and you need a little encouragement, where do our activists turn for help? To each other, of course. 

Here, Heather Fisken, chief executive of Inclusion Scotland, reminds me of why we loved working together so much and why we worked so hard to do that for many years, even without formal funding or support. 

Inclusion Scotland is Scotland’s umbrella organisation for Disabled Peoples, or DPOs, which is something that Heather mentions when she gives this advice.

Heather Fisken

Just keep doing it, keep doing it. If you are in the right, then be in the right, own it, own your space and collectivise with other people. The strength in collectivising, not just within your own community, but with allied communities. And Jen, you and I go back some way, and I’ve always wanted to do more work in our organisation around justice, but like many DPOs, we don’t have the funding. I think that the digital world has really opened up activism, in a low-cost kind of way, but just keep going for it and collectivise. Use your allies, give to your allies as well. You never know when you’re going to need them. And just keep going. If you’re in the right, then you’re on the right path, basically.

Jen Ang

And following on from Heather, Tressa Burke, Chief Executive of the Glasgow Disability alliance, agrees wholeheartedly.

Tressa Burke

Oh, my goodness, that’s a hard question. Run a mile! Don’t do it. 

No, I think, know that you can’t do everything. Do what you can and don’t do it alone. Build allies, build friends, build support. I think, really, I feel, I feel as though I’m a builder, you can see that because GDA has almost 6,000 members now. And it’s not just me, it’s never been just me, it’s always been a collective cause. And I think that holding onto that peer support is so important. It’s important to our members, but it’s also important to chief execs supporting each other. To me, with my team supporting each other, you know, we don’t get dissuaded from the cause and from the mission, and we support each other doing it. 

But the other, I suppose, piece of advice would be, to myself. Don’t get too upset when you know you’re going to get knocked down, but just get back up. Just keep getting back up. But you need support to do that and that’s why the support is so important, because you can keep going if you’ve got the support, but if you’re doing it all alone or if you feel that you’re taking it all on your own, that’s too much. So definitely, I think support is the big part of it and keeping getting back up. Because the thing is, you absolutely will get knocked down. You’ll be slapped down some of the times, you’ll be knocked down some of the times. I’ve had it all. But, yeah, keep going, it’s worth it, it’s worth it because you’re helping people change their lives and have a better life.

Jen Ang

We’ve stepped now into advice around resilience, and this seems like the perfect time to bring in Satwat Rehman. Satwat is a feminist, anti-racism activist and Chief Executive of One Parent Family Scotland, the leading charity working with single parent families in Scotland.

Satwat Rehman

Don’t doubt yourself all the time. Yeah, that would be my first thing. And, you know, shake off that imposter syndrome. You’ve got a right to be there and as much of a right as anybody else, you know. We’ve all taken different paths to get to where we are. And I didn’t set off on my sort of work journey thinking this is where I want to end up. But I’ve always… and I think, yeah, I suppose this for me would be the most important advice: just be true to yourself in what you’re doing, you know. Don’t be shaken from that. And be happy in what you do. Yeah, because we don’t struggle for the sake of struggle; we struggle for the sake of everybody having a better life, you know, and so that can’t just be about work and activism. We have to remember what it is we’re fighting for. 

Can I just say one thing? There’s not a meeting I don’t go into without suffering from imposter syndrome still. Well, I was… weekend before last, I went down to London to go to see Massive Attack in concert. And at the start of that, the wonderful actor, Khalid Abdullah, who’s been speaking out on Palestine since the word go, gave a five-minute speech which was absolutely amazing. And one of the things he said towards the end was: I know it’s hard for you to think about enjoying yourselves and relaxing and dancing because so many of you have been so active on Palestine and continue to be so active on Palestine, but it’s important that you do so. It’s important that you remember why we struggle and why we campaign.

Jen Ang

I love how Satwat talks about finding resilience and joy in community and celebration, which feels like a fitting way to bring us back to where we started, marking the new Lunar Year, the start of Ramadan and the start of the Lenten season. 

So to conclude, I leave you with some final words from Alison Pickup, award-winning barrister and Executive Director of the Helen Bamber Foundation Group, who work for the rehabilitation of survivors of trafficking and torture.

Alison Pickup

I think my number one piece of advice is don’t hurry. Like, I think when you’re young and enthusiastic, you can be very impatient to get on with your career and with achieving big things. But, there’s plenty of time and what’s important is to really take time to know what you enjoy, what motivates you, where your skills are and focus on that area. 

So for me it was a very gradual path. You know, I started as a caseworker. I realised that I really enjoyed being an advocate in court and so I ended up qualifying as a barrister. And then, you know, after having practised for kind of nearly 10 years, I then decided I wanted to move more into the NGO world. 

And so, like, I just think, don’t hurry and take your time and learn and learn what’s good. And the other one I would say is, colleagues, partnership network, is really important. You, this work can be really challenging emotionally as well as stressful. It can be very tiring. You can’t do it alone and you need to build that network in, you know, in your workplace, with colleagues in the sector, with people who don’t work in this world at all in order to have, like, really good support around you and people who understand what drives you, who are there for you when things get tough is really important.

Jen Ang

Wow. I hope you’ve loved this episode as much as I have and that we have brought some warmth, solace or inspiration into your day and maybe even sown some radical seeds with you. 

And so concludes today’s episode in which a number of activists and friends have shared with us their advice to their younger selves and for you, all of you. 

Meanwhile, a very big thank you to Davie Donaldson, Sandy Brindley, Talat Yaqoob, Andy Sirel, Lily Greenan, Amanda Amaeshi, Pheona Matovu, Heather Fisken, Tressa Burke, Satwat Rehman, and Alison Pickup for their contributions to today’s episode.
And thanks so much to you, the listeners, for tuning into our Lawmanity podcast again in the new year and for this, the last of our special series on Equality Under the Law in Scotland. 

If you loved this podcast, please do hit the subscribe buttons and also like and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit about how law really works in practice and how it can be used to make the world a better, brighter place. 

Our ‘Equality Under the Law’ series has been generously supported by a grant from the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity, hosted by the London School of Economics. The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. And the music you’ve been listening to is “Always on the Move” by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland. 

Thanks so much for tuning in today, we hope you enjoyed listening, and see you next time!

Host: Jen Ang

Davie Donaldson

“..but at the very baseline of all of this is the fact that everybody in Scotland should be allowed to live respectfully and in a dignified way, right? 

And for gypsy travellers, that means we want to experience our culture, our indigenous culture that’s been passed down by our ancestors for generation after generation. We want to ensure that our children and the next generation get to hear the stories and songs which link us to the landscape.”

Jen Ang

Hello and welcome to a special series of three podcasts – part of our Equal Under the Law? Series – which explores three big questions about the complex relationship between the law and social justice, through interviews with some of Scotland’s most inspiring and impactful activists campaigning today.

Over the past few months, we have interviewed 11 guests for the Lawmanity podcast, who work across a range of social justice issues, including: LGBT+ rights, racial justice, migrants rights, Scottish travellers rights, disability justice, and the rights of women and girl survivors.  

We asked each of our guests three big questions, because we wanted to understand what their personal experiences – whether drawn from just a few years’ of campaigning, or sometimes, over as many as four decades of activism – told them about the relationship between law and justice.

Jen Ang

 Today, we’re going to look the answers we got to our final question – and it’s a big one! 

What does justice look like for you, or for your community? 

Heather Fisken, Chief Executive Officer of Inclusion Scotland, a disabled peoples’ organisation (DPO) – opened by pointing out how we will know that we have truly achieved justice:  

Heather Fisken

Well, I suppose that goes to justice, achieve justice in practice. When it’s happening, we wouldn’t have a need for justice because would be no injustice. 

Sorry, I’m not lawyer, so that’s the kind of thing I would say.

Jen Ang

And Heather goes onto describe justice for disabled people:

Heather Fisken 

So justice would look like ready availability of support, and a willingness to see the law as a route that is accessible, attainable, appropriate, when it is – and something that’s for you, it’s for everybody.

Jen Ang

Tressa Burke, Chief Executive Officer of Glasgow Disability Alliance, expands this into a compelling vision of what justice looks like for disabled people across Scotland, for her and her colleagues 

Tressa Burke

So, I’ll take it from a broader perspective first. So social justice for disabled people, and if they were having all their legal rights realised and fulfilled, would be about having access to a meaningful life and a life of purpose and a life of choices.

It would be about participation. It would be about being included in their communities and their families in wider society. It would be about having a job, a job that pays well, a job where the employer knows what access to work is, the scheme itself, the programme of support, but also what access in the workplace means.

It would be about disabled people not living in abject and deep and long-term poverty. It would be about disabled people you know accessing the health and social care services that they need. 

So you know in terms of social justice, it would be all of those things: fairness, freedom, having dignity, having choices, and the same choices as non-disabled people take for granted. 

So when we are talking about choices like that, Sometimes disabled people aren’t able to choose when they get up, what they wear, if they wear anything, when they have a shower, if they have a shower. We’re frequently told about disabled people being told that they’re only entitled to so many showers a week, or a month. I’ve got disabled people who lost their social care packages at the outset of lockdown when 1,884 packages were cut by Glasgow City Council and other local authorities around Scotland, but that’s the figure they themselves gave to the BBC in April 2020. And they haven’t all been reinstated, and many not reinstated at all, and all of them requiring new assessments and people being told: “You coped then, how can you not cope now?”

So, I mean, these are the types of, you know, breaches to human rights that we’re talking about. 

 I think for disabled people to have justice, both legally and in in that wider fairness and social justice way, not only would they have those things, but if they didn’t have them, there would be better complaint systems.

They would be transparent. They would be independent before you even got to the legal situation. And then, of course, you would be able to access the legal system. You would know the lawyers to go to because it wouldn’t just be one or two that might be good because they’re good people or, you know, somebody that’s married to a disabled person or because we do have examples of that. …

You know, and that’s how desperate things can be. So it would be much more readily available access and it would be affordable because people would be able to access it through legal aid.

But hopefully things would be better than needing to take it to the legal route because you would be able to have your complaints or your issues resolved at an earlier stage and that sense of fairness and freedom and would be observed and realised.

I think you know it’s not to be ignored how difficult things are for local authorities. But when people in Glasgow are now referring to feeling as brutalised by social work and social work assessments and how they are treated, not in every case by any means.

So it local authorities are struggling for sure. And local government funding is definitely an issue. But it is about choices. And disability is a political and a social and economic choice. And disabled people need to be prioritised. So I know that’s a long-winded answer, but these are the ways that disabled people’s lives would look if they were, you know, having their rights and their freedoms observed and realised, and we would have access to that redress, which at this point in time we just don’t have.

Jen Ang

As for how to get there, Pheona Matovu, Founding Director of Radiant & Brighter who also works with racialised and migrant families, believes it is crucial that the people who are impacted by policies are brought to the table, to help design our future legal system.

Pheona Matovu

That’s a big question, very big question. I couldn’t possibly say that I know. What I can say is that I know how that could be achieved.

And even then, maybe I think I know, but I think for it to look how we want it to look, it requires engagement for my community, for the communities that I work with, for the local communities I engage with, people who are affected by poverty, people are affected by migration, people are affected…

When you think, for example, about migration, right? People in these Western countries who can travel to every part of the world do not actually stop to think that they can travel to every part of the world, many times.

There is sometimes an assumption that the immigration law works for everybody the same way. But I know – as a black woman who had to come from Africa – I understand that the hoops that you have to jump through to even just go and pay an education, for an education even that, is significantly, .. it takes everything out of you. It takes everything out of your family. 

And they can choose to say, no, you are not coming. And guess what? Your money is lost. And that’s not just a little bit of money. That’s thousands of money usually. 

And so I think we need to redesign in a way that we are engaging everybody, in a way that is healthy and dignified for everybody. 

And I don’t think that that’s happening. So I think we need to consider bringing other people to the table, perhaps even those people being the core elements and the core designers of what we are looking at, particularly if it is going to affect them the most.

Jen Ang

And Satwat Rehman, Founding Director of One Parent Families Scotland, agrees – explaining what this looks like for single parent families:

Satwat Rehman

Okay, I want to start small, then build big. I think dignity, fairness and equity. 

Do you know if people can actually experience those things in the single parent community, not just in the law, but also the fact that what’s in law can drive how society behaves, you’d begin to see the beginnings of justice, alright? 

Because if you have that, if you have equity and justice as the cornerstones, then and you build up from there, you should be actively designing poverty out of your systems, alright?

You should be actively designing sort of things I’ve spoken about in education for families, it would be like the law would recognise that there is more than one type of family and they’re all equally valid. 

They’re all equally important, but actually they require different things, and that should be the cornerstone for me.

Over and above, that it would be great if we had accessible, responsive legal systems that protect our rights without making us jump through hoops. That would be great. 

Yes, a voice in actually shaping policies and understanding what the laws are behind those policies and how you can influence them as they’re being designed and not feel excluded from them because of the language and the process, would be really important. 

Jen Ang

Talat Yaqoob, political commentator, activist and co-Chair of the National Advisory Council for Women and Girls (NACWG) tackles this question from a different angle, the perspective of what making law just could look like.

Talat Yaqoob 

Wow. Okay, so what does law as injustice look like for the community I do? You know what I have to say that I think if, if we can use law as a way to redistribute power, that would be justice. 

That’s not, that’s not the way in which we think about law and write law. A lot of law is written as in a reactionary way. An issue has occurred, a law is required. This is what will be done in the future, and it is focused deeply on criminalisation. It’s focused on and I know that sounds like of course it is, but actually no the thinking around it about the realisation of rights and law as a tool to redistribute power, to create accountability. That is law that creates justice. That’s law that people can have more trust in, you know. 

So if we think about things like, we’re in Scotland, the acts that we pass, the law that we implement, actually, regardless of whether it’s Scotland, UK, any nation, actually, if we’re we write law that centres the redistribution of power that centres the ability for accountability to be closer to people. That’s transformative. That’s transformative justice, in my in my view, that is social justice being realised to the law. 

And for me, it’s about looking at the way in which law is written and the rationale with which new laws are created, the mindset behind that is what needs to change. 

And if that can be more about redistribution, that can be more about transformation and social justice, in which laws we choose to prioritise, and the mindset behind them. I think, I think that would, that could, that could change the face of society in a radically short time. 

And actually, it would make law and law making an accessible feature of society. But it’s about the mindset behind why law is created and what law is for, if we could do more about that, if we could do more to challenge that, that it doesn’t need to be this traditional, archaic view of what law is and why law exists, and that law is to pursue the criminalisation of society or the…or for a hierarchy to come and protect society rather than enabling the protection of itself. I think that would be transformative.

Jen Ang

Pinar Aksu, migrant rights activist, tells us that justice for the community she works with – migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees – looks like being treated equally, with humanity and dignity.

Pinar Aksu 

For me is, I guess, justice within the migration – especially when you look at how there are so many violent policies being implemented on people –  is for people to just live a normal life. 

I would say, for me, that would be justice for people to just be treated as a human being and to live a normal life where they don’t have to go through many hurdles to prove themselves of who they are, where they don’t have to continuously go to give evidence at the Home Office, or where they don’t have to continuously fight for their rights within society and live with long term difference that’s been created in communities. 

Yeah, I think just being treated as human being and to have a normal life, that, for me, would be justice and also to seen as equal. I think that’s the most important thing. 

Jen Ang

For Davie Donaldson, Travellers rights activist, justice for his community looks like achieving equality and dignitiy in practice, but also recognition of the rights and validity of the traveller culture and way of life.

Davie Donaldson

Yeah, and it’s a question that I ask myself every time I visit a camp or every time that I’m speaking to someone who’s just experienced hate crime or someone who is terrified of losing their kids to social services and just doesn’t know how to how to go about even challenging decisions, right?

And because of that, I think justice… is something which is experienced on a really individual level. Justice is something that really relies upon former experience. It relies upon an acknowledgement of past trauma, both collective and individual.

But it also recognises that everyone has a right to live in a dignified and respected way, right? And that’s where our justice system falls short, right?

Let’s pull it right back. I mean, I’m really keen to talk about legal arguments and legal frameworks, but at the very baseline of all of this is the fact that everybody in Scotland should be allowed to live respectfully and in a dignified way, right? 

And for gypsy travellers, that means we want to experience our culture, our indigenous culture that’s been passed down by our ancestors for generation after generation. We want to ensure that our children and the next generation get to hear the stories and songs which link us to the landscape.

It’s about knowing where you come from, learning your language, having the ability to come together as a community and experience your own sense of identity and your own sense belonging.

Currently, the justice system in Scotland is a barrier to all of that. Now, how justice would look, to paint a picture, I imagine, would be a gypsy traveller family would be able to travel unimpeded to their ancestral stopping places.

There would be significant and sustained support for gypsy travellers travelling and shifting, is our word for that, but shifting around the country. Basic support, access to basic sanitation, access to running water, access to refuse collection in bins, toilets.

You know, really basic human needs should be met in a just society. We should recognise and respect that there are very few nomadic communities left in the world, particularly in the Western world.

And so having a nomadic community in Scotland, like the gypsy travellers, is something that should be celebrated, it shouldn’t be impeded, right? I mean, living in a nomadic way, having a particular unique relationship to the landscape and the oral heritage of the land, is something that we should all want to celebrate, whether or not we’re gypsy travellers.

And to be able to travel and not worry about eviction, not have that constant stress, that constant feeling of surveillance every single time you move, knowing that local settled communities will respect your right to be there and will support you to be there in a safe and dignified manner.

You know, they won’t expect you to have to remove all of your rubbish and travel from place to place with these cartloads of rubbish because you can’t access a council recycling facility. Because if you burn the rubbish, you you’ll get charged because you aren’t provided any bins.

