Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Davie Donaldson

“For Gypsy Travellers, the law has always been weaponised in Scotland. I mean, you can go right back to the early 1500s and see some of the first anti-Gypsy legislation being brought into play. The law’s been their tool to curtail that. So for Gypsy Travellers, it’s always been this David and Goliath battle.”

Jen Ang

Welcome to the Lawmanity podcast where we explore the complex relationship between law and activism and discuss the different ways that law can oppress but can also lead to real social change. I’m Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and activist based in Scotland and your host on the Lawmanity podcast.

This week we’re speaking to activist and legend Davie Donaldson. Davie is an award-winning Scottish traveller advocate with over a decade of experience. As senior EDI consultant at Cognac Advocacy and Engagement, Davie supports decision makers at a local, national and international level, to increase the inclusivity of policy towards Gypsy Traveller communities – with one newspaper calling him Scotland’s top campaigner for traveller rights. 

Davie is also a regular podcast host with BBC Scotland, most recently hosting the podcast ‘The Cruelty: Stolen Generations’ which has recently been shortlisted for the True Crime 2026 Awards in the ‘Impact for Change’ category. This is an incredible series and if you have not listened to it, I’ll put it in the show notes for you to listen to later. 

So welcome to the show, Davie, and I’m so delighted that you’re joining me today.

Davie Donaldson

No, thanks for having me. I’m really excited to get into this.

Jen Ang

It’s a long-awaited excuse to just spend some time with you and to hear a bit more about what you’re up to!

So, as an opener in this podcast, I have a kind of an unusual question. and it’s just to get us settled and to help people learn a little bit about the people behind the legends we’re interviewing. So, a good friend pointed out that our sense of smell is one of our oldest senses and we can hold deep connections between smell and our memories. So, if you don’t mind, could I please ask you to tell me about a smell that is meaningful for you? Maybe one that you really like or one that’s connected to a time or place that you like to bring to mind.

Davie Donaldson

Wow. I mean, that’s a cracker of a question, isn’t it? 

A smell… I guess, for me. I mean there’s many smells that bring me back to my childhood and I guess make me feel happy. Right. And I think smell really does touch that kind of human base of, you know, experience and memory and remembrance. 

But for me, I guess the smell that I would pick would be the smell of gas. And that may sound a bit strange initially, but I’ll clarify. The smell of gas in a caravan, in a trailer, and when you first click the cooker on in a trailer, you get this kind of puff of gas and it’s an indistinguishable smell from anything else. And that smell to me reminds me of lying in my bed as a child and hearing my dad get up and turn it on to get a cup of tea in the morning. And that smell reminds me of safety because it was also the last smell I would smell before going to sleep at night, as my mum would make us our nighttime snacks right when the door was closed. 

So, it’s a smell of safety, it’s a smell of belonging as well, because I only ever smelled it when I was on the road with my own people and it was a smell that I had never had in a house. So for me it’s safety. For me it’s experience and it’s the smell of “wow, today’s another day, it’s a new day where I’m going to experience something great, right? There’s something would be exciting today”. 

So, I guess that would be the smell that I would pick. And it’s one that even today as an adult, it really brings me back to that place of being a child and that kind of awe and imagination and I guess the creativity that comes with every day when you’re so young. 

Jen Ang

Oh, amazing. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. 

And now, there’s no kind of avoiding it onto a few big questions that I have for you today. From your perspective as an activist, do you feel that the law works equally for you in Scotland or for your community, however you choose to define community, and why or why not?

Davie Donaldson

I mean, where do I begin? Right? 

I mean, my work, since I’ve been about 15, has been trying to disentangle and navigate paths that were never built for Gypsy Travellers. Right. Infrastructures that were always built for settled populations and settled people are inherently difficult for Gypsy Travellers to navigate for a number of reasons. But when it comes to the legal system and the law, that task just becomes mammoth. 

On a personal level, I don’t believe it works in terms of, I don’t believe it’s very fair, I don’t believe it’s accessible. I don’t believe that the law and justice, I mean, if we pull it back to justice, I don’t believe that it works in a way for, non-sedentary, non-settled communities in Scotland.

I think as well, it’s important to recognise that for Gypsy Travellers, the law has always been weaponised in Scotland. I mean, you can go right back to the early 1500s and see some of the first anti-Gypsy legislation being brought into play. And from that point onwards, the law has always been seen by settled communities, particularly settled authorities who don’t want Gypsy Traveller or nomadic people to exist at times… The law’s been their tool to curtail that. So for Gypsy Travellers, it’s always been this David and Goliath battle since the very start of their, I guess, experience with our modern law system and its foundations. 

For me, my experience has been trying to navigate that both as an individual but also as an advocate for communities, right. And what that often means is trying to take word in from this really alien educated environment to the layman, to the local communities who perhaps have had very limited education, certainly not second and third levels of education, but also trying to think about, well, where is the law trying to confuse communities? Because oftentimes when they bring me in, it’s, “we’ve received this document and we don’t know what it means” or “we’ve received this citation and we have no idea what that means”. 

I mean, only recently, let’s give you an example. Last week I was contacted by a family who were travelling. It’s also important to notice that for Gypsy Travellers, experience with the law and with the justice system, it tends to be at these… what could be called conflict points. Regularly, those are experienced as Gypsy Travellers travelling, and because we don’t own the land on which we travel, oftentimes it leads to evictions. And evictions are the key, trigger point for our experience with the justice system. 

So, I was contacted by this family who were travelling. They stopped on a disused airfield and they’d stopped at 8 o’clock at night. They pulled onto this airfield and by 3 o’ clock the next day they’d received a Court of Session document outlining that they were to be evicted with immediate enforcement. They had 24 hours to respond to this written enforcement letter, which was about 15 pages long, that they had to respond in the form of answers to the Court of Session, which also meant that unless they were able to appoint a solicitor between 3 o’ clock and 5 o’ clock that day, and the solicitor was to be able to read over this document and be able to submit answers on their behalf, they were going to have to put the answers into the Court of Session by hand delivery. 

