One of the first issues that drew me into feminist activism as a teenager was bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.

To me, the principle is simple: people should be free to make decisions about their own bodies – decisions that are deeply personal and should not be dictated by strangers or the state. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental principle of human rights.

I remember the shock and fear I felt seeing Roe v Wade being overturned in the United States in 2022. Like many people, I watched rights that had seemed settled suddenly become uncertain. This happened just days after my high school leaving ceremony and prom. For me and many of my peers, reproductive rights shape the reality of how we navigate the world as young women.

What surprised me even more, however, was later learning that abortion remains criminalised here in Scotland.

Under the current law in Scotland, women have no legal right to end a pregnancy. The legal framework for abortion in Scotland is a patchwork of laws that stem from as far back as the 17th century. In practice, abortion is governed primarily by the Abortion Act 1967, which dictates how, where, and when abortion care can be accessed – including, for example, the requirement that two doctors authorise the procedure. Outwith the tightly controlled conditions of the Act, abortion can be criminalised in Scotland.

I studied English law at university, and during that experience, classmates often described Scotland as being ahead of the curve on human rights. I always maintained that, while there is some truth in that, there is also a danger in comparing ourselves only with places we perceive to be doing worse. “At least we’re better than somewhere else” can quickly become an excuse for complacency. Worse still, in this particular context, such sentiments can obscure the reality: when it comes to abortion law, Scotland is the part of the UK falling behind. Northern Ireland decriminalised abortion in 2019. In 2025, reforms in England and Wales removed the threat of criminal prosecution for women ending their own pregnancies. Control over abortion law was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, yet Scotland is now the only part of the UK where women remain vulnerable to criminalisation.

Criminalisation over a matter of healthcare.

The Scottish Government’s independent review of abortion law concluded that abortion services should be treated first and foremost as a healthcare matter. The expert group found that the current legal framework is outdated and recommended removing abortion from the criminal justice system and replacing the existing system with a modern healthcare-based framework.

Doing so would reflect the reality of modern healthcare practice. At the time the Abortion Act was passed, abortions were performed surgically in hospitals and healthcare operated through a far more paternalistic model. Today, the overwhelming majority of abortions in Scotland are early medical abortions. Many take place at home. Healthcare decisions across medicine are increasingly centred on informed consent and patient autonomy – yet abortion continues to be treated differently. There are no other medical conditions for which criminal law dictates exactly who may provide treatment, where treatment may occur, and what authorisations must first be obtained. In every other area of healthcare, regulation is shaped by clinical evidence, professional standards, and evolving best practice. Yet abortion continues to be treated as a legal exception despite there being no medical justification for doing so.

That exceptionalism has consequences. The current framework creates unnecessary complexity within an NHS already under significant pressure, leading to delays in accessing care, particularly in rural communities where services may be more limited and harder to access. It places decision-making power in the hands of two doctors who must authorise an abortion, rather than recognising access to abortion care as a matter of personal autonomy and healthcare. It reinforces the idea that abortion is something fundamentally different from other forms of healthcare, despite being one of the safest and most routinely accessed healthcare procedures, used by around one in three women in Scotland during their lifetime.

Scotland’s abortion law has failed to keep pace with medical practice, public attitudes, and international human rights standards. The United Nations, the World Health Organisation, and other international bodies have repeatedly recognised access to safe, legal, and timely abortion as a human rights issue. Yet Scotland continues to regulate abortion through a legal framework that retains the possibility of criminal sanction.

The law should be coherent. It should be proportionate. It should respect fundamental human rights. When legal frameworks become detached from the realities they govern, lawyers have an important role to play in advocating for change.

Abortion is healthcare – and so it should be treated as healthcare.

That is why I support efforts to modernise abortion law in Scotland. And it is why I would encourage lawyers, law students, and legal professionals to join Lawyers for Let’s Change the Act and support a legal framework that reflects contemporary healthcare practices, human rights standards, and the fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

It’s beyond time for Scotland’s abortion law to catch up with the reality of modern healthcare and the rights of those it exists to serve.

Come along to our next online session and find out how you can get involved in the campaign to modernise abortion law in Scotland:

Lawyers for Let’s Change the Act Online Meeting
Tuesday, 28th July – 12:00-13:00
Register here to join us

Amanda Amaeshi is an award-winning activist, campaigner, and writer, specialising in gender equality, anti-racism, and youth voice and political participation. She is also a Legal Caseworker at Lawmanity.

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Pheona Matovu

At least at this point in time, I’m not quite sure that I would put equality in the same sentence with law.

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 are speaking to activist and legend Pheona Matovu. Pheona is the co-founder of award-winning social enterprise Radiant and Brighter community interest company, a leading voice on culture, ethnic diversity and inclusion. Radiant and Brighter work with organisations and their leadership across Scotland to reflect and review their systems, structures, and policies. The organisation has developed diversity training, inclusion, anti-racism, and intercultural competence programmes, working with public, private, and third sector organisations. 

Pheona is also a Women’s Enterprise Scotland role model ambassador and board member of the Productivity Institute and also an Associate Director for Common Purpose and has been involved in structural change work with several steering groups across Scotland. Pheona is furthermore a fellow member of the National Advisory Council for Women and Girls alongside me, and – as if she needed to be any busier – a PhD student at the University of Glasgow where she is pursuing research in anti-racism practice. 

Welcome, Pheona, to the podcast. I’m so excited that you’re here with me today.

Pheona Matovu

Thank you, thank you. And with that introduction, I’m about to get through the roof. “Legend” – I don’t know if anybody has ever called me “legend” before, so thank you!

Jen Ang

I know, I know it’s always difficult to be introduced, isn’t it? But genuinely, I’m so pleased that you found the time to speak to me this week. I think it’s often the case when you work alongside other people, as we do on the National Advisory Council, I always wish that I had more time to actually ask you things like the questions we’ll go through today and never seems the right time. So this podcast was a great excuse to basically take a little of your time!

So, Pheona, today’s questions are all about the relationship between law and activism from your perspective as an activist, but someone who’s also now researching and teaching in this role. And the first question is a really big one: so do you feel that the law works equally for you or for your community, however you choose to define community, and why or why not?

Pheona Matovu

I don’t think, at least at this point in time, I’m not quite sure that I would put “equality” in the same sentence with “law”. I think the law is there to do something else other than equality. 

So my work is with adversely racialised communities, people who experience exclusion from systems, from processes, primarily. But I also work, of course, with organisations looking at what policies they can put in place. And, in my research, one of the areas, of course, that I do touch on is the human rights, which obviously come from the law about discrimination against people on the basis of colour. Now, when we think about where it started, where human rights started, we’ve come so far it’s barely recognisable that it had anything to do with racism. And so I think the law is, I don’t know, it just, it leaves you in a place where should we be doing something different? Should the law be rethought? It feels like we keep adding layers to either dilute equality or increase power for those that hold power. 

So I wouldn’t say it works. I think it does what the system wants it to do, which is often around exclusion. I understand that it is important to have the law, of course, but I don’t think it has been designed equitably in order to achieve equity.

Jen Ang

I like how you framed that idea that the law is working as it’s designed to, but that sometimes the design is in order to exclude, actually.

I just wondered, can you give examples maybe from your own activism, or the work of Radiant and Brighter even, of places where the law isn’t working to equally protect people, or, where the law, it feels like, is unequally excluding people from important things?

Pheona Matovu

So I have worked over a period of 17 years with people who seek refuge and who seek asylum. And one of the elements around asylum seeking, of course we know that the Convention expects that people should be protected if they’re seeking asylum. However, what we know is that when people are seeking asylum, they are expected to go to court to present their case, because the law stipulates that they have to present a case. But when you think about people who are presenting the case, they are already operating from a position of being disempowered just by putting them in a position where they have to express themselves by law rather than express themselves by the experiences that they have. What does that do to society? What does that teach us? That asylum seekers or people who are seeking asylum – I don’t even like the language “asylum seeker” – but people who are seeking asylum, it says to us that they should be dealt with by the law, when in fact we should be dealing with them on the basis of humanity and dignity. And so if you even begin to question that then people, of course, will respond with the law. This is what the law stipulates, this is what you should do. But is that what we want for humanity? 

But that’s just one example. I could spend a whole day giving you examples here, you know that. But for me that is painful. It’s critical that we rethink. Why would you put somebody who is going to tell their story of perhaps by having been raped, having been beaten, having been damaged by war, to actually go into the courts to express themselves and be judged by law? How can you judge a situation so dire with the law? You know, that’s just one example.

Jen Ang

Yeah, no, absolutely a powerful question. And when you describe the situation that people are put into in those real-life terms, it makes it so much clearer or starker what you mean by, you know, the law isn’t necessarily designed for the protection of people, even if that’s what it’s supposed to do on the tin. Absolutely. 

And I guess that leads really nicely onto my next question, which is for you, is the law a barrier or is it a tool in the struggle to achieve greater equality for people in communities who are marginalised and disadvantaged? Or is it maybe both?

Pheona Matovu

My experience is that it’s more of a barrier. It can enable, but it is more of a barrier. And that’s not because it’s the law. It’s because I think we need to reconsider what the law does. It’s in what it does, not in what it is. What it is can be changed. We can rethink, we can remodel, we can redesign. We must consider that when these laws were put in place, perhaps the people that should have been in the rooms were not in the rooms. And so at the point of design, at the point of where the thinking was happening, there wasn’t enough critical thinking perhaps around equity. I do know I’m not a master of the law, I have very little understanding of law in how it operates and how it’s designed, because I’m not a lawyer, but I am aware that women were not even allowed to be lawyers for a while, I believe. And so if the very people that have to adhere to the law are not in the room, what is being designed and who is it being designed for and for what? So it’s in the design that there is a fault and therefore it creates barriers, it creates barriers where we are seeking to be a society that’s engaging. So here in Scotland, one of the key statements is “Scotland welcomes refugees”, right? Another statement here in Glasgow is “People make Glasgow” and we know that Glasgow is made of very many migrant communities. But those statements do not mean anything when you try to get into a system that says, hang on a minute, we don’t know who you are, we don’t understand you, and it pushes back. And so the law can do good and it perhaps has done good in some areas, but I think in the design of it, we need to rethink that, to make it do the good that it should. So it’s not that I have an issue with the law. I’m a very law-abiding person, by the way, in saying that, maybe I’ve been conditioned to do that. So, I’m one of those people that are very cautious of the law. However, one lives in conflict with keeping the law whilst knowing that it does not meet the needs of those that it should, it should protect, it should look after, it should engage and consider the way in which people experience it, particularly those that are most excluded and marginalised. But I don’t think it does that enough or even at all, in certain cases.

Jen Ang

When you’re talking about envisioning better or doing better, what for you might be the role of lawyers and, the legal system in relation to social justice movements?

Pheona Matovu

I think role of lawyers should be to uphold integrity and humanity. But to do that, I also understand that the system that is in place may not necessarily allow for that. So I think lawyers who uphold the two will come against the system. But I think, I assume that is what they would have thought… a number of them, maybe many of them would have thought, I’m going there to, you know, to uphold the law, but not against people who, who perhaps need it the most. And so I think the role should be integrity, should be humanity. But to do that there must be meaningful engagement and working with people that are most affected in ways that do not benefit the rest of us and others in the society. There is an assumption that if we exclude people, sometimes it feels like within the system it seeks to exclude to create something, but that something does not benefit any of us. And so I think the role of lawyers is to perhaps take a path that creates understanding and awareness that we can do different, that we can create a different society. And by doing that we can create different laws, we can create different. We don’t have to stick to what we’ve got. When we want it changed, we will change it. And you will see suddenly when it affects people in a way that they are impacted, the people in power, the law changes, amazingly, it does. So we can change it, we can redesign it. I think lawyers, at this stage, when I say at this stage in this generation, I should think that we will, in one way or another, have been affected by a section of the law that doesn’t work. And so we can do different. We can see different, we can design different.

Jen Ang

Amazing. And again, you’re just stepping into my final huge question, which I guess is what does different look like? But the question is this: so what does justice look like for you and for your community? What is a better version of where we are now?

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 who are affected by migration, people who 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 for an education, even that 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. So I think if the law affects – just an example, if the law affects children and we are adults and we are making the decisions, every single decision we might think we know, but we were children many years ago. The children right now are in a different generation. So it is important to see from the experience of young people, of children, before we start making assumptions and deciding. An example, my children, they couldn’t care less about WhatsApp; they use TikTok. If you are making and designing the law around media, the danger of thinking we’re going to use WhatsApp and Facebook and, you know, not many of them are on there, when actually we should be looking at the platforms where they are. But how do you know the platforms where they are when you are not even involved? And even if you knew the platforms, how would you know what they do on there? And so when we’re talking about the migration law, I understand every country can do its own thing, but is that what we want for the world? Is that what we want for society? 

So I may not have the answer of how the law could look or what it should look like. What I think I could perhaps add to is how it’s done.

Jen Ang

So I love that answer. I love that answer. It’s not for me to tell you what it should be, but I can tell you how we find out. I know from your work as well that those are your values, and that’s very true to how you work and what’s important to you. So I love that you explain that to the audience very clearly. 

We’re on to our final final question. There will definitely be people listening to this podcast or this series of podcasts, people who might want to be an activist one day, who are looking at what you’ve accomplished. They might even want to be you, and then they wonder how you get there. 

 So the last question is, what advice would you have, for someone who wants to pursue the kind of career that you have, or someone who might be a younger version of you? Like, what would you tell them about what, you’ve learned on this journey?

Pheona Matovu

First and foremost, I think that… 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

Wow. Thank you for that deep and powerful advice. I’m still kind of taking it in myself and I think those are hard fought lessons. But I also think your advice would stand as, you know, a sound guide for anyone at any age who might be listening. I certainly wish I had someone like you saying that to me at an earlier stage. And I will probably listen back to this as well from time to time when I need that comfort. 

So I just want to thank you so much for coming on and speaking to me, sharing, your perspective, but also that wisdom.

Pheona Matovu

Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. You know I will come to anything you’re doing. Jen. I like you so I like the way you work, I like the values you hold, I like the way you value people. And so, thank you for asking me. I’m delighted to take part.

Jen Ang

And that’s a wrap. Thank you, our lovely listeners, for joining us for another episode of the Lawmanity podcast. 

If you wanted to learn more about the struggle for racial justice in Britain and specifically Scotland, as well as actions that you can take, particularly important in the current climate, to practise anti-racism in your workplace, social spaces and in public spaces, have a look at our further resources and suggestions in the episode notes.

And my dear listeners, I can’t believe it, but this episode takes us to the end of our first year-long series of the Lawmanity podcast. We’re taking a break over the summer to rest, take stock, and evaluate what we’ll be doing with Lawmanity when we return in the autumn. 

Meanwhile, wishing you also a very good break. And if you love today’s episode, please do still hit the like and subscribe buttons 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 brighter, better place. 

The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. Shout out to Halina Refai for mentoring us through our first year of this incredible project. And thanks also to Amanda Amaeshi on 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 soon!

Additional resources for this episode are linked below:

• Radiant and Brighter: https://radiantandbrighter.com
• Radiant and Brighter Anti-Racism Journal: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Radiant-Brighter-Antiracism-Journal-Reflect/dp/1036954005

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Sandy Brindley

And I was so shocked at, ah, how she was treated. I actually couldn’t believe it. It wasn’t just the questions, it was just the demeanour.

Jen Ang

So welcome back, everyone, 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 activist and, legend Sandy Brindley. Sandy has recently stepped down as Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland after 24 years at the organisation. She’s been part of the Rape Crisis movement, supporting and advocating for survivors of sexual violence for more than three decades, starting as a volunteer support worker in Glasgow in 1994 before leaving to set up Rape Crisis Scotland in 2002. 

Sandy’s work and activism throughout this time has been heavily influential in driving progress for survivors of rape, sexual assault and abuse in Scotland, both in terms of legislative change and improved individual and institutional responses to addressing attitudes and the culture that permits this violence. 

In 2018, Sandy was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Glasgow in recognition of her efforts and achievements. And even so, not satisfied with an honorary doctorate, Sandy is at present pursuing a research doctorate at the University of Glasgow School of Law, where she is exploring what effective participation looks like for complainers of sexual crime in Scotland.

Welcome, Sandy, to the podcast.

Sandy Brindley

Thank you.

Jen Ang

I am so pleased to have you. We have worked together for a really long time, and one of the things that occurred to me is that I know so many interesting people like you, but I never actually get the chance to ask you these questions. so thank you very much for offering your time and, yeah, and indulging me. I’m really interested to see where this goes today. 

So, in this podcast, I’ve been experimenting with a surprise opener question to get us, settled and to learn a bit more about the people behind the legends we’re interviewing. So if you don’t mind, could you please tell me about a sense of smell that’s meaningful to you? Maybe something you just really like or something that’s connected to a place or a time that you like to bring to mind?

Sandy Brindley

Well, I like the sun and I like the hills, and I think you can get a particular smell when you’re outdoor without a lot of noise or pollution. And the sun is shining. So that is an evocative smell for me that I like.

Jen Ang

Oh, that’s amazing. And actually, I almost feel it, but not quite. It’s a bit cloudy today here in Edinburgh. But I’m also, I’m almost feeling summertime in that evocation. And also a really good reminder for, you know, a lot of activists are, often head down, you know, busy burrowing away. So a good reminder to get out into the wild, into the open spaces. But thank you for that. 

With that fun over, we’re now going to move on to the questions I have for you. So the first one is very broad, but the question is just, you know, do you feel that the law works equally for you or for your community or the community you work with? And why or why not?

Sandy Brindley

So I started in Rape Crisis, as a volunteer in I think it was 1994. It was certainly 30 years that I’ve been involved in rape crisis. And a lot of that work has been working around legal responses to sexual crime and trying to improve legal responses to sexual crime. And I still remember really vividly the first woman that I supported in court when she was given evidence in a rape trial. I think it must have been like maybe ’96. And I was so shocked at how she was treated, I actually couldn’t believe it. It wasn’t just the questions, it was just the demeanour of the defence lawyer was almost mocking and so demeaning towards her. And I thought, here’s a woman who, this is devastating for her, is terrifying, going to give evidence in court and we’re treating her with such a lack of humanity. 

And that experience did have really quite a profound impact on me in terms of, I suppose a lot of the work I’ve done since then, which has been engaging with the justice process to try and make it a little bit less traumatic for people and particularly women who are seeking justice. 

So not all the time I’ve worked at Rape Crisis, I have seen really, really significant changes. I think there is no doubt that the law in Scotland and in many jurisdictions fails women who are seeking justice after rape. Like, undoubtedly, you just need to look at the statistics: how many cases never make it to court, the low conviction rate of those that do. It’s the lowest conviction rate of any crime type rape has in Scotland. But also just the stories that survivors tell us about how traumatic and violating the experience has been, particularly of court and of cross examination. 

So I think it’s fair to say my strategies have maybe changed over the years. When I was like in my early 20s, fueled with anger, you’re not always that constructive, I think, in your approach, when you just really feel the injustice of It. Whereas as time has progressed I’ve realised that the way to make change really is relationships and finding common ground. And I think we have built some really positive relationships with the Faculty of Advocates, with the Crown Office, with the court service and really trying to work together to make things better, like while still retaining enough of a critical edge to stand outside and criticise where it’s absolutely necessary. 

So that’s a long way of saying no, I don’t think the law does treat particularly women equally who have experienced sexual crime. I think it’s getting better, but I think there’s still a lot to do.

Jen Ang

That was really, really clearly put. And also I love that idea that it’s both about building relationships but maintaining that criticality. I think that that’s a really difficult balance but an important one. And I can only imagine how much change you’ve seen over the long period of time that you’ve been working in this area. 

And I guess thinking about that, so thinking about examples of places where the law has worked well and places where the law has failed to protect people, do you feel that the law is a barrier then to change? Or is it a tool to achieve greater equality for people who are marginalised? Or is it maybe a little bit of both?

Sandy Brindley

I think it is both. I mean, I think as a feminist engaging with the concept of law reform, I think we need to be aware that there are, I think really powerful arguments, particularly from black feminists about the intrinsically hostile nature of the justice process and potentially intrinsically racist like that limits that. 

I think we need to be realistic to how much we can improve a system that really wasn’t set up to achieve justice for women who’ve experienced such an intimate violation. But I don’t think that means that we can’t try. And I feel like as long as women are still seeking justice from the criminal justice system, to me we have an onus to improve that system, to minimise the harm it causes. 

So I’ve been doing interviews for the PhD. I’m doing the part time PhD at, ah, the University of Glasgow. I’ve been interviewing like they’re called complainers in Scotland, so survivors going through the justice process around in sexual crimes. 

I’ve interviewed 24 complainers and part of what I’ve been exploring is: what does justice mean to you? Because I think that’s a question we don’t ask often enough for women who have been raped, like what would justice look like? What would it feel like to get justice for what you’ve been through? And overwhelmingly, what women have said to me is that justice means safety. And I think it is hard to see any way for women who have been raped to feel safe without, engaging with the criminal justice system like that. 

Prison does actually have, as much as there are many flaws to the system, prison does have an important role in that it enables women to feel safe for at least a period of time while the rapist is in jail. There was one woman that I interviewed who was just terrified because her rapist was up for parole and she was saying, I know he’s going to kill me when he gets out. So I think it’s important to bear that in mind. About as much as there are limits and criticisms of feminist engagement with law reform, these are really urgent issues for women who’ve experienced rape or, sexual crime. 

So I think law reform is important. I think the law can play a really important role. I think it can also play an important educative role. So we reformed our approach to the definition of rape and gave a definition of consent for the first time back. And I think, was it 2009, the Sexual Offences Act. We set out a definition of rape which included male rape for the first time, which I think was important. It also defined consent. Consent is free agreement and it set out a list of circumstances where consent is presumed to be absent. And I think that is so important as an educative tool, particularly for speaking with young people. 

I think one thing that the government should have done and didn’t when they introduced the Sexual Offences Act that redefined rape and defined consent was I think there really should have been a proper public education campaign and community engagement, particularly young people, to say: this is what the law is. 

Because you can have really great law on the books. If people don’t know, for example, that having sex, and I’m putting sex in quotation marks with a woman who is sleeping is rape, then the law really is failing and its function. So I think as an educative tool, it can be really important. 