You know, they don’t expect you to have the toilet behind a hedge because they won’t provide you toilets or they’ll lock the public toilets you don’t get to access them, or they’ll refuse to allow you access to toilets in a local shop.

Dignity, you know, that’s what the justice system should look like. And I think if we move to a place where there are legal protections on the right for gypsy travellers to travel, it won’t only positively impact the gypsy traveller community, but it’ll positively impact the settled community as well, because it’ll allow that travelling to be done in a safer, and more community cohesive way.

Jen Ang

And to conclude this podcast today, here’s a reflection from Amanda Amaeshi, an activist with the Young Women’s Movement and a former law student at the University College, London (UCL), who speaks to what justice looks like from the perspective of someone aspiring to activism from within the legal system.

Amanda Amaeshi

Justice looks like a legal system, a political system that’s designed by women for like, the people that it aims to serve – especially those who are like most who are currently most vulnerable, most marginalised and furthest away from this power. 

And it’s not just about like abstract legal principles or which are in legislations or in courtroom decisions, but it’s really about whether the people at the sharpest edges of injustice feel seen, heard and protected, like the example of like the clients from earlier, where they felt heard and empowered in regards to like their case. 

And it’s really important that like justice has to be intersectional, has to be collective, it has to be rooted in empathy. And it’s really important that these don’t just become buzzwords like, they’re really like, essential core principles, and there has to be a commitment to listen, listening to communities, rather than just like, prescribing solutions based on like, based solely on like, labels that like might be like, put on them by society. 

And I think especially like the idea of, like, empathy and humanity are really central to this vision. I feel like, throughout, throughout my law degree, like, sometimes it’s kind of, here’s what you have to focus on these very like intellectually see, like, quote, unquote, intellectually serious kind of ideas like rationality. 

But I think throughout, like the three years, especially in the modules that I’ve taken in final year, like, it’s really helped me understand, like, this idea of, like empathy kind of is transformative, and it is as intellectually serious as, like, any other idea, and it’s a rigorous, necessary foundation for like legal for legal thinking and legal practice as well. 

Another thing a part of like justice is that, something I see right now is that, like too often, like legal systems are shaped like by fear, and I’m thinking about like around the world, like the rollback of rights under pressure from like far right movement, and how, as a result, like in Scotland, in the UK, perhaps like laws or policies are becoming a bit weaker to kind of like in response to that. 

But Justice has to be like, and also as well about like, issues of like equality and justice can easily be sidelined in terms of, like, self interested, like, party politics, um, but justice has to be braver than that. 

It has to put people in their dignity at the centre of the conversation. It can’t just be like, moved aside because, like, it’s become politically inconvenient, like it should always be at the core of what anybody’s doing. 

And as I’ve kind of already alluded to, like, I don’t think that law alone can carry this burden of like, striving for justice. It is definitely an important part, but I think justice requires more than just legal reform. It needs like, moral imagination, and sustained, inclusive activism. 

And so law is a tool that must be wielded alongside, like storytelling, organising, mutual aid, like education, care, like all of these other kind of aspects, a lot of it comes from, like the community, and I think that’s how real change and real justice happens.

Jen Ang

And that concludes today’s episode, in which a number of prominent Scottish activists sat down to talk to us about what justice looks like for them, and for their communities, under the law.  Some big ideas and inspiring visions here – which I hoped sparked some curious thinking on your part, the listener. 

What does it mean if we hold a vision of justice that is separate to the law and the legal system as we know today? What is the impact for those who are excluded?  And what about for the rest of us?  Does the answer to bridging this gap lie within the law, or outside of it?

Big questions, and I’d love to hear what you, our listeners, make of it all, and indeed of this special three-part episode on equality under the law.

Meanwhile, a very big thank you to Heather Fisken, Tressa Burke, Pheona Matovu, Satwat Rehman, Talat Yaqoob, Pinar Aksu, Davie Donaldson and Amanda Amaeshi for their contributions to today’s episode.

And thanks so much to you, the listener for tuning into our Lawmanity podcast and our special series on Equality Under the Law in Scotland.

If you loved this podcast, please do hit the subscribe buttons, and also like and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit about how law really works in practice, and how it can be used to make the world a better, brighter place.  

Our Equality Under the Law series has been generously support by a grant from the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity, hosted by the London School of Economics.  The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host, Jen Ang and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe.  And the music you’ve been listening to is “Always on the Move” by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland.  

Thanks so much for tuning in today, we hope you enjoyed listening, and see you next time!

Host: Jen Ang

Maria McCloskey

“Having the council admit in open court that they’ve breached a legal requirement, you know, I think it it’s huge… 

“the importance of holding governments and, um you know, public authorities to account using the law, … I always think it shouldn’t have to be up to small community organisations to make sure that public authorities are doing what they should do. But that’s the world in which we live.”

Jen Ang

Hello and welcome to the Lawmanity podcast, where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress people but can also lead to real social change. 

I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and activist based in Scotland and your host on the Lawmanity podcast.

This week, we’re speaking to human rights lawyer, activist and legend, Maria McCloskey how she and the Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal campaign (Or SWOT Campaign)   brought a legal challenge that halted plans to develop a major fossil fuel terminal being developed directly offshore a beautiful, and sleepy seaside town (in Mid and East Antrim)near Belfast, in Northern Ireland.

Maria is an experienced human rights solicitor who holds a master’s degree in human rights law from Queen’s University, Belfast, and has substantial experience both in private practice as well as at the Children’s Law Centre in Belfast, where she represented unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

She then headed Public Interest Litigation Support as Director Solicitor from 2022 to 2024, where she was the instructing solicitor in the Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal or SWOT campaign case that we will be discussing today.

This year, she’s taken her work global by stepping into her new role as Executive Director of Irish Rule of Law International. Irish Rule of Law International is an all-island non-profit that promotes and supports the development of rule of law systems across the world.

The organization does this with the support of judges, lawyers and other justice sector experts from both jurisdictions in Ireland who provide their time, skills and expertise on a pro bono basis to support the mission.

So welcome Maria to the podcast. I’m so excited to have you here.

04:08.01

Maria McCloskey

Thank you, Jen. It’s lovely to see you and it’s I’m delighted to have been invited on. So I look forward to our discussion.

04:16.10

Jen Ang

Brilliant. So do I. Now, I like to start this podcast with kind of a surprise opener question to get us settled and just to learn a bit more about the people behind the legends we’re interviewing. A good friend of mine pointed out to me that our sense of smell is one of our oldest senses and that we can actually hold deep connections between the sense of smell and our memories.

So if you don’t mind, please can you tell me about a smell that’s meaningful to you, maybe something you really like or something that’s connected to a place or time that you’d like to bring to mind?

04:47.25

Maria McCloskey

Yeah, I love that question. It’s definitely unique one. So I think a sense of smell that always brings back a lot of memories and sort of evokes certain emotions is the smell of freshly cut grass. and So I am a country girl. I grew up and ah outside a small village in County Derry. My dad’s a farmer.

And i think that the smell of fresh cut grass kind of brings me back to my childhood. It’s one of those smells that makes me feel good inside. I don’t know why, but i think there are others who would say that they love that smell as well. It sort of reminds me of um just the sort of the start of spring or we’re getting into spring. And when I was at school, it was also a sign that the summer holidays were coming or weren’t too far away. So it evokes a lot of positive emotions in me. And I think that given the topic that we’re discussing today and climate justice in general, I think it fits very well with with that whole theme.

05:52.33

Jen Ang

Absolutely. Thank you for sharing that. And actually, when you describe that, I can almost picture um yeah spring around the corner, sort of younger you um in a quieter and maybe um maybe simpler time. um But i I think you’re right. A lot of people have spoken about and smells from nature and also um something that conjures to mind a counterbalance to maybe the the busy kind of um workaday world that ah that human rights lawyers and activists often sit in. So thank you for sharing that. And I will now turn to Today’s main   topic, which is about helping listeners understand how you and colleagues used the law to achieve significant change um in your successful legal challenge in the Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal case.

06:40.23

Jen Ang

So I wanted to start by um understanding better your work with the campaign, and then we’ll move on to maybe your reflections about um what you accomplished and what still needs to be done. And just about one year on now, as I understand it from that legal challenge.

So to start with, um can you explain to us how you got involved with the campaign, um what it was about and what was at stake that made you think that legal action was going to be the answer?

07:07.30

Maria McCloskey

Okay, so as you have mentioned just in your opening about my background at at the time, I was working with a small NGO in Belfast called Public Interest Litigation Support.

07:18.81

Maria McCloskey

um And I suppose from um ah very, very small organization, I’m trying to address and support cases which are in the public interest across the broad spectrum of human rights and equality issues there had been for you know the the few years that the organization was in existence of a certain focus on the big the big issues in Northern Ireland and that residents and and citizens and people living in Northern Ireland have faced in the last decade or so and they were largely probably

06:52.24

Maria McCloskey

um around issues like the the Troubles cases coming out of the Troubles and issues affected by our troubled past so things like housing, education, social welfare those issues and so those cases those cases tended to be the cases that we were providing our support where we could but we are you know PILS is an organisation which supports that broad range of human rights and equality issues and I think there had been a growing appreciation even before I joined the organisation, but certainly when I joined and when we started to work more closely with some of our members, that um environmental and climate justice is is key to and the future.

07:15 .00

Maria McCloskey

I mean, if we don’t have, if we don’t protect the planet, which we have, and we don’t protect the resources and um the environment that we all share, we won’t have issues like housing and and those sorts of things that that that require our attention. So I think that it’s one of the areas of law that people appreciate more and more connects with so many other areas of law. 

09:51.60

Maria McCloskey

And so when then an organisation did come to us and say, we would like your, you know, your support, we have a potential legal challenge and we don’t have a solicitor. it was a great outcome of the work that we had done to try and attract this.

10:07.15

Maria McCloskey

But it was really asking us then to step into that space and and provide the solicitor representation, because this particular organisation, Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal, didn’t have the resources, didn’t have a solicitor on board.

10:20.38

Maria McCloskey

but were very much up against the clock in terms of the challenge that they wanted to take. And so a little bit of a you know a scary moment, I suppose, for me as the only solicitor in the organisation to say, yes, we will represent you. 

Jen Ang

So let’s take a moment to discuss who the Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal campaign are, and what they were challenging when they approached Maria and the PILS Project for help.

Here’s some recent news coverage from ITV News

Daniel Duffy, ITV News

Whitehead is a sleepy seaside town in County xx but it may not be sleepy for long as a new oil terminal development has been proposed .. and campaigners are concerned about the impact it may have on the town.

Clodagh Miskelly

We’re talking about huge impacts in terms of climate  change, huge emissions from this …85,5 million tonnes of carbon.

Daniel Duffy

At the weekend, Whitehead is full of tourists, with many campervans pitching up in the area to take in the sea views, and enjoy water sports like swimming and sailnig. Some residents say that the development could put an end to all that.

Dorothy Whittingston

We are a town that is based in the tourist economy. And I worry very much that this development will have an impact on that. That we could turn into one of the typical small towns , with the closed shops, with the deteriorating centre, with the lack of activities for its residents and others to participate in.

Jen Ang

So at the time the SWOT campaigners came to PILS for help, they were looking for a way to legally challenge the council’s decision to approve a planning application for the development of this oil terminal.

Maria goes on to list some of the many challenges the legal team and the campaign faced in getting their case off the ground.

15:31.16

Maria McCloskey

another challenge I suppose being in this space is that you know often you’re talking about small teams of and I’m speaking personally here, relatively inexperienced um ah you know lawyers and and that’s just, it was a challenge I think probably for me personally, but also appreciating this is what we’re here to do. We’re here to provide the support.

16:10.60

Maria McCloskey

I’ve got the skills, the knowledge, the qualification of being a lawyer. I might not know this area of law in and out, but with the help of the likes of the pro bono lawyers, with the team at PILS who worked night and day at times to get this ready.

16:25.96

Maria McCloskey

that it is a challenge that can be overcome provided again you’re realistic about it and um the great thing about being in in this space in the human rights space is there’s very much a well we’ll all pull together and we’ll make it happen 

19:40.68

Maria McCloskey

The local residents, the people involved in the campaign the organisation itself, they had been working for a number of years.

19:51.57

Maria McCloskey

I mean, ever since this proposal was sort of, um or the the planning application was submitted, they were trying and succeeding, in my view, in getting together and and making those freedom of information requests and looking at the relevant laws or what might be relevant, to looking at what the…

20:09.54

Maria McCloskey

the the company had submitted and all of those things to there was a little a huge amount of work went on before we became involved and Geraint and Clodagh who we worked with very closely at PILS, I just want to commend them on their commitment and I think that it came at the expense of you know their own personal time, this these are volunteers as they often are with you know local community campaigns, people who have full-time jobs and and other commitments who are doing this kind of thing in the evening and at the weekends

20:43.77

Maria McCloskey

you know to to no personal benefit or gain really it’s about the community in which they live and wanting to protect that environment so I mean I’m still in such to admiration of of them their their commitment to this cause um uh so yeah a huge amount of work went on in the background and before we moved. The importance of community in holding their elected representatives and officials to account, and I think it was very, very clear in this case.

15:12.46

Maria McCloskey

and it took a small organisation, a campaign group, a grassroots campaign group together with, um you know, myself, Emma, Kate, Hilary at PILS. Together we hadn’t done this before. um And um that we then engaged pro bono lawyers, Acland Bryant and Mark Willers, KC.

29:55.58

Maria McCloskey

And you know I remember Mark and Acland coming over and us going out with Geraint and looking at the you know looking at the and area. we drove out we said this is where they’re planning about this and you know we we got a real sense of what we were talking about and again I think that that’s hugely important in these types of and legal challenges and campaigns is that you know we were all kind of invested in it you know we were invested in it anyway on behalf of the group and what they’re trying to achieve but then you go out and you see it and you see the beautiful landscape and you see some of the nature that exists there and then it makes you realise why why you’re doing what you’re doing

30:36.27

Maria McCloskey

So, you know, I just think that at the outset and I’m looking in, I maybe would have been afraid to say, yes, we can do this because I’d never done it before. But are you ever going to learn how to do it unless you do it you know, so it’s all those things that feel the fear and do it anyway.

Jen Ang

I went on, in our interview, to ask Maria – what challenges did she face, as a lawyer, in bringing a strategic legal challenge alongside the work of a long-running environmental justice campaign?

11:55.33

Maria

Yeah, so from that perspective, I suppose, it’s always the being clear on what a legal challenge can do. So, you know, obviously, many of these types of organisations like Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal, they’re very much focused on, it says it in their name, they want to stop the redevelopment of this oil terminal.

13:02.78

Maria McCloskey

And i suppose the challenge the challenge within that is… being realistic about what you can do and what is going to come out of this at the end. and So, you know, the the challenge that we brought, which was successful, did not mean the end of that campaign and it has not meant the end of what Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal are trying to do, because what it did, it was stopped a particular process from happening.

13:30.22

Maria McCloskey

But that process can now be restarted. And, you know, these plans to redevelop the oil terminal you know are in the process of being brought forward again addressing the challenge that we brought but also then with their end goal being well we want to redevelop the oil terminal so the challenge always about being real realistic and about being realistic about what you can do being realistic about your prospects of success and also think i think you know when you’re bringing together legal teams and campaigners who are very passionate about the overall issue about protecting our environment you know that the law cannot address that you know one legal challenge can’t address the overarching aim or you know goal of the of the organisation or of

14:19.26

Maria McCloskey

environmental campaigners in general you have to focus in on one thing realise okay well we can stop it this one way but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be stopped and it doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to achieve the end goal of protecting our environment but I think once everybody you know is fully on the same page about that and still recognises that, yes, this is an important step for us to take as part of the overall um campaign and and and then move forward with that information. I think that that’s really important at the outset. But also, you know, what is it going to cost? What are the risks?

14:55.92

Maria McCloskey

What, you know, are we prepared for those risks? Does that mean any risk to any individual? Does that mean any risk to the organization? You know, so it’s about… pulling all of those things into the conversations at the outset and continuing to have them as things move forward.

15:12.46

Maria McCloskey

But I think that that’s part of the beauty of public interest litigation because, you know, i am public interest at litigation is about sort of advancing the space for others. um You know, that’s kind of the nuts and bolts of it, albeit that you’re doing through different legal challenges.

15:31.16

Maria McCloskey

so yeah i think that that was a challenge but also then once you’ve acknowledged it as challenge and addressed it then you can all move forward um uh from the same perspective. And just one other sort of challenge I think is, um you know, legal literacy in general.

17:02.27

Maria McCloskey

I mean, we talk lawyers and and anybody in the human rights space, we maybe talk kind of freely about judicial reviews, about certain terms that come with the space and it not necessarily being in the vocabulary of the campaigners, the people who are you know who are working on planning applications is not necessarily the lingo that they’re used to And so ah for us, it was very important that we break that down as much as possible and keep the lines of communication open because And our space in working in sort of pro bono allows for that because we can take it very much at a pace that suits whoever we are working with.

17:41.82

Maria McCloskey

It’s more difficult whenever you talk about fee paying clients because you know time is money and all of that. and But I think that that can lead to difficulties in some cases where things are just moving and and you have to go with it. But If everybody in the campaign doesn’t necessarily know what’s happening and why, that can be a challenge. It’s not necessarily. and I just feel that for people to properly buy in to the whole process, it’s better that they know exactly what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. So, again, another challenge that we that we had to overcome.

18:19.77

Jen Ang

Thanks, Maria, for those really thoughtful reflections. I think you’re I think you’re being a wee bit modest about your readiness to take on this case. But also, I certainly recognize myself from practice, the idea that and that legal challenges are sort of novel novel and types of public interest litigation always sits in an area and for anyone that’s just a little bit outside what’s been done before sometimes. And actually, there’s an element of not just assembling your your team and acknowledging the expertise of others, but also just perhaps bravery in um and taking on something new or taking on something different.