Now, you can imagine the mammoth task that that would be for anyone, but particularly for this family. It’s important to notice that they’d just been evicted from an industrial estate. All of their ancestral camps in the area had been blocked off. And so, they had a number of young children, we had elderly people, a number of disabilities present on the camp as well. And so for this family, it was really important, perhaps more than others, to be in a very safe location. A number of their children had quite severe autism, so they couldn’t stop at the side of the road because of the worry of traffic and the bairns needing space, right.

So they were beside themselves with worry. They had no idea what this meant. All they knew is that the letter threatened sheriff officer action where their vehicles would be towed away, where their caravans would be removed from the site, and where police enforcement might happen. So they were terrified.

So they contacted me. They sent me photographs of the citation that evening. I did my best to read through it from the kind of garbled photos, and then we together pulled together some answers and I then drove from the north of Scotland to Edinburgh to hand deliver it to the Court of Session. Now, when I got to the Court of Session, I was immediately faced with a security barrier. I’d got there at 1 o’ clock, I had to go up to the main office to speak to the reception and say, look, I need to go to the Court of Session and hand this document in. They said, oh, well, I’m sorry, but the Court of Session’s on its lunch break, so you won’t be able to get down there until 2 o’ clock. I said, okay. And they said, but you can wait. So I sat down and I waited for the hour. And in that time of waiting, and this is why I mentioned this, what might seem quite, I guess, an insignificant part of the story, but waiting is something that is highly triggering for Gypsy Traveller communities. Because waiting, particularly in a formal environment like a court or even just in an office building, it triggers all of those juvenile memories of being excluded at school, of being made to feel different, of dealing with the justice system in a way that’s inherently unjust. And so even for me, I guess I’m used to dealing with professional folk and police and social services and so on, but nonetheless, waiting in that moment was highly triggering. I felt my anxiety peaking, I felt my heart rate going… and at moments I wanted to walk out, right? I wanted to leave that building, I didn’t want to be there anymore in this really structured environment that was felt like the walls were closing in on every side. 

Eventually I got through. We got through the barrier, went down to the office. When I got there, I handed the document to the reception. They said, right, we need to check this. So then another period of waiting. So I then had to wait for another hour. By that stage, one of their office staff had had the document reviewed and checked by some seniors. They came back and they said, right, have you contacted the solicitor? And I said, no, because I know the name of the solicitor, but it’s a big multinational kind of firm. But I don’t know the name of the individual solicitor who’s dealing with the case. I wasn’t given any contact details because the interlocutor that we’d been given missed out a lot of the appendices. So we weren’t given all the information that the Court of Session had been given. We weren’t given contact details for the solicitor’s firm. Instead we were just given the formal address of the Court of Session. So the admin said, well, you have to speak to the solicitor. We can’t accept these as answers because they’re not in the appropriate format. I said, right, okay. I said, but what, what is the appropriate format? I can’t tell you that, he said, you know, you can hand these in online. I said, I can’t because I’m not a solicitor. He was like, ah, okay. He said, in what capacity are you acting with the occupiers? Now, I knew before going there that I couldn’t do anything that would imply I was a solicitor because then I’d be breaking the law. So I was very, very careful. But then I also wanted to ensure that it was clear that the document had been written with the occupiers and therefore that these families, you know, they weren’t having something placed on them, but they’d actually written this document alongside me, albeit with some support around, you know, the rights and legislation and so on. 

And I said, well, I’m an advocate, so I’m just wanting to help the families get their voices heard. Ah but you have to be acting in some capacity. What capacity? I said I knew I couldn’t admit that I had no idea what he was asking. I was terrified to do anything which might get me in hot water. So I think he eventually realised this and he said, look, I would go to the solicitor’s office. So I left there. I drove to the headquarters of the solicitors, went in, of course, I had no idea what solicitor I was asking for. I had no case reference or anything like that. I just had this legal document and I just handed it to someone and I said, look, I said, I really hope this counts as within the 24-hour period, because otherwise these families are facing eviction to, you know, to nowhere. There’s nowhere for them to go. Eventually I got an email back from the solicitors and they said they would consider the position, because there was clear evidence that there would be a breach of Public Sector Equality Duties. There was clear evidence of, there was no EQIA, no Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment had been carried out. It was impossible for it to have been carried out in that time period. Anyway,

Jen Ang

Here Davie has mentioned the evidence that no EQIA had been conducted, as clear evidence of a breach of Public Sector Equality Duties. 

What’s he talking about? 

Well, in the UK, under the Equality Act 2010, public authorities like local councils, the NHS, government departments like the Home Office and the DWP and so on, they have a Public Sector Equality Duty to consciously consider the need to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity for everyone and to foster good relations between people, including people of different races, abilities and sexes. 

To fulfil this duty, public authorities are supposed to conduct an Equality Impact Assessment, or an EQIA, to analyse how their policies or services or decisions might impact particular groups, especially vulnerable, discriminated against and marginalised groups. They’re supposed to gather evidence, to actually go out and find and speak to people about what impact these decisions might have, to think about what they’ve been told and to make adjustments that minimise those negative impacts and foster good relations when they go about creating those policies or delivering those services or making those decisions. 

So here Davie is pointing to the failure to conduct an EQIA prior to the local authority’s decision to evict this family from their home, as relevant to possible discrimination on the basis of race as a protected characteristic, because Gypsy Travellers in Scotland, preserving their travelling way of life, has been recognised as a protected category under the Equality Act. 

Davie is pointing to a strong stateable legal reason why this case should not proceed, at least not until a proper EQIA has been produced and can be publicly and, transparently scrutinised. Davie continues.