We had another example of that recently where there was a judgement, an appeal judgement came out that confirmed that you can’t consent to non- fatal strangulation. We’re seeing this a lot in rape cases like forensic nurses are reporting. I’ve really seen quite a lot of this in rape exams, like forensic rape exams, defence lawyers. I was speaking to an advocate, a KC, the other week who was saying they’re just seeing this so much in cases where they’re defending young men. Like so many of these cases, sexual offence cases involve non-fatal strangulation. To me, it’s clearly coming from what young men are seeing online, and particularly the impact of pornography and depictions of sex that portray, for example, women enjoying this or that’s been a normal part of sex. I think it’s so important that young people are equipped with knowledge about the law, both for young men, so they don’t end up carrying out this behaviour thinking it’s normal and then they end up before the cause. 

But also for young women, I think it’s really important because young women are under so much pressure to perform in a particular way in relation to femininity, in relation to heterosexuality, that I think it can be hard for young women to really connect with what feels pleasurable to them and what feels okay to them. And that’s not just societal pressure fed by the narrative of pornography. So I think that is really important that we can speak to young people and say, this is actually what the law says. And I think we shouldn’t forget the power of that. While we also look at other ways of trying to change societal attitudes, that the law has a really important role there.

Jen Ang

Yeah, there’s so much. There’s a lot of richness there. Just sticking maybe with the question not of what the law can do now, but actually the actors, you know, that we interact with within the law. The question is, what for you, just where you sit, is the role of lawyers in the legal system in relation to social justice movements?

Sandy Brindley

I think there is a huge potential for the legal profession to really uphold justice, for women who are people who have been raped and to progress it. But I think there’s also the potential for actors within the legal profession to really diminish what I would say is the human rights of women seeking justice for rape. 

I think there has been a real improvement in how defence lawyers conduct themselves in cases of this nature. And I don’t want to say that there’s no exceptions to that. There have been some absolutely terrible exceptions and I have heard some really awful stories from women as part of my research about just how devastating cross examination was for them. 

Like one woman was saying she scrubbed herself for so much afterwards in the shower that she actually hurt herself and had to get medical attention. Like, it really is quite visceral, the damage that cross examination can do. And rape cases, if it’s not conducted properly or within acceptable boundaries, like, obviously evidence has to be tested, but we need to have some humanity in how we do this, I think, as a society and as a legal profession. 

But at the same time, there’s people within the legal profession, including defence counsel, who are really committed to taking a more trauma informed approach to cross examination to get rid of what you could see are the excesses of cross examination. 

And I mean, there is no doubt there’s excesses. We’ve had a number of High Court appeal judgments where they’re actually quoting what happens in cross examination that really, I would say are beyond the pale in terms of how women are being treated. 

But you can then contrast that with, for example, our current Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, has really, I think, made a difference in the prosecution of these cases. But also we have a kind of process called a Lord Advocate’s reference in Scotland, which is a way of testing a point of law. And there’s been three Lord Advocate’s references that she has brought in corroboration. So Scotland is quite unique and still having like a formal requirement for corroboration, like, so a second source of evidence to be able to prosecute a case. And this has been particularly challenging in rape cases because they often happen in private. 

Previously, prior to Dorothy being the Lord Advocate bringing these Lord Advocate’s references, you had to corroborate the individual elements of rapes. You had to corroborate penetration, lack of consent and identity of the accused. And that was really, really difficult, particularly for historic cases where you almost never had forensic evidence, like how could you possibly corroborate penetration? 

So she brought these Lord Advocate’s references to test these points. They have led to really quite landmark, seismic changes in how we approach corroboration in Scotland. So I think that does show the potential for progressive change brought about by people within the legal profession themselves. So I remain optimistic about the possibility for change within the law. I’m, optimistic about the relationships that we’ve built and I’ve built with people within the legal profession. And I think it’s within those relationships that is the space for progress and the space for change.

Jen Ang

Thank you so much for setting that out and also telling us quite a lot more about the reform that you’ve seen or the change that you’ve seen over the years. I honestly think, Sandy, that there’s a book in there somewhere. I know that possibly wasn’t what you expected, I would say. But I, just think it’s really interesting the number of different types of legal reform and the challenges that you’re still identifying you and your team in the space that you work in. But I’ll just leave that on the side. If there’s a book that you write, I’ll read it for sure. and I think many others would as well. 

And I guess in a way that leads me on to the last question, which is that there will be people out there listening to this podcast who are listening to what you’ve accomplished, and they might be wondering how they might get to where you are. So how could they actually be you one day? So my last question is, what advice might you have for someone out there who’s a younger version of you, or indeed for you yourself? You know, in your early career, when you were starting out, what, would you say to them about getting to where you are today?

Sandy Brindley

I think in many ways I’ve been really fortunate about finding a passion. Like, not many people have a job that they believe in so deeply, where you feel like you are able to really 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 it’s 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. 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, as if it’s directly informed by survivors’ voices. 

So responses to sexual crime is this vexed question that has faced many, many every jurisdiction, I would say. We have tried so many different elements of law reform in Scotland and maybe made a little bit of difference, but have not made any fundamental change to how traumatic complainers’ experiences are. And I think the way to change that is to ground our law reform efforts directly in complainers’ experiences. So certainly what I’m finding through my research is that, the legal system really replicates the trauma of being raped because of the lack of control, women have gone through the criminal justice system. And the clear answer to that is give complainers in rape trials as much control as possible. That’s difficult in an adversarial system, but where you have the potential for choices and agency, give those choices and agency. And that, I think, is the way to reduce some of the trauma and just make sure complainers feel better prepared. 

So that’s a little bit circular to your question, but where it takes me back to as 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

Amazing. Thank you very much for that, Sandy. Those are wise words. and also practical, just like you. And I know for a fact, having worked alongside you for, I mean, I guess over a decade  now. Yeah, you live that actually. I mean, what you’ve just described is exactly, you know, the shape of your work. Not always easy, but definitely always needed. So thank you for your time today. I do appreciate it. I know how busy you are and I am certain actually though, that others will benefit from listening to you reflect on both the work that you’re doing, but also where lawyers and law sits in relation to seeking justice for the people who you and your team work with.

So, thank you again, Sandy.

Sandy Brindley

Pleasure.

Jen Ang

And that’s a wrap!

Thank you our lovely listeners, for joining us for another episode of the Lawmanity podcast. If this episode has inspired you to take action and you want to learn more about the Rape Crisis movement or how to get directly involved in the work of Rape Crisis locally, we will put some links in the show notes for this episode. 

Next week, join us for a one to one interview with feminist scholar and activist Pheona Matovu. We’ll speak to her about co founding the organisation Radiant and Brighter and the challenges of tackling migrant destitution and promoting inclusion for families with no recourse to public funds under the UK’s hostile environment policies. 

We’ll also hear about her research as a PhD student and James McCune Smith Scholar at the University of Glasgow where she works on what employers can do to take action against racism in the workplace. 

If you loved 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 Halina Rifai for mentoring us through our first year of this incredible project. And thanks also to Amanda Amaeshi on 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!

Additional resources for this episode are linked below:

• Rape Crisis Scotland https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/
• History of the Rape Crisis Movement in Scotland: https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/blog/the-history-of-the-rape-crisis-movement-in-scotland/

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Fiona McPhail

To be clear, what SERCO were proposing to do was to change locks. We were talking about bypassing any procedure before a court or tribunal. 

Jen Ang

Welcome everybody, 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. 

Today we’re speaking to human rights lawyer, legend and my very good friend, Fiona McPhail. Fiona is a lecturer in social justice law at the University of Glasgow School of Law alongside me and former principal solicitor of Shelter Housing Legal Service at shelter Scotland. In 2021, she won the University of Glasgow’s World Changing Alumni Award in recognition of her work in relation to homelessness and housing poverty and her work in 2019 as a leading member of the legal team that challenged a private housing contractor to the Home Office, SERCO, when they decided to start evicting asylum seekers in Scotland without court process – they would simply wait until the person was not at home and change the locks before that person returned. She built a voluntary coalition of lawyers, third sector advocacy groups, and grassroots activists that brought public attention to the unfair and unequal treatment of asylum seekers in Scottish housing law and ultimately prevented hundreds of evictions. Fiona and I were both founder members of that coalition that started it all and we’re here today to talk about social justice lawyering in defence of asylum seeker housing rights and those cases. 

Welcome, Fiona, to the podcast.

Fiona McPhail

Good morning, it’s a pleasure to be here.

Jen Ang

Thank you for joining me. So, in this podcast, I’ve been experimenting with a surprise opener question to get us settled and to learn a little bit more about the people behind the legal legends who we are interviewing. So if you don’t mind, please, can you tell me about a smell that is meaningful to you? Maybe a smell that you really like or one that is connected to a place or a time that you like to bring to mind?

Fiona McPhail

Mmm, what a good opener. Well, I think it’s a beautiful morning here in Edinburgh where we are, and I think this time of year what we smell often is grass being cut. And for me, every time, freshly cut grass takes me back to some happy memories in childhood. It was always a sign that we were close to the summer and that I could play outside. So I think, yeah, now, today I’m going to say that, but I love smells in general. That’s an interesting fact about the sense of smell.

Jen Ang

Thank you for sharing that. And, yeah, that’s quite transporting actually, isn’t it? I also like the idea that even as adults you can go back to that, like the idea that, you know, school’s out and it’s playtime, all of these things.

Fiona McPhail

Nice thing to be able to do, to think back to life when it was much simpler.

Jen Ang

So true. So true.

We’re here today to help listeners understand how the law can be used to achieve really significant change by looking at how you and colleagues led a successful campaign to preserve and protect the right to safe, dignified housing for asylum seekers in Scotland through the Roof Coalition, your role in that campaign and your reflections now. So to start with, could you explain to us how you got involved with this campaign and what it was about?

Fiona McPhail

Okay, so, yeah, there is nothing straightforward or simple about this. I’m going to do my best to cover a lot of ground both in terms of time and also in m terms of the legal challenges. And I should say, maybe at the outset, because you framed that in the context of significant legal change. This is a bit of a spoiler alert for listeners who are not familiar, but the legal challenges were ultimately unsuccessful for us. But I think there were successes and hopefully we’ll come on to talk about those, there’s a lot of positive learnings from this campaign. 

So how did I get involved? I mean, I, as you said in the introduction, my role then was principal solicitor at Shelter Scotland. I was, I am a housing lawyer by background, but I’ve always had an interest in other areas of law. And I think, if I am wanting to, I suppose, shed an insight into how we might continue doing this. We in the broadest sense, anyone with an interest in social justice, lawyering, the questions of connection and collaboration are key. So although I was a housing lawyer, I had an interest and where possible worked with lawyers in other fields, and not just lawyers, but charity organisations. So the SERCO lock change issue arose understandably with the charities that work in the front line with refugees: Scottish Refugee Council, British Red Cross and several outstanding community-based organisations in Glasgow who had very good relationships with some immigration and asylum law firms, JustRight Scotland being one of them. And if I remember correctly, Jen, it was a call from yourself in the summer of 2018 where you had indicated that there was this intention by SERCO, who were, for those that don’t know, the multinational private company that the Home Office had contracted to provide asylum accommodation to asylum seekers in Glasgow between 2012 and 2019. So SERCO had, indicated their intention to start lock changes on those persons who were appeal rights exhausted. And being connected to the issue of asylum and refugee rights, you had reached out to me, the, housing lawyer, to ask, is this lawful? So that was how it all started. It was a phone call. 

But I think the point I want to make is that we need to work with each other in this sector. Right. People think of lawyers as being driven by kind of a very individualistic and competitive sense, but you’re not going to get far in the social justice field if that’s your approach. It has to be about collaboration and connections. And what was at risk, I remember, I remember getting that call because there was an element of me that felt that this was so unjust and unfair. So that was just a sense, a gut feeling. But obviously that’s not law, that’s not how we advise clients in relation to that. But there was that gut. This just didn’t feel right. And if there was scope to challenge that and to use the law in challenging that, that’s just one way of challenging something like that. But if there was any legal argument available, then it should be tried. And I think this touches into other ingredients in social justice lawyering about having conviction and having courage. And I did have a sense that there should, that there would be a human rights argument here and particular interest in Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into our domestic law. And that says in very general and broad terms that any person at risk of proceedings by a public authority ought to, in principle, have the opportunity to challenge the proportionality of that eviction before a court or tribunal. 

And to be clear, what SERCO were proposing to do was to change locks. We were talking about bypassing any procedure before a court or tribunal where that person could say, “I don’t think it is proportionate for an eviction order to be granted”. And the people concerned, asylum seekers who were appeal rights exhausted, had a lot at stake. Eviction for any person is an extremely stressful thing to contemplate and years of experience in dealing with people at risk of eviction by social landlords, private landlords and lenders who all had the opportunity of defending their case in court, it was in those circumstances, it was also stressful. The risk of losing your house is of concern.

But for this particular group, it’s important to emphasise, contrary to what some people may think, they had no entitlement to statutory homeless services. So eviction for them more often than not would mean the streets or being pushed underground and making arrangements. So statutory services was pretty much a closed door and there were real concerns about the impact on their health, physical and mental, their impact on their ability to engage with – and again, something that was perhaps overlooked was although they were appeal rights exhausted, many if not most people affected were working with immigration and asylum lawyers to prepare a fresh claim or judicial review. They were still, they maintained that they were entitled to protection. And there’s obviously an impact there if they go underground and are forced onto the streets that their ability to engage with their lawyers and progress those claims would be affected.

So a lot was at stake for those individuals. I can’t speak for them, I wasn’t in their shoes, but I can’t stress just how draconian that policy was. As I said earlier, eviction for anyone is a stressful incident. But here, the consequences were greater. Many of the individuals concerned had underlying mental health issues. So we were talking about retraumatising traumatised people. But there was a wider level question or a bigger question here, of wider public interest in a question of legal principle and of procedural fairness.

Was it lawful to remove an appeal rights exhausted asylum seeker without due process? That was the kind of the big picture question.

And we as housing lawyers and others said there were several strands of legal argument, but I think the main ones that may be of interest today was common law in Scotland prohibited that. And if it wasn’t the common law that prohibited that, then human rights law as incorporated. And this was important not just as a wider point of principle in the context of asylum seekers who were appeal rights exhausted. But there were other categories of people, notably homeless persons in hostel-style accommodation. I’ll maybe stop there, we’ll pick some of that up. But those, that was the kind of the small and the big picture stuff, which was, as I say, of wider public interest.

Jen Ang

Thank you so much for, setting the scene so clearly. And actually it’s funny that you say that your involvement started with a phone call from me because on the one hand, and I’m not sure I remember the actual phone call as you do, but I do remember the day that we’d had the news that SERCO was intent on using lock change evictions in Scotland in order to evict people seeking asylum. And yes, the cruelty, the idea that you would just leave your house one day and then come back and you’d not be able to get in because the locks had been changed. Along with after some discussion with colleagues, the realisation that this wouldn’t have been a lawful procedure, for people in Scotland who are not asylum seekers, drove me to, give you that call because, I also knew that you’ve had a sustained interest in protecting migrant communities from homelessness and eviction over a long period of time. And, ah, yeah, there was no question that you were who I was going to call next.

And that was the start of a very initially loose coalition and eventually quite a tight and productive, of voluntary coalition of lawyers and activists and frontline workers, who became, over the number of years, the Roof Coalition. But it’s lovely to actually hear you talk about it from that perspective. However, as you’ve noted, however, this work still isn’t done, at least all of the work of the Roof Coalition. 

My next question is, what were some of the challenges that you saw in the different forms of legal work that you did with other legal colleagues in that first year? So, in 2018, 2019, were there any particularly tricky moments or tricky things about coordinating legal work with a coalition of, you know, campaigning activists?

Fiona McPhail

It’s a nice and actually surprisingly easy question because I would say in relation to the campaign or coalition, when it initially kicked off, it was not difficult to coordinate people. That was one of the most inspiring things about this whole project and one of its great successes. There were five law firms heavily involved, meeting weekly or as often as necessary at one stage. And I’m perhaps escaping the question or the timeframe you’ve given me, Jen, but over the period of two years, those law firms also at times worked alongside the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and all of us had the benefit of expertise from council on different points. So there was a collaboration of lawyers where we were very open, with respect to our professional obligations of confidentiality, but we were very open in discussing and teasing out potential legal arguments, discussing legal strategies and coordinating that was not problematic because there was a shared desire and ambition to test the law, to do what we could for the clients at the different stages. And we’ll maybe talk through, because I do think it’s quite interesting to look at the chronology of legal action. But all of that work was done very, very closely with the third sector. It was the third sector that reached out to us and we would, thinking back to that first summer of 2018, one of the things that we first did was to come together in a room and say, well, what practical steps do we need to do? And one of the first things we did was to coordinate legal surgeries. There was a commitment by the lawyers around the table to offer legal surgeries and do outreach at the Scottish Refugee Council. So we had the Refugee Council offer their premises and interpreting services and we set up a rota and we offered anybody who was given a lock change notice the opportunity to come in and speak with us. And I think, I was reviewing an impact report that was done, there was about 41 legal surgeries ran in that first year. And so when the policy had been announced, there were from memory, five clients who’d been served with the notices. And those five clients were immediately linked up with solicitors and proceedings were raised. So Govan Law Centre had raised proceedings in the Court of Session and Shelter Scotland and Legal Services Agency, representing the other persons concerned, had raised proceedings in the Sheriff Court. And we were all asking in these different forums for interim orders to prevent or to stop a locked change eviction from taking place, pending clarification of these bigger questions of law. So the Sheriff Court cases were sisted or suspended whilst the Court of Session was to consider those questions. In the first case that Govan Law Centre were taking, and at that point, that was sufficient for SERCO to announce that they would pause their lock change. So we had a public statement and a public undertaking that they would not, despite having given notices to many many individuals. And I didn’t say this at the outset, but there was in the region of 300 people affected. So there’s a volume here. This isn’t five, six people. There was in the region of 300. And we had this public undertaking which was the sensible, reasonable, appropriate thing for SERCO to do, that they would not carry out with their SERCO lock change policy pending determination of this issue by the Court of Session. So that was, well, not a small win, that was a big win early on. I feel I’ve deviated from your, from your question, but, yeah, the point to stress coordinating, it wasn’t difficult because there was a drive, there was an ambition and that was immensely inspiring. And I do want to stress that a lot of this was done, nobody had planned for this, this was a reaction, this was a campaign that reacted to something that was happening and reacted on an urgent basis. So this was on top of the very very busy workloads of solicitors and charities involved. And many of these meetings that I speak about in terms of coordinating strategy next steps happened out of hours. So it speaks to the commitment and the conviction of those concerns. So I would say the challenges weren’t the coordination and that’s not to say that there weren’t difficult conversations about, you know, messaging and legal strategy. You know, it’s not to say it was all straightforward, but the most difficult part of it was not the coordination. I think the greatest challenge for me, if I were to reflect on it, was twofold and it was mainly to do with the legal work but the challenge of testing the law. We were effectively arguing that the common law required proceedings to be raised, failing which human rights law did. But we were trying to break new ground. We weren’t in a position where there was established recent case law to that point. And the pace and volume at which this proceeded. 2018 to 2019 was relatively quiet once we got that public undertaking. But in April of 2019 the Court of Session ruled that the policy was lawful and Govan Law Centre took steps to appeal that. And in the process of doing that we had the Scottish Human Rights Commission who decided to intervene. But notwithstanding the appeal process starting, SERCO announced in, I think, July of 2019 that it was going to enforce its lock change policy. So we went from having a safe space to lock changes being imminent. I can’t remember at the time if it was a seven day or a 14 day, but there were changes, even things like that. The communication that was being given was not always clear and could change at, ah, short notice, but seven or 14 day notices were being given to people and that’s when the pressure really, hit because the four law firms involved went from the position of doing legal surgeries to having to raise urgent proceedings. And those were proceedings in the Sheriff Court where we were asking, it was interdict proceedings where we were asking and requesting interim orders. And in the space of three months or so, there were 159 thereabouts, 159 such cases raised. So that was, you can imagine the pressure on the solicitors involved, you can imagine the impact on the courts. It got to the point where you had to really push to get a court hearing fixed in the court would fix, effectively SERCO courts because it would just have 6, 7, 8, 10, possibly more similar hearings. And I think what was interesting there in terms of challenges was just again having to frame this litigation as a housing law matter. The subjects were appeal rights exhausted asylum seekers. There may have been media coverage. There was a perception that this was a refugee or asylum issue. It wasn’t, it was a question of housing law. And we were at pains to kind of reiterate that, that this was about questions of due process and eviction in the process eviction rather than the merits of somebody’s asylum claim. So that was arguably the most challenging point, was just the pace and volume because if we didn’t get in time, then the lock change happened and the person was out.

Jen Ang

I actually, I remember that time period, so that that period of the three months after the April ruling when you, along with colleagues at the other law firms at Latta & Co, a legal services agency, went through an incredible volume and pace of legal representation, basically, in order to get these cases heard and dealt with. I just remember being in awe actually of the effort that poured into this, to prioritising this group of people and protecting them from eviction. Particularly because, just to emphasise what you said, particularly because this work was being done by third sector lawyers on top of what is already recognised to be a caseload or an area in which the need for housing and homelessness advice is already beyond the breaking point. I think it’s unusual in law, to be honest, particularly, in social welfare, social justice law. But for me it was a kind of living example, or a living test, if you like, of what can be done when people work together.

Fiona McPhail

For me it was the biggest success and takeaway of this, wasn’t the outcome but the process. I don’t think we could have done this had we not worked together. I spoke about the kind of sharing of legal strategy and collaboration. I mean we would openly discuss the types of legal arguments and share appropriately redacted pleadings and whatnot. Because these cases were so conjoined in a way, there was, as I say, it was a much wider argument. It didn’t make sense to not do that. And it was every opportunity that we, any one of us had to be in court making these arguments was an opportunity to one, to win the case for all, if that makes sense.