21:03.38

Jen Ang

And now turning to the legal case itself, um just to make sure our listeners understand, what was the change in the law that the campaign sought to secure? And what was the significance for for them um in terms of what they were fighting for?

21:19.41

Maria McCloskey

 So I suppose that the this sort of public interest litigation case was, you know, it’s one of those cases that’s not necessarily about the change in the law because the law was there, but the law hadn’t been complied with. So it’s about and adherence to the laws that already exist because, you know, as you know yourself, Jen,

21:40.31

Maria McCloskey

it’s ah it’s a huge battle to get a piece of law across the line and then it’s many more battles to ensure that whoever is um required to complies with those laws and so this was really about adherence to the legal principles and commitments and that this particular legal challenge was was looking to address um And again, I suppose that’s maybe going back to the previous question in terms of challenges. and You know, you need a law upon which to bring a challenge. And sometimes that can be a challenge in and of itself.

22:17.75

Maria McCloskey

And you may be you may also have to be selective about what aspects of the case are um ripe for legal challenge and because obviously campaign groups feel very strongly maybe that um if we were to take a ah bird’s eye view of this this doesn’t ah comply with the Paris Agreement or the commitments made at that time but we have to look at the arena in which we’re challenging it in which we have to challenge it in the first instance and what the laws are applicable to um there’s this region and so that’s where I suppose the the legal expertise and the campaign itself have to come together and and be clear about that and be clear about maybe the niche aspect of this particular challenge but that ultimately that will help

23:02.81

Maria McCloskey

address the overall aim of the of the campaign and the organisation. um So I think, and yeah, this this challenge obviously the did help achieve that aim. It it highlighted that um the council involved in this case didn’t comply with its legal obligations effectively and through this legal challenge got the borough council in Mid and East Antrim to admit to their failing in that regard and so you know as a success in one sense but not not in the overall the overall battle I suppose

23:40.85

Jen Ang

Do you think the case had the impact you’d hoped?

24:12.87

Maria McCloskey

 What I can say is that the the legal challenge that we brought this time last year was hugely significant um in a number of respects.

24:30.45

Maria McCloskey

um you know, having the council admit in open court that they’ve breached a legal requirement, you know, I think it it’s huge because and that’s what these types of cases really, I mean, when you talk about the judicial review, you’re never going to get money, you’re never going to get them to overturn the decision, but to get the council to admit that was wrong and ultimately the aim is it will comply by its legal obligations on the next time round.

24:55.99

Maria McCloskey

And even though the council didn’t admit to the other breaches that we had raised in the proceedings, you know, they didn’t necessarily have to admit to them because they already admitted to the one breach that meant that the planning application was quashed.

Jen Ang

Maria explained here that the decision to grant planning application on this occasion that the Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal campaigners were challenging was  “quashed.”  Quashing is one type of remedy or order that a court can be asked to make when you are challenging the lawfulness of a public action.  It means that the decision to grant the planning application is nullified or withdrawn, and everyone returns to the position as if the application had never been granted. 

25:11.97

Maria McCloskey

But it was hugely important in you know the sense that they know that this organisation is keeping a very close eye on what they’re doing. They know that this organisation has legal support. we They know that this organisation has community and wider support within you know um the whole region.

25:30.45

Maria McCloskey

And so the importance of holding governments and, um you know, public authorities to account using the law, that is what we want to try and achieve because we’re not the lawmakers, but certainly we, you know, and it shouldn’t have to be, I think, I always think it shouldn’t have to be up to small community organisations to make sure that public authorities are doing what they should do. But that’s the world in which we live.

25:58.26

Maria McCloskey

But certainly when you are you know when a public authority knows that kind of you’re on to them then hopefully they will and do everything correctly on the next occasion and I suppose that then what what happens going forward um you know obviously that part of the the case will properly be presented or the planning application will properly be complied with on the next occasion but whether there are other failings maybe some that we addressed that uh keep the the door open for legal challenge.

27:01.40

Jen Ang

if you needed to do this again today, would you would you run the case the same?  And do you think the outcome would be the same or different? Or is it just hard to say?

27:26.48

Maria McCloskey

Yeah, I suppose it is hard to say and because, ah you know, a year on, if I was still involved in the case, I would certainly feel much more confident in my knowledge of planning law and all all those sorts of things.

But I think if the case came to us in the same way that it did, last year you know I think we would probably address it in the same way now maybe we’d be slightly more efficient in certain things um but I think that the way that we dealt with that request for legal support was the epitome of what PILS is and what it does for community organisations and there was a real um you know I think a sense of achievement not only for the PILS team and the uh organisation and the pro bono lawyers that were involved but for the wider community and for the wider kind of um climate justice environmental uh

28:27.37

Maria McCloskey

campaign community it was hugely hugely important and hugely motivational and inspirational in a sense because um there was there were other benefits to the success that weren’t just directly related to the case.

29:06.84

Maria McCloskey

I think the consequence of it was um hugely important for other organisations. organisations for other campaigns for other people who are living in their community and potentially facing you know the same or similar types of challenges where there’s an application for planning permission or something’s being done to their local environment um or area in which they live and you always feel this sense of well what can I do and actually I think this this case proved that there’s a whole lot that you can do and you can be hugely impactful

31:48.85

Maria McCloskey

Despite the fact that there’s maybe not the equality of arms, you know, we’re talking about government departments that are, you know, hugely resourced in terms of their legal capacity um and um and all of that versus, well, when there’s where there’s a will, there’s a way kind of thing. So, yeah, I think for me, it was it was just.

32:10.85

Maria McCloskey

such a wonderful and valuable experience for me personally, but more so to be part of it, you know, because when, when you succeed by yourself, that’s one thing, but when you exist succeed because of the impact of, or input of a number of people,

32:26.32

Maria McCloskey

It’s just so heartwarming. And, you know, I attended an event shortly after and the sense in the room was one of positivity, where I think in previous years in these spaces, has very been much been, and I don’t want to say defeatist because there’s so many um you know campaigners organisers people who work tirelessly on these issues but there maybe was a sense of well the legal system’s not going to help us or you know it’s not it’s not worth our time because you know there it’s not going to be successful and this kind of showed them

 30:29 .70

Jen Ang

Well, I’m feeling, I am feeling as inspired just listening, but I also, I can sort of hear in your reflection, and it’s, again, it’s interesting for me, from my perspective as a kind of a peer practitioner. um It sounds very much like and you and your the team at PILS as well felt that you gained so much from being a part of this experience, you know, as much as you contributed your skills, I can just sort of, I can see the smile on your face, I can hear it in your voice.

33:47.79

Jen Ang

and This reflection that in some ways it sounds like you were, you felt lucky to be able to if be a part of this piece of work.

33:55.70

Jen Ang

So standing back, this is sort of my final big question, and then we’ll move to a closing question. But standing back, For you, what more needs to be done to secure justice in this space? 

34:59.22

Maria McCloskey

Yeah, it’s a great question and I think it’s it’s a number of strands of things need to happen. I mean, from… The perspective of say PILS and other you know organisations or firms, even of lawyers who are trying to work on these issues, I think it has to be properly financed and resourced.

35:20.14

Maria McCloskey

I mean, can’t continue to rely on pro bono um legal expertise to fight these cases or to support these cases being brought before the courts. There has to be access to the arenas and there has to be an element of equality of arms in that.

35:37.08

Maria McCloskey

So, you know, I would like to see more investment in legal challenges of this nature, be that through government funding um or ah probably an and through community or sorry, foundations and charitable donors providing the support for these types of cases to be taken forward because, you know, the amount of time involved in preparing a case like this which actually didn’t go to a full judicial review hearing um you know it was it was huge and I probably didn’t have a full appreciation of myself but I certainly think many people don’t have a full appreciation of the fact that it’s the time um and you know

36:27.54

Maria McCloskey

the expertise required to go into it. So I think it’s unfair to expect that organisations take this without being financially supported. mentioned earlier,

36:40.91

Maria McCloskey

this is about making sure that public authorities abide by their obligations and their legal responsibilities. You nearly shouldn’t have to be doing it, but you know, the world we live in, we do have to do it.

36:52.77

Maria McCloskey

And so that being the case, I think that there should be an aspect of investment in making sure that institutions and um public authorities are are held accountable.

37:05.41

Maria McCloskey

So, I think also just that equality of arms, which comes from, you know, having the resources and having the the finances to be able to challenge equally, I think is hugely important.

37:57.70

Maria McCloskey

Because you know this all happens in complex legislation and these and requirements go into very, very dense pieces of legislation, which sometimes are very difficult to break down for lawyers, speaking personally again, nevermind for people who are trying to navigate this.

38:14.41

Maria McCloskey

in the context of an issue that has arisen in their community so there’s like access to justice doesn’t just mean having money to go to court it means understanding the legal obligations that exist um and so you know how can you hold someone to account if you don’t understand what the what they you know where they’re supposed to be in carrying out their duties um so I think sort of investment in education pieces around that is also t to making the system work more effectively in the future.

39:04.16

Jen Ang

So I have one final question and it is this. So um throughout this podcast series, there will be people out there listening who are perhaps and activists already or thinking about the law. Um And they might be looking at what you’ve accomplished today and and and who you are now, and they might even want to be you. So my question for you is, do you have some advice for a younger version of you or maybe just someone who is curious about, you know, keen to m forge a career like yours and that you would share with our listeners now?

39:39.04

Maria McCloskey

yeah sure I mean to think that somebody would want to be like me it’s very it’s funny for us and um in this part of the world where we think no no no I haven’t achieved very much or um You know, I still feel in one sense that I have so much more you know, there’s so much more I have to learn um to feel very comfortable. But then I’ve also got to the point in my career where maybe you never feel really, really comfortable, but you just accept that.

40:07.83

Maria McCloskey

work with the the knowledge that you have in this point in time and never be afraid to admit that you don’t know something. I mean, this was a key. um This was a prime example of that. When the group came, we had discussions in the office and I don’t know where whether um the members Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal know this, but it was like, oh, can we do this? Oh, I don’t know.

40:30.84

Maria McCloskey

And me probably mostly saying, you know And it was just because my name as the solicitor would go on the papers, not that it was I thought it was all down to me, because it certainly was a team effort and the vast majority of the real hard work was done by others, including Hilary and Kate and Emma.

40:47.45

Maria McCloskey

But actually having those conversations, I’m not being afraid to say, I’m not sure, and I feel a bit shaky here, and others around you actually supporting you.So yeah, I think just and not being afraid to say you’re not sure and then having those discussions with others because they can remind you Well, yes, you can do it.

41:36.36

Maria McCloskey

You’re a qualified lawyer. And um you know first of all, you’re you’re allowed to do it. You’re allowed to kind of learn about it. You don’t have to know everything at the outset. And also, it doesn’t just depend on you doing all the work.

41:47.49

Maria McCloskey

And that was very, very obvious in this case, because Emma, Hillary and Kate, they I mean talk about a team effort. It really was everybody kind of coming together and taking the burden on, the burden being you know the huge responsibility of getting this right um so I think that um you know inspiring get being inspired by others around me and then giving me the confidence was hugely important in this particular case and so what I would say to aspiring lawyers or aspiring you know people who want to go further in their career I recall when I talked about moving into the human rights and sector that you know a lot of people I spoke to said, well, yeah, that’s very interesting, but you you know you won’t get a job in that space.

42:37.85

Maria McCloskey

And um you know I just kept working on the issues that were important to me and that I was interested in researching, you know going to events, being in the spaces and letting this you know i’m huge amount of knowledge just keep penetrating and then eventually feeling well actually I do know something now that in itself gives me the confidence to say well I’ll maybe look into this issue on behalf of someone I’ll maybe just take on this one query and that just builds and builds over time and so you know it’s hard work but it’s a lifetime’s work I don’t ever think that there’s a final destination and you get there and you go ah  what I’m doing in this human rights space I mean you know Jen as well it’s so vast It actually keeps changing on a daily basis. You know that you have to keep yourself up to speed with the changes.

43:28.16

Maria McCloskey

But if you’re committed to it, if you’re passionate about it, it definitely and you will get there. And I think the world kind of opens up opportunities to you when you’re in the right headspace, when you’re in the right space.

43:43.12

Maria McCloskey

place and you know you go to the right things you speak to the right people people that know a bit more than you um or a lot more than you um and you know I suppose just being humble that I’ve now come to accept that I don’t always get it right and sometimes I’m not really sure what I’m doing but if you have others around you who are supporting you um then that that’s really what you need

44:08.23

Jen Ang

Oh, thank you. Thank you for that. and Wise and warm. And I would also say strangely reassuring advice.

44:15.30

Maria McCloskey

[Laughs]

44:15.95

Jen Ang

feel like I feel like, Maria, if I ever sort of have some doubt in my career, the stage that I’ve reached, I’m just going to need to ring you up and ask you to tell me that again. Because, I mean, I think what you said really rings true. I um I see that I see that humility, but also that really strong sense of um mutual support and solidarity in the PILS team. And I I also recognize that in other, you know, legal teams and campaigns that I’ve been a part of.

45:17.97

Maria McCloskey

And I think just one final point that you kind of have sparked, um you know, that reminds me to to make clear in any avenue or in any channel that I can, like this space needs all the help it can get. U m If you are thinking about a career in human rights, please pursue that interest and don’t give up on it because the the corporate and commercial world, I feel, is growing.

45:46.31

Maria McCloskey

whilst the human rights space is sort of under pressure at the moment. and There are many critical issues happening both at home and further afield that we really need kind of all hands on deck um with at the moment so it may not be the most financially rewarding but it’s certainly the most personally rewarding um from my experience and I can highly recommend it um to anyone who’s thinking about it as a career.

46:16.32

Jen Ang

Yeah, 100%. um Thank you so much for your time, Maria. and um As I said, I could I could speak to you all afternoon, and but I won’t take any more of your hospitality or your time today.

 46:35.84

Maria McCloskey

Thank you very much, Jen. It was great to chat to you.

Jen Ang

I caught up with the PILS team this week, for a follow up on this case, and they told me that SWOT and PILS are still working together closely. They explained:

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council’s planning committee now need to make a fresh decision on whether or not this fossil fuel infrastructure should be given planning permission.  

In SWOT’s own words: “We got a stay of execution – but we still need to stop the development. A revised application for this unnecessary and unwanted fossil fuel infrastructure is now with the Council.”

SWOT are asking local communities and supporters to take action, speak to their local elected represntatives and lodge an objection. They’ve got a handy template letter on their website: stopwhiteheadoilterminal.org

Since SWOT went to court, it’s clear from the updated environmental information submitted to the Council by the developer that this proposed fossil fuel infrastructure would have a massive impact on emissions and the region’s ability to meet any emissions targets. We are all waiting to see how the Council responds. This is definitely one to watch!

Thanks so much to you the listener, for tuning into the Lawmanity podcast.

In our next episode, we’ll doing something a little bit different – we’ll be kicking off a series of three themed episodes bringing together individual conversations we’ve had with 11 incredible Scottish activist leaders, to ask them to reflect on the connection between law and real social change. We asked them whether the law treats them and their communities equally, about whether the think the law is a tool, or a barrier to change, and what justice looks like to them.  Their answers are frank, honest and – pure dynamite.  Tune in in two weeks’ time, if you want to hear what they had to say!

if you loved this podcast, please do hit the subscribe button and also like and share  our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit about how the law really works in practice, and how it can be used to make the world a better brighter place. 

Our podcast has been generously supported by a grant from the Clark Foundation for Legal Education. The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe, and the music you’ve been listening to is “Always on the Move” by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland. 

Host: Jen Ang

Andy Sirel

“Access to education for migrants in Scotland has been something that was sort of on my casework radar for a very long time. And obviously for those eligible, we’re lucky enough in Scotland to have a situation where tuition fees are paid for by the government if you’re eligible, but access to that, to further and higher education is not equal.“

Jen Ang 

Welcome to the Lawmanity Podcast where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress people but can also lead to real social change. 

Jen Ang

Welcome everyone to the Lawmanity podcast. This week we’re speaking to legend, human rights lawyer and one of my very favourite people, Andy Sirel. Andy is a co-founding partner and legal director for the legal charity JustRight Scotland. He’s responsible for supervision of legal casework across a number of different areas of the charity’s work. In 2023 he was named Solicitor of the Year by the Herald Scotland Law Awards in recognition of his dedication throughout his legal career to using the law and human rights to achieve justice for people facing disadvantage, exclusion and discrimination. And for his groundbreaking work in challenging the exclusion of migrant young people in Scotland from tuition fee support in a case we will be discussing in today’s podcast. Welcome to the show, Andy.

Andy Sirel

Thank you very much for having me, you and looking forward to it.

Jen Ang

Great. So it’s lovely to see you and as I said at the start, this is such a great excuse to catch up as well because I can never have too much time with you, but you’re a very busy person.

Ah, as a kind of opener for this set of podcasts, I have been thinking about, a question that just gets us settled, and also helps us to learn a little bit about the person behind the legal legend we’re interviewing. A good friend of mine pointed out to me that our sense of smell is one of our oldest senses and observed that we can hold deep connections between our sense of smell and our memories. So if you don’t mind, can you tell me about a smell that’s meaningful to you?

Andy Sirel

That is a good question. I’d probably have a couple. the first one would be sun lotion because it reminds me frankly of being on holiday, in a sunny place that’s not Scotland. It’s not very often you apply it in Scotland. In fact, I don’t think I sell it here. but the second one would definitely be a freshly cut grass. Cause it just reminds me of like walking my dog in the evenings, sort of long, sunny, Scottish evenings. but the downside is that I have really bad hay fever, so I’m actually allergic to it. but nonetheless, nonetheless it does, it does give me good memories.