Davie Donaldson

So there was significant concerns because it was a public authority who was doing the enforcement. So I then went back that night, drove up to the northeast of Scotland, went to visit the families, showed them, told them what had happened, gave them a copy of the letter and so on for their records. When I was speaking to them, they said, I don’t know what all the problems about. There’s no mess, there’s no antisocial behaviour, there’s been no complaints. All we want is somewhere safe for our kids to stay. 

And I think that one example shows you just the David and Goliath task that often exists for families. Many of the families that I work with have low rates of literacy. They have an absolute fear of the justice system. So if they’re ever given anything formal, their minds immediately go to what will happen to my children? Will social services get involved? Will my children be removed? What will happen to me? Will I end up in prison? You know, there’s such a lack of information around the rights of Gypsy Travellers within the community. But there’s also this predetermination of, well they’re going to find it wrong against me anyway, so what’s the point, you know. 

So it is a difficult situation and for that particular family, they’d been pushed from pillar to post, throughout this local authority. And the night before arriving to that camp they’d been told by a local authority officer who’d came down who was evicting them from their previous camp. They said, look, why are we being evicted? I mean in, in Murray they were stating – some other local authorities – in Murray in Aberdeenshire we even get provided with bins now. Side note, being provided with bins is such a basic thing. But for these families I think that shows you just how little support they get when they’re on the road. And they said that anyway to this local authority officer and her response was, well, if it’s so good up in Murray in Aberdeenshire, why don’t you pack your bags and go there? Because you’re not welcome here.

Jen Ang

Oh… the lawyer in me sort of bridles at that a little bit, but I’m just, I’m just gonna let that pass for now. Wow that’s, that’s horrible. That’s actually, I will actually, I will step in that, you know, that’s a level of sort of human cruelty that again I think probably is commonly seen but is so often actually surfaced and spoken about. And of course not only is there only one of you, but whenever I hear accounts like this I also think about, you know, what’s happened to probably the dozens, if not more, you know, other families in different places at different times who didn’t know who to call or who weren’t confident or sure enough that it would even be worth contesting.

Davie Donaldson

Yeah, I guess that example is the recent one and one that will help your listeners to understand the insurmountable task. I mean, in the words of the family, it would have been impossible and it was an impossible task, and I mean, even it getting taken immediately to the Court of Session in Edinburgh instead of local sheriff court was a tactic, right. These things don’t happen by mistake. it was Crown Authority land, so it also helps to know that you’ve got one of the most marginalised communities in Scotland going up against the King, you know. 

So I think there’s something to be said for the fact that solicitors and the legal profession are usually working on behalf of clients who want Gypsy Travellers to be removed, who don’t particularly care for the rights of Gypsy Travellers or the cultural rights or the cultural aspect of why we travel and why it’s so important for us to remain in touch with our culture and our sense of belonging. And so, because of that, unless Gypsy Travellers have means, which very few of us do, due to the structural discrimination that we face, lawyers are just something which is impossible for your average Gypsy Traveller family. And even at that, you know, where would they begin? Where would they start? So, for me, I usually come in at the stage of crisis, and I think something I’m really keen to highlight are these moments of crisis so that we can try and change the legal system so that it works better for communities who are at the sharp end of things. But it’s also important to recognise that there are no legal rights for Gypsy Travellers travelling, really. I mean, when you boil it right down, I was relying on a defence of the fact that this was a Public Sector Equality Duty that had been missed, that there wasn’t a – let’s face it – quite a bureaucratic document done, an EQIA. But there was no law I could lean on to say, well, this is an indigenous community of Scotland who have been travelling for the past thousand years, who have faced major structural discrimination and major environmental racism, meaning that their traditional way of life has been curtailed and so they’re forced to stay on this abandoned airfield because all their ancestral camps are blocked off. There was no legal argument in that sense. So we end up having to rely on quite bureaucratic arguments, which I feel miss the emotion and miss the impact that Gypsy Travellers are telling us at the roadside.

Jen Ang

So you’ve quite vividly described for us how the law, both the substance of the law and also the process of the law, is a forceful barrier actually preventing Gypsy Travellers from living equal or even sort of, you know, positive flourishing lives in Scotland today. What is the role of law in the legal system in relation to a positive social movement that would affirm Gypsy Traveller rights? Or are there any ways in which you’re seeking to use the law as a tool to achieve greater equality, for this community?

Davie Donaldson

Yeah, a fantastic point and, one that really comes to, I guess, where I want us to move into the future. 

I think with the law, we need to recognise that the law is written by the majority. And so in most contexts all over the world, indigenous people tend to be either omitted from legislative protection or they’ve had to fight really, really hard for the protections that they have. But I also think that in Scotland, we’re at a really interesting point with the incorporation of the UNCRC, where we can start to think about some of these international agreements, where we can start to think about, you know, elements like CERD, you know, even the UN Declarations of the Rights of Indigenous People, something which, in principle the UK has signed up to, although there’s no kind of legal binding nature to it. But I think we can take another look at these kind of national frameworks and think about, well, where can we use these in a local context and where can they follow the same path as the UNCRC to become, you know, something we can rely on as arguments and in a court of law?

Jen Ang

Here Davie is talking about the ways in which the law can be used as a positive tool for change. He’s listing international human rights treaties like the UNCRC, which is known as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the CERD, which is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Davie also mentions the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and he gives all of these as examples of international law that could be used positively, proactively to defend and extend people’s rights here in Scotland. 

So how might that work? 

Well, Davie goes on to say that the UNCRC, the Children’s Rights Convention, is on a path here in Scotland because we can rely on those arguments in courts of law. But he points out that the other two treaties, the CERD and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, do not have a legal binding nature here. 

What does he mean by that? 