So we got through the summer of interdicts of interim orders. I mean, I appeared in a case where my interim orders were refused. I had to appeal that at every juncture. Do you know, it was, and I should say all of this was done under legal aid. We needed that and the clients needed that in terms of protecting them against an adverse order. But there were, as I say, steps. There was never a guarantee that you were going to get what you wanted. And as I say, I had to appeal our refusal of interim orders. The appeal was successful. But we got to the point where again, SERCO, you know, decided because what we had said proceedings should be raised in the Sheriff Court, SERCO decided to go down that route. And we then were faced with multiple cases where we were trying to defend eviction proceedings.

So it’s what we had asked for and welcomed, but it was the opportunity to then go along and explain. And this is where the particular facts of the individuals were relevant. Because this client, for example, was about to make a fresh claim that was imminent and therefore it made no sense, or this client had these particular health issues, and this brought them within the category of an Article 3 case. So it was non-stop. But we were talking about different processes, different types of proceedings. When we got to the eviction cases, the orders were being granted. Every eviction order that was sought by SERCO was granted. If I remember, some of them were maybe continued or sisted. But again, there were appeals. And at that point we decided, right, well, rather than having hundreds of appeals being heard, let’s propose, let’s have different grounds argued by different counsel who were instructed and again, just have a more strategic approach to that. So that was, I think that was 2020 because those appeals were heard just before the pandemic.

Jen Ang

Did the legal action that you took with colleagues, did it have the impact you hoped it would have? and why or why not?

Fiona McPhail

Okay, it didn’t have the impact I wanted. Okay. I was hoping that we would have a decision from the court. So it wasn’t about changing the law but clarifying the law, that we would have a decision from the court that this was, as a matter of Scots common law or human rights law, unlawful, and that whether it was SERCO or it’s now Mears, there would be a requirement to raise proceedings.

And it’s not just a tick box exercise, but it’s fundamentally about the opportunity for someone to go along and say, this is why I shouldn’t be evicted. And for some people there might not be anything to say, but it’s the opportunity to go along and explain your personal circumstances and why that would be disproportionate or otherwise unlawful. So we lost that and I didn’t cover this earlier.

So the case was appealed and the Human Rights Commission had intervened. We had not just a decision from the Inner House which said that the, the policy was lawful, which was the position at first instance. But the Inner House went further and went so far as to say that SERCO were not a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. And I don’t think any of us had anticipated that. And that, obviously had much wider ramifications for a whole host of reasons. And we don’t necessarily have time to go into that. But that, as I say, hit us sideways.

So, no, we weren’t successful with the legal challenge, but the success was elsewhere. The fact that we were able to put the question before the court, I think protected people. And in that time, I think, you know, in that first year or in the first 18 months or so, those people were continuing to engage with immigration lawyers. Some of them went on and had a grant of refugee status, so kind of fell out of the risk, at risk category. That’s an important point to stress. The time in and of itself enabled things to progress. So the legal action wasn’t successful, but there were small wins along the way. And Mears, who took over the contract, had said initially when that contract was taken up by them, that they would go down the route of raising court proceedings.

So they obviously felt, I, don’t know whether it was a question of whether they felt the pressure or they felt it was the right thing to do, again, I don’t know. I can’t speak for them, but for me those are significant wins. But besides that, as I say, is changing or shaping a culture of social justice movementing, lawyering, where we saw the impact, the real life and immediate impact of working together. And that has not changed. I think, the relationship between those law firms and the third sector to this day continues. It worked and got us through some of the challenges of the COVID pandemic. And the lawyers that did all that work continued to meet for the time afterwards with funding in place.

And one of the big successes was the ability, we were able to persuade the Scottish Ministers to amend relevant legal aid regulations so that legal aid would be available in the Asylum Support Appeals Tribunal. Because ultimately, and this is important, sorry for listeners, we maybe want to give the link to the various decisions, but the Inner House decision, the Court of Session ultimately said that the remedy or any kind of human rights issue would be resolved by a claim or taking this to the appeals, the Asylum Support Appeals Tribunal, that this wasn’t a matter for the Sheriff Court or Court of Session. We had a whole regime that the Home Office operated, particularly with reference to Section 4, that if there was a human rights issue, that was the avenue, but that was not a procedure where legal aid was available in Scotland prior to, as I say, some successful influencing that those lawyers did 

Jen Ang

So, and again, I so much enjoy listening to your reflections and I agree, actually, I think that, I think that a major success of the coalition is not the foundational legal work which you’ve spoken about, but actually the formation of a social justice movement that went on to ensure that people were protected or that people with irregular migration status and people who were seeking asylum were protected from street homelessness during the COVID pandemic.

And also, although it may not be highly visible outside of the circles who do this work, also the win that the Coalition had in speaking to a wider public audience about the unfairness of having one system of rules for, you know, for homelessness, for people who are not migrant, and another system for those who are. There are differences that still persist in the law. So access to social housing, for example, is still linked to different forms of migration status.

But I feel like the on the ground impact of the Roof Coalition’s advocacy work, which you also saw at a wider level taken to protests in the streets, sort of community centre, awareness raising exercises. It was visible sometimes in football stadiums in other forms of activism. So, yeah, I also reflect as a member of that movement the experience of working with frontline activists and lawyers in this way really changed how I think of myself and how I think about the relationship between lawyers and campaigning. Yeah, so absolutely a favourite topic for me.

Fiona McPhail

No, I just think this is important to, and I don’t think I’ve done justice to this, but the key role that those organisations played, like I was struck and you know, blown away by just how connected, involved, invested, supportive those organisations were. But for them we would not have had, I mean they were the bridge between the appeal rights exhausted asylum seeker and the lawyer.

They were able to link us together and were not just knowledgeable about the issues faced, but particularly knowledgeable and supportive of the individuals. You know, just practical things like making sure that that person knew, you know, which lawyer to go to, which offices to go to, trying to set up, I mean all, all the stuff that we, you know, take for granted, like making sure they have a mobile phone and helping out with grants for food and appeal rights exhausted asylum seekers, not just at risk of losing their home, but they’ve got no money coming in.

And I think, yeah, the level of support that was available, some of it presumably funded, but a lot of it was the generosity and the commitment of those individuals who again were coming to meetings out of hours and at weekends. And then there was a very grassroots stuff, you know, networks of people who were just making sure that word was out that if you had one of these lock change notices you could go and see a lawyer. So it was formidable. It was formidable from bottom to top or… not that there was a top. From the grassroots, up to legal.

Jen Ang

So I agree. I feel much the same.

I just have two more questions for you. 

So the next one is. It’s a bit of an invitation, really, Fiona, because I started this saying there is plenty more work to be done here. So the next question is, in your view, what more needs to be done to secure justice and safe, dignified accommodation for people seeking asylum in Scotland today?

Fiona McPhail

Well, regrettably, a lot. Have things got better or worse? I mean, they’re different. Right. If I were to be involved in anything like this, again, I would be encouraging a discussion from the outset as to what success and failure might look like. And success can’t always be about the legal outcome, because, as we’ve discussed, there were successes despite the ultimately unsuccessful litigation.

But it’s also just, man, I think there was understandably, like, demoralisation with that, legal outcome. And we weren’t ready to think, so attached to that is the question of legacy planning. What do you do if you lose? Whether it’s at court or, you know, in the media, What. What is the kind of backup or what do you do if you win? That’s a much. That’s a much more, it’s a much better situation to be in, in terms of thinking about distributing, positive news and influencing decisions. but if you lose, what do we do?

And I think one of the things that I had tried at the time as principal solicitor at Shelter Scotland was to look at scope for legislative reform. And there is, it sat within the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, section 7, the power for the Scottish ministers to, by way of regulation, set certain standards, like what period of notice needs to be given to persons who are in hostels, and impose a requirement to raise court proceedings. That’s a provision that Ministers have never issued regulations on that front. That was an example.

Now, there’s not much I would do differently, but we did that. There was that again, that nobody has regrets as to the model that was adopted, but it is not a sustainable model. And so the reflection is, that the many, many issues that asylum seekers and other destitute migrants face now that are about housing and other aspects of the system face, you know, there are so many of them. There’s no doubt legal and other angles to challenging some of those, but it can’t be done without proper resourcing and without proper funding. So I don’t know. That’s maybe not the answer you were hoping for. But there is now more than ever a need to invest in both the legal, the policy and the support angle.

And the Fair Way programme goes some way because it obviously has, there is a national commitments to look at destitution of migrants across the spectrum. We have been talking about asylum seekers, appeal rights, exhausted asylum seekers today. But in that period of time we also had Brexit and the impact that that has had on European citizens who find themselves homeless can’t be understated and there’s an immense amount of work to be done.

So I think I can’t give you, you know, the 1, 2, 3 policy recommendations, or I’ve given you one, but there will be many more, Jen. But I think, what is clear, that way of working works. You have to bring together the housing and the immigration lawyers, social security lawyers. You have to pool together the different fields of expertise with the frontline organisations. But that has to be funded, it has to be funded on a longer term because this stuff can’t be fixed overnight.

Jen Ang

That’s a more than adequate answer. I’m fully on board with those reflections, but thank you very much for your time.

So I have just one final question for you and that is this. So there will be people listening to this podcast today, much as you don’t like to think of it, who look up to you a bit, see you as a bit of a role model and they will be wondering, they’ll be wondering what advice you might have, for someone who could be a younger version of you, who’s looking at what you have accomplished in your career today and maybe wants to be you one day. So what advice would you give a younger you?

Fiona McPhail

Yeah, yeah, don’t, don’t want to be me! It’s the starting point. 

But here I, I would encourage and I want there to be more social justice lawyers. You know, that, there needs to be. There’s a desperate need for it, more than ever. 

What advice? I mean, there are a number of things and I said at the outset, I started talking about the importance of working with others, right? You cannot do this, if you set out – you could have the best legal mind and the best arguments – do not work by yourself. Find others both to lean on, and to influence. This has to be about collaborations and not just with lawyers, but, these are social justice issues, right? We cannot remove the law, from that wider context. So find that space that you want to be in, surround yourself with those people and have the courage. It’s those people, it’s those networks that will give you courage. Right. And I often… and it is, it’s daunting, sometimes to step into a courtroom and try and advance an argument that sounds a bit mad, you know, I’ve been there many occasions, particularly in the context of some human rights stuff, have the courage and conviction. And you do that by surrounding yourself with those people. 

I often, having spent time in other parts of the world, in Mexico, for example, where human rights lawyers and human rights activists literally risk their lives doing that work. And I, for me, that’s just something that I will tell myself when I am trying to put something out there that sounds a bit mad, but, yeah, I am not at risk of losing my life. And I think we all need that perspective. We all need something that keeps us going. And I think if I can end maybe with this, because it does take courage and conviction. That’s never easy, even though it can sometimes be enjoyable. And even times there are, you know, when there are wins, which obviously are hugely rewarding, there needs to be a strategy of resilience. That’s maybe not the best word. But we have to look after ourselves. We have to be in the best shape and the best state of mind to give the best fight that we can. 

And so I would be encouraging anybody looking at, a career or looking at working in this area to firstly think about what are the things that make them feel good, what keeps you going, what makes you happy? Because we need to be able to go to those places when the going gets tough. and the going gets tough regularly. We’re not going to last if we don’t have that. So, yes. who are you? What do you like? And yeah, just carve out time on a continual basis to step into that happy place.

Jen Ang

Thank you very much, Fiona, for those wise, wise words. And knowing you, I know that you’re also true to that advice that you gave yourself. And I guess I just want to close by saying that you are one of those people who exemplifies courage and conviction, who I keep close to myself. So thank you very much for indulging me today, and also for being that person. And it was lovely speaking with you and I’m sure that you and I will see each other quite soon actually. So take care for now and have a great day.

Fiona McPhail

Thank you. Thank you, Jen. It’s been a pleasure.

Jen Ang

And that’s a wrap. 

Thank you again, our lovely listeners, for joining us for another episode of the Lawmanity podcast.

If you wanted to learn more about the Stop Lock Change eviction campaign, later renamed the Roof Coalition, and the legal cases that Fiona and I discussed, we’ll put those in the show notes. 

Fiona in her interview also mentioned the Fairway Scotland Initiative, which is a private sector government-funded partnership that provides alternative accommodation and advocacy and legal support to appeal rights exhausted asylum seekers and others in Scotland. She and I have both also been involved in that effort so I will link some resources there too. 

Inspired to take action? The tenants’ union Living Rent in Scotland was a coalition partner and does some incredible work to defend the rights of all tenants organising locally across the country. Have a look at their resources and become a member if you want to support their work. 

Shelter Scotland provides free housing advice to tenants on their rights and Scottish Refugee Council supports people seeking refuge across Scotland. You can also check out their campaigns and donate to support their work. 

Next week, join us for a one-to-one interview with feminist scholar and activist Pheona Matovu. We’ll speak to her about co-founding the organisation Radiant and Brighter and the challenges of tackling migrant destitution under the UK’s hostile environment policies. We’ll also hear about her research as a PhD student and James McCune Smith Scholar at the University of Glasgow where she looks at what employers can do to take action against racism in the workplace. 

If you love today’s episode, please do hit the like and subscribe buttons and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might also 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. 

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 thanks also to Amanda Amaeshi, on 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. It’s always lovely to have you. We hope you enjoyed listening and see you next time!

Additional resources for this episode are linked below:

• A Site of Resistance: An Evaluation of the Stop Lock Change Evictions Campaign:https://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Stop-Lock-Changes-FINAL-VERSION.pdf
• Volunteer with Shelter Scotland: https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_involved/volunteer
• Scottish Refugee Council: https://scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk
• JustRight Scotland: https://www.justrightscotland.org.uk
• Living Rent – the Tenant’s Union: https://www.livingrent.org

This week, my feed is full of “we regret” and “we stand with” and “we hope you feel.”

If you thought my next observation was that these expressions feel performative, I might surprise you in saying that I don’t think they are. I think that people genuinely feel, in the moment, that expressing sympathy, empathy and solidarity is a good thing – a positive action – and these expressions come from a good place.

What’s bothering me, though, is the sense that we have entered an era where “our statement on…” and “politician’s speech expressing regret / concern” becomes the sum total of meaningful action taken in response to what is becoming an existential threat to the very real and tangible lives of black and brown people across the UK, and in Scotland, today.

In case anyone needs a reminder:

Saying you’ll do a thing is not the same as doing it

A few weeks ago, I expressed frustration with my long-suffering partner, who is AuDHD (Autistic and ADHD).

I asked him why, when something bothered him – for example, the fact that our family members (myself included) seem incapable of stacking our clean pots and pans in size order, but instead resort to chaotically hurling them into the pots cupboard – he and I would spend ages talking about the solution to the problem, arriving at a solution, and then … nothing would happen.

Until the next time he went to open the cupboard at the wrong end of a tough day, and voilà: all the frustration comes flooding back, and we have another conversation.

Except this time, the conversation is shorter: I point out that there is no point being upset; we had this conversation, we arrived at a solution, and in this case, the next move was his. Why, then, is he upset? But more importantly, why hasn’t he resolved the thing that is so clearly upsetting him?

The answer I got was a little bit of a revelation: that sometimes, talking about doing a thing can sort of trick your brain into thinking that it has been done.

This is not a scientific blog and so I’m not going to retrieve some citations for you; I just want the “sense” of my partner’s explanation to sink in, because his answer definitely passed the “gut truth” test for me.

Haven’t you felt before that dealing with the emotional impact of a thing was enough for you, and that sometimes meant you didn’t have to go on to deal with the actual impact at all?

That can be a healthy approach for individuals facing individual people problems – we lack agency and control in our lives in all sorts of ways, so sometimes talking through the emotional impact of a problem is all that we are capable of doing.

But that, is not this.

When it comes to issues of governance, social policy, economy and law – our leaders carry responsibilities that go far beyond the trivial state of my pots cupboard.

Those leaders chose to lead – they are capable of making change happen, and for that reason, we can call them out on this point:

Words, without action, are not enough

Again, I do think words matter. What we say, and how we say it, matters. Words and language are the precursor to change, and lots of people expressing a dissatisfaction with how things are – and a desire for change – is a good start.

But just as British suffragettes in the early part of the 20th century eventually rallied under the motto: Deeds, Not Words, so too the present situation calls for clear strategy and action to tackle head-on the conditions that have normalised the idea that groups of white people rampaging the streets of our cities in order to harass, intimidate, and violently attack black and brown people, is somehow okay.

Scotland, today, is so far from okay, it’s hard to know where to start. And every step of the way here, people – politicians, leaders, journalists, intellectuals – have wrung their hands, and agreed that our journey here is concerning, a tragedy, an urgent thing.

But the fact remains that every single one of us has failed to make these streets safe* for innocent people who are marked out as acceptable victims of violence because the state – and I do mean the British state, the Scottish state, and every city and local authority in this country – the state has legitimised targeting migrants (and by extension, black and brown people) as somehow more acceptable than any form of violence against British or white people.

I won’t succeed in changing that alone – no one could – but I’d prefer to make a start.

Let’s try asking our leaders – every time they “regret” or “stand with” – to “name one thing” they plan to do to actually solve the problem of anti-migrant governance and systemic racism

I won’t be overly critical if they do: actions can be simple, direct. They can be imaginative, fun, cost-free. Many solutions – such as increasing the social housing stock or encouraging community cohesion – are really worthy and important aims in their own right.

But instead of pretending that we are not facing an escalating crisis of social division, rising racism and a poorer, bleaker future for our children – politicians and leaders need to find the courage to name the problem and connect that problem to the solutions – out loud.

Then they need to do the doing.

And we need to stand watch, and make sure they do it right.

* Our streets are not only unsafe for migrants, and black and brown people, they are also unsafe for women and girls, for visibly trans and queer people, and for lots of lovely people who are none of these things and just minding their own business, but who somehow look different in a way that causes others to want to harm them. In a future world that I want to live in, our streets would be safe for everyone, in the way that our public libraries are safe for everyone (because we are all afraid of the librarians, but also kind of love them). Roll on that world

Postscript

The photo at the top of this post is a blank receipt which a parking barrier at Edinburgh airport produced for me on Monday this week, as I tried to exit the airport. The barrier would not open, if I did not take the receipt – in a neat trick of coercion which demonstrates what happens when you allow companies to exercise private property rights over public transport infrastructure.

I will leave you, this leisurely Friday afternoon, to think about what it all means. But when you’re daydreaming, please also think about what could be.

In a world where you decide, what would you have the machine print on this receipt?

First published on 12 June 2026 on The Long View: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-futures-call-actions-words-jen-ang-28cwe/

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Satwat Rehman

The issue isn’t with how lawyers are trying to test the law or to support people to realise their rights through the law. It’s the flaws that are built in by the lawmakers. 

Jen Ang

Hi everyone, and welcome back 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. 

Today, we’re speaking to feminist activist, anti-racism and anti-poverty campaigner and absolute legend, Satwat Rehman.  Satwat’s most recent role is as Chief Executive of One Parent Families Scotland, the leading charity working with single parent families in Scotland – they provide expert advice, practical support, and campaigning with parents, to change the systems policies and attitudes that disadvantage single parent families. 

Satwat’s activism has deep roots, with more than 30 years experience in the voluntary and public sector in Scotland and England, working in the fields of equalities, education, employability, economic development and regeneration and early years and child care. She’s a recent or serving member of the commission for childcare reform, the just transition commission, the social renewal advisory board , and alongside me, of the First Minister’s National Advisory Council for Women and Girls – and her breadth of experience definitely shone through in our interview.

Welcome to the show, Satwat.

Satwat Rehman

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to chat with you.

Jen Ang

So just to start off for this podcast, I’ve been experimenting with a surprise opener question, just to get us settled and to help people learn a little more about the people behind the legends who we’re interviewing. 

So if you don’t mind, could you please tell me about a smell that you like that’s meaningful to you, maybe just something you enjoy, or something that’s connected to a place and a time that you like to bring to mind.

Satwat Rehman

Loads of smells come to mind. A smell that I’ve that really sticks in my mind is the smell I remember of the aeroplane door opening as we landed in Lahore in Pakistan. And every time since then, when we’ve been to Pakistan, and actually when I’ve travelled elsewhere as well, each place has its own smell, and every time I catch a whiff of that smell, it evokes all these memories. 

So in terms of for Pakistan, it evokes memories of those journeys back home, first time, meeting lots of relatives so I didn’t even know existed, and touring around and getting a sense of who my. Mum and Dad were, and what made them who they are. So to me, there is something about every time you land in a different country, you get a sense of the place from the smell. And it stuck with me.

Jen Ang

I love that, you know, I was never having really thought about it in that way. I recently went back to Maryland, the United States where I grew up, and I was, I was, like, surprised, but actually, you know, in quite a kind of core and visceral day, surprised by this, this memory of the smell, not realising that the place had a smell, yeah, but it was the smell of home. It was so recognisable, and it was so absent everywhere else, absolutely. So I love that. Thank you for sharing that, but also for, I guess making me think a little different what I experienced earlier this year.

Okay, so having, we’re gonna get down to the questions which are, which are big, weighty questions. 

Do you feel that the law works equally for you or for your community?

Satwat Rehman

That is a really big question, and I’m going to answer it by starting off by saying that there is no one answer to it. 

It depends on so many factors, and I’ll speak about that from the perspective of the single parent families that we work with, but also I’ll speak about that as somebody who’s grown up in a racially minoritized community here in in the UK, and for me, it’s also about a number of levels, because sometimes the issue isn’t with how lawyers are trying to test the law or to support people to realise their rights through the law. It’s the flaws that are built in by the lawmakers. And some of those aren’t flaws which are unintentional. Some of that might be exactly what they want the policy to do you know. 

And for single parents, you see that a lot in the design of benefit support, for example, where we might take you know and lawyers have, through organisations like Child Poverty Action Group, taken cases to challenge things like the two child limit, for example, or the benefit cap and other things which disproportionately impact on single parent families. But those cases haven’t been successful because of the way the law was made and its intent. 

Jen Ang

Here, Satwat is referring to strategic litigation taken by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) in against a Conservative Government reform to welfare benefits as part of a programme of austerity in 2017. The two-child limit restricted support in universal credit to two children in a family. It left families without means-tested support for their third and subsequent children worth £3,514 a year and according to CPAG it was the biggest driver of rising child poverty.