Jen Ang

Oh, the irony. And I love that. I love that both of those things are places and times that are far from your working desk. So holiday and after tools are down. I think that’s both relatable and also probably really healthy.

Andy Sirel

I think so.

Jen Ang

Cool. Well, thank you for indulging, my silly surprise question. so now we’ll kind of turn to, the topic of the podcast proper.

So, as I said before, we’re here to help listeners understand how the law can be used to achieve really significant change. and I’ve asked today that we look at your groundbreaking legal challenge in the Ola Jasim case against Scottish Ministers, which was a case where you established that the Scottish tuition fee regulations were in breach of the human right to education for some migrant people living in Scotland. And I wanted to see if we could talk to you about your role in that case, a little bit about your relationship with the wider Our Grades, Not Visas campaign. 

And also your reflections. now, believe it or not, two and a half years on from, that case being hurt, that’s gone very quickly, those two years. So, to start with, for our listeners, can you just explain to us how you got involved with this case and actually what was at stake? So why was it that when you heard about this case, you thought that something had to be done and that it was actually litigation that was going to have to be the answer?

Andy Sirel

Yeah. Okay. So access to education for, for migrants in Scotland has been something that was sort of on my, casework radar for a very long time, probably dating back to about 2015, I would say. I mean, the issue is this. So everybody technically has a right to education in Scotland. They can access school, further higher education. And obviously for those eligible who’re lucky enough in Scotland to have a situation where tuition fees are paid for by the government if you’re eligible, but access to that, to, further and higher education is not equal. 

The barrier is funding. Can you get the funding to go? And folks with some types of immigration status did not qualify for, Scottish government funding and did not qualify for what we call home fees status. They were treated essentially as international students. And of course, without funding or with a really high amount of tuition to pay, then you’re not going to be able to go. So, like I say, this was, an issue that was really prevalent in our work for a long time. 

In 2015, there was a Supreme Court case about it that affected my casework. it was a case called Tigere or Tigere And, it introduced a criteria that said if you have a visa in the UK and you’ve lived here for a long time, then on the basis of your long residence you can get access to education. And so that changed the picture in Scotland a little bit. It allowed some people to have access to education, who are migrants, are from a migrant background, but really not everybody. 

And so what we were seeing in our work was the community groups that we were working with and some of our clients actually at the time were very involved in activism and advocacy and they were raising the issue with the government. Time, time again, you know, directly to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, for example. And nothing was being done. Perhaps there was piecemeal progress, you would say. So the rules are being changed in reaction to world events like, you know, the Ukraine war, so Ukrainians were given access to education. Afghan resettlement schemes, Afghans were given access. But there was no broader recognition that, everybody else was basically being blocked out. 

So we’re in a situation where it was very clearly an issue. The community groups were and the folks affected were deeply impacted by it and were trying their very best to sway the government but it just wasn’t working. So the reality is then that one of the, you know, you need to recognise one of the best tools in the shed, so to speak, is litigation, particularly litigation using the Human Rights Act, because that is a way in Scotland where you can challenge a lot and if you’re successful the law gets like ripped up and the government have to start again. 

So, you know, we, I took the view, we took the view that we needed an individual in order to be the sort of standard bearer to take this case. And that’s not always the easiest thing because when you’re taking a case like this you need an individual, or with a really strong case. You know, to term it’s sometimes called as a good facts case. I don’t like that term particularly because anybody who’s affected by this should be able to have their day in court. 

But we needed a really strong case to demonstrate like significant harm that this, that the education laws were causing. Because if we didn’t and we lose, then actually we’re back to square one and the government probably are unlikely to do anything. 

And so we found a wonderful young person, who was referred to as by an MSP Her name is Ola and she was a straight A student out of school. She born in Iraq, lived here since she was just turned 11 years old so she moved just after she was 11. Educated here, you know obviously a very very clever person and got an unconditional offer to go and study at Dundee University to study medicine which is good because we need more medicine people, we need more medics, we need more doctors. And yeah she was told that she couldn’t study and couldn’t. 

Well she was told that she couldn’t get student funding because in the first day of her course she was 17 years old and she needed to live in the UK for seven years and she’d lived in the UK for 58 days short of that. So she was so close and if she applied when she turned 18 she would have needed nine years. So actually the distance between her being able to access funding was just going tp grow and grow. So she didn’t apply for funding in the first year she went to university. 

Dundee were really good the university they said you know we’ll just treat you as a home fee students or your fees are lower. But still her family were in real financial hardship in order to try and pay her fees. And then the second year she did apply you know after she met us and the student funding body said no you were not eligible on the first day of your first year. So you will never ever be eligible on this course. Even if you became British tomorrow you will never be eligible for this course. You need to stop and start again which was obviously grossly grossly unfair. 

So you know she, she became the sort of standard bearer the public standamard be I should say through the case there was another case behind her that we had for another client of mine in slightly different circumstances. But the reason why we needed that individual is because that was the way we were re going to directly challenge the law. But you’re not going to be able to create progressive change with just a legal case. You need something else. And this is where the campaign came in. 

The Our Grades Not Visas campaign founded by a young called Ahmed Al Hindi who was a six year pupil at the time. also affected by these strict access to education regulations and together with Maryhill Integration Network JustRight Scotland we set up this campaign which started raising the profile of the issue. It started directly engaging the Scottish government. It was doing media but really importantly it did a survey asking folks in Scotland you know are you affected by this? Tell us your story. And that gave us lots and lots of rich data and it told us that these rules were actually impacting hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people in Scotland. So, you know, the idea was that we took the individual legal case, we took the campaign, we put them together and we see where things go from there.

BBC Anchor

Let’s talk about another issue involving refugees living here. Scottish Ministers are being forced to change the law on tuition fees for hundreds of migrant students after a landmark court case.Lawyers successfully argued that Ola Jasim from Iraq who’d lived in Scotland for more than nine years did have her human rights breached. The straight A pupil was told she couldn’t access tuition fees because she missed out on the time threshold by just 56 days. The Scottish government says it is committed to a fair funding system.

Ola Jasim

This is what like I call my home. So to me I’m a Scottish citizen and so to be told that no you’re not and like I’m not getting the treatment as all my friends who I want to primary like since primary school with until high school we graduated together just to be discriminated against like that, that kind of just made me feel, kind of like, feel like unwelcome. My sisters for example, for their birthday, they just didn’t want to celebrate it because they’re like o, you know, like we don’t need to buy a cake even like for me, myself I just felt like all of these things were just extra things and like we need to save money on those things. But it’s like these are little things that kind of give you joy in life and like just keep you going. Now that I know that it’s like if the law is changing and hopefully there will be compensation for people who are affected. Hopefully like a lot of people’s lives will be changed because this isn’t just me that’s gotten really badly affected. There’s so many people out there.

Jen Ang

And I mean, that is so interesting actually both, you know, how you outline for listeners, you know, the thinking that goes into, you know, working out what a strategic case looks like and when it is appropriate to take one, but also that relationship between the legal work and the campaign, which has been really visible actually throughout, not just the case, but what has happened afterwards.

So I guess my question is, were there challenges in, in preparing the case or in coordinating with the campaign?

Andy Sirel

Yeah, that’s a good question. So I think that the campaign and the litigation were complementary to each other and there was a lot of cross coordination, but they were also separate. So for example, the founder of the campaign, Ahmed, was not a litigant in the case. we aren’t talking about his situation at all in the court action. Ah. And you know, we need, we always need these situations to be careful and make sure that the campaign see themselves as distinct from the litigation. we need the litigation to remain, own, its own thing and focusing on the strengths of the particular person that we had. the campaign was also slightly broader.

It was looking not just at, ah, migrants with leave to remain, which is what the case was about, but it was also looking at asylum seekers. And so, you know, we needed also to make sure that there was some distinction there. Because I think if we were in court arguing, you know, fundamentally a human rights case for asylum seekers to get access to student funding, then that would change the nature of the case entirely. It would possibly have resulted in a different outcome. So again, we needed to keep the two things, separate there. I think the final challenge would be, you know, finding the time to sort of input the technical information to allow the campaign to do its thing. You know, this is what the law says, this is what it doesn’t say, et cetera, but. And also actually run the legal case at the same time.

But as you say, we have very dedicated staff and yeah, we had, you know, our participation manager was the person that was running point for JustRight Scotland on the campaign. And that allowed me to sort of get my head down with my colleague Maisie and and our advocate in order to follow through the case. The last thing I’d say is that the case attracted a lot of media attention. and you know, as a lawyer, you’re. I’m typically cautious around media attention because you just don’t know how it’s going to be spun. we turned down a lot of media requests from outlets that we know go just been in certain things in a certain way.

But yeah, we were able to form a really good relationship with a particular journalist, who you know, told it like it is. That’s all we asked, just to tell it like it is. And you. We wanted also to be very careful and, and very, very protective of my clients in general. But I was very protective to this particular client to make sure that she wasn’t subject to any unpleasantness in the public eye. And thankfully we were able to navigate that, probably all down to the fact that she’s a far better media performer than I am and and performed impeccably. So yeah, those were some of the challenges that we needed to navigate as we were going through it.

Jen Ang

So just to make sure that our listeners understand, can you kind of briefly summarise what was the outcome of the actual case and what was the significance both for your client and then for other people like her?

Andy Sirel

Sure. So the case was challenging the parts of the funding regulations that said if you’ve got leave to remain in the uk, that isn’t permanent, so limited leave to remain, then, and you’re under 18 on the first day of your course, you need to have lived in the UK for seven years and if you’re over 18 you need to live in the UK for half your life. so those were the two parts of the rules that we were challenging. We were saying, you know, this long residence is actually really exclusion rate for a lot of people who are, you know, educated and raised in Scotland.

One of the other cases that we had actually was a young guy who was in care, he was raised by the state and then when he sought to access education, the state said no, you can’t access education, which is plainly wrong. So we were arguing, you know, four fundamental questions which your listeners might really chew over, to be honest with you.

The first one is to what extent is your length of residence in a place and appropriate measure of how integrated you are into your country? So if you’ve lived in Scotland for six years, 300 days, are you less integrated than you are having lived in the UK for 366 days? Probably not.

The second question was is it fair that there’s that cliff edge, you know, 17 year old needs, 7 years and 18 year old needs many years. Is it fair that there’s that cliff edge for young people who are the same person on the 18th birthday as the bear and the last day of their 17th year? And we were asking, is that year one rule fair? You know, if you’re ineligible in day one, year one, even if you become British, you will never be eligible for student funding. Is that fair?

And then fundamentally the ultimate question to the court was, is this a violation of the right to access education guaranteed by Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention, and is it discriminatory on the basis of immigration status? And the court said to those questions, yes, it is discriminatory, yes, it is a violation of the right to education. and so they struck down those elements of the law. and this was a huge, you know, this was a, a huge win and a real recognition of the toil and the harm that it had caused Ola and her family.

But, the upshot of it was that the government, Scottish government, needed to do two things really quickly. The first thing they needed to do was they needed to set up an interim scheme because you had hundreds of students in the last two academic years who had not been, who had not applied or who had applied for funding, had been refused illegally. And so they set up a scheme to basically pay them, give them the tuition that they should have got in the first place.

Second thing they need to do is think about this new law. The old law’s been struck down, we need a new one. So they needed to do an impact assessment to understand who and how people were affected. And they needed to do a public consultation to see what law would like. And this is where the campaign kicks in. Okay? This is where, this is where we need to understand the relationship in our litigation. And a campaign, the litigation opens the door, unlocks it and the campaign walks right through it. And the campaign, the campaign really stepped up here.

So we in order to reply to the impact assessment and the public consultation, so we JustRight Scotland, where, you know, we’re going to town hall events, where we’re hosting information sessions for folks affected just so they understood what the law, how the law was changing, what the court said, what the court didn’t see, and where those sort of pressure points are that they can really advance their views and express themselves about how it affects them.

And so the groups themselves, they organised, they responded to the consultation. And I have to say, when I heard some of the things they were asking for in the law, I did think that is admirable. I feel it’s unlikely because that’s not what the court said. but that just reveals my sort of ah, legal box which I view the world because I was totally wrong. And the upshot was that the Scottish Government passed a new law which came into force in August 2023.

So we’re coming up to the two year anniversary which abolished the long residence criteria altogether and just replaced it with the standard three year residence requirement that everybody has. Right. If you’re British or non British, everybody has this to access tuition in Scotland. And secondly it extended tuition fee support to asylum seeking children, both unaccompanied asylum seeking children and the kids of asylum seekers. and that was huge. That was an extension beyond which was even considered in the court case. It was just a pure result of quality and coordinated advocacy and campaigning. And that’s where we are now.

Jen Ang

That’s fantastic. And I love your kind of, your modest reflection about, your feelings about asking for more politically, than a legal case required. But it was a triumph of the campaign and also just a really wonderful result that in this particular case, and this doesn’t always happen, you know, the success in the legal case did open the door, as you said, ah, for a political decision, that was broader and that reached many, many more people, than actually the narrow holding of the judgement. So, it is a great thing to remember and reflect on, even though we are two and a half years down the line. So I’m going to kind of pull together the next two questions in a one or really.

So you have spoken a lot about the wider impact that the case has already had. and I guess I just wanted your reflections. I think people find this interesting as the person who led the case, if this came to you again today, would you run it the same? But also, do you think the outcome would be the same or different or, you know, just your thoughts on. And have things changed in the last few years? Do you think?

Andy Sirel

That is a good question. I mean, I think that there would be a temptation to gather loads and loads and loads of evidence and demonstrate, you know, in a great deal of detail, you know, then that hundreds and hundreds of 100 people are impacted because doesn’t, present that as part of the case. We didn’t actually include some of the survey stuff in the case. We really did focus down on Ola as an individual and her family. and there’s a temptation to think, well, if we are able to show the broader impact, and then that would, you know, that would be a smart thing to do in the case.

But then when I was thinking about this, you know, there’s also the chance that that gives something to the other side. They can say, well, you know, this is not a small thing we’re talking about here. This is a lot of public money we’re talking about here. you know, and the governments tend to have quite a wide discretion in the legal term we use as margin of appreciation. It just means that the courts give quite a lot of like, deference and latitude to governments about how they spend public money, especially in social, issues like education.

And so, you know, you always need to think, am I doing something? And what are the unintended consequences of it? Is that actually the right way to go about it? and so, yeah, if I’m honest with you, I would probably think that Would kind of caught the sweet spot with with the case that we brought, but that was 10 years in the making. You know, I’d worked with many, many individuals who had been blocked from education and their cases probably weren’t strong enough to get us over the line. And if you think about it in I alternate universe we had this wonderful campaign and all the media and then we lost the case. You know, there’s no guarantee at all that we would have got to where we got to. In fact probably, probably we wouldn’t have done because the government were very clearly defending it.

So yeah, it’s difficult, it’s difficult to say whether it would have been a different, a different outcome. But I mean the impact of it is beyond what I could have expected, particularly the inclusion of asylum seeking young people. And I mean I’ve seen it in m. My day to day since you know there’s a. We’ve some other clients of our organisation whose kids are now at university that you know, the mums and dads are still in the asylum system but they’re all now studying, you know, X, Y and Z, at university which they just weren’t able to do two years ago. and even myself, you know I do some teaching at different institutions from time to time and I. On two occasions in the last 18 months or so I’ve I’ve had students in the class come up to me afterwards and say, you know, I’m actually here because of that judgement, and that campaign, which is very. Which I have say is very nice if not slightly surreal.

Jen Ang

I have to say that’s. No, that’s amazing and well deserved. and just underscore what you said, you know, I agree. what’s not visible to the public is actually how long you can be thinking about working up a case or how long you can be aware of an issue before the right case actually comes. And because obviously it’s only when the case hits the press and you know most of the work is done. The rest of the world is alive to the idea unfortunately, sometimes to our opponents as well. It’s only when the case, it’s depressed that they’re fully paying attention.

So onto my last question, which is what more needs to be done to secure justice for people like Ola and the other young people that you’ve worked with.

Andy Sirel

Yeah, I mean there’s a very clear one for me. So there is some unfinished business that one of the things we attempted to argue in the case or we argued in the case, but it didn’t, it didn’t come through in the final judgement, was that there needs to be an our view anyway, some form of discretion. You know, remember, Ola was only 58 days short. You know, the other young person we’re working for was about 65 days short. And know, okay, there needs to be a line in the sand because you need to determine, you need to draw the line somewhere.

But for exceptional cases, not having any discretion at all, is I, think unfair. And I’ll give you an example. We’re working with an individual right now who is a British citizen, and also a Sudanese citizen. And he and his family were evacuated from Sudan because of the outbreak of the war. And he arrived in the, in Scotland, in 2023, sought to access, ah, an education course here, and was told, oh, you’ve not lived here for three years. you know, you’re a British citizen, but you’ve not lived here for three years, so you’re an international student. And he said, well know I’m a British citizen and you know, the only reason that I’m not, I, wasn’t here for three years is because I was in Sudan. And you know, you’ve evacuated me and the rules say, well no, now here’s the thing. If he was not British, he could go through the asylum process and become a refugee and I get access to education straight away. if he had fled Ukraine, in the rules, there’s something for British nationals. You know, if you were British and you were in Ukraine, you can now access education. If he was from Afghanistan, if you lived in Afghanistan, it would be the same thing, but there’s nothing for Sudan. and you know,

I’m probably not in favour of just the government bolting on new exceptions to the regulations. I’m in favour of somebody looking at his case and saying, yeah, you’re a de facto refugee, and it’s not fair and you should be able to access education here. So there’s still some stuff left and we’re gonna have a go at his case and see where it gets to. But yeah, I think that I suppose the last thing I’d say is that the law is really complicated in this area. It’s hard for people to manage it. It’s hard for me to wade through all the regulations. I don’t know how people do it by themselves. the colleges find it difficult. So the Government finds it difficult, and we need to have something that’s a bit more consolidated. So, you know, as ever, as ever, we’re not quite at the end of the road, yet. But that doesn’t mean to say we shouldn’t m. be grateful for the wins that have come so forth

Jen Ang

Absolutely. Well, I mean, I’m told on the idea that it would be useful for the decision maker to have discretion, but it would also be. It would be ironic if, after the intervention of a lawyer, the law was actually simplified. but I have no doubt that if anyone can do it, you can fire Bas. So good luck for that case, and, you know, and thank you so much for your time. You’ve been super generous.