Well, these global international treaties are negotiated between states at the UN or Council of Europe level, and then they’re opened for adoption or ratification by individual states. However, even once a state has agreed to adopt, ratify or be bound by a treaty, for example, the UNCRC, that doesn’t mean that individual people within that state can rely directly on the rights in that treaty in a national court in a specific matter that affects them. For some states, and the UK is one of those, those states also need to take steps, or what we call national measures, to fulfil the promises they signed up to in adopting those international treaties. This most often means taking a step, such as passage of legislation or a new law by the UK Westminster Parliament or regional parliament or assembly. 

So, for example, although the UK ratified the UNCRC in 1991, no child in a court anywhere in the UK could directly rely on the rights in that treaty in a UK court until July 2024, when Scotland passed the UNCRC Incorporation (Scotland) Act, which only applies in Scotland to certain Scottish public authorities.

So Davie is talking about a new opportunity to protect the rights of Gypsy Traveller families, which has arisen because of the passage of the UNCRC Incorporation (Scotland) Act. And we have actually seen this come to pass in the last few years. In late 2025/early 2026, the legal charity JustRight Scotland successfully defended an attempted eviction by Glasgow City Council of a family of travelling showpeople, relying in part on human rights arguments, including a legal argument about the impact for a child living on the site with reference to the UNCRC Incorporation (Scotland) Act. 

Davie goes on to acknowledge, however, that the CERD and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People are not yet incorporated in UK law. Although the UK ratified the third in 1969, it has never taken any steps to incorporate its provisions here. The closest we’ve come is a draft Scottish Human Rights Bill, expected to be introduced in the 2026 Scottish Parliamentary session, which would directly incorporate aspects of CERD in Scotland in a similar manner to how the UNCRC act currently works. 

Finally, with regard to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the previous Conservative UK government in 2023 has said “the UK supports the provisions in the Declaration. Human rights are universal and apply equally to all. Our position remains that national minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories do not fall within the scope of indigenous people to which the Declaration applies.” 

Davie continues explaining why it is vital for this perception to change both in the minds of policymakers and for the wider public.

Davie Donaldson

Now, I think on one level, you have those tools and the legal system should really embrace some of those and recognise that they do matter in this context. I mean, for a lot of people in the legal system, indigenous rights is not something on their kind of periphery even in Scotland, because they just don’t see it as a legal system or a legal framework which is useful in a British mentality. But actually they need to start to recognise that Gypsy Traveller communities, particularly Scottish Gypsy Travellers, you know, we can significantly prove that they are an indigenous community to Scotland, and likewise other communities. So I think we need to start thinking about how we incorporate those frameworks, but I also think we need to start to see representation in the legal system of our own peoples. Because I think when you see someone who knows how to navigate the system, who perhaps is a solicitor or working in the justice sector in some capacity, you start to recognise, well, actually this system isn’t just a weapon against me, but actually it’s something we can also use to protect ourselves. 

And that’s something which is significantly lacking for Gypsy Travellers. There are Gypsy Travellers who have went on and became solicitors and, that has happened. But the difficulty with that is that for those people, they’ve had to deliberately hide their ethnicity to such a degree in order to get to that stage, whether it be even to get to university or to get a job or get a traineeship even, they’ve had to hide that part of themselves to such a level where the community no longer know them or they’re known by the community, but they, the community are worried to put their jobs at risk by asking them to kind of take a platform on behalf of Gypsy Traveller rights.

So we need to see the legal system also change internally to think about, well, how do we respect marginalised people in this profession? How do we think about race? And, you know, even I’ve got close friends who are solicitors. And even the abuse that LGBT people face in the legal system is profound. And on an everyday level, Gypsy Travellers often look at the LGBT movement as an example of, you know, success, right. You know, you went from this place of being illegal to having pride marches, you know, and that’s something that is really visibly a success for marginalised communities. But again, when we look at the legal profession, it’s just so far behind the rest of society and in that capacity. 

So I think there’s representation, there’s the incorporation of different legal frameworks, but there’s also the fact that we need to think about relationships between legal professions and Gypsy Traveller communities. Gypsy Traveller communities don’t deal with institutions, they deal with people. And by that I mean, if anyone listening to this has ever worked with Gypsy Traveller communities, they very rarely know where you’re coming from. They don’t particularly care. You can tell them, but they don’t particularly care. They’ll know you by name, right? They know Sheila or they know Stephen or they know a person, they know that Stephen or Sheila works with the legal profession in some way and that they can help, but that’s it. Because they are inherently relationship based. And that goes back to our own indigenous kind of worldviews, around people and place and the fact that personal relationships are more important than anything. So we need to start seeing those personal relationships founded between marginalised communities, particularly Gypsy Travellers and solicitors. We need to start seeing people having a bit of patience. 

There’s also a recognition that by the time, for example, take an eviction, by the time an eviction goes to court and perhaps all the paperwork has been done for legal aid or whatever it may be, the Gypsy Travellers might no longer need to stay there anymore. They might have moved on in their traditional travelling pattern or they might have faced so much hostility that they just cannot, for their own mental health and their own family safety, stay there any longer. And that often faces a little bit of backlash from the legal profession because they think, well, you know, we’ve went to all this effort, we’ve done all this paperwork, we’ve formed all this argumentation, we’ve got all these documents into the court, which I totally get, but I guess there’s a lack of understanding around the transient nature of place as well. And that’s something where I think the current legal system has been built, particularly around evictions, on an assumption that the families will want to stay there long-term. 