CPAG led strategic litigation more than once to challenge the two-child limit. In 2021, CPAG led an unsuccessful human rights and public law challenge to the UK Supreme Court. Justices concluded there were no legal standards by which a court could decide how the government should strike the balance between a family’s financial needs and the wider public’s tax contributions, returning the issue entirely to Parliament.

And in 2025, CPAG led a second case, challenging the so-called “rape clause” which exempted children born non-consensually if they were born third or later, but not if they were born first or second, to the High Court. 

They were again unsuccessful, with the court declaring the matter to have been previously settled by the Supreme Court: ”It is a policy question dealing in social, economic, moral and ethical subject matter. It is also a question with potential resonances in family law more generally. It is a political law- reform question.”

Following election of a Labour Government in July 2024, In April 2026, the UK government scrapped the two-child limit, essentially meeting the court’s reply with a political solution.  As a result CPAG estimates that the measure immediately lifted 350,000 children out of poverty – and of course made marginally more dignified and humane the system for accessing welfare support for families in the UK.

However, there are more campaigns to be fought, and won. As Satwat pointed out another Conservative austerity measure, the benefits cap, still remains in place. This is a limit on the total amount most working age people can receive in the UK, also also a key driver of child poverty.  

Let’s return to Satwat who carries on with a big question for single parent families:

Satwat Rehman

I am going to talk about poverty, because that is one of the big, as we know, the biggest issues for single parent families. Families. You know, there is so much evidence to show that the two child limit keeps and pushes families into poverty. You know, so on the one hand, you’ve got a child poverty strategy being developed at UK level. On the other hand, you’ve got them sticking with and pushing through further reforms that’s going to increase poverty levels amongst families. So there I would ask, is there a hierarchy in terms of which laws are considered important?  

So I think there is something there about what role lawyers, who are activists and who believe in social justice, can play in the development of the laws, which is critical, I think, from this point of view. 

Because I think what quite often happens is after the bills are passed and they become acts, and they’re being enacted. It can be too late. And so there is something about how you can be more more active as a profession, in supporting campaigns and activism, which is completely and utterly grounded in the experiences of the individuals who are meant to be the benefactors of these laws, or actually being completely and utterly, and I’m not using this word lightly, but destroyed by the changes that are going to be taking place, as we can see at the moment.

When we looked at disabled people’s organisations and their response to the latest set of welfare reforms that the UK government is considering, which is all about reducing the benefit bill by forcing people with lifetime conditions to be considering how they going to work, even though work may never be sustainable or affordable for them in terms of lifting them out of poverty. So I think there’s a big role there in how we can collaborate and work better together, as as lawyers and as activists and being able to challenge processes like, for example, do you know, are equality impact assessments even considered at what point are they considered and the processes of designing something, how are they? What weight do they carry? 

Then what’s the role for the equalities legislation in that sort of space? Which are they going to consider as being of greater value. And how do we push, collectively as activists and as those working in the legal professions to be able to challenge that? So there’s that, which I think about in terms of even before we get on to what you can do to support with the laws as they are. What more can we be doing effectively in the law making process, which might make it easier for people and then where there are protections in place, like, for example, around child maintenance law, navigating those systems can be incredibly confusing, costly, and they’re often stacked against those without financial resource or legal knowledge. 

And actually, if we look at family law, it’s one of the areas that it’s becoming nigh on impossible to find practising lawyers in Scotland who will take on those cases. So where do you go then? Do you know, if you know that your ex-partner is lying about what they’re saying their income is and withholding the money from their children, you know, where is the recourse in law? You know? And actually, all of this is incredibly expensive and costly for families as well, and again, so it will be those who can afford will be able to use the law and those who can’t afford will find it more difficult to use it, particularly as we’ve seen the erosion of legal aid and what legal aid can be done For so it’s not an easy question to answer, because actually it’s not a siloed question. 

It cuts across so many things in terms of what the reality is for the families that we work with, and actually what many of them will say to us, we feel completely invisible in policy making and we’re not prioritised in legal reforms. So how can we do something about that? 

And one of the things there has been that has been a movement to see whether single parenthood should be a protected characteristic inequalities legislation. And again, there’s pros and cons to that. You can see the protections it could bring, but actually, it’s not necessarily a fixed identity. It’s not a lifelong identity that you have. So are there other laws we should be using, or other things, like, for example, should single parents be named as a group that you have to take into consideration through the Public Sector Equality Duty, you know, should they be named to the Fairer Scotland Duty, which is the equivalent of the socio-economic duty, and so, but, you know, it’s easy to latch on to that, to say, if we do that, Equalities legislation, we’ll be protected. But actually that assumes the other groups already in Equalities legislation, are protected, and we don’t see much protection coming the way of some of those groups at the moment. 

Jen Ang

Absolutely, and you’ve taken a very big question that I’ve asked you and just posed a series of questions. Sorry, but I think that they’re really interesting. So for you, is the law – Do you think is it still potentially a tool for social change or for positive, progressive change, or is it primarily a barrier?

Satwat Rehman

I would say it’s a little bit of both. Yep. On the one hand, I really do believe that laws empower us and can can empower us and can offer us those protections against unfair treatment and securing rights to housing benefits support services. Do you know, and that absolutely, I think without them, we’d be in a much, much worse position than we are now. 

But it goes back to the point about the processes of the law, and the process of law and how difficult it can be to access and it’s intimidating for families. Do you know it’s intimidating for me, if I have to speak to a lawyer about something that’s really matters to me and is personal to me, and it’s not necessarily designed with the end user in mind, being the individual you know. 

And you know, a lot of terms in law are archaic, difficult to understand, and I think we need to be demystifying it. And I think there are some real activists out there, and lawyer activists who are very good at doing that, who are demystifying the law. So you can actually begin to see actually this is what my right is, and here are ways in which I can realise those rights. 

But we always are pushed back to the fact that what we can do is constrained by the system and the finances within the system. 

I mean, you know, if we want to look at a really fundamental right, every child has a right to an education right, every local authority has a duty to fulfil that right to that education, but what we do is do it in a way which will suit what we think is the majority. You know, so it may work for 70% of children and young people, but there are 30% whose rights are often compromised, and when you speak about why that is, you’re told it’s because of resource constraints. You know, so if you’ve got a child with additional needs, if you’ve got a child who might require more one to one support to settle in class. 

Those rights aren’t realised in terms of their access to education being equal, because the resources aren’t there, you know, and they’re incredibly difficult things to challenge as an individual, as a parent, and that’s where I think that there is a real role for the law as a tool in terms of collective action and being able to look at an issue and say, okay, then do you know that parent there spoken about it? 

But actually, the evidence is showing us that this is a pattern, and then it’s the pattern that you need to be challenging in law, the problem then becomes, you could win that. But how do you implement Do you know your victory? Where are those resources going to come from? You know, are those who’ve got the duty to provide and to realise that right? 

Going to be able to do so and so, you know, I mean, let me just give you an example of something that’s coming up more and more, which impacts on single parent families. Will impact on lots of families. But obviously we’re hearing about it from single parent families, where, due to the fact. Fact that resources are so limited in so many schools, if they’ve got children who’ve got additional needs, or who may be, you know, playing out the impact of early life trauma, or any of those things parents will tell us about the fact that sometimes they haven’t even got as far as walking back home and through the door before the school will phone to say we don’t have the staff and we don’t have the resource. It’s not safe. Can you come and pick your child up? What parent is going to say? No, you know, and we’ve been hearing about this beginning to happen more and more to the families that we’re working with. 

And so there’s a fundamental there about that child’s not receiving an education, right? But then if you look at the welfare system and the fact that we’ve got a welfare system which has conditionality built into it, and you’re sanctioned if you can’t then meet those conditions, these are parents who are also being expected to be looking full time for work, enter work and increase their hours in work. And all of those areas have conditionality, which, if they don’t meet, they would be sanctioned.

Jen Ang

That is, that is, that is crushing. And you kind of paint a picture of the impossibility of the situation that these different systems and when they interact, and when neither of them actually have a, I will add this, a human rights based or equalities lens – just, just create an impossible set of decisions.

Satwat Rehman

And after placing them all on the individual to make, do you know, so in a way, the institutions there, in terms of education, have absolved themselves of their duty and responsibility and passed it back to the parent for that child.

Jen Ang

And I suppose, just to draw through another thread that you mentioned earlier, which is how eligibility for legal aid and access to lawyers can really affect your ability to resolve the situation. 

I’ll know from my own frontline practice that the parents that you’re speaking about are exactly the people who don’t have the time to look for a lawyer to combat the legal aid system, to attend appointments and so on. And so even the access to, you know, it is no good saying there is a legal remedy, which might be, my instincts always like, that must be illegal. Actually, that’s that’s not useful for someone who doesn’t have time or capacity to even start to engage with that, to even find a lawyer who might do the work.

Satwat Rehman

Absolutely, absolutely what they want to do is problem solve their day to day reality they won’t necessarily be thinking about, well actually, if I start this now, in two years’ time, we might get somewhere that sort of thing. These things move slowly.

Jen Ang

No, absolutely, yeah. And as you said, there’s a systemic problem that an organisation like yours is able to identify, but in individual cases, some things might resolve. Some people might just lose touch, because, again, they’re dealing with day to day crises. But the systemic issue goes sort of unchallenged or unnoticed for a long time, not by you, not by the people it affects, but by governments or other bodies that might be found accountable.

Satwat Rehman

That’s right. That’s right. I mean, I remember speaking to a group of parents, because there was CPAG were looking for parents who might consider, you know, taking part in things that they were wanting to do as part of judicial reviews. But you have to commit to be around for a long time for that, you know. And the family said they were just not in a position to say, actually, yeah, I can be on this journey with you for two years. 

Jen Ang

Yeah, no, absolutely. This leads us nicely on to the next question, which is a little bit and you’ve, you’ve actually, you’ve been very you’ve been generous in your in your in your suggestions of what lawyers legal system can do. 

So the next question is, kind of, what is for you the right position for lawyers and the legal system in relation to supporting movements. And I will just add this extra provocation, I suppose, which is that when we speak about lawyers in the legal system, we’re not just talking about, you know, third sectors public interest lawyers. But I always hold in mind that people who act for government or people who defend unequal policies are also lawyers, the legal system encompasses all of us, as well as the judiciary. 

So just exploring a bit your thoughts, you had many suggestions about places where social justice lawyers could support people to understand how to influence the creation of law that there’s a real gap around Legal Aid being enough lawyers, which I agree with, to do some of the work that’s clearly done. Is there anything else that on your wish list of things that lawyers and the legal system should be concerned. 

Satwat Rehman

Okay, let me have a think. I think I’ve spoken about advocating for policy changes and being part of that process. We’ve discussed some of the issues with challenging unjust laws. You know that you often need cases to be able to do so. And then it’s about how, you know, I don’t know. 

This could be a question you might be able to answer. Jen, for me, what level of wrap around support is provided to people who will take part in saying, actually, I’m prepared to be part of the group challenging this unjust law. Do you know? Yeah, so that’s I can answer that. 

Jen Ang

Yes. So this is, this is rightly the kind of conversations that lawyers social justice lawyers, strategic work, do have with each other, yeah, and have with each other all the time, I suppose, from my perspective, having done this for a number of years, one thing that I will carefully consider when looking at a strategic case that would have an individual at the centre, not one that’s taken by an organisation, whether or not you ask for anonymity, is going to fundamentally impact someone’s life for a long time, I would always want to ensure that there is support in place, like one to one, advocacy or support in place for that person, and that often has to come from a partner agency effectively allocating resource in order to do this. And so actually, that’s why those kinds of cases often are not when individuals come to us initially, but a rise in partnership with someone else. The reason why I would want that is because, as much as myself, any lawyers working with me and anyone else in the wider team are also focused on providing more than just legal advice, yeah, actually access to support and and other things that you might need. That’s not That’s not our specialism. And also, actually, I think people deserve to have an independent advocate. Absolutely. I agree it would never be right for all of that tohappen from the organisation, and that’s because you, as you said, the law is intimidating, absolutely intimidating. But the relationship between a lawyer and a client can alsobe absolutely there’s a power dynamic there as well. 

Jen Ang

Yes, yeah. So I think, I think that for me, I would, I would think about that and want to have that in place before even agreeing that this is the right. Not everyone has that luxury, and also not everyone works that way. That’s right. And also sometimes, and this is out of respect for for the individuals that come to us. Sometimes. We have had individuals come to us with cases who have gotten through to the point where they are by being independent, and they’re instructing us to just take this forward with them as they want to. And I will respect that. I will respect that in the right place for the right person, but also probably the back of my mind thinking, and it does always come to this point, but even at some point, you might want someone else with you. 

Satwat Rehman

And you know, yes, absolutely. I think that’s a really important point. And it’s almost like that thing, you know, in terms of, how can they be allies? I think those partnerships with other advocacy organisations, even service delivery organisations, etc, are critical, because I agree with you entirely that that I think there should be independent advocacy in each of those cases, and not so much for my day job, but from work that I’ve been involved in in the past. 

Many, many years ago, in the mists of time, I was involved in an organisation in London called Newham Monitoring Project, and I was, you know that, and that was a group of activists working around supporting families who’d been subjected to racial harassment, racist violence, and also state violence, right and state harassment. And none of the staff there were lawyers. They were all community activists and political activists, but what we had as an organisation were incredibly strong partnerships with human rights, you know, civil rights lawyers who would do, you know, do the legal bit, but we would do, getting the family to that point, supporting the family throughout, making sure the family understood the implications of what they were taking on, etc, and being there afterwards as well for the family, because even if you win your case, there’s an absolute shock that sets in at that point about, what does this now mean for me and and my family? Am I going to be exposed in some way? You know, having. Taken on the Met Police or whatever. Where does that leave me? 

And so you always need to have that base of support in the communities the individuals are from, you know, because lawyers will come and then they will go, unless they’re sat in those communities. But the support has to remain within that community, because that’s where that individual is going back to. That could be a, you know, geographic community, a community of interest, or whatever. And that’s why I think it’s critical. I think that’s when Newham Monitoring Project was so successful, so successful. 

We were closed down by the state, you know, which is, which is the other danger of these things? Yep, they like you, as long as you’re just challenging enough, expose them too much, and they’ll come for you, basically. 

And I think there again, is where, if you can have cross sector partnerships, it gives you a bit of security and strength for the organisations involved as well. But you know, in terms of thinking about for single parents, I just think it’s that the system itself is overly technical, unaffordable and slow to act, and that’s what makes it feel like a foe. You know, it feels like something that’s getting in in the way of you being able to achieve it because of how it’s structured and set up, and so for many single parents, it really access to justice depends on whether they can find legal professionals who genuinely understand the challenges that they face and what would be The benefit and the advantage of seeing something through the court. We know judicial review, however you whichever route you take. 

But having said that, I think an area where we’ve seen a lot of benefit from the law and from the processes of the law and the challenges to the law has been around employment rights, yeah, and just thinking back to something quite quite topical at the local authority elections, which took place in England recently, where we saw A surge in support for reform and reform taking over councils. And one of the first things that somebody said who had been elected to one of the Councils was, you know, named a whole series of workers who work in roles around equity and rights, and said, basically, we’re coming for you. And I just saw it on a post on social media, and a trade union person had written underneath, and we’ll be waiting, you know, because employment law in this country is stronger than what there is in the state, so you won’t be able to go in and do what you’ve done there. So basically, bring it on and that. And I thought that was really powerful, because that’s also sending a message to any worker who’s reading that that actually they’ve got our back.

Jen Ang

Absolutely. And it is. It’s a really nice, positive example in, you know, quite uncertain times for people are places where the law might still be for them. Absolutely, I think, also important for people to be able to feel that, 

Satwat Rehman

Oh, absolutely, absolutely. And, you know, I felt really happy having read that, thinking, whew, yeah, yeah, you can’t just wholesale import the American way of doing things reform, you know. And and it just really made me think that that we mustn’t forget the important role that things like the trade union movement can play in all this as well, absolutely.

Jen Ang

And maybe in just sort of extrapolating a bit, you said, as well, and maybe in looking after those parts of existing British law, yes, accountability and protections could still be sought, so absolutely they are being questioned or sidelined, maybe just sticking by some of those

absolutely testing them and making sure that they are used.

Jen Ang

So once again it took me a while to get this podcast episode to you, and in that time, our political environment has shifted again in some significant ways. I asked Satwat if she had anything to add in light of the recent Scottish elections and the challenges facing the new Parliament as MSPs settle into office? 

She said: “The recent Scottish Parliament results are sobering, but they’re also a call to action. Yes, there has been an increase in right wing representation, but also an increase in progressive representation, which gives hope.  We know from experience that when the political centre shifts right, it’s the families we work with who pay the price first. 

The Right doesn’t have answers for single parent families; they have scapegoats. Scotland has stronger legal protections than most – the Child Poverty Act, the Fairer Scotland Duty – and the challenge for the new Parliament is whether MSPs will use those tools with real teeth, or let them gather dust. The law isn’t a silver bullet, but it’s one of the few arenas where we can still hold power to account – and we need to be using it much more strategically and collectively than we have been.”

So this moves us towards a final question, and it’s a big one.  

I asked Satwat: what does justice mean for you, and for your community?

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. 

Fact that what’s in law can drive how society behaves, you’d begin to see the beginnings of of justice right. 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, right? 

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. I mean, I’m thinking about, you know, child support and child maintenance would be a classic example of that for single parent families, and actually, for all families. 

We’ve been doing a piece of work on transforming child maintenance, and it’s no surprise to us. It might be a surprise to policy makers, but you’ve got a system that doesn’t work for anybody. It doesn’t work for the paying parent, it doesn’t work for the receiving parent, and it certainly doesn’t work for the children. So who is that system serving, apart from itself? And at the crux of why it is the way it is, is that they need to keep costs down. 

But actually there’s a there’s a sort of cost further down the line to families and then to the services that have to support the families. And so actually the law should be an integral part of the overall systems change that needs to take place in order for these things to happen. 

But actually, if I were thinking back on some of the things that parents have said they see justice as being seen, heard and supported.

Jen Ang 

That’s quite that’s that’s quite affecting, justice is being seen, heard and supported? Yeah, yeah. I think that. I mean, it’s amazing to me how simple that sounds.

Satwat Rehman

And how hard it is! 

Jen Ang

And how right that is, yeah, if you said that to anyone in any circumstance, yes, that’s what I want for myself, but actually, that’s what I want for my child, that’s what I want for my parent. 

Satwat Rehman

Absolutely, yeah. 

Jen Ang

And then though the kind of better communication and broader thinking that we need for that to be true, with what you’ve just outlined – which is all the different interconnection systems with their own individual concerns is, is pretty revolutionary, actually, it’s transformative vision. But I love that actually, yeah, yeah. Thank you for that. 

Satwat Rehman

Oh, thank you. 

Jen Ang

Okay, so I’m gonna go to our final question, which is just, it’s almost, it’s, it’s almost one for me, because I always get the best advice here, but it’s this. 

So there will be people listening to this series of podcasts who are interested in becoming activists or just having passing interest in how, on how activists step into and do what they do. They’ll be looking at what you’ve accomplished today, all the many things, and we only had time to speak about one element of the many different pieces of work that you do. And they’ll be thinking about, you know, how they could one day maybe be you?

So the question is, what’s your advice to a younger version of you, or someone who might wonder, how to get to where you are today?

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. Yeah, 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.

Jen Ang

Those are beautiful and wise words. And I mean, I have to say, first of all, knowing you as you are now, I can’t imagine you as someone who ever doubted yourself, because

Satwat Rehman

Can I just say one thing, there’s not a meeting I don’t go into without suffering from imposter syndrome, still. 

Jen Ang

Really, that’s …Well, thank you for sharing. That is a humble but also, yeah, very surprising thing, because I think many people admire you for saying what you think – at least that doesn’t get in the way of you doing that. And maybe, actually, maybe that’s a lesson: you can feel your feelings, but actually, when you get in there, being able to actually share what needs to be said is super important. 

And the other thing that I think is going to be resonant for lots of people, but we need to be reminded, is what you said about life is not just about, you know, work and activism is also important to know it’s not just struggle absolutely for something. I think many people I know who are really interested in changing the world sometimes find it hard to stop. You know, slow down, and do that.

Satwat Rehman

I was, was it 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 Abdalla, 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

And that’s a wrap.  Thank you, our lovely listeners, for joining us for another episode of the Lawmanity Podcast!

If you wanted to learn more about the some of the campaigns that Satwat has mentioned, we’ll put those in the show notes. 

And for those of you legal beagles out there, we’ll also add some links to the CPAG challenges and the political change they inspired.   

Feeling inspired to take action?  Get involved locally by supporting anti-poverty initiatives and programmes that offer support to families struggling with the cost of living and the care crisis, like food banks, befriending and buddying programmes and after-school wraparound activities for kids. Get involved nationally by joining campaigns that will hold Scottish politicians to account, in ensuring they live up to the promise of our groundbreaking legislation like the Child Poverty Act, the Fairer Scotland Duty, and so on.

Our next episode is we will be joined by my colleague and friend, human rights lawyer and legend, Fiona McPhail. Fiona McPhail is a lecturer in social justice law at the University of Glasgow, School of Law, and former principal solicitor of Shelter Housing Legal Service at Shelter Scotland. We’ll be speaking to her about her work in 2019 as a leading member of the legal team that challenged the asylum-seeker law change evictions driven by private contractor to the Home Office, SERCO in the Scottish Court of Session.

If you loved today’s episode, please do hit the like and subscribe buttons, and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might also 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.   

The Lawmanity podcast is co-produced by me, your host Jen Ang, and by the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. Shout out to Halina Rifai for mentoring us through our first year of this incredible project, and thanks also Amanda Amaeshi on 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!

Additional resources for this episode are linked below:

• One Parent Families Scotland: https://opfs.org.uk
• End Child Poverty Campaign: https://endchildpoverty.org.uk
• Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG): Abolition of two-child limit a gamechanger for millions of children: https://cpag.org.uk/news/abolition-two-child-limit-gamechanger-millions-children#:~:text=The%20two%2Dchild%20limit%20when,policy%20is%20abolished%20from%20today
• Trussell Trust – Find a Food Bank: https://www.trussell.org.uk/emergency-food/get-a-food-voucher

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Louise Whitfield

I think there is so much more to be done with and, for disabled people to secure justice for them, it’s almost impossible to know where to start.