I just have one final question for you, and that’s this. So there will be listeners, who tune into this podcast because, you know, they admire the work that, legal legends like you do. and so the question for them and for me is, what advice might you have for someone out there who could be a younger version of you or who’s looking at what you’ve accomplished today and wants to be you, basically, what would you say to them, at an earlier stage in their career about what they should be doing?

Andy Sirel

Oh, that’s a very embarrassing question. I would say, you need to be positive. You need to look for opportunities where other people see negatives. and I think that is something that, not everyone’s able to do, but, you know, we can if we try. and if I’m honest with you, you need to treat everybody, regardless of who they are, regardless of status or position or seniority or age or anything. You need to treat everybody the same with dignity, courtesy, interest. And only by doing that, do you learn a lot. You, are. You obtain people’s trust, and you’re honest, and then doors open and opportunities present themselves, but only by doing that and do you get their trust. And that is actually, you know, things go from there. So that those are the sort of very simple pieces of advice I would give.

Jen Ang

Amazing. I mean, thank you for that wise counsel. And having known you for a long time, I know that you absolutely live those values. and. And I think. I think. I think they do. I think they do work. So I’m one of those lucky people, who’s had the opportunity to know you, and also to have called on, ah, that relationship to ask you to spend this time with us. But I think it’s been really interesting and and’positive that people will find lots of bits to take away from this. So thanks again for your time today. and yeah, I hope you have a great afternoon. Maybe get to enjoy that freshly caught grass smell before the rain comes again. yeah. And I look forward to catching up with you again soon.

Andy Sirel

Thanks very much, Jen Take care.

Jen Ang

Thanks so much to you, the listener, for tuning in to the Lawmanity Podcast.

In our next episode we’ll be speaking to Maria McCloskey, former director solicitor at the Public Interest Litigation Support Unit in Northern Ireland, about litigation she led to support a community opposing the building of a major terminal on the shores of a peaceful rural coastal area of the Belfast Lough. The Stop Whitehead Oil Terminal case. If you loved this podcast, please do hit the subscribe button and also like and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit more about how the law really works in practise and how it can be used to make the world a better, brighter place.

Our podcast has been generously supported by a grant from the Clark Foundation for Legal Education. The Lawmanity Podcast is co produced by me, your host Jen Ang and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. And the music you’ve been listening to is Always on the Move by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland.

Recorded 23 May 2025

Host: Jen Ang

Harriet Wistrich

“We were looking at ways in which we could potentially hold the police accountable for their failures in their duty to protect.”

Jen Ang 

Welcome to the Lawmanity Podcast where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress people but can also lead to real social change. 

I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and activist based in Scotland and your host on the Lawmanity Podcast.  This week we’re speaking to feminist activist, lawyer, and legend, Harriet Wistrich. 

Harriet is the founder and director of the Centre for Women’s Justice and a solicitor of 25 years’ experience who worked for many years with renowned civil liberties firm, Birnberg Pierce Limited.  

She has acted in many high-profile cases around violence against women, including on behalf of women who challenged police and parole board in the John Worboys case, women deceived in relationships by undercover police officers, and on behalf of women appealing murder convictions for killing abusive partners, most recently Sally Challen. She is also a founder member of the campaign group Justice for Women and trustee of the charity, the Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize. Most recently, Harriet is the author of the 2024 book Sister-in-Law, a reflection on her most notable cases and what it’s like to fight for justice for women in a system designed for men. Welcome to the show again, Harriet, and it’s such a pleasure to have you. 

Harriet Wistrich1:39

Hi, I’m very pleased to be here. Thank you. 

Jen Ang 1:41

So in this podcast, I’ve been experimenting with a surprise opener question to get us settled and to learn a little more about the people behind the legal legends we’re interviewing. A good friend pointed out to me that our sense of smell is our oldest sense and observed that we can hold deep connections between the sense of smell and our memories. So if you don’t mind, could you please tell me a little bit about a smell that is meaningful for you, maybe one that you just really like, or one that’s connected to a place or a time that you like to bring to mind? 

Harriet Wistrich 2:11

It’s a difficult question that but I would suggest the smell of the seaside. So when you go on a particularly on a nice bright sunny day to get away from the smoke down to the sea side and you kind of smell this fresh sea smell and hear the gulls and the, you know, kind of anticipation of that kind of freshness, that’s a nice smell I associate with getting away from things a little bit. 

Jen Ang 2:49

I love that. I love that kind of grounding with nature and I can actually almost hear as well the sounds that go with that smell and I also reflect that as, you know, lawyers and activists spend a lot of time at their desks in meeting rooms and sort of working all hours. It’s actually quite a good reminder as well, the importance of stepping away or having a stopping place to go to. 

So thank you so much for that, Harriet. Turning to the podcast topic for today. 

So we’re here to help listeners understand how the law can be used to achieve really significant change by looking at how you and your colleagues throughout your career have led campaigns to shine a light on the ways in which the criminal justice system has failed to protect women and in particular women survivors and victims of violence. 

So today I’d like to delve a little bit deeper into your role and ask you to tell us a little bit about the start of your journey. Can you explain a bit about how you got involved with this work and what it’s about and what was at stake that made you think that specifically law as a tool or legal intervention is what would be necessary to achieve the change that you were looking for? 

Harriet Wistrich 3:56

Yes. Well, I didn’t actually start out as a career in the law at all. I was doing other things, exploring other ways of I guess my main ambition was around political change and feminist activism in particular. So that was always my big passion and I wanted to find routes, I suppose, to bring about change for women, in whatever way I could and kind of explore that a little bit through kind of film and video originally. That was a route I was exploring. I also as a feminist activist would become involved in various different campaigns around issues. 

One campaign I got involved in, in a sort of ad hoc way initially was around the issue of women who kill their abusive partners, violent partners. And it came about because a friend who lived up in the North had seen a TV program called the Provoked Wife, which featured the cases of several women who’d all been convicted of murder, and were unable to use the then-defense of provocation to argue that their conviction should at the very least be mitigated to manslaughter because of the views they’ve been subjected to, which amounted to provocation. 

And yet, the legal system didn’t really, that the legal defense of provocation was really designed much more around a male response to being provoked. So originally, it kind of, you know, originates in, you know, almost like men fighting duels and, you know, kind of responding to an insult. That was the sort of, kind of roots really of the provocation defence, and it required a sudden and temporary loss of control to word said or things done. And that was the test. 

And what we saw with these cases was that women who were subjected to abuse and violence over a period were often not able to respond suddenly to a further act of abuse or fear of abuse because they knew if they did they’d come out worse from it. 

Anyway, the particular case originally that I got involved with was the case of Sara Thornton, who had killed her husband and been convicted of his murder, and she was appealing his conviction was very keen to get public support to raise the issues. And our friend just asked a group of us if we could get together quickly to organise a demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice to highlight the issue. So we, we kind of called around all our mates and campaigners and stuff and said, look, let’s get down to the Court of Appeal. Let’s make some placards and let’s say, you know, that domestic violence is provocation, self-defense is no offense, these sorts of things, and we all kind of gathered outside the court and we put together some leaflets 

 highlighting the issue. And transpired that one of the groups that was also really interested in Sara’s case and supporting her case was Southall Black Sisters, and they had been beginning to build up a campaign for another woman called Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who was likewise convicted of the murder of her husband in circumstances where she’d suffer horrific abuse. 

And so what happened with Sarah’s case at the Court of Appeal was the Court of Appeal rejected her appeal. And two days later, there was a report in the news of a man who’d kicked his wife to death, and the judge said she would have tried the patience of a saint. And it kind of illustrated everything we had said. 

And so we kind of thought it somehow we got the news interested, we captured the public imagination, let us, let’s do some more campaigning around this. And that’s why we formed Justice for Women. We then supported and worked alongside Southall Black Sisters as they built up their huge campaign around Kiranjit Ahluwalia:

ITN, Live Reporting Kiranjit Ahluwalia, Freed. 25 September 1992 8:26

Kiranjit Ahluwalia in the black jacket walked free from the Old Bailey to the jubilant cries of supporters. In 1989 she was convicted of murdering her husband and given a life sentence. Today at her retrial, her plea of manslaughter through diminished responsibility was accepted. Her mental state had been impaired when she set her husband alight with petrol, Mr Justice decided. “I consider justice does not require you to be kept in prison any longer and direct you to be released forthwith,” was what he said. Mrs. Ahluwalia broke down and wept. There were cheers from the public gallery.” Later at a news conference, this reaction… “It’s a great shock for me today. I wasn’t expecting anything. I’m very pleased because finally justice has been done with for me.”

Harriet Wistrich 9:23

And a sort of opportunity, partly arose when after Kiranjit Ahluwalia’s very successful campaign, Justice for Women received a letter from a young woman in prison called Emma Humphreys, who had already been in prison for over seven years, detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, because she was only 17 at the time of her conviction, and was seeking, was now having given up, was now beginning to seek help to appeal. 

And she wrote to us, we then went to Kiranjit’s solicitor, Rohit Sangvi, and said would you take this case on? He said yes but I need a volunteer and so I decided to volunteer and I worked with Emma over a number of months to pull together a really detailed statement of her experience, and from that we gradually built up grounds of appeal and during that process, which took you know two or three years. 

I decided to do a law conversion  course and then the legal practice course to become a Solicitor and the timing was quite good because just literally a few days after I’d finished my legal practice course exams I was outside the court of appeal, inside the court of appeal when Emma successfully succeeded in her appeal and was released from prison so that was my kind of quite exciting entrance into becoming a Solicitor. 

Jen Ang 11:00

What an incredible start to your legal career, and then – fast forward through a number of years in private practice, and then you and colleagues founded a legal charity, the Centre for Women’s Justice. What led you to do that?

Harriet Wistrich 11:13

Yes sure so I think the Centre for Women’s Justice I should say is a legal charity which 

I kind of founded in 2016 and it’s aims were to hold the state accountable around violence against women and girls and to challenge discrimination in the criminal justice system. 

So the reason I decided to establish the charity was that I’d been working after my initial entrance into the legal profession. I’d been working for you know 20 odd years and different legal aid practices but I kind of aside from doing occasional criminal appeals I was really specialising in the kind of fairly niche but growing practice of what was known as actions against the police. 

So looking at ways in which you could hold the police accountable for their failures. Now initially a lot of those sorts of cases that were developing were around wrongful arrests, false imprisonment, people being assaulted by the police and malicious prosecution those were the sort of standard types of police actions that were being explored and you know I did a number of those and deaths in custody etc etc. 

However because of my pre-existing interest in feminism and my contacts with women’s movement occasionally you know friends or colleagues in the women’s sector would come to me and say is there anything we can do about you know the police just completely failed to investigate this rape case or failed to pull in any protections for this victim of domestic violence who was then murdered whatever those sorts of issues. So it was less about the police over-policing and more about the police under-policing. And we were looking at ways in which we could potentially hold the police accountable for their failures in their duty to protect, to investigate failures of the CPS to prosecute, and apply basically the purpose, you know, if one has any belief in policing, that is for me. 

What policing should be doing, it should be protecting the vulnerable, preventing crime or, you know, investigating and properly holding those accountable for committing crimes, and so that was really the area and in fact I then became involved in this case, involving the serial rapist taxi driver John Worboys, One of the problems with  the desire to hold police accountable for their failures is that the police are in certainly in English, Welsh law, and I suspect in Scots law as well, I’m not sure, are immune from suit in negligence, so you can’t actually sue the police for negligence failures. You can sue them for, you know, kind of causing harm by over-policing but not necessarily for failure to do things, and there’d been a number of attempts to challenge that. I mean the famous case was around the, another violence against women case around the so-called Yorkshire Ripper, and a case brought by his last victim’s family, Jacqueline Hill, against West Yorkshire police, and the court had held very clearly that the police couldn’t be held liable under our common law in negligence. 

So however since that time we had the advent of the Human Rights Act, and the Human Rights Act passed in force in 2000 basically provides, puts a number of duties on the state, which obviously includes the police, to protect its citizens, and so what we were exploring, and you know there were other lawyers sort of looking at different routes around that, could we argue rather than that there was a negligent failure to investigate, that the police failed to comply with their duty to investigate,  and that was the case that was eventually evolved and argued around the Worboys case, it was a case called DSD and NBV v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, and I brought that case on behalf of two women, and interestingly so we did succeed in the High Court and establish that under Article 3 of the European Convention (ECHR), the police do have a duty to conduct an effective investigation into crimes that met the threshold for a violation of Article 3. 

And that case amazingly the police kept appealing it and so eventually went up to the Supreme Court. So we’ve now got a very clear duty established because we won all the way up amazingly. I suppose through doing that work and then doing other cases around violence against women, it was clear that there were very few lawyers specialising in the right area who could act for women. There was a huge demand for advice and assistance around these sort of cases. There were a few, one or two other solicitors, I knew but it was a really, really small profession if you like. So we decided– well, I decided I guess that we needed a legal charity, really, to take this case forward. 

One of the difficulties also and one of the reasons why I thought that charity was the way forward was because of the very limited availability of legal aid to bring such cases and they’re obviously big, complex cases. So because of the limited availability of legal aid, I thought, you know, if we could set up a charity, there might be other ways in which you could bring challenges around that. 

Jen Ang 17:23

That is fascinating, and such a great example of how international human rights law can make a real difference for people in their every day lives – in this case, all those women who have been let down by a police failure to investigate in these troubling cases.

So the Centre was established in 2016 – what do you and your team focus on in the day-to-day?

Harriet Wistrich

 A lot of the issues are around that those police and other criminal justice failures to protect, to investigate, to prosecute and to keep safe, I guess. So that’s not exclusively the area of work, but that is particularly of interest. But because also of my interest in terms of, you know, like the women who kill, but more generally, the issue of victims who are criminalised, because the criminal justice system seems incapable of distinguishing between victims and perpetrators quite often. And, you know, like the women who kill, there are many other cases, which we, we do a big project around where women may accused of offending, or maybe convicted of offenses, when really they’re the victim. So that sort of kind of runs alongside the kind of cases where we’re seeking to hold the police and others accountable, yeah. 

Jen Ang 18:47

That’s fascinating. Thank you for sharing Harriet.  So I’m going to bring us to our final question for the day, which is sort of on behalf of our listeners who might have tuned in to just learn a bit more about using the law, but also what it looks like to be an activist and a lawyer. Now there might be someone out there who is a younger version of you, and who’s looking at what you’ve accomplished today, or maybe just, you know, wants to be you. And my question for you is this, what advice might you have for the younger you? 

Harriet Wistrich 19:19

Yeah, I mean, it’s difficult to answer that question without taking into account the very different context that younger me’s live in. So, you know, the area of law that I practice in has been expanded 

You know considering not just around violence against women, but around state accountability but you know that there are many you know it’s very very difficult now to get a training contract or you know to qualify in a way that although you know it wasn’t easy it seems to be you know that much harder and now people seem to have to spend quite a bit of time being a paralegal before they can then become a trainee, or there’s the SQE now, but you know it does just seem to take a lot longer and there’s all sorts of other issues that you know in terms of, you know, student debt and various other things that make it quite a different situation.

So kind of transposing my experience from 30 years ago to now may not be exactly the same, but what I would say is that you know, it’s good to do other things before you go into law sometimes. It’s good to be involved, even if you’re studying law straight from the outset just to be involved in other stuff If the reason you’re going into law is because you want to use law as a tool to create change then you should be connected with people who are looking at change – creating change in different ways – and not silo yourself off into being a lawyer. 

I’m a very strong believer in you know the benefits of collaborating with others working in other areas and obviously for the sort of work I do and many of you will do, you know, it’s a critical part of that is also obviously to listen to and to work alongside those for whom you’re acting rather than you know to see yourself as some kind of siloed expert really so yeah, I think that that that that’s sort of my kind of philosophy, I don’t think that would change because of the changed times and context whilst I recognize that just being able to spend a few years Just doing kind of volunteering and activism may be more difficult these days 

Jen Ang 22:00

Thank you so much Harriet for that wisdom and absolutely, I think that that ethos that you outlined about working alongside and with the people who are raising the issues that you are working on is so important and you’ve clearly expressed that in in your practice. 

Harriet Wistrich 22:15

If anyone is interested as well I shamelessly plug my book, it tells people a bit about the story of how I got into law and how  I fought those particular battles. So yeah, if you’re really if you are really engaged in these issues, then, you know, you come find out it, a bit about it  and what it was, and how I approached it

Jen Ang 22:39

Absolutely. A cracking read and very clear and engaging, just as you are in the podcast today.

Thanks so much to you the listener, for tuning into the Lawmanity podcast.

In our next episode, we’ll be speaking to Andy Sirel, Legal Director at JustRight Scotland, about a legal challenge that secured access to further and higher education for potentially thousands of young people in Scotland.  Tune in to hear how an aspiring doctor, and a student-led campaign successfully establish a right to education in human rights law for migrant young people in Scotland and expanded access to further studies for every who follows in their footsteps. 

if you loved this podcast, please do hit the subscribe button and also like and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit about how the law really works in practice, and how it can be used to make the world a better brighter place. 

Our podcast has been generously supported by a grant from the Clark Foundation for Legal Education. The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe, and the music you’ve been listening to is “Always on the Move” by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland. 