So we need to start seeing all of those kind of, at times divergent stratas of work coming together to try and create a fairer justice system. But we also just need to, the very base level, have a better awareness for communities, you know, legal – and then this is an argument I wanted to get to but – legal argumentation is something that’s very difficult to do if you’re just a grassroots campaigner or a grassroots advocate without legal training. If you have done it long enough, like I have, you eventually start to learn some of the legal processes. But it’s a very closed shop, right. Solicitors aren’t overly keen to diverge all of it and they’re very keen to speak in language that’s quite inaccessible for your everyday person. And I think that also it creates this dependent nature from marginalised communities on the legal system and particularly legal professionals. There’s very little opportunity for Gypsy Traveller families who are stuck in these situations of cyclical eviction or facing human rights abuses as well, at the sharper end of things, to learn their rights, to think, well, actually this lawyer made X, Y and Z argument and I can use those myself, come the next time this is going to happen to me. And I think if we had that level of empowerment instead of the closed shop around, you know, what rights are, then we would start to see the public at large and also landowners and authorities start to question their actions prior to them doing it and prior to them retraumatising families because they’ll have the recognition that families know their rights. Families aren’t just going to allow people to evict them and tow their homes off of a piece of land without the proper documentation being done, or have the wool pulled over their eyes. 

In the case of that recent eviction on Crown Estate land, there was an argument in the interlocutor that the families were staying on a location that had unexploded munitions from the Second World War, therefore there was a safety risk. Now, on the very base reading of that, you think, well, completely like that’s fine, like, yeah, the eviction should go ahead because the families are at risk. And yeah, I completely get that. You know, it’s not a personal thing, this is about safety. But interestingly, the appendix which showed the survey data, was missing. And when we actually researched into the survey, we found that a recent survey that had been done found no munitions on that place that was being occupied at all. So again, the wool gets pulled over family’s eyes, right? 

And I think if there was more investment into the empowerment of communities long term, we would start to see that shift. So it’s multifaceted. There’s a lot of different things that need to happen for the legal system to be more just. But I also think we need to start to see Gypsy Travellers really treated with a degree of respect, you know, and common sense. You know, for example, the solicitor which put a 24-hour period on responding to that interlocutor who, you know, we had to hand deliver the letter, a bit of common sense would have shown that, well actually that’s going to be impossible for that family. So I think we need to start see those questions being asked as well and not just the harsh rule of law being applied at every stage.

Jen Ang

So I mean, you know, true to the legendary advocate that you are, a wide range of powerful challenges for the legal profession and for the justice system. I particularly heard the idea that there will be a consistent gap actually in the legal system’s ability to recognise and uphold the dignity of Gypsy Travellers unless there is greater representation and representation of people in their whole identities, perhaps with a structure that allows them to do this work that you were doing so effectively but as an advocate. So really a lot for us to think about. You’ve, you’ve sketched out powerfully where we’re going wrong and so, my last big question for you is hopefully a nice one to answer and that is, if we get it right, what does justice look like for you or for your community?

Davie Donaldson

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

And because of that, I think justice is something which is experienced on a really individual level. Justice is something that really relies upon former experience. It relies upon an acknowledgement of past trauma. both collective and individual. But it also recognises that everyone has a right to live in a dignified and respected way. Right. And that’s where our justice system falls short. Right, let’s pull it right back. I mean, I’m really keen to talk about legal arguments and legal frameworks, but at the very baseline of all of this is the fact that everybody in Scotland should be allowed to live respectfully and in a dignified way. 

And for Gypsy Travellers that means we want to experience our culture, our indigenous culture that’s been passed down by our ancestors for generation after generation. We want to ensure that our children and the next generation get to hear the stories and the songs which link us to the landscape. It’s about knowing where you come from, learning your language, having the ability to come together as a community and experience your own sense of identity and your own sense of belonging. Currently, the justice system in Scotland is a barrier to all of that. 

Now, how justice would look would be a Gypsy Traveller family would be able to travel unimpeded to their ancestral stopping places. There would be significant and sustained support for Gypsy Travellers travelling – and “shifting”  is our word for that  – but shifting around the country, basic support, access to basic sanitation, access to running water, access to refuse collection and bins, toilets, you know, really basic human needs should be met in a just society. 

We should recognise and respect that there are very few nomadic communities left in the world, particularly in the Western world, and so having a nomadic community in Scotland, like the Gypsy Travellers, is something that should be celebrated, it shouldn’t be impeded, right. I mean, living in a nomadic way, having a particular unique relationship to the landscape and the oral heritage of the land, is something that we should all want to celebrate, whether or not we are Gypsy Travellers. And to be able to travel and not worry about eviction, not have that constant stress, that constant feeling of surveillance every single time you move, knowing that local settled communities will respect your right to be there and will support you to be there in a safe and dignified manner. You know, they won’t expect you to have to remove all of your rubbish and travel from place to place with these cartloads of rubbish because you can’t access a council recycling facility. Because if you burn the rubbish, you’ll get charged, because you aren’t provided any bins. You know, they don’t expect you to have the toilet behind a hedge because they won’t provide you toilets, or they’ll lock the public toilets so you don’t access them, or they’ll refuse to allow you access to toilets in a local shop. Dignity, you know, that’s what the justice system should look like. 

And I think if we move to a place where there are legal protections on the right for Gypsy Travellers to travel, it won’t only positively impact the Gypsy traveller community, but it’ll positively impact the settled community as well, because it’ll allow that travelling to be done in a safer, more community-cohesive way. And it’ll avoid a lot of the common issues that we see, dragged up time and time again as argumentation against shifting. 

Now, this shouldn’t be against an indigenous community. You know, the argument shouldn’t be whether or not we still have Travellers travelling. The argument should be how do we, as a modern developed society, ensure that Indigenous communities can live dignified and respectfully. How can we recognise, like the First Minister did very recently with his apology to Gypsy Traveller communities, how can we recognise the historical trauma that as a collective mainstream society we have placed on this Indigenous community for generations? You know, where can we sit amongst all of this? 

So on one level there’s, there’s the kind of collective culture and justice, but I also think that when it comes to justice, we need to think about accessibility much more. We need to think about, for that Gypsy Traveller mother who is about to lose our kids because they’ve not been at school long enough or they’ve been removed from school in order to travel, what support was there for her to be able to access education for her children? What support is there for her to be able to navigate the social services in a way that supports her family to stay intact? And if her family is fragmented, what support is there for that child to then grow up knowing about its heritage and its identity as a Gypsy Traveller? Because right now there are gaps in all of that.