Jen Ang

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

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

This week we have three fabulous guests lined up for a special edition on disability rights. Get ready for a fearless and frank conversation about the state of disabled people’s rights in the UK, the role of strategic litigation in pressing for change and what more needs to be done for rights on paper to be realised in the lives of, of disabled people. 

Today we’ll start in Scotland, where we’ll be hearing from Heather Fiskin, Chief Executive of Inclusion Scotland since 2024, and from Tressa Burke one of Glasgow Disability Alliance’s founder members and Chief Executive since 2006.

Then we’ll head down to London to speak to Louise Whitfield, human rights lawyer and head of legal at the award winning civil rights NGO Liberty.

So let’s get started. First we’ll meet Heather. She began her career in the UK civil service, during which time she lost her hearing and joined ranks of profoundly deaf people. Now, Heather confessed when we recorded this interview:

Heather Fiskin

I never listened to a podcast in my life before because they tend not to be accessible. So I’ve kind of jumped the gun by being involved in one as a deaf person!

Jen Ang

Well, she smashed it, in my opinion. But you be the judge. After leaving the civil service, Heather moved to the newly formed Disability Rights Commission in 2000 and then went on to lead the Independent Living in Scotland project, first at the Equality and Human Rights Commission where it was hosted, and later at Inclusion Scotland, a Disabled People’s Organisation and a national network of Scottish DPOs. She became Chief Exec of Inclusion Scotland in 2024.

A mum of a teenager and human for a friendly and barky dog, her life revolves around responding to Mum, can I have Mum, where’s my. And hey, human, take me for a walk.

Heather, that was a beautiful introduction and it’s so nice to see you here today.

Heather Fiskin

Thank you, thank you, thank you for having me.

Jen Ang

So listen, in this podcast I have been experimenting with an opening question to get us settled and to help people learn a little more about the people behind the legends we’re interviewing. A good friend pointed out 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 about a smell that is meaningful to you, Maybe a smell that you really like, or one that is connected to a time or place that you like to bring to mind.

Heather Fiskin

My mum, my gran were both brilliant cooks, lovely cooks. So I suppose if I had to pick one smell that’s really evocative. It’s Tuesday night and it’s pouring with rain in the middle of winter and Gran is visiting and she has made her mince and potatoes and apple tart, which is what you always made. And she was brilliant at apple tart. So, yeah, and it just makes you feel all safe and comfortable and young and full of hope again. And there is nothing better than your granny’s mince and potatoes. And I’m quite sure quite a lot of Scottish people watching this will go, yeah, mincing potatoes.

Jen Ang

Thank you so much, Heather. When you describe that I can almost smell that. I almost feel like I’m at your table. and I think many people, people have deep memories from their childhood about food they loved.

And now let’s bring Tressa Burke onto the podcast. Tressa, as I mentioned earlier, is Chief Executive of Glasgow Disability alliance, steering it from its fledgling vision of supporting disabled people’s voices and tackling social isolation in 2001 to the multi award winning community of more than 6,000 people. It is today in 2026. Welcome to the show today, Tressa.

Tressa Burke

Thanks so much. Thanks for having me.

Jen Ang

I asked Tressa to share with us, her memory of a favourite smell.

Tressa Burke

That’s an interesting question. I suppose thinking about something that takes me back is smell of my nana’s perfume. She used to wear Coty L’Aimant It was in a wee black bottle with a wee stick that you used to use to apply it. And it just takes me back thinking about that. I can smell it actually, as I’m saying the words.

Jen Ang

Oh, amazing, I love that. And finally, let’s welcome Louise Whitfield, Head of Legal at the NGO Liberty in London, joining us to talk about one of many groundbreaking cases she was involved in with DPO Inclusion London, a sister organisation to Heather’s Inclusion Scotland, where together they worked to challenge the closure of the Independent Living Fund and prevent a massive loss of services and support to disabled people across London.

I asked Louise to share a smell with our listeners that she finds important.

Louise Whitfield

I really love the smell of fresh mint and I like it because it is so refreshing and strong. And we have two different mint plants in our garden at the moment, which we pick to make fresh mint tea. And it is just such a great sensation to be able to smell it.

Jen Ang

Oh, I love that. It’s really transporting, actually, as you say that I can imagine your garden kind of the hot summer sun, which we do have a little bit of today as we’re recording. And, I also have mint in my garden and I’m actually thinking, yes, I must actually make more use of that. So thank you for sharing that, Louise.

So now we’re going to head straight into the tough questions. My first question for Heather and Tressa was, do you feel the law works equally for disabled people in Scotland today? And why or why not?

Heather Fiskin

I think the short answer is no, unfortunately, it should. It absolutely should. But now, and, I think the evidence spells that, we still have massive employment gap, disabled people are not getting jobs they applied for. We still have discrimination in every walk of life.

So the short answer is no, whether you’re looking at the statute or whether you’re looking at the system and the process. So, unfortunately not. I think also another example alongside employment, one that people maybe don’t think about unless it’s their area of expertise, is contract law. So where you have these big public contracts going on, and I know nothing about contract law. I mean, incredibly complicated, you know, that buildings, you know, big cityscapes are being built.

But where are disabled people in this? Even in the 21st century, when we have all these standards of what should be being produced and what should be being created for people to live and work in, they’re just not accessible.

And that goes on to the management of the building as well, and the way it’s maintained and operated on a daily basis. When you start getting, you know, the staff put the handbags and the rucksacks in the wheelchair accessible toilet, so what’s the point of having one? Or the cleaner ties up the rope.

But I would urge anybody listening to this if you do use an accessible toilet, because that’s the only option, or you’re with somebody who requires to use it and you see that emergency rope tied up, please untie it and get it back to the floor, because that’s what it’s meant to be.

So know, the statute is there. We do have a reasonably good statute, but it doesn’t operate in practise for all kinds of reasons.

Jen Ang

Heather refers to the statute here, by which she means the Equality Act 2010. The Equality act is a consolidating piece of legislation that was intended to modernise anti discrimination law across the uk.

This law was previously codified in many different acts, including the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, plus others which prohibited discrimination on grounds of religious belief, sexual orientation and age. Now, the Equality Act created a single framework that prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of certain protected characteristics such as age, disability, sex and gender, race and religion, and so on, but only in England, Wales and Scotland.

Equalities legislation in Northern Ireland is governed by separate legislation specific to Northern Ireland, as well as an overarching duty on public authorities there, which is set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Returning to Tressa, similar to Heather, she draws out the gaps between what the law provides and disabled people’s experiences of discrimination. In answering this question.

Tressa Burke

So complicated. It absolutely should, but it appears not to be the case from all the evidence that I’ve seen over my more than 30 year working life working with disabled people and for disabled people. So we have a raft of pieces of legislation.

So my background is I’m a social worker to trade. So I’m not just talking about the, you know, the Human Rights Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Equality Act. I’m also talking about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act, the Direct Payments Act, the Self Directed Support Act.

So there is a raft of legislation that tells disabled people that they should have rights across a whole range of areas. Some of them are about social care to enable independent living, some of them are about education and employment and provision of goods and services.

Yeah, I would confidently say that disabled people do not have those rights observed or realised across most of those areas. I don’t think there is any area where I could say that I think disabled people fully have the rights.

So, I mean, it’s a long answer, but I don’t think that the law is working for disabled people, for diverse disabled people who are not only people with conditions and impairments, but who are also black and minority, ethnic or people of colour. They are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer. They are women, they are older people and younger people. So the law is not working for disabled people, but also very marginalised disabled people within that.

Jen Ang

So for you, as an activist and someone who has been working in this field for a long time, do you feel that in your work the law is a barrier or a tool or both in the struggle to achieve greater equality for people in communities that are marginalised and disadvantaged.

Heather Fiskin

It shouldn’t be a barrier, it should be a tool. It should be something that we can use and, readily use it. But it’s not easy to do that.

There’s all kinds of reasons why disabled people don’t use the law. And as individuals, disabled people and their families are up against a huge weight of officials involved in the law. Which piece of discrimination do you activate here? Which piece of discrimination are you challenging here?

Because from when you wake up in the morning until when you go to bed, and everything you do in between, whether that’s employment, learning, being a family member, trying to access services, socialise, use transport, use general services like shops etc. There’s discrimination in all of that. Which bit do you challenge? It’s exhausting.

What’s more, it’s not level playing field in terms of how exhausted you are. Because I had one ex colleague and I remember her telling me that she had something like 24 different professionals involved in her life. She had a filing cabinet in her hall for all of these different types of professionals involved in her life.

Another example is if you need an adapted car and assuming you get Motability through benefits and support for that, you must use Motability’s insurance. It’s incredibly expensive. You want to get it repaired, you have to go to a Motability garage. And again, incredibly expensive. Which bit of discrimination are we talking about?

And then we’ve got the really serious stuff, like people being refused health care, people who don’t have their social care needs met. You have people who. Or young people who have an educational needs assessment. Assuming you can get that in the first place and the needs aren’t being provided for, which one are we going for here?

And then, of course, where do you find the lawyer? Where do you find the lawyer who can and understands and has the competence and the willingness to take on your case? Where do you find the legal aid to do it if you’re not on the passport benefits for it? Where do you find the capacity and the time and the energy?

And one of the other things, perhaps the biggest thing really, or one of them is the fear, the fear of losing social care support if you try to challenge that.

Now, of course, there are complaint systems and things that come. You don’t jump straight into the legal process. Start with the local complaint systems and you work your way through the different bodies that you have to go to. But that’s exhausting. And DPOs would want to support this and agencies, advocacy agencies, and advisors would want to support that. But these agencies aren’t always accessible because they’re not disabled people’s organisations. They can’t always provide all the support.

I do remember somebody years ago, to be fair, who pulled out of working with a lawyer because the lawyer said, it takes me an extra hour, to speak to you because of your impairments, therefore I’m going to charge you double. And I was thinking that’s a reasonable adjustment. Shouldn’t you as a lawyer understand the concept of reasonable adjustment in the Equality Act? So it was very strange.

But go back to the fear thing. I remember going to an event in, a town up north and we m were being told by the parent of a disabled child about how their child had been excluded from the school trip because there was no wheelchair accessible bus. So they stayed at school in the library while everybody else went for a fun day out. And the mother tried to complain about this, but the problem was that in such a small rural place, and I think it’s important to remember what it can be like living in a rural place. The headmistress lived in the same street and, she didn’t feel she could take serious action, whether that be legal or complaints processes, knowing that this person was her neighbour.

Jen Ang

Some sobering reminders from Heather there about the multiple barriers that disabled people can face in seeking justice.

Tressa agreed that the law can be both a tool and a barrier.

Tressa Burke

Again, I think that’s another brilliant question. So I think it’s both. so, for example, I mean, it’s, you know, the Disability Discrimination Act wasn’t the act that we thought we were going to get in 1995, but it was a result of campaigning of disabled people and our movement rising up. And I was at the very beginnings of my working life at that point and so I was kind of just watching and learning on the sidelines. Similarly, if you look at the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People, that was a pretty much international movement of disabled people, the kind of final piece of human rights so far at that point, because disabled people had just not been getting their rights through all of these pieces of social work legislation, health and social care legislation, or even the Disability Discrimination Act, at, that time. And so we had the UNCRPD, which I think was ratified in 2009 with the exclusion of education actually across the UK at that point.

But there have been moves and campaigns from disabled people and our movement, which tends to be led by disabled people led organisations, and that’s really Important because disabled people are so marginalised and so oppressed and without capacity or agency that you do needed the organisations of disabled people, led by disabled people to be able to support them, to be able to rise up and make demands and learn about their rights and then ask for those rights to be realised.

It should be a, tool, but it can be more of a barrier.

And what we find, for example, what I mean by that is if you look at situations of social care where somebody maybe threatens judicial review, the next thing the case is settled and so we don’t have case law established and you know, on a case by case basis that seems to be how local authorities resolve things where they think they might lose. So where it could be a tool, I mean it is a tool for that person, the threat of it is helping that individual, but it’s not changing the systemic inequalities or barriers that people are facing.

So I think it’s both. It’s both a barrier and a tool. A barrier because people can’t afford to access legal justice. They can’t afford, not just in financial terms and I would argue that is the biggest barrier, but actually in terms of capacity, emotional energy. You know being disabled and relying on services is a battle, your life is a battle and people don’t always have the energy for what’s required. But I would suggest from evidence and from working with thousands of people, they mainly don’t have the money. So it is both.

Jen Ang 

So what needs to be done basically to address that rightly put criticism?

Tressa Burke

I mean the obvious thing to me, so I wouldn’t know all the answers to this, but it seems to me that if people had better access to legal aid, I think that would really, really help. But I think there needs to be more interest and you know, almost promotion of people’s rights.

So that would come from our own movement from DPOs that we tell people about their rights, but there then needs to be the joining up with the lawyers who can help us access those rights and claim them and you know, rightfully challenge where inequalities arise, another barrier. So I’m not 100% sure of where this is at now, but certainly with the DP it always had to be individuals bringing the challenge rather than groups of people or organisations. And that was very off putting.

So there was a, very good example many years ago. I’m trying to think exactly when this would have been. It would have been I think the 2000s and we’d booked the city chambers for a conference for Glasgow Disability Alliance members, and they cancelled the booking and we met with them to debrief about it. and my colleague asked if she could record the meeting because she wasn’t able to take notes because of her impairment, and they foolishly agreed. And, you know, we have them on tape and we didn’t do anything with this, but we did have them on tape saying that the reason they’d cancelled the booking was because disability was in the title and essentially it was a blanket discrimination against the fact that it was Glasgow Disability Alliance. And what they were saying was. So they weren’t wholly wrong, what they were saying was that the City Chambers was not accessible in Glasgow to disabled people in terms of fire escape.

But however, on the same week that we were having that, they were hosting a party for the Older People’s Forum, or whatever it was, many of whom were disabled. So there was that juxtaposition at that time.

We took that to the Disability Rights Commission for a bit of advice, just to see where we stood. And they said, hands down, you will win that. And we said, what we win? And they said, you win maybe a couple of thousand pounds. So this is going right back, we’re going back in time to the early 2000s, what we decided to do, because we were at that point, this was before we had proper funding, we were all working in other places and we were a, loose committee becoming a board, I think, at that time.

And we decided instead to work with the council to try and help them make the chambers more accessible. And we actually thought that was better for disabled people than us. Having two grand towards GDA may have been helpful, but we wanted to change things rather than to just win the case. And we didn’t really fully understand that might have helped change things if we had won the case. But I think that was a barrier.

So, like, one of the things was that it would have had to be taken in one person’s name. So there’s things like that that can just create barriers where it exposes people, it makes them vulnerable, certainly when you’re talking about social care.

So, I raise this issue repeatedly because it’s such an important part of disabled people’s lives. We are definitely disproportionately dependent on services, health and social care and wider services, which means that people are very frightened about rocking the boat. So where they don’t feel that they’re getting their needs met, where they’re maybe being discriminated against, maybe feeling brutalised by the system, maybe feel that they’ve been treated badly by a social worker. They’re very frightened and reluctant to complain or to claim those rights, partly because they don’t have any evidence of people doing well in that kind of, complaint system, and partly just they’re frightened that it’s going to result in worse treatment and worse cuts.

So I think the law and the legal system has a role to play there about widening access to legal, advice and legal justice. But also disabled people feeling confident that if they do bring the challenge, it can actually go somewhere. One thing that my members, my very active members say regularly to me is they have to work hard on not giving up, because we tell them all the time about all the different treaties and conventions, about ICSECR, about the UNCRPD, the Human Rights Act, all the different pieces of legislation, and yet they still don’t have the rights.

And they are saying, quite rightly, what is the point of us having these rights if we can never have them realised or challenge them in any meaningful way? You know, I always think that justice is so obvious, that it should all be about social justice, but of course, legal justice isn’t about that, at all.

And it is varying degrees of how committed people are to social justice, but it’s a lot about the process rather than the morality of what is right or wrong. And I think disabled people get confused in that as well. They don’t understand why the law is not more on their side. So I think it must be a really complicated thing from the perspective of lawyers as well, and people in the justice system.

I think the other thing I hear is that the judiciary seem to not want to go too far to wade in a matters that are going to be a cost to the public purse. So we’ve seen really unhelpful cases where it’s been upheld that, it’s fine for a disabled person to sit in their own waist because it’s cheaper for the local authority to suggest a supercontinence pad than it is for them to have a social care worker, even where the person isn’t incontinent. And I know things have been contested and, you know, things have gone back and forward, but that kind of reluctance of the judiciary to get involved in what they may be considered to be political issues or issues for local authorities, for the public purse, that is not helpful, because where the law starts and stops, we are not really very clear about. As, disabled people.

Jen Ang

Tressa has pointed out  gaps in accessing justice arise not only where people lack financial and emotional resources to be litigants, but also where the justice system is designed to deliver narrow outcomes for individuals, but does not provide procedural routes to justice that would create such systemic change.

Heather adds to this picture, reminding us that the workings of law and justice need to be visible for people to want to engage their rights.

Heather Fiskin

And, sometimes I feel that case law is invisible. I think disabled people in the community would take much more strength in, considering taking action legally if they could see more case law, if they could hear from more people who have gone through the process. And I do completely understand why people don’t want to do that. They must be shattered by the end of it and they just want to get on with the last. I know that employment tribunals probably have quite a high caseload of discrimination cases in relation to disability, and that’s not the be all and end all. You know, there are other elements like social care, education, access to services, etc. And I think that we need more of the good ones and we need more visibility of the case law aim, and what that can do.

Jen Ang

Heather and Tressa have both spoken about the value of strategic litigation and also making visible the process of using the law and the courts to affect change as an important tool for campaigners working towards disability justice.

This feels like a good time to bring Louise Whitfield back into the conversation in order to pick up my conversation with her about the use of strategic litigation from a lawyer’s perspective.

We’re here today to help listeners understand how you and colleagues use strategic litigation to challenge the closure of the Independent Living Fund and to hear a little more about your role in leading that litigation in coordination with a wider campaign and your reflections over 10 years on, I think, from that series of significant legal challenges. So, to start with, can you please explain to us just how you got started with the campaign and what it was about?

Louise Whitfield

Thanks, Jen. I’m going to give you a little bit more background than you’ve actually asked for because I think it’s really important to understand how I came to the case and who else was involved with it. But it really dates back to, going out to lunch about 15 years ago with a brilliant disabled activist called Kevin Caulfield, who persuaded me to help him set up a legal network for deaf and disabled people’s organisations. He felt that there was a real disconnect between, between lawyers who were representing disabled people in the cases they ran for them and disabled people themselves.

And, once we got the network going, we ran a number of meetings looking at issues that were really relevant for disabled people and what the legal solutions might be. They were very well attended by disabled people and by lawyers, although that was quite a long time ago now. And I think that the network struggled during the lockdowns of the pandemic and that Kevin is keen to get the network going again.

But I think it was key to getting the case off the ground, as was the involvement of Inclusion London in the network and the case overall. And it was because we were having those network meetings that it was raised with me and a couple of other solicitors, that this was massive for disabled people, the closure of the Independent Living Fund, because it was so crucial to their ability to live independently, as the name suggests. And it seemed absolutely essential, obvious that we should look at whether a legal challenge would actually be possible.

Jen Ang

What were some of the challenges that you faced in running the legal case and coordinating with the campaign? Were there tricky moments?

Louise Whitfield

I think one of the key challenges in that case, and a lot of the cases I’ve done like this, are bringing everyone with you when you’ve got thousands of people directly affected. And me and the other two solicitors had, I think, six clients between us, all with different perspectives and different experiences and different opinions about what we should be saying in court and how we should be running the cases.

So that was one of the trickier moments. But I think it wasn’t as tricky as a lot of cases I’ve done, because everybody had the same fundamental goal in sight. And I felt that the claimants and the lawyers were really well supported by Inclusion London and that it was really crucial having a deaf and disabled people’s organisation involved in the litigation and really understanding the litigation and helping to steer us through any tricky moments.

Jen Ang

And just to make sure that our listeners understand what exactly was the change that you were seeking and that you managed to secure, through your litigation? And also in working with the campaign?

Louise Whitfield

It’s quite a complicated story, actually, in terms of what we tried to achieve and. And how we didn’t actually get there. But what we were hoping to do was to stop the government closing the Independent Living Fund, which was crucial additional funding for severely disabled people above and beyond what they were entitled to from their local authorities. So it made a massive difference to thousands of people’s lives in terms of their ability to live independently, and we were trying to stop the government closing it.

What made the case particularly complicated was that the way the decision was taken and the success of the challenge meant that the government could simply take the decision again and decide lawfully to close the fund anyway. So we had one of those sort of, not quite a pyrrhic victory, but it was a victory that only gave a bit of respite for a short period of time. And although we brought a second challenge, that was unsuccessful in challenging the second decision to close the Independent Living Fund. So it did still close, but we bought a bit of time for people. There were some sort of related wins, some good impacts that I’m happy to share, if that would be useful, that weren’t about a, legal change and weren’t about winning the case.

But what was particularly interesting, and it loops back round to Inclusion London’s involvement as well, it is that a couple of years after the case, I was at a roundtable run by some legal researchers looking at strategic litigation. And I was there, along with people doing the similar kind of work to me and another really brilliant disabled activist called Svetlana Kotova from Inclusion London. And when I was talking about the ILF case and I said, well, we won in the Court of Appeal, but then we lost the second JR, so it didn’t make any difference. She actually disagreed.

She felt the case had made a huge difference for a number of reasons. One was that we got the court to agree with us that the government hadn’t listened to disabled people properly, that they hadn’t looked at the really significant impact on disabled people. And that was a massive achievement in itself. And I think that it also, Svetlana felt strongly that we got a level of publicity that had never really been experienced by disabled people before. We were on the 10 o’ clock news on the BBC that night, which had never really happened.

And I think it was felt that those things happening in that context, although they fell a long way short of what we were actually trying to achieve in terms of keeping the fund open, it definitely brought things to the fore and we got real engagement from the court. And I’ve actually got a quote from one of the judges, if that’s helpful, because I think this really encapsulated how we were able to persuade the court that something had gone really wrong.