Recorded 28 May 2025

Host: Jen Ang

Welcome to the Lawmanity podcast, where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress people but can also lead to real social change. 

I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and activist based in Scotland and your host on the Lawmanity podcast. Now, every episode will bring you legal summaries of interesting cases and one-to-one interviews with activists across the UK who are using the law in creative ways to challenge unfairness and secure justice for people and communities who are excluded, discriminated against and overlooked. 

This week, we’re speaking to activist legend, Tim Hopkins. Dr. Tim Hopkins came to Scotland to pursue his studies in computer sciences but rapidly became a prominent activist in the fight against the notorious Section 28 law, a part of the Local Government Act 1988 that prohibited local authorities from promoting homosexuality or teaching about it in a positive light in schools. 

A prominent and eminent campaigner for LGBT+ rights and equality for all people in Scotland, Tim was also involved in organising Scotland’s first pride march, and headed the National LGBT+ organization Equality Network for 14 years before stepping down in 2024. Tim continues to campaign for LGBT+ rights, including recognition of the rights of trans and non-binary people. 

Welcome to the show, Tim, you’ve been such a force of nature, but also part of not just LGBT history, but human rights history in Scotland. I’m really looking forward. 

So in this podcast, we start with an opener question just to get a settled and for us to learn a bit more about the legends behind the people we’re interviewing. So a friend pointed out that our sense of smell is our oldest sense, and that we can hold deep connections between the sense of smell and our memories. 

So if you don’t mind, can you please tell me about a smell that’s meaningful to you, maybe one that you like or one that’s connected to a time or place that you like to bring to mind?

Tim Hopkins

You’re right, the sense of smell is very evocative, but I’m actually quite boring on this point. I think I might mention two. One is a smell of an ex-boyfriend of mine, mostly the kind of perfume that he used to wear, which, after we split up – we split up after a few years – but that stuck with me for years afterwards. In fact, I used to have, in my cupboard, a jacket that belonged to him, which still smelled of him. I went and looked to see if I still had it before we started and I must have thrown it away at some point over the years.

But actually, before I thought of that, the smell that first came to mind is actually the smell of coffee, because coffee for me is quite important in the morning. Until I’ve had my first coffee, I’m not much use. It’s also connected in my mind to work, I suppose, but not working in an unpleasant sense, but getting things done. That’s a kind of comfortable smell for me. 

Jen Ang

Thank you so much for sharing those. And I love the idea of a signature scent that sticks with you, even well beyond the contemporary. And that is so true. There are some people who are just associated with a smell and a time and a place. Must have been a great pick for that person. Must have been the one. And I can totally relate to coffee as well. Thanks so much for sharing those things. 

So now we’re going to dive into the simple question about the law and equality. So my question is, do you feel the law works equally for you or for your community, however you choose to define community? And why or why not? 

Tim Hopkins

Yes, so I suppose when I thought about this, I was also thinking about the definition of law. There’s kind of two dimensions to that, for the work that I’ve been involved in for a long time. One is what the law itself says, what is in criminal law, what is criminal and what isn’t. In a civil law, what are people’s rights and so on. So that’s one dimension. Then the other dimension is how the law works and you know, being able to uphold your rights and what’s involved in that. To answer the question, when I started campaigning, which was back in the 1980s, the whole environment was that the law treated us very unfairly as LGBT people. 

 And that’s really what got me involved, so it was all about changing the law. 

Over the past 30 years, or a little more, 35 years, there have been big changes, big positive changes to the law as it affects LGBT people in Scotland and across the UK and other places as well. I made a list, and there’s about 10 really important things on the list. 

And if I look back at the Equality Network’s first manifesto for the first Scottish Parliament election in 1999, almost everything on that manifesto has been done, and most of the things on the manifesto were about changing the law. And since then, we added some additional things that weren’t such high priorities, but a large number of them have been done. 

So in terms of whether the law works for LGBT people: for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, the law is far better now than it was 30 years ago. For trans people, things are really quite different. There have been some improvements: the two key things are the gender recognition system that came in in 2004  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents, and the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws which are now in the Equality Act  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents, which date back to, originally, 1999. 

But both those things have been seriously undermined this year, in particular, by the Supreme Court judgment back in April in For Women Scotland versus Scottish Ministers https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042, which is a huge huge problem for trans people. So for trans people, the law is definitely not working at the moment. 

Jen Ang 

And thank you so much for highlighting those differences. And it must be– I just wanted to sort of ask a follow-on question from that, actually. For you, at the moment, do you see in the contemporary struggles for the rights of trans people and non-binary people any parallels to either the challenges or some of the tactics that were necessary in fighting for the rights for L,G and B people?

Tim Hopkins

Yes, I’ve been saying to people – especially younger people who weren’t around in the 1980s – I’ve been saying recently that it feels like we’re back in the 1980s. The kind of things that happened then, targeting, if you like, lesbian and gay people – or gay men, it was primarily – but the impact was just as bad on lesbian and bisexual people as well. The kind of things that happened then are happening now to trans people. 

So one example is Margaret Thatcher famously in the Tory party conference in 1987 had a bit in her speech – it was something like

Margaret Thatcher

“Children who should be being taught traditional moral values are instead being taught they have an inalienable right to be gay.” LGBT+ Marketing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VRRWuryb4k 

Tim Hopkins

That’s pretty much a direct quote, and that was a signal – that was in 1987 – and it was a signal that two months later Section 28 was going to be introduced https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/9/pdfs/ukpga_19880009_en.pdf. The first and only time that the law applying to LGB people has gone backwards in the past half a century at least.

And we saw almost the same thing happening a couple of years ago when Rishi Sunak, when he was Prime Minister, in his Tory conference speech, made very similar comments about trans people 

Rishi Sunak

“And we shouldn’t be bullied into believing that people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t: a man is a man, and a woman is a woman.  That’s just common sense. [applause]” The Independent, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5kQhhgK6T8

Tim Hopkins

So the whole feel of the way that trans people are being attacked now feels very much like the 1980s. And in just the same way that I mentioned Section 28 being the only time the law had gone backwards, the recent Supreme Court judgment is worse in terms of the harm done to trans rights than Section 28 was for LGB rights. Just as with Section 28 the law has now gone backwards for trans people. 

In terms of how we deal with that. Well, moving on kind of into the 1990s there were – in fact, actually in the 1980s as well – there were a number of court cases which helped move things forward. For example, cases, some in the UK courts, some in the European Court of Human Rights, and one at least at the European Court of Justice. And I think court cases are going to be really important.

Work in the media I think is going to be really important. So a lot of work was done in the 1990s to, if you like, normalise same sex relationships to kind of give visibility to LGB people. And I think more work needs to be done to give visibility to trans people, and it’s really positive that trans people are appearing in TV programs like Heartstopper for example, in a similar way to the way that gay men, in particular at first, and then a bit later lesbians, were beginning to appear in the 1980s, in soaps like EastEnders, for example. 

And then I think campaigning with politicians to see if it’s possible to get the law changed, which was very slow in the 1990s but gradually picked up speed over the last – certainly between 2000 and 2022 – in Scotland. 

And I think one of the important things for LGB rights in Scotland was devolution – that was crucial to moving forward faster a bit faster than down south on some things, and doing it better than down south. And I think there’s an opportunity for doing a similar thing with trans rights as well. Having said that, there is a major problem, which is the reservation of equality law. 

And in fact, going right back to 1998 when the Equality Network was only one year old, we did a lot of work campaigning around the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and we fed  into the various bits of consultation that were done about what should the Parliament look like? What should its powers be? And one of the things we said right back then, and we’ve said it many times since, is that equality law should be devolved, like it is in Northern Ireland.

If equality law had been devolved to Scotland, then the court cases, For Women Scotland versus Scottish Ministers – of which there have been two [ https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/0a1plqgo/court-of-session-judgement-reclaiming-motion-by-for-women-scotland-limited-against-the-lord-advocate-and-others-18-february-2022.pdf and https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042 ], and the Supreme Court judgement was in the second case – those cases wouldn’t have happened. 

Well they certainly wouldn’t have been decided in the way they were, because they were based on Scotland has to comply with whatever equality law means across Britain. 

And the blocking of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill [ https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s6/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-billhttps://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s6/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill], which was kind of the last one of the positive changes to the law that have happened over the past 25 years in Scotland, that was only blocked because equality law was reserved to Westminster. 

Jen Ang

Absolutely. And, yeah, and I suppose we have definitively seen the end point of equality law being reserved to Westminster in this case, a case which originated in Scotland and actually originated in the attempt by Scottish Ministers to exercise the limited powers they had in a reservation. 

I am so interested in what you’ve raised, and as a side note, I also was learning today from someone who was there at the time that the Equality Network was, in coalition with other civil society organisations, really crucial in the establishment of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, as well, as an accountability body. 

And I feel there is a whole piece – I think it’s not an article. I think it’s probably an entire piece of research – about the specific socio-legal history of human rights and equalities in Scotland, which one day I might come back to you on.

So my next question for you is looking back over the span of your career. Is the law for you a barrier or a tool, or both, in the struggle to achieve greater equality for people and communities who marginalised and disadvantaged? 

Tim Hopkins

So I guess for LGBT people, obviously at the beginning when we started this work, the law was a big barrier because there were so many things that were wrong with it. 

Section 28, sex offences law, treated gay men in particular very different from anybody else. There was no gender recognition for trans people, there was no recognition of same sex couples in any way, same sex couples couldn’t be joint parents. And then there was no protective law, so there was no equality law or hate crime law protection. So in that sense, the law was a big barrier. 

As we’ve gradually got things changed, some of those changes were about barriers disappearing, so I wrote down that it took four separate acts, two of them at Westminster, and two of them in the Scottish Parliament, to remove all of the discrimination against gay and bisexual men in sexual offences law. It started in 1980, but it didn’t finish until 2009. So that was removing the barrier.

If you think about what does the law do positively, there was one more act, which is the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Act 2018 [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2018/14/contents] which we did a lot of work on, which is basically about giving a pardon to every man who was ever convicted. So it’s historical, it’s kind of posthumous pardons to people who are no longer alive, but also gives a pardon to everybody who is still living who has one of these convictions.

So I guess that’s an example of the way in which the law can actually to some extent correct injustices that have happened in the past. 

And then of course apart from removing all the barriers, I would include in that, you know, the introduction of civil partnership, and then the introduction of equal marriage, and actually before even civil partnership, the recognition of cohabiting same sex couples, and the laws around parenting. 

All of that is about removing barriers, but there are also the more positive laws: the Equality Act and the hate crime legislation, which are about protecting people.

So I think the answer is the law has both been a barrier, a huge barrier, but for LGB people, those barriers have been bit by bit taken down. But also the law is a protector, and it has been genuinely protective: you know, the Equality Act has genuinely protected people. It doesn’t always work of course, but some people have been protected from sexual orientation discrimination, and hate crime law has given some people some justice. 

Jen Ang

As I hear you describe these things and the long struggle for equality using the law in different ways, it occurs to me that a lot of the work has been about redefining the boundaries of who deserves protection, but also who deserves to be recognised in their identities. So it sounds like the story of the ’80s and the ’90s. And I still remember. I still remember.

There being in the cultural landscape, very severe discrimination and disgust if you like, just around discussions on identity. So the law and the strategic work you did was about bringing people with particular orientations or identities into the fold of people who deserved protection. And it sounds like the work that you’re talking about now looking at trans and non-binary people is a continuation in some ways of that dialogue. What do you think?

Tim Hopkins

No, no, that’s exactly right. So I mentioned the importance of the media. One of the first demonstrations we organised, before the Equality Network was founded, I’d been involved in a number of other groups, and one we set up at the end of 1987, after Margaret Thatcher made her speech I referred to before, and Section 28 had been introduced in Parliament. It hadn’t yet become law. We were doing a lot of campaigning against Section 28. 

And one person who got very much involved in the campaign was Michael Cashman, who at that point was an actor – he played a character called Colin on EastEnders, who was a gay man. Colin and Barry were a couple on EastEnders. They were pretty much the first gay male couple to be in any soap opera, really any TV serial in the UK. And then he got involved in campaigning, and then he became a politician, and obviously he’s still involved in campaigning. So those things are really important, which is why it’s really good to see, as I mentioned before, trans people in programmes like Heartstopper, and also the same people speaking out, and their colleagues speaking out. 

But yes, you’re absolutely right. The law at the moment is a huge barrier for trans people, especially after the Supreme Court judgment in April. We don’t know quite how bad it’s going to be, but at the moment it looks like it’s going to be very bad indeed. Completely non-compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, which is why I hope cases will get to the European Court as quickly as possible. But of course, there’s no requirement on the UK government to implement rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. So what happens after that, we have to see, but yes, really the situation of trans people now is I think worse than the situation was for LGB people, even going back to the 1980s. Perhaps the media is not quite so unpleasant as it was about LGB people in the 1980s, but it is almost as bad. But the legal situation, the fact that it looks like trans people are not going to be able to use toilets, is just appalling. 

Jen Ang

It’s a concerning prognosis. And one, I’m afraid I might share. But I suppose it’s really helpful in speaking to you because you and other activists who are still of the movement have this longer perspective. It’s really helpful to remind people of some of these challenges we’ve seen before, some of them are new and bigger, but people are still in the movement to lend a hand, as you are, to think about what to do. I’m going to move on or move back, I suppose, to the role of the people who make the legal system happen. 

And that is a question about what you think the role of lawyers and the legal system might be in relation to social justice movements?

Tim Hopkins

Okay, so for us, for LGBT people, including trans people, the role of lawyers and the legal system, as in the courts, has been absolutely crucial. That is one of the things that has allowed us to move forward on all of these changes to the law that have happened over the last 25 years. There was actually a case at the end of the 1970s, taken by three gay men in Scotland to what was then, I think, called the European Commission of Human Rights, which was a kind of, I think, that was the first place you went to before you went to the Court. It doesn’t exist anymore, but that was the process back then. And that was basically a case about the fact that sex between men was then completely criminal in all circumstances. Although it had been decriminalised in England in 1967, or partially decriminalised, that hadn’t covered Scotland. 

That case actually was withdrawn because Robin Cook introduced an amendment to a bill, under the Thatcher government actually at Westminster, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which became the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_(Scotland)_Act_1980], which basically brought the law in Scotland into line with the law in England. So partial decriminalisation. So that case was withdrawn, but probably the fact that it was there, was one of the things that helped the government agree to Robin Cook’s amendment. 

There was a case in the late 90s where four people who had been members of the armed forces, and were thrown out at the armed forces for being lesbian or gay, because in those days, if you were lesbian or gay, you couldn’t be a member of the armed forces. It’s normally called Smith and Grady [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58408%22]}], although there were four of them. I can’t remember whether their case was completed. I think it was. I think they won the case in the European Court of Human Rights. That meant that the law was changed under the Blair Government in around 1999-2000. 

And around the same time there were cases, well in fact there was a case in the early 1990s, somebody that I knew here in Scotland who was a student called Hugo Greenhalgh, took a case with his boyfriend, Will Parry, supported by Stonewall, to the European Court of Human Rights  https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-2013%22]}], because they were under 21, and the age of consent then, because decriminalisation had only been partial, the age of consent between men was 21. It never got to judgment, if I remember rightly, because the Major government allowed an amendment to be debated, which became part of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The amendment was led by Tony Blair [and Edwina Currie MP] to equalize the age of consent at 16. It didn’t succeed, but the age was reduced to 18, and those two men were over 18, so their case kind of disappeared. 

But Stonewall then supported another case, for somebody who at the time had been, a few years before, 16, and so his case was about the fact that he’d been criminalized for being 16. Euan Sutherland, his name was, and that went to the European Commission of Human Rights, who ruled in his favour [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-45912%22]}], and that was one of the reasons why, in 2000, the Blair government introduced the, I think it was, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, which equalised the age of consent for sex between men at 16. 

So, those are all examples of the European Court of Human Rights, and there’s one more really important one, and that is Goodwin versus the UK [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}], which is the one about gender recognition, and relates to the Gender Recognition Act in 2004. And that’s an interesting one, because it was something like the third separate case about gender recognition that had gone to the European Court of Human Rights, and the first two cases had been lost, but the Court takes into account the context across the Council of Europe, and by the time it got to 2002, the majority of Council of Europe countries had some sort of gender recognition; the UK was pretty much an outlier through not having gender recognition. 

And so the Court said, yeah, well, previously, we’ve said it’s not a requirement to have a gender recognition system, but now, 2002, we’re saying it is a requirement. And that then led to the Gender Recognition Act. 

So those are all European court cases. There was another really important one at the European Court of Justice, which of course we can’t go to now, thanks to Brexit. P vs S and Cornwall County Council [ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:61994CJ0013 ], which was a trans-related case about discrimination, where the European Court of Justice ruled that discriminating against somebody because they were trans was a kind of sex discrimination, and that led to regulations to amend the Sex Discrimination Act, in 1999, to protect from discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, at least in employment. Then that was extended later to cover goods and services as well.

So those are all European court cases. There have been some  domestic cases, which have been important as well, for getting the law changed. The most significant one that I can remember was called Ghaidan vs Godin-Mendoza [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040621/gha-1.htm] and it was decided initially in 2002. It was about tenancy succession, so Mendoza was a man who had been in a same sex relationship and his partner had died, and his partner had been the tenant for a flat.  I think it had been housing association, it might have been local authority housing. And had they been a mixed sex couple, then the surviving partner would automatically have inherited the tenancy. But he was told he had to leave the flat because the same sex partnership wasn’t recognised. This is before civil partnership existed, but had they been unmarried mixed sex couple, then the surviving partner would have inherited the tenancy. So he went to court and said this is discrimination against me because I was in a same sex couple. The court in this country ruled in his favour and said yes, it is discrimination to not allow a cohabiting same sex couple to inherit a tenancy in that way. And that was one of the things that helped ensure that the Civil Partnership Act happened a couple of years later, because I think the government wanted to regularise the law around same sex partnerships. 