So the justice system is one that is a weaponised mechanism in Scotland and it’s certainly weaponised and has been written in many cases to be weaponised against Indigenous communities at home and abroad. But right now we’re starting to see, I guess, the cultural trauma, the transgenerational impact of, forced sedentarisation or forced removal coming to the fore. 

And really we’re at a crucial time. You know, if the justice system doesn’t become just in the next generation, we are going to lose Gypsy Travellers as we know them because there are no ancestral camps left. The families are consistently being pushed to the margins. Many families will report saying we can’t travel anymore because there’s nowhere safe to stop. Nowhere. The locations where we have ancestral memory, where we have a sense of belonging, have been blocked off for so long now that many families grow up not knowing their connection to the landscape because they’ve not been able to experience and inhabit that land in the way that their forebears have. So really, in the next generation we’re going to see a real crisis point for our community where… I believe Gypsy Travellers will always exist, but being able to be a nomadic or even semi-nomadic community in Scotland, being able to experience our language and our oral histories, being able to experience our sense of community and belonging as we know now is really coming to the stage where we need to do something, otherwise we’re going to lose that forever.

Jen Ang

A thoughtful and urgent and powerful critique, I think And I recently read an article that you had republished, I think about sacred spaces to the Gypsy Traveller community. And it struck me as, you know, as someone who loves driving across Scotland as well and walking in its wilderness, it struck me how sad it is that our collective understanding of those spaces is so poor and actually that that was the result of really an intentional erasure and oppressing of that history. 

But in any event I am so heartened that you for one are continuing to work in this area and of stridently defend the possibility that we can get this right for the next generation, that it’s not too late, but also that there are people with hearts and hands and minds who are willing to put their hand to the wheel. So there’s so much more that I want to hear from you Davie, but I’m also conscious that I need to let you away.

Davie Donaldson

Yeah, no, I guess just to Because it was a bit of a do or not, wasn’t it? But I want to also say that you know there is, there is a lot of resilience in the community, you know, and adaptability. Right. And I mean Tyson Fury, right, who’s not the biggest champion for many causes, however, he did say one thing that I agreed with, just the one: he said that as a Gypsy man, he could be taken butt naked and dropped in the middle of the rainforest with no resources, with nothing and he would come out a month later a millionaire with a dead chinchilla on his head. 

And you know it’s a bit tongue-in-cheek but it speaks to that adaptability of Gypsy Traveller communities. You know, it’s never been legal for our people to exist ever. You know, I mean we can go right back to the early dawn of, of kind of the mediaeval literature that we can read and the legal landscape and see. Well, you know, there was a benign neglect toward Gypsy Travellers at that time at best, right. But there’s never been a legal right to travel, but our people have continued to do it. So there is an adaptability and a resilience to navigate legal system. 

I guess what I want to really end with is the fact that this generation of lawmakers, whether they be, you know, legal professionals or people who want to influence the legal system or even advocates and campaigners like me, we need to see a responsibility on their shoulders to think, well this potentially is the last generation of lawmaking that we have where we can really protect Gypsy Traveller communities as we know them and ensure that the next generation can grow up, not just Gypsy Travellers, but experiencing the whole culture and their whole sense of belonging. 

There was a quote from one of our most famous ballad singers, Bill Stewart, who was an advocate in her own right. She was, you know, celebrated by royalty. She, you know, performed for politicians and whatever it may be. But she was, well known within the community as Granny. Everyone knew her as Granny, right? but she was once asked by a journalist, and the journalist said, when do you think Travellers will cease to exist? When do you think they’ll disappear? You know, you’re an older Traveller, there’s not many people like you. – And this was in the 90s, right? – There’s not many people like you anymore are still singing the old ballads, the old Travellers, you know, when, when will it die? Will it die with you? And she laughed and she’s quoted as saying, son, Travellers will be with us until doomsday in the afternoon. And I think that shows such an act of resilience and humility as well from our elders in our community that I think the legal system can really learn from, but also respect that there is a responsibility placed by that quote on all of our shoulders to ensure that Travellers are here until doomsday in the afternoon.

Jen Ang

A strong and beautiful reminder of the depth of this history, but also of the urgency of the work that needs to be done. 

So I’m going to very cheekily ask you one final question. I know that you need to go, but there will be people who are listening to this series of podcasts, who would be human rights activists, maybe also lawyers, and who are looking at you and who you are and what you’ve accomplished today. 

They might be a younger version of you, or they might actually want to be you, Davie. So my question is, what advice might you have for someone listening today, who wants to know what it takes to get to where you’ve gotten to.

Davie Donaldson

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

And that’s a wrap for today’s episode with Davie Donaldson, award-winning advocate for the Traveller community here in Scotland, relational facilitator and commentator and podcast host for the BBC. 

If you are inspired by what Davie has shared and want to learn more, please do have a listen to his most recent podcast projects, his work at Cognac Advocacy and learn more about how you can help combat discrimination against Indigenous peoples local to you. Find out about the history of your local area. Explore connections and histories that have been hidden, suppressed or lost that you could help to revive like Davie does. This is the first step towards recognising the equal dignity, belonging and the rights of all people who live here. 

We will be back again soon with our next episode, a one-to-one interview with the brilliant Talat Yaqoob, a feminist activist and political commentator and co-chair of the First Minister’s National Advisory Council for Women and Girls in Scotland. She will share with us a timely take on the relationship between law and inequality and highlight some of the key challenges facing the new Scottish Government in 2026. 