And Lord Justice Elias said, in my opinion, neither the Equality Impact assessment nor the document setting out in response to the consultations, both published on the same day as the decision was made, identifies in sufficiently unambiguous, terms the inevitable and considerable adverse effect which the closure of the fund will have, particularly on those who will, as a consequence, lose the ability to live independently.

And that felt, like a very strong vindication of the claimants. Everybody who’d been campaigning on the issue. And exactly what the government had missed, what was awful about the follow up decision where the government decided to close the Independent Living Fund anyway and we lost the second JR was that the government didn’t care that that was what was going to happen.

And we had done our best and we tried really hard and obviously the wider campaign tried really hard. But when I was rereading the judgments, I was really struck by the fact that the judge in the second Judicial Review did not mention any of the claimants by name at all. So there was almost a sort of, I felt, quite stark contrast between the level of engagement of the judges in the first Judicial Review at the Court of Appeals stage and that judge in the second one. And that’s all disabled people want is to be heard and understood and, their opinions to be valued. And that was what the government had got wrong here.

Jen Ang

Gosh, as you describe it, that is such a roller coaster of developments, if you like, through the history of this case. But something that you raised just struck me as, very true to my own experience. And it’s this point that sometimes as a lawyer or in technical terms you can see it that you’ve lost the case or you’ve lost the outcome that you were looking to achieve.

But in many ways, supporting people in communities to sort of to seek a hearing or to seek justice or to raise an issue in the public discourse is a kind of success. As you say, Svetlana has pointed out, it’s a kind of win. I wonder, again, thinking about this, if we were now over 10 years on to see a set of challenges like this again today. And I actually, unfortunately, it’s not entirely hypothetical. Right. Because I certainly know that here in Scotland, I have, recently have been consulted on similar threats to funding for disabled people to lead dignified lives. Would you run this the same as you did? And do you think the outcome would be the same or different? And there are two kind of very different questions. I know, but just 10 years on, you know, what are your reflections about a case like this coming up again?

Louise Whitfield

I think those are really interesting questions that I’ve given quite a bit of thought to because I think one of the issues in the case was the fact that we were challenging the closure of the fund to current recipients. It had already been closed to new applicants like the previous year, and nobody had challenged that decision. And that made the case more difficult presentationally. And a lot of the government’s defence was we’re just trying to make this fair for everybody. And that caused us problems within the case.

If I had my time again, I would go back and challenge that first decision that closed the fund to new applicants, because that was such a fundamental decision. And I think if, you know, if the legal network had been up and running at that point, maybe we would have caught that in time.

But I still think it’s such a shame and it’s so disappointing in so many ways that a legal challenge wasn’t brought in relation to that first decision to close the fund to new applicants.

I think the second thing about what, what I would do differently or what arguments I would run is I think I would actually run, you know, convention rights arguments. I would say this has to be a breach of Article 8, this has to be a breach of Article 14 here.

Jen Ang

In thinking about how she might bring this case today, 10 years on, Louise is speaking about including arguments raising a potential breach of human rights under articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Human rights or the ECHR. Article 8 of the ECHR guarantees our right to a private and family life and Article 14 is the prohibition against the discrimination in the enjoyment of any of the rights guaranteed in the ECHR.

Taken together, a human rights based argument would make the case the government’s decision was an unlawfully disproportionately discriminatory one in preventing disabled people from enjoying a private and family life of, of the same quality as people who are not disabled. 

Louise continues, explaining the value of making bold arguments.

Louise Whitfield 

And I think that although it’s very difficult to also run private law equality arguments, saying this treats disabled people less favourably than non disabled people, I think there is something about the way we litigate these cases where we are not bold enough to say to the court, you are creating a situation where a significant number of people will not be able to live independently that cannot be lawful. Would be. I mean, that’s a pretty bold submission. But you get the point that challenges around things like the equality duty or the failure to consult is just about the process. Whereas I think I would want to try a quite challenging legal case that basically said you cannot take this level of support away from people. That’s a breach of human rights.

Jen Ang

I love that and I’d love to see you bring a challenge like that. What more needs to be done to secure justice for the people you fought for here? do you think justice has been done?

Louise Whitfield

I think there is so much more to be done with and for disabled people to secure justice for them, it’s almost impossible to know where to start. You know, the right to independent living being a reality would be a good starting point, you know, to actually acknowledge that lots of disabled people can’t live independently and they should have a right to do so. I think the Government’s new welfare, bill just fills me with despair in terms of the impact on disabled people. And again, kind of carve outs that protect in inverted commas current recipients of benefits, but leave out in the cold people who might make claims in the future. I think it is. I just cannot, I cannot see how that is fair or just in any way. and there’s a range of issues that make it so clear that disabled people don’t have equality in the uk.

Jen Ang

With that reflection from Louise, let’s return now to Heather and Tressa. I asked them both, if disabled people are still a long way from achieving equality in the uk, what does justice look like for you?

Heather Fiskin

Well, I suppose that goes to justice achieved justice in practise. When it’s happening, we wouldn’t have a need for justice because there would be no injustice. So I’m not a lawyer, so that’s the kind of thing I will say.

So justice would look like the progressive and the forward fronting legislation, like, do not, you know, you must make reasonable adjustments, you must do your public sector equality duty and progressively work towards equality. All these things would be happening. There wouldn’t be a case of public authorities going, oh, I have to do this report. And I wrote this down to say this. And I will say, I always remember when I was working in the Disability Rights Commission, when the first disability quality duty reports came out from local authorities, we could actually see where they had cut and pasted off each other. No thought had been put into it whatsoever. It would be funny if it wasn’t so bad.

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

Tressa Burke

Tressa agrees, adding, 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, 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. These are the types of, of, you know, breaches to human rights that we’re talking about.

United Nations declared disabled people’s lives a human catastrophe in 2017 on the back of what had happened after the financial collapse and then austerity imposed by the government at that time and the reverberations to the settlements to the local devolved administrations and in turn their local authorities. So it was about benefits, but it was also about cuts to services.

In 2024, they reviewed the situation and there had been regressions. Rather than things getting better, there had been regressions. They saw no advancement of rights, they saw nothing but regressions. And further, UN ambassadors and commentators have said that there should be more money invested in social care, there should be more money invested into Social Security.

So local authorities are, ah, 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 the 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

And finally, I asked all three of our guests to share some advice for our listeners. Advice that perhaps they would give to themselves as a young activist or lawyer or to someone who wants to be them when they grow up.

Louise Whitfield

That’s such an interesting question. I would say if you’re a lawyer, find an area you really care about and listen to your clients. I think that what often goes wrong is people are practising in areas sometimes for the wrong reasons, sometimes it’s not something that really, they are really, really committed to. And I think I definitely felt a degree of, increased commitment when I was representing disabled people because I felt the situation was so unjust. I was so compelled to try to assist them.

But I learned so much from my disabled clients. I think it was really interesting that it gave me genuine insights into their lives that I would have had no experience of in any other setting. And it made me acutely aware of things like how do you set up joint in person meetings for a legal network when your own office is not fully accessible, then what do you do? And how you have to push and push and push on all those issues across the board to be able to represent people properly.

So I think, it’s a combination of finding an area of law that’s really important to you personally, but also really listening to your clients and the people directly affected.

Jen Ang

Heather had this to say:

Heather Fiskin

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 Tressa agrees. Also leaning into the power of collectivising allyship and peer support.

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. And, 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 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

And that’s a wrap! Thank you our lovely listeners for joining us for another episode of the Lawmanity Podcast. 

If you wanted to learn more about some of the campaigns that Heather Tressa and Louise have mentioned, will put those in the show notes. And for those of you legal beagles out there, we’ll also add some details about the legal challenge I discussed with Louise, as well as some ways in which you can take action to support current campaigns for disability justice. 

Next week, join us for a one to one interview with Satwat Rehman, Chief Executive of One Parent Family Scotland or OPFS, We speak to her about the challenges of using the law to secure justice for families in poverty in including single parents, as well as the importance of movements rooted in community and how solutions may require lawyers and communities to work together for change. If you love today’s episode, please do hit the like and subscribe buttons and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might also 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. 

The Lawmanity podcast is co produced by me, your host Jen Ang and the brilliant and talented Natalia Uribe. Shout out to Halina Rafai for mentoring us through our first year of this incredible project and thanks also to Amanda Ameshi on 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 stay. See you next time.

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Dr Pinar Aksu

“The first immigration law we had in the UK was the 1905 Alien Act. And then when you compare that to the current immigration laws we have under language, when you look at the language of the way it’s been described within legislations, but also within the title of the law is Bell, it makes you question, has anything changed since more than 100 years ago? “

Jen Ang

So hello and welcome to the Lawmanity podcast, where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways the 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 talking to Dr. Pinar. Aksu. Pinar is a researcher at the University of Glasgow, a theatre maker and an award-winning human rights campaigner. Her work sits at the powerful intersection of art, justice and activism. 

Pinar was previously advocacy coordinator at Maryhill Integration Network in Glasgow, working on projects for welcoming people seeking asylum and refuge in the community, which is where we first met together. We worked on migrant justice campaigns, including the Our Grades Not Visas campaign, which we discussed in an earlier podcast episode with Andy Sirel of JustRight Scotland, as well as advocacy around the Scottish Franchise Bill, which extended voting and candidacy rights in Scottish elections to people with indefinite and limited leave to remain widening pathways to political participation for migrants, the benefits of which we have finally seen in the most recent round of, Scottish parliamentary elections in 2026. 

Pinar’s doctoral research, Art and Law and Migration, draws together all these threads using art practises drawn from Theatre of the Oppressed methodology to produce Cycle of Migration, a play about access to justice and the immigration system, written and performed by people with living experience of that system.

I’m so, so pleased to have you here, Pinar. You’re one of my very favourite people and I think that that introduction describes the huge range of things that interest you, but also the many places where you contribute to social change in Scotland. So welcome to.

Dr. Pinar Aksu

Thank you.

Jen Ang

So, listen, I have a kind of opener question. In this podcast, I have been experimenting with a way to get us settled and also help people learn about the person behind the legends who we’re interviewing. So if you don’t mind, can you tell me about a smell that’s meaningful to you? Maybe one that you really like, or one that’s connected to a place or time that you like to bring to mind?

Dr. Pinar Aksu

Yeah, I was actually thinking about this, the other day and someone that previously asked me the same question. I really love the smell of marigolds, the flower of marigolds, because they come in, like, different sizes, shapes, but also they’re usually yellow, red, orange colour. I just love the flower, the smell of it. and that’s because my gran used to have lots in her garden and it reminds me of my childhood. 

Well, I’m trying to grow it also in my balcony this year. I don’t think I’ve been successful, but previous years it’s. It’s been a success. Yeah, I just. The smell of marigold is so fresh and it just reminds me of my gran’s garden. It reminds me of my childhood with her. and sometimes, I would get her to send pictures or show her little garden and see how they’re growing. Yeah, it’s a task to grow in Scotland, but it does happen. Not, this year.

Jen Ang

Well, thank you for sharing that. And I’m totally transported. I actually. My mother also had a garden full of marigolds when I was little. And actually, when you say it, that I’m imagining I’m remembering the smell of, like a hot, dry summer, actually, I think. And it’s quite. It’s quite sweet and sort of dusty, you know, and. Yeah, that’s. That’s lovely. so thank you for sharing. I have never, tried to grow them here in Scotland, so wishing you luck.

Dr. Pinar Aksu

It is easy to grow. But what I did last year was after I tried to reuse the seeds, so I just, you know, plugged out and then put it in a little jar. I’ve done. I’ve been doing that for three, four years now, but. But this year, I don’t know what happened. Maybe they were too dry or, the soil wasn’t the right texture or it was just. Yeah, it was just not right. So this year it didn’t grow, which is sad, but other little flowers managed to come out, which is good.

Jen Ang

Well, onwards and good luck with next year. But thank you for. Thank you so much for sharing that. and so now I wanted to move kind of to. Actually, the key questions for today that I had for you. the first one is quite broad, but it’s this, we’re thinking about law and social change. I wonder if just now, if you feel the law is working equally for you or for your community, however you choose to define that, and why or why not.

Dr. Pinar Aksu

This is a question I’ve explored within my research in the PhD and it was something generated interesting dialogue about the role of law and how it is used and who it benefits. So within my work, I work in the migration sector, especially people who are seeking asylum and refuge. I think witnessing the changes of the immigration law has been really interesting in the last few years and also observing the pattern of the laws that was generated over the time. I mean the first immigration law we had in the UK was the 1905 Alien Act.

And then when you compare that to the current immigration laws we have under language, when you look at the language of the way it’s been described within the legislations, but also within the title of the law as well, it makes you question, has anything changed since more than 100, years ago? 

We still use similar divisive languages within the law when we are talking about movement, when we’re designing and defining what migration is. And I think that is very disappointing to see that nothing has really changed. What’s been interesting for me is since I’ve started my PhD, every single year there was a new law on immigration that has passed. So we had the Nationality, and Borders Act and then we had the Illegal Migration Act and then we had the Rwanda Act and now we have a new bill that’s being proposed in the Parliament as well. So that’s been very crucial for me to witness it and see how the law itself is developed and to see who it benefits. 

And I find that problematic because when you see a lot of the structural problems within migration, whether that is not having the right to work for people who are in the asylum process or whether that is using hotel accommodation in the communities, a lot of these policies are written within the law, which makes it possible for it to be implemented and enacted. So that makes me question, is the problem the law itself that we have, what would happen if we didn’t have these laws that said about criminalising people who are taking unsafe routes, so called illegal routes, if, yeah, we didn’t have these policies, what would happen? Would people still be treated differently? 

And I think that helps me to define how I see law and what, how law is seen by, by people. And that’s something we always talk about within the community as well. And it becomes quite depressive when you have to keep the momentum up. You have to be like, okay, let’s work on this project or let’s continue to challenge this policy. But then when the policy itself and the law itself becomes more violent over the years, that also demotivates people and asks the question of, well, nothing is changing. It’s been five years, six years, such as for the Right to Work campaign, we’re not seeing any changes, but we are seeing actually more hostility within the law that it gives. Yeah, it gives the, I would say, the gateway to be implemented and become more violent. I think that’s how I would view the law itself. And, obviously it sometimes benefits certain people. It doesn’t benefit other people who really need protection. Yeah, I think that’s. That’s how I would define it. 

I also find it fascinating the way the performative side of the law as well, and that’s something I’ve been looking into for my research about how the laws are designed, how legislations are designed, how they are being proposed, such as in House of Lords, House of Commons. And then you have this monarchy, and then you have this place where decisions are being made by a elite group of people who are, I think, truly disconnected from realities. And the performative side element of it, of the fact that it’s. It’s just, yeah, group of people making decisions for thousands and millions of people. And then that makes me question, is this what we want and is this how the law should be drafted? What about people’s voices? Can we have a structure where we reimagine how the law should be and how that should look like?

Jen Ang

So for you, then, where you stand now, with all your experience and your research, do you feel that the law can be a tool for social change? Or is it more a barrier for change in the areas that matter to you? So if we’re seeking equality, where do you sit? Or is there a little bit of both?

Dr. Pinar Aksu

Yeah, I think it’s a combination. And it depends who uses the law and how they use the law. It’s a combination because when we talk about migration, such as right now, the new, Borders Bill, that’s being gone through and being debated, that’s going to make things very difficult for a lot of people. And that is using the law and how can we challenge that is very difficult, I think, as activists or even people who are lawyers themselves or by the general public, because I think we have reached a certain, state or we have reached a moment in the UK that becomes very difficult to intervene and challenge. 

And the government is able to just pass policies just there and here, just like that. And that, for me, is concerning for democracy and is concerning for all of us. And everyone should be concerned. If, if a government is easily able to pass such a bill or being debated, never mind being enacted as a act yet or implemented, then it’s concerning what they will do in different areas of human rights for a lot of the people. That said, obviously there are lawyers out, there who uses the law to protect people and who uses the law to find different ways to uphold their human rights and find different mechanisms as well. and I think it’s a difficult one because they are challenging the law itself as lawyers, but then it’s the law that’s the problem. Yeah. 

And I find, I respect that needs to happen, but at the same time, yes, it’s very difficult when there’s a policy that’s been passed. How do you reverse that? How do you mobilise the whole community, the whole country basically, to say what you’ve written there is wrong and how do we change that? And I think, yeah, there’s a combination of how it could be challenged, but how it could be used positively as well.

Jen Ang

So you’re speaking about the role of lawyers and kind of this interesting bind, which is that lawyers may be using the law to challenge the law, but let’s be honest, it’s lawyers that wrote the law as well, and they’re challenging that law within a system. Are they friend or foe, allies or adversaries? What’s your view of the legal profession in the context of the work that you’re trying to do?

Dr. Pinar Aksu

I think especially for immigration lawyers at the moment, they experience great pressure regarding supporting their clients, as they call like clients. Whether that’s because there are funding cuts for legal aid, whether that’s because the regulations change so quickly that they must submit an evidence for someone’s asylum claim and they have one week to do this and they have so many clients and how do they do that? The fact that in different areas of the uk, obviously there’s different legal aid, implementations, and the impact on that is on lawyers is severe. 

And we see that, when we. When we work with people, or when you’re trying to, direct people to access justice, access lawyers, we can’t really say you should go with this lawyer, but we’re able to say, here are a list of lawyers or here’s at the website in Scotland for all immigration lawyers. You can go on, decide which lawyer is best suitable for you. But then we also know that there is a waiting time and there’s capacity issue as well, where law firms are at capacity of accepting new clients and that, becomes problematic. Then what happens to the person, they have to keep trying different lawyers, but at the same time they miss appointments from the home Office, then they get penalised and then they have the trust of Luck within the law and with the lawyers. 

I also witness people becoming really angry with lawyers. And we try to talk this out and I think that happens because somebody messages their lawyer, they don’t get a reply, maybe in a day or two. And then they start panicking, they get anxious and say, why am I not getting any response from the lawyer? Are, they just ignoring me? And then you try to explain, well, maybe they’re on holiday or they’re at a court or they’ve got, they’re dealing with other cases. So there is that miscommunication with the, with lawyer and clients as well and which can lead to distrust, between themselves as well. Again, no one is at ah, fault here. It’s the fact that there’s no capacity within the legal team, maybe within the lawyers and there are so much more clients and cases that needs to be, that needs to be addressed.

Jen Ang

At this point. In our interview, Pinar has set out quite clearly the consequences of year on year real money cuts in legal aid funding for immigration lawyers and the resultant collapse in the provider base of legal aid law firms. The situation is so bad in England and Wales that 57% of people who need a legal aid lawyer for an immigration matter and who are eligible and have a right to that lawyer are not able to find one. That means that more than half of the people who require help with immigration representation in England and Wales are not getting it and are forced to represent themselves in Scotland. Although the situation is not yet as severe, Pinar has clearly described a similar situation – people who are eligible for legal aid and have a right to a lawyer and who do need one, do not realistically have any expectation of being able to find one with the capacity and willingness to take on their case. 

Shifting to alternatives, Pinar then goes on to talk about a different approach to lawyering, which she encouraged and facilitated during her own time as a community organiser at the Maryhill Integration Network. This is known as community lawyering, a model of social justice lawyering where lawyers seek to decenter themselves from how they work with clients. Instead of seeing the lawyer as the centre or the focus of the work, a community lawyer will centre the communities facing injustice and try to find ways of working that generates ideas, goals and strategies that start with and are directed by the communities themselves. 

A community can mean a geographic community, such as the people of Maryhill or the people of Govan and Glasgow, but it can also mean a community of interest, defined as people drawn together and identifiable by having similar identities, experiences or facing similar challenges. Such as people seeking asylum or disabled people, or unpaid carers or neurodiverse people. Community lawyering can take many forms, but a starting place is for lawyers to actually physically leave their offices and go out into the community to listen, to learn, to educate and to be educated. 

In this next part of the interview, Pinar talks about working alongside Andy Sirel of JustRight Scotland as community organiser and community lawyer working together. She goes on to talk about how she met Ahmed Al Hindi and the very start of the Our Grades Not Visas campaign, which Andy also spoke about with us in an earlier episode of the Lawmanity podcast.

Dr. Pinar Aksu

We do work with lawyers, and especially immigration lawyers, and I have friends and colleagues who do fantastic work. I know you were talking about the colleagues at JustRight Scotland, especially with Andy, who we worked on the Campaign for Access to Education on Our Grades Not Visas, which I think was an amazing example of how a company could be successful when you work with the communities in a, compassionate. 

And I’m using more of a human rights approach within the community and I think that’s something I have been trying to work on, where people are informed about the changes within the law and people are able to see lawyers at a community setting. So it’s not just, oh, we go to the office, I have a legal appointment and that’s it. And this is something I’ve been able to do over the past few years within my role, where I think it’s important for the immigration lawyers to come to the community setting and to meet people and also to hear their stories and for them to explain. It depends on the topic. 

So, for example, we welcomed Andy and other lawyers as well. A friend of mine who’s, Abed, he came to our group a few times as well, where we invited them and asked them to talk about the recent changes. So when the Rwanda plan was. The offshoring of people seeking asylum to Rwanda was being discussed. So we invited Andy and, Abed as well, different times for them to talk about what this means, what does it look like? Who is it going to impact? And we did that by asking them to come to the community setting and to explain in a way that it’s more accessible for people. So it’s not just, oh, yeah, article one says this and then. Because that way people are just going to zone out and they’re not going to listen. So we wanted. I was. I made it very clear all the time, like, we need to make this more accessible, maybe even do some group activity. Let’s talk about, what do you think about the Rwanda plan? And I think that worked really well and that way we were able to create that connection and people felt more comfortable of, oh, okay, I don’t have to be too scared when I go to see my lawyer. Because they’re also human being who has capacity. They’ve got, you know, they also need holidays, they also need time off. 

They also deal with a lot of traumatic experiences as well. Ah, within their work. And I think bridging that gap was so important for everyone that we, when we worked on the, Our Grades campaign, obviously, as it was founded by, the young person Ahmed. And I think that was really clear way of showing how we can work together with people who are experiencing the issue, then strategizing what methods we can use and then working together in collaboration of whether that’s with the lawyers or within the media. And, that’s what happened with Our Grades Not Visas. 