So that’s not my complete list, but that’s a list of some of the really important cases. In some cases the law has been changed directly, certainly Ghaidan versus Mendoza – I think that had direct effect – but in the majority of cases it’s been about a European Court of Human Rights case, or something that’s happened in this country, which has then provided a big impetus to actually getting the law changed through legislation.

Jen Ang

Wow, that was an incredible walk through Tim. And I feel like your list of cases would be such an interesting semester course for law students or for activists, or maybe even a reading group. I just think that we sometimes don’t stop and look back, again, at the strategies, but also the circumstances that were in play at the time that change had to happen. And it’d be great to remember that now. 

So my next question is one of my very favorites, because it invites you to imagine how things could be different. And it’s, what does justice look like for you or for your community, again, however you define community? 

Tim Hopkins

Yes, I think it’s a really good question. First of all, in terms of even the LGB community, where the things we’ve been talking about have got a lot further than for trans people, really, I would have to say justice is impossible for anybody over the age of about 20. And the reason I say that is that everybody over that age would have been through an education system in Scotland, where LGB people were discriminated against in the sense that nothing positive was ever said about same-sex relationships or about LGB people. There was no visibility for LGB people, and that will have added to the difficulties that young teenage LGB people have dealing with the fact that they’re discovering their sexual orientation. It has changed in just the last few years, quite a lot, thanks to the work of the Time for Inclusive Education campaign in Scotland [https://tie.scot] and also LGBT Youth Scotland [https://lgbtyouth.org.uk], and some others. So it’s got quite a lot better. But I think if you’re in your 20s or older, and it gets worse the older you are, because of the history of these changes, then I think, really, justice is not possible because those things have had an effect on you, and that effect can’t be undone. This is why the way young people are supported is so important to me. 

For trans people that is still happening, so for any person who’s a trans person, now the situation for young trans people in particular is getting worse and worse, with the ban on puberty blockers, and all the nonsense from this Cass review thing  https://transactual.org.uk/advocacy/critiques-of-the-cass-review/], which is a completely unscientific biased review, which has been debunked by peer-reviewed scientific studies in a number of other countries, but which has had a huge negative impact on young trans people’s lives. 

I think those things stay with you for the rest of your life in some sense, so complete justice is not possible. Having said that – that sounds very negative – in terms of just laws, we have come a huge way, as we have been discussing, over the past 25-30 years. 

So, I personally feel now I live in a country where, for somebody who’s gay, we are much closer to a just system than we’ve ever been before, and I feel kind of quite comfortable about “official Scotland,” if you like, the law in Scotland, what it says about me as a gay man seems to be pretty fair now. 

So I guess on that measure of justice, we’ve kind of got there for LGB people. There are other measures as well, and there’s still a lot of hate crime going on, there’s still a lot of discrimination going on, but at least in terms of the law, the law is there to try to deal with those things. As I’ve said several times, for trans people, things are a lot further back.

Jen Ang

I think that’s, as always, with you, Tim, articulate and fair criticism of both the position we’re in. And also the places where we really need to think about scope for action, particularly what it looks like growing up as a young LGBT person. 

And I guess that nicely leads me on to my last question, which is about young people out there. So there will be people out there listening who are maybe aspiring activists or aspiring lawyers, I suppose. And they will be looking at everything that you’ve done, which I know you won’t admit this, but standing back is quite an impressive record. And they might be a younger version of you or someone who wants to be you one day. 

And so my question is, what advice do you have for someone like that about what it takes or what they should focus on? Yeah, to be the well-balanced thoughtful, and still in some ways, optimistic person that you are today?

Tim Hopkins

So I suppose I think I’ve been very lucky to be involved in this at kind of just the right time, certainly in terms of LGB equality. Because when I got involved, although things had just gone backwards, or were just about to go backwards, because I got involved at the beginning of 1987, just before Section 28. From then onwards, things started moving forwards, very slowly at first, but faster and faster. 

So I consider myself to have been very fortunate to have been involved in it during that very positive time. But I think the same will be true of trans equality in particular going forward, and I think there are big areas where LGB equality can still be improved – we were talking about young people and so on. So I think there’s big opportunities there for making a difference. What would my advice be? 

So I guess I’m quite lucky in that I don’t get too angry about things. I think if you do get very angry about these things, which is very easy to do, because these injustices are so stark and obvious, then I think that can make it harder to effectively campaign – it depends what kind of campaigning you’re involved in on the day, if you like. Because there’s nothing wrong, in fact, it’s positive, to express your anger on a march, for example, or that kind of thing, which we’ve done a fair bit of in the past. 

But when it comes to sitting down and trying to figure out how the law is going to be changed, and sitting down and talking to politicians and so on, it’s OK to express the fact that the law, whatever it is, or discrimination, is making you angry, but you have to somehow do that without letting the anger control what you’re saying, and the way you’re expressing it. So I guess trying to be laid back is quite an important thing. 

What else? Well, I mean, different people have different approaches to these things, and I’m somebody, before I got involved in this, I worked in computing. So I’m somebody who’s very detail oriented, and it’s important to have detail oriented people in this campaign because it’s important to be able to make detailed arguments and to quickly spot if something’s going in the wrong direction, whether it’s an amendment to a bill that has been introduced, or something that a court has said. So not everybody has to be detail oriented but it’s important to have detail oriented people. 

But it’s also important to look after yourself and to have a group of people who look after each other. That’s absolutely crucial. I’ve been lucky – I’ve talked quite a bit about myself in this last part – but actually the Equality Network has always been a whole group of people working together, and that kind of support – even before we had any funding, we used to meet weekly to take the campaign forward. Only about half a dozen people, but that kind of support, mutual support between people, that we were able to give each other doing that every week was really, really important as well. 

Jen Ang

Thank you for that advice. 

And just sort of honest reflection about the things that get you through, but also a reminder that campaigns are many hands at work with their many different skills. The detailed oriented people and also the bold dreamers, I suppose, is another. And sometimes you can be both. 

I mean, listen, it’s been an absolute pleasure speaking to you. 

Tim Hopkins

Well thank you very much for asking me to do this. I suppose if there’s kind of one thing that I haven’t said, it’s because I’ve been focused on LGBT equality is that you have to see these things in a wider context and certainly, although there are still issues for LGBT people, the injustices in this country are not really around LGBT people, they are around poverty, they are around people who don’t have jobs, they are around people not being able to access health services properly and so on. 

So I don’t want to give the impression that I think that justice is just about justice for LGBT people, because the Equality Network has always worked with people from other equality strands but also other human rights defenders. And issues of poverty affect LGBT people as well, especially trans people. But obviously most LGB people including myself are fortunate enough to have enough money to live reasonably comfortably, but there are a whole load of people, LGBT and many many many others, who don’t, and that is one of the biggest injustices facing the country. 

Jen Ang

I absolutely agree. And one of the things that I have really enjoyed about working in Scotland with people from across different equality groups, I suppose, and something that’s different to my experience working elsewhere is that recognition – that recognition between activists and advocates, that these issues are all intertwined and that, you know, destitution and homelessness as well as discrimination against someone who isn’t like you, is very much as as much a concern for you as it is about discrimination against you for who you are. 

So actually, I love that you brought that back. And I think that sense is alive in the work that we do. It may not always be visible to the public or to people externally, but that’s an important piece of the work for sure.

Recorded 10 July 2025

Host: Jen Ang

Alison Pickup

“And I think for the clients that one of the hardest things about that initial attempt to remove was that they had, as I say, mostly literally just arrived in the country after a very traumatic and a distressing journey, and they were given so little time that even to sort of get their heads around the idea of being sent to Rwanda..”

Carla Denyer MP

“Nobody is choosing to cross the channel on small boats because they think it will be a laugh. They’re doing it in desperation.”
 

Jen Ang

Welcome to the Lawmanity Podcast, where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress people but can also lead to real social change. 

I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer based in Scotland, and your host on the Lawmanity Podcast. Every episode we will bring you legal summaries of interesting cases and one-to-one interviews with activists and lawyers across the UK who are using the law in creative ways to challenge unfairness and secure justice for people and communities who are excluded, discriminated against and overlooked. 

This week we’re speaking to human rights lawyer and legend, Alison Pickup. 

Alison is a barrister and Executive Director of Asylum Aid where she leads an expert team providing legal representation to asylum seekers and refugees. Before joining Asylum Aid, she was Legal Director of the Public Law Project. a national legal charity which promotes access to public law remedies for those who are disadvantaged by poverty and other barriers. 

Alison has won multiple awards for her work, including Outstanding Employed Barrister in an NGO Award by the Bar Council. And, in August 2025, Alison will be taking up the post of CEO at the Helen Bamber Foundation Group, a pioneering group of human rights charities which includes the Helen Bamber Foundation, Asylum Aid and the Migrants Law Project. Together the group supports survivors of trafficking, torture and other forms of human cruelty. 

Congratulations on the new role Alison and welcome to today’s show!

Alison Pickup

Thank you. 

Jen Ang

I’m so, so pleased that you’re here and I’ll be honest, you’re a total legal hero of mine, so I’m really grateful that you’ve taken the time to speak to us today as well. 

Alison Pickup

That was very kind. 

Jen Ang

Now, in this podcast as a starter, I’ve been experimenting with a surprise opening question just to get us settled and to learn a little more about the people behind the legal legends who we’re interviewing. So a good friend of mine pointed out that our sense of smell is our oldest sense and observed that sometimes we can hold deep connections between the sense of smell and our memories. 

And so if you don’t mind, please can you tell me if there is a smell that is meaningful to you or maybe one that you just really like, or that might be connected to a time and place that you like to bring to mind? 

Alison Pickup

Yeah, sure. That’s a lovely question. I don’t exactly know what the smell is, but it’s like a combination of essential oils, I think, that takes me back to a trip I made to Bangkok about ten years ago, and a friend and I were travelling, we’d been staying in fairly cheap accommodation, but in Bangkok, we’d treated ourselves to a couple of nights of slightly nicer accommodation in a hotel … …the whole hotel, just smelled beautiful. And every time I smell that combination, it takes me back to that place. 

And then a couple of years ago, a cousin of mine had these bath salts that she was using that had the same smell. So I went out and bought those bath salts, and I can take myself back to that amazing holiday to Thailand whenever I’m feeling stressed. 

So it’s the Women’s Balance bath salts from Neal’s Yard Remedies, I think. 

Jen Ang

That’s amazing. Thank you for sharing that and big up Neal’s Yard as well! 

So we’re here today to help listeners understand how you and your team at Asylum Aid led a successful campaign to challenge the Conservative-led UK Government’s Rwanda policy, and took a series of groundbreaking legal cases – starting in 2022 – that went all the way to the UK Supreme Court.

This is especially timely, as this year, in 2025, the UK Labour Government prepares to repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently before Parliament. 

And so to start with, can I just ask you to explain to us how you got involved with this legal case and this campaign and what it was about?

Alison Pickup

So I had been, I joined Asylum Aid in late 2021, so I’d been there just under six months when the government announced its plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. And at the time we were already thinking about the need for a strategic legal working response to the legislation that was going through Parliament, the Nationality, Asylum and Borders Bill, which included plans for offshoring. 

But that legislation hadn’t even finished its passage through Parliament, when out of the blue, the government just announced this agreement with Rwanda under which anybody pretty much seeking asylum in the UK who had come through a dangerous route – which, you know, that’s basically the only way to get to the UK to seek asylum – could be sent to Rwanda.  And the plan was that this was to be a deterrent to stop other people from using dangerous routes to come here, including crossing the Channel in small boats. 

Jen Ang

Here Alison mentions that she and her colleagues were concerned about a new draft law that included plans for “offshoring.” “Offshoring” is a practice where states send people away to some other country or territory for “offshore processing” of their asylum claim. This is a controversial practice and the UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency) have described the UK Rwanda Plan as “incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.” 

Alison continues:

I was really shocked when I first heard about this because I knew that Rwanda didn’t have a great human rights record, wasn’t known for protecting refugees, and also that it’s thousands of miles away. And for our clients who had, you know, often paid a lot of money, spent a lot of time, gone through a lot of hardship to reach what they saw as a safe country in the UK – the idea that they would then be shipped off thousands of miles to another country where I didn’t feel they would be safe was just horrifying. 

And so I mean I remember it really clearly the announcement and the days that followed even kind of lying awake worrying about how we could stop this scheme from happening. 

I think it was really clear from the start that it was going to take litigation because the government had announced this as a flagship policy that was the key part of its asylum policy – it’s plan to “stop the boats” as that government called it, and so given the size of the majority that the government had in Parliament, it seemed extremely unlikely that there would be any other way to stop it. 

And also because they implemented it in a way that didn’t actually require any new legislation – although the Nationality and Borders Bill had those provisions – so they could they could get on with it straight away. 

So that really was kind of where it started and where it became immediately clear that we would need to be thinking about litigation. 

The other thing I think is that we were very aware that everyone in the refugee sector was kind of thinking and feeling the same, like: “we need to do something about this.” 

Jen Ang

I found it particularly interesting how certain it was for you and your legal team that litigation was the way that that we could use the law in order to challenge this policy – because it was such an important policy for the UK government at the time, it felt like the sphere for policy and influencing was really small – if not, nonexistent. 

And the other thing I wanted to reflect was that, you know, because I was also in practice and working in the migration sector at the time that you did this work, I think also seeing your team take these legal challenges did also have like a buoying, or hopeful, impact for people who were doing their day to day work. 

So my next question for you was this and what were some of the challenges and as you saw it in running the legal case or maybe in coordinating your efforts with the campaign?  

Alison Pickup

Yeah, for sure. I mean, I think coordination was tricky. As I said, obviously, so many actors in the sector were trying to find ways to challenge. And so a key part at the start was kind of reaching out to those other organisations and to lawyers in private practice as well, who were acting on behalf of individual clients and on behalf of other NGOs and trying to understand what everyone else was doing and where we could add value. 

So I think that was, it was a challenge, but actually it, I think it was a start of a lot more proactive collaboration in the sector, that we were – the way we had to pull together. 

The second and related kind of biggest challenge was the speed at which things started to happen, because the announcement was like mid-April and it was in early May when the Government started detaining people on arrival and threatening them with removal to Rwanda, and we started to see how the process was playing out. And the first removals were due to take place in kind of mid-June.

So it was only really two months from even hearing for the first time that this was a possibility, to when people were supposed to be put on planes. So everything had to be done at kind of breakneck speed, on behalf of individual clients and then Asylum Aid was kind of running our own challenge, which focused on procedural fairness. 

And that was really challenging, and then you remember, I’m sure, that in the first instance, the High Court and then the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court in the UK all refused injunctions to prevent people being removed to Rwanda. 

And I remember the day, the flight was supposed to take off, you know, we were getting updates about what was going on in the Supreme Court, individual clients were still going to the High Court and having the individual cases heard and they might have been refused injunctions – although some were granted. And then Strasbourg kind of stepped in and said there’s a real need for this to be considered properly, so no one should be removed until the domestic courts have done so. So speed was a massive challenge, and the pace of the pace at which everything was happening. 

Jen Ang

Here Alison shares her recollection of the legal challenge to the UK Government’s first scheduled flight to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda, which took place on 13-14 June 2022. From the start of June, the UK Government had sent removal directions to a number of asylum seekers – each of whom raised individual challenges to their removal directions in the High Court by way of judicial review.  Many of those who raised judicial reviews had their removal directions cancelled, either by the Home Office or after their case had been scrutinized by the court.  

But some of those remaining applied for injunctions – an order that a court can issue to stop – or “enjoin” – the removal until such time as the court could examine the substance of the claim that the decision to remove was unlawful.  These requests for injunctions we refused by the High Court, and on appeal, by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. 

On 13 June 2022, the day before the flight was due to depart, some of those remaining made applications to the European Court of Human Rights – which Alison refers to here as “Strasbourg,” because it sits in Straus bourg France, under its Rule 39 interim measures provision.  A Rule 39 interim measure is a power of the European Court to require parties to take an urgent measure – for example to stop a removal flight – where there is “an imminent risk of irreparable harm to a right under the European Convention on Human Rights.”  The European Court decided that an interim measure was necessary here, and the decision in one of these cases – NSK v United Kingdom was confirmed by press release on the evening of 14 June 2022 and this led to the Home Office cancelling the flight very shortly before its scheduled departure.

Alison continues:

And even after the Strasbourg Court issued a Rule 39 measure and the kind of final few people were literally taken off the plane, the Court and the Home Office were still pushing the case through at a very fast pace. They originally wanted to have the final hearing at the end of July, which just wasn’t, it was too quick. So it ended up being in September and October of that year, even that was a very fast pace for the, for the complex view of the issues that all of the legal teams have to get their heads around, get on top of, the number of different parties involved, the coordination that was required, those six months were incredibly intense and fast-paced. Yeah, 

Jen Ang

 I can actually almost like …feel, feel the tension as you describe it. 

But also I mean, it must have been, it must have been such a power of work, but also because you and your team were working across so many things, so quickly it must have felt like it went quickly as well. Do you know like in a blur almost? 

Okay, so just to make sure that our listeners understand,  what was the change in the law that ultimately your litigation across the cases is secured? 

Alison Pickup

Yeah so I think there are kind of three parts to the answer to all of those questions. 