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

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

Host: Jen Ang

Quote: Amanda Amaeshi

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

Background music lyrics:

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote: Amanda Amaeshi

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

Background music lyrics:

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

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

Host: Jen Ang

Davie Donaldson

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

Satwat Rehman

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

Background music lyrics

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

Davie Donaldson

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Sandy Brindley

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Talat Yaqoob

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

Andy Sirel

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Here’s Lily on her advice to young activists.

Lily Greenan

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Pheona Matovu

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

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

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

Jen Ang

Oh, are we feeling emotional yet? 

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

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

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

Heather Fisken

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

Jen Ang

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

Tressa Burke

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Satwat Rehman

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Alison Pickup

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

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

Host: Jen Ang

Davie Donaldson

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

Heather Fisken

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

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

Jen Ang

And Heather goes onto describe justice for disabled people:

Heather Fisken 

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

Jen Ang

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

Tressa Burke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Pheona Matovu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Satwat Rehman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Talat Yaqoob 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Pinar Aksu 

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Davie Donaldson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Amanda Amaeshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Host: Jen Ang

Pheona Matovu

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.

Jen Ang

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

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

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

We also have a content warning for you: as mentioned, some of the activists we interviewed with work with women and girl survivors of violence and that means there are some references to sexual violence, including rape, in this episode.

Jen Ang

Today, we’re going to look the answers we got to our second question: 

Is the law a barrier, or a tool (or both) in the struggle to achieve greater equality for people and communities that are marginalised and excluded? 

Across the board, our guests told us that they saw the law as both a barrier and a tool for change.

Talat Yaqoob, political commentator, activist and co-chair of the National Advisory Council for Women and Girls believes the question of whether law is a barrier or a tool for social change, can only be answered by looking at the wider political and social context, at any given time. 

Talat Yaqoob 

So I think it can be both, but I think it is so deeply influenced by where society, people and politics is at the time. 

So if you’d asked me a few years ago, I think I’d be much more secure in saying both. In the current political landscape that we’re in, where law is being very successfully used to demonise communities, either to eradicate rights that are in law, or to manipulate the interpretation of the law, or to change completely the law, implement new ones. Now I’m not just talking about America here. I am talking about here in the UK. We’re seeing it across Europe as well. The rise of far-right politics and populism actually uses the law to its advantage and exceptionally with exceptional strength, with exceptional clarity. 

So with that influence right now, it feels more like a barrier than a positive tool. But it is so dependent on where society is, and I think that really reinforces how politics, how law, is not separate from politics and society. 

Where we are as a society dictates what laws we prioritise, implement, write, and how they’re written, who they’re written by, all of those things. So I think, I still hold strong to the fact that it can be both, but it is so dependent on where politics and society is at the time.

Jen Ang

Similarly, other guests spoke about the function of the law and the legal system as essentially a neutral tool in the hands of different forces. The determining factor, therefore, being: Who is using the law? And for what purpose?

Pinar Aksu, a migrants’ rights activist and PhD student at the University of Glasgow had earlier spoken about the the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill 2025, passing through Parliament as an unjust law that benefitted some people, but harmed many others. She told us, for example:

Pinar Aksu 

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 been going 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 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 it’s concerning for all of us.

How do you reverse that? How do you mobilise the whole community, the whole country, basically, to say what you’re, what you’ve written there, is wrong, and how do we, how do we change that? 

Jen Ang

Tim Hopkins, LGBT+ activist and former director of the Equality Network, also sees the law as both a tool and a barrier in advocating for LGBT+ rights, again very much tied to how particular issues are seen in a political and social context. Reflecting on change he has seen as an activist from the 1980s to the present, he said:

Tim Hopkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the law at the moment is a huge barrier for trans people, especially after the [For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers] Supreme Court judgment in April [2025]. Really, the situation of trans people now is I think worse than the situation was for LGB people, even going back to the 1980s. The legal situation, the fact that it looks like trans people are not going to be able to use toilets, is just appalling.

Jen Ang

Pheona Matovu, Founding Director of Radiant and Brighter, looking to her own experience, personally and professionally, working with racialised and migrant families, is firmly convinced that the law as it stands is designed to treat excluded and marginalised groups unequally, but also believes it can be redesigned to achieve inclusion and positive social change.

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, 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 that that 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 a society that’s engaging. 

So here in Scotland, one of the key 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.

It should protect, it should look after, 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

Some guests spoke about the law as a tool for change – acknowledging for example that the law establishes a basic framework of rights against unfair treatment, which people do benefit from. 

Satwat Rehmat, Chief Executive Officer of One Parent Families Scotland, reflects.

Satwat Rehman

I really do believe that laws empower us ,and 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. 

Jen Ang

Amanda Amaeshi, an activist with the Young Women’s Movement and former law student at the University College of London, agrees…

Amanda Amaeshi

In regards to being a tool like, obviously, people can, like, you go to court and have a case, and especially with cases of like strategic litigation where like it can use like individual cases can be leveraged to kind of advocate for wider, like wider legal precedents that can address broader systemic issues. 

And there’s also like legal protections embedded in like anti-discrimination legislation, like the Equality Act, for example, which, equality is in the name. So I suppose, like, in that sense, it’s definitely a tool…

Jen Ang

Although, Pinar Aksu, points out that there can be challenges in using the law to challenge the law.

Pinar Aksu

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.

Jen Ang

And Tressa Burke, Chief Executive Officer of Glasgow Disability Alliance, points out that strategic challenges even when successful do not have the strategic impact hoped for because the public authority that has been challenged will settle to avoid a strategic win that could positively affect many more people.

Tressa Burke

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 it’s to 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.

Jen Ang

And Satwat Rehman points out that even where a legal challenge has been successful, there is also a risk in the wider political, social and economic context, that the legal victory is unenforceable.  

She describes here an example of a right that might have been “won” in law, or in court but that fails to achieve real world change for the families that need it.