When we first met, Ahmed actually was, my colleague. It was at the Parents Council evening and my colleague said, oh, there’s a young person who wants to do this company. He just needs some guidance. Can I connect you with him? And I was like, yeah, sure, I’m happy to chat with him. And then we went for a coffee at Glasgow Uni, actually. And he was a young person. You mean, like, oh, I want to do this, do this. And I was, okay, let’s, let’s plan it out. Actually, we have a campaign on access to education for asylum seekers, so maybe we could do it all together. And then taking it from there, of, okay, let’s see who your allies are. Let’s get you speaking of the media and then finding out then there’s a legal case that’s going on, but then it’s not just one story, then trying to find out combine that this is many stories, and how we can use these many stories and experiences in a way that it will positively change for the many people in the long term as well. And I think that method was worked out. And sometimes when you do campaigning, things just plan out. 

And I love when that happens because you could sit down and be like, okay, we’re going to use this approach. We’re going to go to this place and you can spend weeks and months, but sometimes there are opportunities. You just grab it and you say, okay, this will be good if I do it now. and you just have to keep in that opportunities and find a good time, good moment and good partner as well who gets to work or who, who’s also dedicated at a level that you are dedicated. And I think that, yeah, that example of community work and then lawyers coming in the other thing which I think was fascinating in that case. But generally as well, when we have, when we welcome lawyers into community level and they, they see the people as people not as, okay, your service users, client, but going to listen, let’s just have a chat. And I think that expectation for me is also important where I say to the group members, you know, this lawyer is coming to speak to you, but if they’re not going to solve your case, you, you can ask questions, you can listen, you can learn. I think that’s also important and also for people not to feel intimidated. Oh, there’s a big name coming or there’s that lawyer coming. So and that’s something I m, I just say to people. You ask whatever you want to ask. you know, there’s no wrong question, no wrong answer. So just feel free to ask anything you want to. If it makes the other person uncomfortable, oh well, you know, that’s the whole purpose. So that generates that difficult conversation and that critical conversation.

Jen Ang

I love that. And I think it actually, you know, some of the things that you spoke through highlights the importance of understanding the dynamics that people might bring to a conversation with a lawyer. But also all of the careful work around building a long term partnership and a campaign and the fact that it may, and in fact it did take years, it has taken years to achieve some amazing things in the Our Grades Not Visas campaign.

So moving on from what can lawyers do? I guess I want to ask a much broader question and very much a forward looking question which is what looks like justice to you for your community?

Dr. Pinar Aksu

It’s a difficult question I think and it depends again how we understand justice. It could mean that somebody is campaigning for something or somebody wants something and then how do we achieve that and what’s the most best outcome for people? 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 and 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, you know, fight for their rights and within society and live with long term difference that’s been created in communities. 

Yeah. I think just being treated as a 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. A lot of this time we talk about labels within migration, how everyone is given different labels, whether you’re asylum seeker, refugee, migrant, you know, client service user. There are so many different labels people are given throughout their journey of migration, whether that’s when they first arrive or after they get their refugee status as well. And you get given that labels within the law, but by society as well. And I think people just want to get rid of that and just live a normal life. Even when you’ve been in the country for so long, then you’re seen as different or you’re not from here. and you have to live with that label of facing daily racism or discrimination. And I think that’s tiring for people to continue to prove themselves who they are. Like they deserve to be here. And that’s. Yeah, for me, that’s just not just. And if people were treated equally, it will solve a lot of the problems we have, in society, I think.

Jen Ang

Thank you very much. You put that so simply. It’s also such a beautiful vision, actually. when you say it, I mean, I’m fully on board and I also appreciate, because of the reasons you’ve outlined, that there are many, many more steps to take before we achieve that equality for migrants in Scotland. But thank you for that.

So we’re on to our final, final question, which is this. So there will be some listeners out there today who are rightly blown away by the work that you’ve done and they may be thinking about a career or voluntary work in migration justice, or maybe learning more about your Active Inquiry work in Theatre of the Oppressed. And so the question is, what would you say to, your younger self, or someone who admires what you’ve accomplished today and maybe wants to be you? What would your advice be to someone who’s listening in that position?

Dr. Pinar Aksu

Yeah, So I should probably say, advice that is more positive, right? Because my advice would be, don’t do it. Have a peaceful life, I don’t know, go into farming, raise some chickens.

Jen Ang

I’ve been very clear with my children that they should probably not be lawyers.

Dr. Pinar Aksu

See?

Jen Ang

Exactly.

Dr. Pinar Aksu

It’s a difficult one because, it depends on your experience. I don’t think I just had a vision of, oh, should be in this sector of, whether to start as a Campaigner and then to be embedded in so much of the kind of community work and the policy work of the, of the area. 

But generally people, you know, if people do want to be involved in the migration sector they, they should be involved with a vision of bringing compassion and care and I guess the justice side of element of the work as well. and where the get, they are involved in a sense to remember that why it’s important to have welcoming communities, why it’s important that we should stand up for what is not right. 

So whether that’s the the racist immigration policies that’s being imposed, imposed on people or whether that’s the hostility that we experience in the communities and I think people should be reminded of okay, this is what we should do, we should be standing up for these these inequalities. And that’s what happened in Scotland, you know, when, in 2021, in May, when the people of Glasgow came out at Kenmure street and said these are our neighbours, they belong in the community. At the same time, we had in 2020 the Park Inn incident when somebody lost their life at the hotel accommodation.

And sometimes there are victories where the community wins when they come together and they challenge the hostile environment, the policies and the hostility. But then we have realities of the impact, the real impact of these violent laws I would say and implementations like at the parking incident. And then now we have increase in the far right and the impact is going to have in communities at a long term level. So whether that’s going to be this year, the following year, these divisions is going to be witnessed at a great level. and I think this is, this impacts all of us. So and this is why people should maybe choose the powerful standing up for what is right together with different campaigners and allies. And I think that’s one of the key elements when we do the campaigning and advocacy and people should remember the new generation I’m considering as older generation for myself but the new people who are maybe going into activism or want to campaign on equality, equalities is the importance of allies where you connect different causes together. 

And we highlight that this is not just an issue for the migration sector, for the refugee organisations, this is an issue for all of us. So bringing the trade unions on board, bringing different movements, whether that’s on migration, right, climate change or any different areas, to remember that this policies impact all of us for a long term. And I think that’s something that should be kept in mind.

I was very lucky that when I was first involved in activism, I called them elders, people who had so much experience and, people who were already campaigning, let’s say, in the 70s, 80s, and I had learned so much from them, where they showed me meaning of solidarity, what that means, meaning of comrades, meaning of working together and campaigning together, where we didn’t label, or you’re like, you’re a refugee, asylum seeker, or you’re this, that. But where we said, okay, we’re comrades, we’re working on this together, we’re campaigning on this together. 

And, this is just not fair and we must do something about it. And I think people should keep that in, in their mind if they’re interested in this. And I, again, very lucky that I had people like that around me, who guided me, who seen me as their peers, not as somebody with a label, but somebody that we can walk the walk rather than give me different roles. And I think we just need to remind ourselves that’s important. The ally, working together, but also working together creatively. 

And that’s something I try to do in, whether in campaigning or raising awareness or within my work, is to use the creative element. Because sometimes it becomes too boring when you have a policy paper or when you present something at a conference by saying, oh, and this is what ABC says. But if you do that creatively, you’re actually reaching to more audiences and you’re enabling more conversation and more critical conversation rather than, yeah, maybe reading a piece of policy or a paper. And I think we need to do more of that within the campaigning, but within communities, wherever, whatever the message that we’re trying to share. So if it’s on migration, we need to do that, engage with the communities more creatively and use that area as well.

Jen Ang

Gosh, it took me a long time to get this podcast episode to you, and in that time the political environment has shifted on again in Scotland in significant ways. I asked Pinar if she had anything to add in light of the recent Scottish elections and the challenges facing the new Parliament as Scottish MSPs return to Holyrood this week to take up their offices.

Dr Pinar Aksu

I think it’s been some journey and, we did not expect about 17 reform MSPs to be elected. This has been shown across the country as well. We’ve seen the election results in England and in Wales. There’s a change in the political system and I think we are also witnessing this in Scotland. I think there’s going to be lots more to do as activists, whether you’re working in migration on Equalities or in housing, in any spectrum of human rights. I think we’ve got lots to do in terms of challenging the negative narratives from the Reform Party. 

And what makes me sad is the fact that we have, Reform MSPs within our parliament, and having known their track record of their using languages around migration and people seeking asylum and refuge, I am hoping that such narratives will not be normalised within our Parliament, in the Scottish Parliament, and that we will not normalise hate and, racism. And unfortunately, these are the things that the Reform are doing is creating a hostile environment where they are being very vicious with their policies, but as well as their words, and for me, words matter. 

And I think the minute we start to use terms such as illegal migrants, illegal migration, this has a significant impact on the community. So I really hope we’ll not normalise this within our Parliament and in terms of communities. We have the local council elections next year in 2027, and I think we need to do more. We need to really listen to people and understand that we had years of austerity, we had funding cuts in our communities, we had issues around housing, we had issues around violence against women, and girls. And we need to talk with the communities and try to understand where these fears are coming from and listen to one another and try to look at where the root causes of such problems are. And I think this could only be done by compassion, by care and, by listening to one another, because if we don’t, then the result will be we will have more reform being elected. And I think that’s not what we want and that’s not who we are as a country and in Scotland. So let’s be more active, let’s start planning in our communities. Let’s do this by listening to one another, creating spaces where we can have critical and difficult conversations. And I think that is extremely important that we have such difficult and critical conversations so that we can understand where the anger and the fears are coming from. So, yeah, let’s see what happens in the communities. I’m sure compassion will win over hostility.

Jen Ang

Thank you so much, Pinar, for those closing thoughts about where we are today after the 2026 Scottish elections. If I may, I have one more question: So towards the end of the podcast, I always offer people an opportunity to explore, maybe organisations or campaigns that they didn’t know about, and I also encourage them to take action. Are there any organisations or places that you would give a shout out to that people should be looking at?

Dr Pinar Aksu

Yes, I mean, there are so many amazing groups local groups, national groups who try to do work on raising awareness about that direct solidarity as well. I mean, I would like to give a shout out to, our group, which is Refugees for Justice, where we’ve been advocating to end hotel accommodation in Scotland and look at alternative ways of housing people seeking asylum and refuge. 

And together with the lawyers, we have the fatal accident inquiry into the death of the. So having solidarity at the hearings and solidarity for Bedreddin’s family, but also people who are in hotel accommodations is very much important. And I guess shout, out to all the local groups across Scotland who are currently working under such hostile moments, especially groups in Falkirk like FOSS, groups in East Kilbride, which is EKIN, who are the East Kilbride Integration Network, people in Perth, Perth Against Racism in Aberdeen, the GREC, which is the Grampian Regional Equalities Council, and all the anti racism work that’s being done in the communities. 

And maybe one final shout out to the amazing toolkit around Anti Raid’s work, as well as toolkit into asylum system of Right to Remain and obviously to Scottish Refugee Council for all the solidarity work they do. So the list could go on, but I would say maybe these are some of the groups that we can keep an eye on, and also support one another not just by donating, but being physically there at protests and when needed, because that’s what we need more than ever.

Jen Ang

Thank you so much again, Pinar, for your time. We appreciate it.

And that’s a wrap. Thank you, our lovely listeners, for joining us for yet another episode of the Lawmanity podcast. If you wanted to learn more about some of the campaigns that Pinar has mentioned, we’ll put those in the show notes. And for those of you legal beagles, out there who are intrigued by the idea of community lawyering, we’ll share some resources for learning more about that too.

Our next episode is a special edition on disability rights, featuring Louise Whitfield, Legal Director of Liberty, as well as Heather Fiskin, Chief Executive Officer of Inclusion Scotland, and Tressa Burke, Chief Executive Officer, Glasgow Disability Alliance. Join us to listen to a fearless and fierce conversation about the state of disabled people’s rights in the uk, the role of strategic litigation in pressing for change and what more needs to be done for rights on paper to be realised in the lives of disabled people today. 

If you love today’s episode, please do hit the like and subscribe buttons and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might also enjoy learning a little bit about how law really works in practise 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 Halina Refai for mentoring us through this first year of this incredible project and thanks also to Amanda Amaeshi on 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.

Additional resources for this episode are linked below:

Learn More

• Listen to Lawmanity podcast episode “Breaking Barriers: Access to Education for Young Migrants, with Andy Sirel”: podfollow.com/lawmanity/view
• Read “Our Grades Not Visas: How community lawyering brought education justice for young migrant and refugee people in Scotland”: https://www.justrightscotland.org.uk/2025/10/our-grades-not-visas-how-community-lawyering-brought-education-justice-for-young-migrant-and-refugee-people-in-scotland/
• Read “Jo Wilding chronicles deepening immigration and asylum legal aid crisis, with failure to recruit staff an ‘existential threat’ to the sector” https://www.ein.org.uk/news/jo-wilding-chronicles-deepening-immigration-and-asylum-legal-aid-crisis-failure-recruit-staff
• Read “Scotland adopts a more inclusive franchise”:  https://globalcit.eu/scotland-adopts-a-more-inclusive-franchise/
• Read “Can a Student visa holder sit as a member of the Scottish Parliament? Yes, they can”: https://freemovement.org.uk/student-visa-member-of-scottish-parliament/
• Check out “#LiftTheBan: Give People Seeking Asylum the Right to Work”: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/lift-the-ban/
• Check out Refugees for Justice: https://www.refugeesforjustice.org.uk/
• Check out Sistren Legal Collective: https://sistren.co.uk/community-lawyering/

Take Action

• Maryhill Integration Network: https://maryhillintegration.org.uk/get-involved/
• Govan Community Project: https://govancommunityproject.org.uk/get-involved/
• Community Infosource: https://www.infosource.org.uk/get-involved.html
• Refuweegee: https://www.refuweegee.co.uk/copy-of-about
• Scottish Detainees Visitors: https://sdv.org.uk/join-us
• The Welcoming (Edinburgh): https://www.thewelcoming.org/get-involved-the-welcoming-edinburgh/

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Lily Greenan

“I think that we’ve had a significant amount of success in Scotland in shifting the legal frameworks. I’m not sure that that has actually had as much impact on the lives of women and girls as we would like to think.“

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 activist and legend Lily Greenan. Lily has been involved in work that challenges and seeks to eliminate violence against women and girls since the early 1980s, as an activist, an advocate, and in strategic leadership roles, including serving as chief executive of Scottish Women’s Aid for nine years. 

Since 2015, Lily has been a freelance consultant, researcher, and a trainer with a focus on gender equality and violence against women and girls. And she shares with us here some reflections on using the law to push for progress in her time, including the genesis of the groundbreaking Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018. 

Lily also brings considerable experience and wisdom as an LGBT activist in the late 1980s, when she campaigned with others against the Conservative Government’s notorious Section 28 law, which prohibited talking about queer lives and identities in schools. 

I so enjoyed my conversation with Lily. It was warm, thought provoking, and wise, just like the legend herself. I hope you do too. 

Welcome to the show, Lily, and I’m so delighted to be speaking to you.

Lily Greenan

Thanks, Jen. Legend feels a little bit daunting! but I’m really looking forward to the conversation. I think that what you’re doing is really interesting, and I’m very happy to be part of it. Thank you for inviting me.

Jen Ang

That’s very kind, Lily. I think it’s appropriate in the circumstances. 

So, just to get started in this podcast, I’ve been experimenting with a surprise opener question to get us settled and to learn a little bit more about the people, behind the activist legends we’re interviewing. A good friend of mine pointed out that our sense of smell is our oldest sense and observed that we can hold deep connections between the sense of smell and other memories. 

So, if you don’t mind, would you be willing to tell me about a smell that’s meaningful to you? Maybe one that’s connected to a place or a time that you like to bring to mind?

Lily Greenan

I read the briefing note for this and saw the little prompt that you were going to ask about smells. What immediately came to mind was the smell of za’atar which is a spice that is used in Middle Eastern, and Palestinian in particular, cooking. And I had used it before this visit that I’m going to mention. But now what it brings back is the Old City of Jerusalem, because I was very privileged to be part of a choir that went to Palestine in 2017 to sing in solidarity with people there and the spice market in the Old City, it literally blew my mind. And the overwhelming smell that has, stayed with me, it was the smell of the za’atar spice, which is a mix of thyme and salt and sesame and sumac and just an incredible blend of stuff that both tastes delicious and has a really powerful smell. Not powerful in a bad way, just it stays days. And if I pass a shop that sells it, I smell it. So. and it’s been much on my mind recently because of what’s happening in Palestine, and it’s just special. So a heart smell for me.

Jen Ang

Thank you so much for sharing that. And actually, when you share that, I actually think a little bit about za’atar in my life as well. And at our family’s table, you probably don’t know this, but for many years my parents lived and worked in the Middle East and we had been given a gift of za’atar from some family friends that we would serve the kids with olive oil and bread sometimes. So even though my kids grew up here in Scotland, they grew up with that taste. And they sometimes ask for it, like they expect that to be part of our table, which I think is a really nice expression as well of how gifts of food and memories travel, travel to other places. So thank you for sharing that. 

And now that we’re a bit settled, we move from that to really quite a huge question. So my first question for you: throughout your career in your work, do you feel that the law works equally for you or for your community, however you define that, whether that is the people you work with or for and why or why not?

Lily Greenan

Who, huh? Does it? Yeah. No, it doesn’t. 

It doesn’t in two senses. One, my work has focused on violence against women. And particularly in the first few years, I was focused on rape and sexual assault and the legal response to those assaults and women’s experiences of the legal system, of the justice system. And then laterally, I worked with Scottish Women’s Aid and that had done sort of a few years before that in an NHS-based project which brought us into contact with legal responses to all forms of gender-based violence. And it just fails over and over and over again. Some of it is in the framing of the law itself, like how the law is framed and who it serves. Some of it is in process. You know, like, sometimes the framing shifts, the legislation moves on, but the way in which it is implemented doesn’t because the system is still rooted in where it was 40 years ago. So that there is that area, which is work where I feel like the community I work with and that I’m part of as a woman is not well served by the law in relation to assaults against our person. 

The other community that I identify with is the LGBT community. I’m a lesbian and I was active in the late 80s in the campaign against clause 28. Where a Conservative Government, didn’t actively try to criminalise homosexuality, but made it unlawful to talk about it in schools, particularly in schools. Their focus was education and it was a sideways way of marginalising a community that was already pretty marginalised, but at least had achieved some legal recognition, as in not any longer being criminalised from 1967 onwards. And that, I remember the day that I heard that they were trying to introduce, via an amendment to a Miscellaneous Provisions Act – you know, like, it wasn’t a specific, “we’re going to go for the gays” act, it was an addition to a local government reform Act – and it just, it was headed in there and a few of us got together in a cafe that had not long opened in Edinburgh, which was the Blue Moon Cafe, which became the locus for the campaign. We called ourselves the Scottish Homosexual Action Group. There was at the time, ah, and the acronym was deliberate! There was at the time a well-established group, the Scottish Homosexual Rights Group, which had previously been the Scottish Minorities Group based in Broughton Street. And the cafe was in that premises. And so we became an activist group. We were mixed: lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans. The terminology was different in 1988 and the goal we set was to have a party in Princes Street. We basically decided we would try and get a picnic at the Ross Bandstand. So the law was definitely working against us. The local council leaders were open to having a conversation with us. And what happened in the end was they both gave us the use of the bandstand, which was council owned, and a small grant just before the law got royal assent.

Jen Ang

Wow.

Lily Greenan

And then we had the party, the picnic in the park, the Lark in the Park, almost immediately after Royal Assent was given. It was the first public LGBT event to happen after that piece of legislation came into force. And on the way I learned a lot about what the law did or did not do in relation to supporting people’s rights. We were allowed to do that picnic in the park because elected representatives and officials who understood how to bend things, I would say, said, “yeah, okay, we’re going to see what we can do here”. And they did it by making sure that we got our application in so that we were able to process the whole thing before the law was enacted. I think it had been passed but assent hadn’t been given at the point where the council said, yeah, we’re doing it. But I remember also in that time trying to unravel a banner, along the side of Arthur’s Seat, halfway up it, that just said lesbian and gay rights are human rights. And being hauled down by the Holyrood park police because it’s crown property and you’re not allowed to do politics on crown property. And I thought, okay, so, you know, it was actually the only time we were actively stopped from doing something. They made us get off Arthur’s Seat, they confiscated the banner, which was really annoying. Nobody was arrested. You know, it was a fairly low-key event. But yeah, there was just a lot of recognition that, even though there was more acceptance of lesbian, gay, bi and trans identities – I wouldn’t say bi and trans, bisexuals were almost invisible at that time as a group, and then trans people were hidden, very hidden. 

But yeah, there’s something about the realisation that I actually was in very much not liked by the law minority, where as a woman working on violence against women issues, I was using advocacy as a tool. So it wasn’t on the streets activism for me. I got involved in legal campaigning very early in my time at Rape Crisis. I started there in 1981 in Edinburgh. And Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had quite an active profile as a legal campaigning organisation, because Aileen Christianson, bless her, was committed to doing legal reform and just stuck with it. And we had lawyers and trainee lawyers in the collective in those early days. So it was well informed strategy, I would say. But there was at least a recognition in general and in law that rape and sexual assault were wrong. Discriminating against gay people was not considered to be wrong. There wasn’t a lot of public sympathy for our campaign against that, legal clause that was being introduced. And it has shifted. We’re in a different place now. The fights are different, the allies are different, there are different issues. On violence against women across the board, I think that we’ve had a significant amount of success in Scotland in shifting the legal frameworks. I’m not sure that that has actually had as much impact on the lives of women and girls as we would like to think. The processes, from all that I have read recently, there have been a number of projects that have looked at women’s experiences going through court processes. The processes are as grim now as they were when I first started. Somewhere in the mid-80s, I was one of the research assistants. I wouldn’t even call me a research assistant. There was a group of us who got involved in sitting in courts doing verbatim transcripts for the piece of research into the sexual history and sexual character evidence. It was a section introduced into law that limited the introduction, or was supposed to limit the introduction, of sexual history and sexual character evidence in relation to women complainers of sexual assault and put in place an application process. So either defence or prosecution were supposed to make an application to the judge or sheriff to introduce such evidence and justify why it was reasonable to do so. And the research was conducted by Beverly Brown, Lynne Jamison and Michelle Berman. And it was looking at how far has the application been successful in terms of limiting the unapproved introduction of such evidence. So I sat in courtrooms and I wrote down every word I heard. Like we were doing, this is in the days before laptops and digital transcription and stuff like that. We literally, we hand wrote on full scan, wow. Everything that we could get down that was said and noted. We were looking as well at the non verbals and behaviours of the personnel involved and any observations we had about the environment, about how the woman was treated. And it was just really clear all the way through that women were not equal citizens, didn’t have the same rights as the accused. The accused was protected, innocent till proven guilty, didn’t have to stand up and say anything. There was a presumption that the complainer had to give evidence. If they didn’t, they were uncooperative. And that they could be subjected to any range of questions about any aspect of their lives and their relationship with the accused and what they’d been doing before, what they did after, who they spoke to, whether they’d been drinking, what they’d been wearing, what their underwear looked like. They were all considered valid questions and they still are. 