The first: in the first round of litigation which was from sort of mid 2022 to the end of 2023, the fundamental issue that was being argued in the courts was that Rwanda was not a safe place to send people seeking asylum and refugees. Asylum Aid wasn’t spearheading that particular argument – other people were running that argument on behalf of individual clients. Our focus was on the process that was being used by the Home Office to decide who to send to Rwanda, whether it was safe to do so, which was incredibly fast. So people were given just seven days to respond to a notice of intent to send them to Rwanda when they had literally just arrived in the country, often hadn’t had access to legal advice. 

I think the change in the law that our focus on that process and the lack of fairness in that process achieved – although our case was ultimately unsuccessful – was really clear guidance from the Court of Appeal about the requirements for a fair process in this context, including the need for access to legal representation and the need for proper time to understand what is being proposed to gather evidence and make submissions and respond to that, and to secure access to justice. 

So that important change was subsequently reflected in guidance when the Home Office had another go at sending people to Rwanda, but it will apply to any similar scheme that might come in the future. So I think it’s an important change for the future. 

And I think for the clients that one of the hardest things about that initial attempt to remove was that they had, as I say, mostly literally just arrived in the country after a very traumatic and a distressing journey, and they were given so little time that even to sort of get their heads around the idea of being sent to Rwanda. So what this will do is mean that they should have proper time to get legal representation and advice to understand what is happening and to put forward their case against it. 

The second sort of part, I think, is that a lot of people ended up in that kind of limbo, because during the litigation, the Home Office continued at the start to issue these notices of intent threatening to send people to Rwanda, but no one was actually being removed. 

And so people spent, in some cases, a couple of years being told they might be sent to Rwanda, but not actually having anything happen in their cases. And we brought litigation in 2024, on behalf of a number of clients challenging those individual notices, and at those cases eventually settled, but I think that whole round of litigation helped to establish that you can’t just leave people in limbo for no reason in the hope that you might one day be able to remove them to a third country. And that is also really important, because that limbo had a really big impact on people really unable to get on with their lives. 

And then the third is obviously after the December 2023 Supreme Court judgment, which ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country to send people seeking asylum to.

Lord Reid, UK Supreme Court

The legal test, which has to be applied in this case, is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement. In the light of the evidence which I have summarised, the Court of Appeal concluded that there were such grounds. We are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. 

Jen Ang

And that was Lord Reed of the UK Supreme Court reading out the November 2023 judgment in the case just described by Alison, in which the Court finally ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country to return people to, an epic win for campaigners and long awaited for relief for the people they served.

Lord Reed refers to the “principle of non-refoulement” which is a guiding principle in international law which prohibits states from returning a person to a place where they would face a real risk of persecution, torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. In coming to this decision, the UK Supreme Court found that people seeking asylum expelled to Rwanda from the UK would be at a real risk of return, in violation of both international and UK law.

I then asked Alison: “After the Supreme Court found that Rwanda was not a safe place to return asylum seekers to, what the Government’s response to that ruling was?”

Alison Pickup

The government then introduced legislation in Parliament in the Safety of Rwanda Act, which legislated to say that yes, Rwanda is a safe place, and to try to create a framework which would allow the Home Office to go ahead and remove people to Rwanda without effective scrutiny by the courts, because Parliament had said that Rwanda was safe. 

And so Asylum Aid again kind of challenged that – both in our own name, but we also worked across the sector to make sure that any individuals who were affected had the arguments and could bring challenges too. 

And that challenge was ongoing when the [UK] General Election was called. I think as a result of that challenge, no one was removed to Rwanda before the election, and obviously then after the election and new government abandoned the plan and committed to Asylum Aid in settling the claim, they would repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act.

That second attempt, they started detaining people in May or June last year for removal to Rwanda, causing a huge amount of stress again to people, and we saw real harm done to people through that action. And I think there was something particularly cruel about the Rwanda scheme in the deterrent purpose because the Home Office was trying to use individual asylum seekers who come here seeking protection, punishing them to deter others,

But I also believe that and you know what you said earlier about how it buoyed up other colleagues and I saw that internally as well. I also think for clients, I hope, that them knowing that somebody was standing up and fighting this policy helped people to survive that really difficult period as well. 

And then ultimately of course the policy has been abandoned and they’re not being threatened with removal to Rwanda at least, now. 

Jen Ang

The Rwanda policy was so cruel and unusually I feel like the cruelty of it did cut through into mainstream media and conversations that you would have with people. 

But I also, you got the sense that people were almost incredulous and that this was the [UK] government’s policy and yet many people believed that if the government had a policy it must be lawful. 

And I think one of the things that your litigation brought to light was that there is space to challenge policies that can be unlawful. And that also allowed people to talk about it in the public space in that way. 

Humza Yousaf MSP, First Minister of Scotland

That we’ve seen this morning of those who’ve lost their life trying to cross the channel – it’s a reminder that what you need is not unworkable legislation like the Rwanda Bill. What you need to do is to create safe, legal routes for migration, and that hopefully deters the illegal migration that none of us, anybody of any political party, wants to see. 

Carla Denyer MP

Nobody is choosing to cross the channel on small boats because they think it will be a laugh. They’re doing it in desperation. 

We do need to see the government abandoning this idea with warehousing migrants on barges. That’s clearly inhumane as is deporting them rather than simply assessing their asylum applications quickly. So they’re not having to sit around waiting.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, UK House of Lords

We are faced with a deeply broken system and layers of bad legislation which have only made things worse. I hope that the Government re-thinks this bill, this plan and this approach to migration, but I fear that we will be left without the change we need until we change the Government. 

Lord German, UK House of Lords

Clause 1(2)(b) ) is clear. It says, “This act gives effect to the judgment of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country.” But my Lords, this House of Parliament has not determined that this is the case.

Jen Ang

Just moving on, we’re a few years on,… Do you think the change in the law that you’ve seen, do you think that litigation has had the impact you hoped for? 

Alison Pickup

Yeah, thank you. So yes and no, is answer. Did it have the impact we wanted it to? The Rwanda scheme is dead. Like that was the that was the main objective and the main goal. And so that, you know, not just Asylum Aid, but all of the other people who were involved in the litigation and the campaigns, it was really a whole huge partnership across the sector. 

I also, as I mentioned, I think the findings that the Court of Appeal made in our case about what procedural fairness requires in this context, that was a real win, although they dismissed our case because they said that Home Office could change the policy and then it would be lawful. So it wasn’t inherently unfair. Those findings are going to be really important. Whatever scheme or plan a government may come up with for processing asylum claims, we have really clear statements from the Court of Appeal about the importance of access to legal representation. I think, a clear finding that seven days is in the majority of cases obviously not enough time to prepare a case is a really important finding going forward.

What still needs to change, you know, this government hasn’t abandoned the idea of inadmissibility. So the idea that you can say to someone who comes here and claims protection and says I am a refugee. Oh, we’re not even going to consider whether you’re a refugee. We’re going to send you to another country to consider that, that kind of shirking of responsibility under the Refugee Convention. That is still a policy of this government. 

 Asylum Aid really strongly believes in the right to territorial of the asylum. If you arrive in the UK, you should have your asylum claim considered and processed here. So that is another change we would like to see. 

And also, I think the strength of the findings from the Supreme Court on what is required for a country to be truly safe as a third country. 

The other piece that’s still in the background is although the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act. There are some parts of it that are being left on the statute books and that includes Section 59, which hasn’t been brought into  force yet. So Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which basically extends the number of the countries from which asylum claims are just automatically inadmissible, beyond EU countries, to countries including India, Georgia and Albania, from which we know that there are people who are refugees. There are people who are survivors of trafficking and at risk of retrafficking. There are, you know, in the Indian and Georgian context, LGBTQ people who are refugees, and if that provision is brought into force, it will prevent those people from having their claims considered at all, and that really worries me that that’s staying.

Jen Ang

Brilliant. Thank you very much for that really clear summary. And I think that actually if you look back, that is a list of accomplishments to be proud of for you and your team. And but also exactly like the clear-sighted lawyer that you are. I appreciate that you have in your sights a number of other areas in which things need to change for people seeking asylum and safety from persecution to actually have the justice and the fair process that they deserve. 

So that just leads us on to our final question, and it’s this: 

So what advice might you have for someone who’s listening out there who might be a younger version of you, wants to be you when they grow up, who is looking at what you’ve accomplished today leading more than one public interest litigation team. And wants to know how to get there. What advice would you give them, now?

Alison Pickup

I think my number one piece of advice is: don’t hurry. 

Like I think when you’re young and enthusiastic, you can be very impatient to get on with your career and with achieving big things, but there’s plenty of time and what’s important is to really take time to know what you enjoy, what motivates you, where your skills are, and focus on that area. 

So for me, it was a very gradual path. You know, I started as a caseworker and realised that I really enjoyed being an advocate in court. And so I ended up qualifying as a barrister. And then, you know, after having practiced for kind of nearly ten years, I then decided I wanted to move more into the NGO world. And so, I just think don’t hurry and take your time and learn what’s good. 

And the other one I would say is colleagues, partnership network, is really important. 

You know, this work can be really challenging emotionally, as well as stressful, it can be very tiring. You can’t do it alone and you need to build that network in, you know, in your workplace with colleagues in the sector, with people who don’t work in this world at all, in order to have like really good support around you and people who understand what drives you, who are there for you when things get tough, is really important. 

Jen Ang

Amazing. Thank you for that outstanding advice. 

So I’m really pleased that you and your team are still on it and I look forward to what you get up to next. But for today, thank you for your generous time and for, and for answering our questions. 

Alison Pickup

Thank you so much. It was always a pleasure to talk, Jen. 

Jen Ang

And finally, thanks so much to you, the listener, for tuning into the Lawmanity podcast, and the first in our series highlighting the inspiring cases taken by activist lawyers across the UK.   

If you loved this podcast, please do hit the subscribe button, and also like and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might enjoy learning a little bit about how the law really works in practice, and how it can be used to make the world a better, brighter place. 

Our first series of this podcast has been generously supported by a grant from the Clark Foundation for Legal Education. 

The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host, Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. And the music you’ve been listening to is “Always on the Move” by Musicians in Exile, a Glasgow-based music project led by people seeking refuge in Scotland.

Recorded 21 May 2025

This week, I feel some reflection on how we speak truth to power is timely as we ponder what to do when truth is publicly contested, undervalued and sometimes, intentionally suppressed – but the stakes for people who confront power remain high.

Power is real, and inescapable

You may not be able to see it, taste it, hear it, or touch it or feel it, but power – defined as the ability or capacity to influence people or things around you – is real.

And therefore, if you are speaking to someone who holds power over you, the first step is to recognise that you are engaging with a dynamic (and potentially unpredictable) force that poses real dangers to you.

Examples of places where people hold power over others include:

parent / child – supervisor / employee – teacher / student – influencer / follower – state / citizen

An argument in favour of the justice of a democratic system, is that voters should hold power over politicians, and therefore, the power dynamic should look like: “citizen / state.”

An inescapable truth is that in any group of people – ranging from family to society – some people will wield power over others. The more interesting questions that follow: how is this is done, with what authority, and in whose interest?

My point is: proceed with caution; power wielded against you can result in loss of friends, family, livelihood, home and possessions – and sometimes, life.

Power is always conditional

I believe that all people are born equal in dignity and worth. For me, there is no intrinsic reason why any one person should have power over another person.

Therefore, when confronted with people in positions of power, I find it helpful to break down the reasons why they hold power, because that helps me think clearly about whether or not I should respect it.

Here are just a few examples:

Physical Force, Law (and the State): many unequal power relationships are backed by physical force – or the force of law, meaning, if you disobey the state, for example, you can expect to face violence: civil or criminal sanction for that action. That can include significant and life-changing punishments, including: fines or imprisonment, poverty and homelessness, exclusion and exile.

The law also distributes and reinforces power in private relationships: for example, the law is responsible for upholding the power of parents over their children (up to a certain age), and of teachers over students (where education is compulsory), and of supervisors over employees (for example, in enforcing terms of employment). This form of power comes from the threat of state sanction.

Money and Resources: people who have greater resources than others – in a capitalist world, this usually means money or the capacity to convert assets into money – wield power over others. In some places, being able to offer resources that people need, like clean water or food or safety from others, is the key to gaining power over others. This form of power comes from holding scarce resources and being able decide who gets a share of those resources, and who doesn’t.

Knowledge, Skills and Ideas: people who have knowledge, skills and ideas that we lack or find attractive can also hold power. Examples include: scientists and doctors, teachers and engineers, farmers and chefs, plumbers and electricians, faith leaders and influencers… as well as artists, writers and musicians.

Our regard for their skills, knowledge and ideas gives them a kind of social capital – power, in short. This form of power comes from belief of people around them.

For example, a scientist whose discoveries are refuted, or a faith leader without a following, or a writer or influencer with no audience, holds no power.

My point is, power is conditional and even if you are on the losing end of power imbalance, it is helpful to recognise that also means that conditional power is vulnerable, in some way.

Many great stories – ancient and modern – are about tackling and toppling unjust uses of conditional power.

How to speak truth to power

So, as promised, here are some suggestions for speaking truth to power:

Consider your audience, and your aims: We may choose to speak truth to power because we want to see a change in current practice or behaviour. It might be that we want our needs to be taken into account; it could be that we just want to be better understood – for our experiences to be acknowledged.

But take a good, hard look: will your actions lead to change? Can you reach the right audience, and if so, do they have the power (or patience, or maturity, or empathy) to deliver the outcome you’re looking for?

Remember that most people with power, seek to retain power: Not always, but usually. If you are looking for people with power, to share power, also consider realistically the levers for change – how is their power conditional?

Identify the risks, and find your allies: Sometimes we choose to take action even when the stakes are high. Better to do that after a sound appraisal of the consequences, and building your own safety net / exit strategy / shelter (from the storm).

Have your say, and find your peace: Do your thing, and remember that at the end of the day, you are doing this thing for you. You can’t control how your words will be received and there might be quite a lot of turmoil, distress and backlash to follow… but the important thing is that you did the thing. That’s your contribution, and where you need to find your peace.

…

There is probably a second article, that needs to be written: how to hear the truth, when other people speak it.

But for today, I need to close out here, because there’s lots for me to do before the day is done

Thanks for reading The Long View again today, and leaving you with this sweet little poem, which I keep near the front door, so we see it every time when we home, and every day when we return again:

First published on LinkedIn on 21 February 2025:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-speak-truth-power-jen-ang-wcbye

This feels a little bit like a metaphor for how it feels, at the end of January 2025, to be an observer of global politics if you live in the Western world (by which I mean, the global north).

There’s a storm a’coming

In late 2024, we saw the rise of far-right parties across Europe and also the re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.

Although the UK July 2024 elections ended 14 years of Conservative Party rule, returning the Labour Party to power, it is clear that people living in Britain are politically and socially connected to global movements – and we can expect to see right and far-right parties gain political power here, too.

What does that mean for people who still care about things like: ending poverty and war, halting the destruction of our planet, and making the world a more equal place for everyone?

Like, shouldn’t those things be priority for all of us?

And why isn’t it?

So why can’t we see it clearly?

I can skim most major media outlets and tell you that the leading stories are rarely about the important things. My social media feeds offer me updates that sit a bit closer to what I believe to be important, but these are self-curated experiences and therefore limited – literally – by who and what I already know.

I sometimes wish that there were media platforms out there that could just consistently prioritise making the important things visible, accessible and exciting to learn about.

(Hats off to investigative journalists like the good folks at The Ferret and Peter Geoghegan‘s Democracy for Sale newsletter who do just that… but they are the few and the brave, and we need many, many more people supported to do this kind of hard and illuminating work.)

In the absence of a world, where objective, thoughtful investigative journalism is a mainstream thing, I would recommend challenging yourself to find and learn about diverse and critical perspectives on, well, everything – especially the stuff you’re certain that you’re right about. You won’t regret it, I promise.

And who is going to build our shelters?

By which I mean, this storm is destructive. As my partner reminded me last night, “people all around the world voted for change, and that’s what those parties must deliver“.

Far right ideology is about promoting the idea that a small group of people, tightly defined by a very specific set of racial, gender, religious and socio-economic criteria, deserve more rights, resources and freedoms than everybody else.

If you disagree with what I wrote, I’m really, really happy to have that conversation. Like, please, prove me wrong.

But if I’m right … delivering for change on this platform is going to be destructive, and dangerous for people whose race, gender or gender identity, or religious or cultural identity or something else – puts them on the wrong side of this tiny circle of people who right-led governments believe deserve protection.

So we need to build shelters for the people we love, who are facing fear and harm – and who cannot turn to the state to keep them safe

We need women’s refuges, for all women

We need sanctuary movements for migrants

We need safe spaces for LGBT+ people

People are already hard at work, building these places. They have, in fact, always been here. You will find them in the community – handing out cups of tea, helping people make phone calls and fill in forms and driving all across the city to pick up and deliver things because someone, somewhere, needed something.

Please help those people. Help them build the shelters that we’re all going to need, eventually, to wait out this storm.

And finally, …

Who is going to rebuild our world, when the storm passes?

Destruction is also opportunity for creation.

I won’t push this point too hard, because I’ve already written about the power of dreaming and why we should all read banned books – but we must keep working on compelling alternative visions of how the world could be.

One day, someone is going to turn to you and ask you what you would have done, if you had the power to make a change. It would be good if you had an answer ready for that day

Find your rainbow (and your sense of humour)

I’ve always loved rainbows. Who doesn’t?

Aside from the fact that they are clearly a sign that magic exists all around us, they remind us that the storm always ends.

Whilst you’re waiting for that to happen, remember to breathe.. and to keep laughing, even if it’s at yourself.

Here’s a throwback from the Covid years that I found today:

So, to recap: how to survive stormy weather

support independent journalism

build safe spaces for each other

dream and build visions for a better future

remember to laugh (at yourself) and find your rainbow

First published on LinkedIn on 24 January 2025:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-survive-stormy-weather-jen-ang-uaufe/