So, no, I don’t think that the law has served us well. Both of my communities are still struggling with legal recognition, legal rights and legal status. You know, like they’re both of the communities that I identify with, their clear human rights breaches. So, yeah, I don’t think that we’re very well served still. 

Jen Ang

Thank you for such a rich explanation and also one that highlights, I mean, there’s so much I could say, I’m not going to say a lot, in order to bring us on to the next point. 

But first of all, the points that you make about the experience of women, complainers of violence, sexual violence in the courts, are still front and centre, the issues that activists and campaigners are raising today. And also, I find it really interesting and so thought-provoking, actually, some of the tactics that you talk about in campaigning and activism. So courtroom attendance projects, which are still a really good way to get work done but also bringing humour and joy to public protest. I feel like we could do a little more of that, actually. I feel like we should bring back a little bit of that resistance magic, because I think the way that you describe some of the public action around, advancing LGBT rights in earlier decades was an acknowledgement that there is a point to trying things or making a visible statement, even in the face of total lack of public support and, legal discrimination. So I’m just going to store that one away as a useful reminder. 

So, coming on to the number of different ways that activist campaigners seek to change the law or challenge it, or simply just highlight inequality, I wanted to ask another big question, and that is, do you see the law as a barrier or a tool in the struggle to achieve equality for people who are marginalised and disadvantaged?

Lily Greenan

I’d say it depends on what you’re actually trying to achieve. If you want to dismantle the patriarchy, it ain’t the way to go. Yeah, okay. It just isn’t, you know, like, it’s, to use language that feels a wee bit dated, maybe, but maybe isn’t, or the understanding of it: it’s a liberal route in the sense it’s rather than a radical route. 

Like that whole thing of working within the system. It’s what I’ve always done. You know, I trained police officers. You know, like, I was keen to get involved in that work because I thought it was important to work with the people who were doing the work. And that we couldn’t change anything unless we understood how police officers thought about the women that they were interviewing. This is back in the early 80s. So I started doing that from about 1983, 84, and, you know, alongside a more experienced rape crisis collective member, and then began to do them later and I carried on doing those for quite a long time. And we called them police training. It was police talks. We called them the talks, the police talks. And we got 45 minutes to speak to probationers who were on a two-year probation course entering into the police force. Lothian and Borders. This was pre–Police Scotland, so like seven or eight regional police forces. So I did police probationers, sergeants, refresher courses for sergeants which were always hard work, and occasionally inspectors. But the probationer training was seen as the, we need to get at them while they’re still in training. But we got 45 minutes out of a two-year probation training and we shared the space that, the afternoon space usually that they gave us, with Women’s Aid and Victim Support. So each of those three organisations got 45 minutes to say this is what we do and this is what you need to be aware of when you’re working with this group of people. And it’s different now. Again there’s been a shift in the way that they carry out the training and there’s more in-depth training across the board. Because it’s a large workforce, the police have actually got pretty good at doing, we need this group of people to have in depth training on this issue. Everyone has to have the basic. This group has to have more in-depth, this small group of specialists who will be the go-to if we need something extra. And ah, that is echoed in other public sector, in other justice organisations. I think the fiscal, the Crown Office does a similar thing, possibly, the health service does it, but a generalist approach. For most staff it was domestic abuse. I’m not sure if they’ve broadened it to all forms of violence against women. 

So going back to the justice system, back to the legal system, I’ve worked within, I’ve worked with lawyers, I’ve done advocacy work trying to change the law and I’ve done a lot of backroom work. And it can be very effective if you understand that your goal is to improve this situation for this relatively small number of women. So, this is just about improving the response to women who experience domestic abuse and gets reported and they go to court. It does not change the context, you know, like within which that abuse has happened. It doesn’t challenge or change the societal context. I’m not sure everyone would agree with me on that around some things.

Jen Ang

It’s definitely okay for people not to agree with you. This is what you think. 

So can I ask, for example, just to draw that out a little bit so there you’re referring to the work that you and others did around the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act. So when you say it was worth putting in that effort because it changed some things for some people. But, again, thinking about the law as a tool for change, you have to recognise that, only addresses part of the problem and not actually other things that you still have your eye on, that we all have our eye on, actually. 

That’s interesting and I guess that leads nicely on because you’ve spoken about working with lawyers, you’ve spoken about also scrutinising the justice system as a court observer and without doubt have worked closely with people throughout their lives engaging with the justice system. So this question is for you, what’s the role of lawyers and the legal system in relation to social justice movements? And I always kind of remind people here what I remember, which is that we’re not just talking about maybe community lawyers or people who are working alongside civil society, but obviously government and prosecutorial service and judges. They are all also lawyers. People who drafted unhelpful laws or enforced them also are lawyers. So for you, what’s the role of lawyers in relation to social justice?

Lily Greenan

I think they can be great proponents for it or enemies of it. I don’t think it’s a straight either, I mean, it’s not straightforward. I think there are people who without a doubt go into law, become lawyers and judges who move through the legal profession, who work in different roles in the legal profession, who carry with them a commitment to social justice, to improving society for everybody. And there are also people who go into it, who are in it to, uphold the status quo and for whom it isn’t the question of balancing rights or levelling the playing field or lifting up people who have been oppressed. It’s not about that for those folk. It’s, this is working fine for me. Let’s just keep it that way. And I think those lawyers and judges are human beings and we can be right-wing, left-wing, sit in the middle, never think about politics too. And they also that range of potential profile. I know some fantastic human rights lawyers. You’re one of them who have done really brilliant work. And I’ve known some wonderful sheriffs and judges that I really rate in terms of how they tried to ensure that there was balance and scrutiny. But I have also known some not so nice people.

Jen Ang

Nicely and characteristically put. Anyway, we’ll move on to the penultimate question, which is a nice one actually, and that is taking in everything that you’ve said and you have really taken a long view across your activism. What does justice look like for you and for the communities that you serve or feel a part of?

Lily Greenan

I’m not sure if I know anymore. If I think just about women going through court processes, women who’ve been abused, whether by partners or by other, and being heard, being respected, having your experience validated. It’s not always just about the result, the verdict. I think that the process plays a significant part in how women feel about whether justice was served. And the verdict, without a doubt, you know, is part of it. But I think there is also something about just being treated like a human being from the beginning of the process. And, that’s difficult in an adversarial system. You know, the system is adversarial right from the start. When the police get involved, they’re probing, they’re looking at what did you do to provoke it? What was your part? That is the implication is what did you do to make this happen? Those are bigger issues than the justice system. Those are about how society at large sees gender roles, the place of women, the place of men, the place of people who don’t identify as either of those things. I used to believe that the law could change the world. That if we got the laws right, it didn’t do it on its own… And I think there is something in it. If you have legal recognition for something that is criminal or that your existence is valid, you know, whichever of those that, you know, like we’re thinking two different areas of law here, then that begins to shift public discourse, public recognition, public acknowledgement. It’s a very long-term process. And I did used to have more faith that it could work like that, that if we focused on transforming the legislative framework around whichever issue, that it would feed into a wider understanding and acceptance and, and recognition. 

But I think now we need something different. We’re up against really big challenges and just focusing on the law in isolation doesn’t do it anymore for me. Which is not to say that I regret any of the work done or think that it was a waste of time, because it wasn’t. You mentioned the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act, when I went into Scottish Women’s Aid, at the start, the position was that domestic abuse was usually prosecuted in a summary court. So a sheriff sitting without a jury because the offences were seen as minor, it was incident-based. So it was all about that incident on that occasion, you know, like that slap, that kick, that punch, that beating. The role of psychological and emotional abuse didn’t really come into it and all the other behaviours that are now recognised and categorised, thanks to dear Evan Stark, as coercive control didn’t exist in the legal framework. And we had spent years saying domestic abuse is not about one incident. It’s years and years long experience daily of being undermined and belittled and in many different ways abused and isolated. And anyone working with, with women who’d lived that, understood that but the legal system acted as if that was nothing, that didn’t exist. And then Bill Walker happened. Bill Walker was the SNP MSP who was charged and prosecuted and ultimately convicted of domestic abuse against three ex-partners, three ex-wives and a stepdaughter. And it attracted a huge amount of media attention and public attention because he was a politician. Even though he was dropped from the SNP immediately when he was arrested, he was a sitting politician, it became clear that because he was being prosecuted in a sheriff court, in a summary court, sheriff court, he couldn’t be made to leave his role as a politician. He couldn’t be kicked out of Parliament because he was only going to be sentenced to a maximum of one year because it was a sheriff summary.

And I was at that time the chief exec of Scottish Women’s Aid. And I was in and like there were phone calls from journalists like for days saying how is this possible? Like Catherine Mackie, the sheriff, read out the list of things he had done in her summing up, I think there were a couple of assaults. There were assaults but a lot of the behaviours were extreme control and manipulation of those women’s lives. And the journalist question was always the same. It was like, how is this possible? He’s been at this for 30 years and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah. And see, because like this is what happens. Domestic abuse gets prosecuted in a lower court because it’s seen as a minor offence. And yeah, he hit them and he hurt them, but there were no fractures, there were no broken bones, there was no blood, there were no lacerations. So it’s considered to be a minor offence, and they were horrified and it gave us a space for action, you know, like we went, well, like it’s shitty, this is awful, but what do we do here? And what we did was convene a Chatham House Rules roundtable, which you will not know about because it was Chatham House. The fact that we had it is not a secret, who was at it and what we talked about isn’t for disclosure. But what we did was I sat down with Louise Johnson who was the legal issues worker and said, right, who do we need in the room? We want to have a conversation about how we change this, how do we change the way that domestic abuse is prosecuted? How do we use this moment to move away from an incident-based approach? Is there a way to do it? Is it a new law that’s needed? Is it a different way of prosecuting? What is it that we need? And we had domestic abuse courts already there were specialist court approaches that helped. So, yeah, we had a meeting. We had representation from the Crown Office and Fiscal Service, we had representation from the Faculty of Advocates, from the Scottish Government Policy Unit, we had the Law Society, we had Judicial Studies Institute. We hauled in everybody we could think of. We invited everyone that might be interested in having a conversation. And the hook was Evan Stark had just arrived to do a three-month fellowship at the Centre for Research and Families and Relationships. And Evan wrote the book on coercive control. And I would always have been the first to say I didn’t invent the concept. I gave it a name and he wrote about it. And he had just arrived and we invited them to a roundtable with Evan Stark to talk about how we could move the needle, so to speak, and really think about a different way to treat domestic abuse within the legal system itself, Police Scotland were there. We had everyone who had a role at a strategic level in relation to. And we just opened the space and we said, there’s no notes, there’s no minutes. We’re not publicising this. We didn’t tell the media we were doing it. We just had a very open and frank conversation and then went on you go. And sometime after that, I think six months later, the Solicitor General made a statement that she would not be opposed to the idea of a specific offence.

Jen Ang

Amazing. Wow.

Lily Greenan

At the COPFS annual conference. And then the policy people got involved and then the drafting process started and I wasn’t there for most of the drafting process. Marsha Scott came in to the role when I left and, you know, she led the organisation through that bit of the process. But I think about the bits that just came together and sometimes it’s that, you know, like, in terms of the, how can you use the law? Sometimes you just, you get an opportunity that you can take advantage of and really push for stuff.

Jen Ang

Thank you so much for outlining that history, which is fascinating and as you said, you know, some of which I did not know. There’s so many timely lessons, for the work that continues across activism in Scotland. But something very relevant and recent is work that’s being led to decriminalise abortion in Scotland. You’ll know that there was recently a vote in England. And one of the things that I think the campaign is mulling over is what are effective ways to engage lawyers, and the legal system as well as the judiciary in a conversation about where Scots Law sits on this issue. 

I like, again, that reminder, that big questions, that we’ve had convenings in the past, where big questions are asked and where you can have frank conversation. I never expected to find that in this conversation today, but that’s something that I’m definitely going to take away. 

So the last question is, there will be people out there listening to this series of podcasts who are really interested in activism, maybe how the law fits into activism. And they will be looking at who you are and what you have accomplished in your career. And they may be in awe, they will be in awe and they may actually even want to be you. Like, they’ll wonder how you got there. I mean, you know. So my question for you is, what advice would you have for someone out there, who might be a younger version of you, or if you prefer, what advice do you have for your younger self?

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

Thank you so much, Lily. I think that’s a brilliant way to end an essentially and joyfully Lily conversation, if I can put it that way. Be a bit brave, take a note for your own reflection, but actually as a contribution to, you know, a collective learning, which I think you still believe in, I can see over your shoulder.

Lily Greenan

I still believe.

Jen Ang

Yeah, I still believe. which is something I love about you. But that’s also why, well beyond when you had to, you continue to do this work. So thank you again for your time.

And that’s a wrap. Thank you, our lovely listeners, for joining us for another episode of the Lawmanity podcast. If you wanted to learn more about the definitive history of SHAG and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act, we’re all going to have to wait until Lily gets around to writing that book and learning to edit Wikipedia. But meanwhile, we’ll put some links in the episode notes for you to explore. 

Want to take action? We’ve suggested this on the podcast before but consider volunteering at your local Women’s Aid. They have lots of different roles depending on your skills and how much time you might be able to offer. And we’re heading into Pride Month in June with no shortage of opportunities to help raise money, support projects and generally shout from the rooftops about the further changes that we still need to see in queer rights, and particularly trans rights from the incoming Scottish Parliament. 

Our next episode features migrant justice activist and theatre maker and researcher Dr. Pinar Aksu from the University of Glasgow, speaking about the many successful campaigns she has led for migrant rights, as well as why and how she uses art practices to explore access to justice and social change movement building. 

If you love today’s episode, please do hit the like and subscribe buttons and share our episodes with friends and colleagues who might also 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. 

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 thanks also to Amanda Amaeshi, on 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!

Additional resources for this episode are linked below: 

Learn More 

• About the Women’s Aid movement through the Speak Out project, hosted by Glasgow Women’s Library: featuring oral history clips of women connected to the movement 

• “Section 28, how it came and went”: A blog post on Section 28, the Scottish Homosexual Action Group (SHAG) and Lark in the Park, by the Equality Network: https://www.equality-network.org/our-work/history/section-28-how-it-came-and-went/ 

Take Action 

• Find your nearest Scottish Women’s Aid group 

• Find your nearest Pride 2026 event 

In a recent Lawmanity podcast episode, I highlighted that, too often, legal systems are shaped by fear – particularly during a global rollback of rights under pressure from far-right movements.  

Commitments to equality and justice can be weakened when they are deemed “politically inconvenient”, sidelined by partisan political calculation. Scotland is not immune from this. 

The newly formed Scottish Government and Parliament face a clear responsibility. This is not the moment for incrementalism or retreat, but for principled and sustained leadership: to challenge this rights backlash, and – more importantly – to strengthen the systems that allow people to seek justice and hold governments to account. 

Here are some key steps that should define that approach. 

Fund Access to Justice: Legal Aid Reform 

If access to justice is to be treated seriously, legal aid must be a central priority. 

Legal aid in Scotland, administered by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), helps people pay for legal advice and representation when they cannot afford it themselves. It covers advice and assistance, civil and criminal cases, and children’s hearings, with eligibility determined by financial circumstances and the nature of the case. 

As recent University of Glasgow policy research notes: 

“Legal aid promotes access to justice for all, not just those who can afford it. It is a foundational tenet for realising the Vision for Justice in Scotland and a human-rights based approach more broadly. Without a well-functioning legal aid system, people are forced to represent themselves – risking unbalancing the equality of arms, or more likely, do not pursue a remedy, risking a rights violation going unaddressed.”  

There is broad agreement across academia, the legal profession, and civil society that the failure to address the legal aid crisis also puts the justice system – and those who work within in it – under significant strain. The 2025 Scottish Parliament inquiry into civil legal assistance identified an “urgent need” to improve access to justice, warning that people’s ability to exercise their legal rights is already being “severely compromised”. 

These systemic shortcomings are most evident in the emergence of “legal aid deserts” –in some parts of Scotland, people who are eligible for legal aid are unable to find a solicitor able to take on their casedue to a shortage of legal aid solicitors in their area. Survivors of domestic abuse, for example, may have to contact dozens of firms before securing representation. This reflects deeper structural pressures within the system: a shrinking provider base, increasing workloads, and growing concerns about the long-term sustainability of legal aid practice, with significant numbers of solicitors considering leaving the field altogether. 

Meaningful structural reforms and proper investment are needed, delivered through a new Legal Aid Bill. Reforms should include widening access to early and preventative legal advice, increasing financial eligibility thresholds for legal aid, and strengthening early intervention to prevent problems escalating into crisis. Legal aid rates and wider funding structures must also be reviewed in consultation with the profession to help rebuild the long-term sustainability of the sector. 

Legal aid is often discussed primarily in terms of cost – but the evidence increasingly points in a different direction: investment in legal aid can prevent wider social and economic harms, from homelessness to ill-health, reducing pressures elsewhere in the system. Even so, reform should not be justified solely on the basis of its economic benefits – more fundamentally, access to justice is an intrinsic component of a society where justice is not merely rhetoric but a lived reality. 

Safeguard Rights: The Scottish Human Rights Bill 

Another key priority is the long-awaited introduction of the Scottish Human Rights Bill; crucially, the rights it contains must be enforceable in practice. 

The proposed Scottish Human Rights Bill was intended to bring a range of international human rights treaties directly into Scots law, building on the earlier incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). These included protections relating to economic and social rights, racial equality, women’s rights, disability rights, and the right to a healthy environment.  

During the previous parliamentary session, significant work was undertaken across government and civil society to develop the legislation – making the failure to introduce the Bill all the moredisappointing. 

In the words of the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE):  

“This was a missed opportunity to improve accountability and actionability for rights in Scotland, and to act on the evidence and experience shared by so many rights holders, human rights defenders, and organisations. […] The next Scottish Government must prioritise passing a Human Rights Bill, taking a maximalist approach to incorporation within the constraints of the devolution settlement.” 

But incorporation alone is not sufficient. Without accessible legal advice and mechanisms, effective routes to remedy, and properly resourced oversight bodies, there is a real risk of creating a new layer of legal promise without a practical route to justice. 

This is why access to justice must be built into the foundations of any future Human Rights Bill. The Civil Society Working Group on Incorporation has called for the legislation to include “the right to an effective remedy on the face of the legislation”, ensuring that rights are tangible rather than aspirational. The ALLIANCE has also emphasised the need to adequately resource the Scottish Human Rights Commission so that rights oversight and accountability mechanisms can operate effectively.And, as the Human Rights Consortium Scotland has highlighted: “Learning from and strengthening the implementation of the UNCRC Act provides a crucial blueprint for delivery of the Scottish Human Rights Bill.” 

Most people will never engage directly with constitutional litigation or specialist human rights arguments. Instead, they encounter the state through schools, housing, healthcare, social security, tribunals, complaints processes, and regulators.  

Any Human Rights Bill must therefore be designed around systems ordinary people can realistically navigate – with accessible information, independent advocacy, meaningful remedies, and institutions giving effect to rights in everyday life.  

Strengthen Accountability: Measuring Access to Justice 

Finally, an often overlooked but essential part of the access to justice puzzle is data. Access to justice cannot be strengthened effectively if government does not properly understand which groups are disproportionately excluded from it. Transparency, accountability, and robust evidence must therefore form part of any serious programme of reform. 

This requires more than headline statistics on court usage or legal aid expenditure. Government must be able to assess whether people can realistically access advice, remedies, representation, complaints systems, tribunals, and advocacy services when rights are breached. That means systematically gathering and analysing robust equality and human rights data to understand whose needs are being met – and whose are not. 

The ALLIANCE has highlighted the lack of accessible and comprehensive data across public services, warning that without meaningful monitoring, it becomes far harder to assess whether the governmentis fulfilling its human rights obligations. Similarly, the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls (NACWG) has stressed the importance of intersectional analysis and disaggregated data collection, emphasising that differing experiences based on overlapping factors such as gender, ethnicity, disability, income, age, and sexuality must be properly understood rather than treated as secondary considerations. NACWG has warned that progress on in this area remains inconsistent, overly dependent on individual initiative rather than a systematic approach. 

Without comprehensive data, systemic exclusion can remain hidden in plain sight. Measuring access to justice is therefore essential both for identifying where the system is failing and for shaping reforms that respond to the experiences of those most affected by inequality and exclusion. 

Conclusion 

At a time when rights protections are increasingly challenged internationally and political pressures can make justice appear “inconvenient”, there is a responsibility on both Government and Parliament not to retreat from these commitments, but to strengthen them. Rights must be enforceable and backed by institutions capable of delivering justice fairly and consistently. 

Ultimately, rights are only as meaningful as the systems that allow people to enforce them. The task facing Scotland is whether it is willing to build and sustain those systems over the course of this parliamentary term and beyond.  

Amanda Amaeshi is an award-winning activist, campaigner, and writer, specialising in gender equality, anti-racism, and youth voice and political participation. She is also a Legal Caseworker at Lawmanity.