Satwat Rehman  

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 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

Many of our guests focused on barriers to accessing justice for individuals and communities – pointing out that not only is the court system (and access to courts) an issue, but that huge unmet legal need and the difficulty that people experience in accessing legal advice, information and lawyers is for many people – the insurmountable barrier to securing rights supposedly provided under law.

Amanda Amaeshi shares her experience of volunteering a free legal advice clinic during her time as a law student at University College London

Amanda Amaeshi

In regards to like, the practical barriers. So I thought about this through like, I’ve volunteered over the past year at UCL Integrated Legal Advice Clinic. So it’s located in East London, in Stratford, and the clinic offers like legal aid and also pro bono support in regards to housing, welfare, benefits, community care and education. 

And so I had the opportunity to volunteer there, both as an admin volunteer and also through one of my final year modules, which is called access to justice and community engagement. So I got to help out a bit with helping the lawyers with their casework. So I guess, thinking about bad experience and it really illuminated for me the practical barriers that come with accessing law. First off, to do the cost. Well, the fact that so many people are having to access legal clinics, like UCL ILAC, it shows that just accessing legal support is really prohibitive, like, if private legal services are charging exorbitant fees, and it just becomes really inaccessible. 

And then even where, obviously, legal aid does exist and the aim of that is supposed to be to provide access for those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford it, legal aid is being slashed. There’s been lots of cuts, and it’s kind of had, it’s had a major impact on the sustainability of the legal aid sector. 

And as a result, I’ve seen that the relatively few services offering like free legal assistance, especially when it comes to like ongoing support or representation beyond initial advice. And the limited numbers of clinics that do exist, like UCL’s ILAC are often inundated with inquiries, and they have no option that to signpost clients elsewhere. 

And especially when I was working on telephones, answering client inquiries, I found myself having to do this a lot, having to, do some research, find other places that the inquirers could go to. But it also becomes a kind of inescapable loop, because I remember quite a lot of the times, I would say,: “oh, maybe you can go here. You can go here.” And then the inquirer would be like, “Oh, I’ve already been there, and they already didn’t have capacity. And in fact, they were the ones that told me to come to you.” So it just, it almost becomes a bit hopeless. You’re kind of just going round and round in circles. 

And I suppose, going off of that, if you are lucky enough to secure that kind of full time, if you are lucky enough to get that support, there’s then, like so much bureaucracy and like opaqueness within the legal system, and statutes, regulations, guidance, that it’s often difficult to find and even more difficult to understand, and lots of technical language. 

And I remember, as I was helping out with the casework, having to come up with legal arguments, and I’d spend ages reading these documents, and even for me as a law student, and even talking to other lawyers as well, it wouldn’t always be so straightforward to figure out what does this mean? 

So if it’s already difficult for those of us who some experience already with law, then how much more difficult would it be for those who are in a legal crisis and then in a heightened state of vulnerability, and perhaps with other compounding inequalities on top, they do have, like, race or disability or age… how are they supposed to navigate the system? And sometimes, and maybe I’m being a bit cynical, but it also sometimes seems that this opaqueness and difficulty to navigate the system is not just a flaw, but kind of like, like a purposeful design.

Jen Ang

Having highlighted the idea that the difficulty of navigating legal and bureaucratic systems might be a purposeful design, Amanda goes on to give an example of what she means, and to question the justice of a system that is so difficult for ordinary people to navigate.

Amanda Amaeshi

I remember there was a client we had once needed to challenge a decision regarding the Department for Work and Pensions and the deadline for submitting the application to challenge the case, challenge the decision had technically passed. 

But the lawyer who was supervising me said that, like, oh, appeal could probably still be made because of exceptional circumstances, in this case, to do with, like recent house moves and disability-related difficulties. 

And then it raised the question for me of, like, who gets the benefit of this procedural flexibility. And the fact that late appeals could be accepted suggests, it kind of suggested to me that deadlines could function more as like deterrents, as opposed to like absolute cut off, which could potentially discourage claimants to assume that they have no further options after they’ve gotten this decision. 

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

But that’s not how justice is supposed to work, is it? 

Jen Ang

Guests highlight other barriers in the legal system as including the time, money and emotional capacity involved in pursuing legal justice:

Tressa Burke explains why, in her experience, many disabled people do not pursue legal cases even where they have a clear right to do so:

Tressa Burke

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 – it is a battle. Your life is a battle, and people don’t always have the energy and for what’s required.

Jen Ang

Heather Fisken, Chief Executive Officer of Inclusion Scotland, a disabled person’s organisation, agrees, saying of the law:

Heather Fisken 

It shouldn’t be a barrier. and it should be a tool. It should be something that we can use and we 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.

As individuals, disabled people and their families are up against a huge weight of officials involved in their lives. 

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.    

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.

And then we’ve got people being refused health care, and people who don’t have their social key care needs met. You have people who… 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 you find the capacity and the time and the energy? 

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

I remember going to an event in a town up north, and we 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 home, or 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 on 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

Satwat Rehman talks about the long time frames it can take to resolve issues using a legal route – such as judicial review which is a challenge to a decision made by a statutory authority – as a major deterrent for people pursuing a legal remedy.  

Here Satwat talks about trying to find a family to participate in a judicial review being brought by a charity called the Child Poverty Action Group, or CPAG.

Satwat Rehman

That’s right. I mean, I remember speaking to a group of firm parents, because 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

And Heather goes on to caution that lawyers themselves – who people approach to help them bring legal challenges – can themselves create insurmountable barriers to accessing the legal system.

Heather Fisken

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?

Jen Ang

During today’s podcast, we’ve heard guests discuss the law as a barrier or a tool to achieve equality for marginalised and excluded groups.  

We have had reflections that look at this question in social and political context, and have also noted that changes in the law can promote equality and provide protection for some groups, but also that laws designed without excluded groups in mind can just amplify discrimination and exclusion.

We’ve seen some discussion, as well, on barriers in accessing justice due to the complexity of legal procedures, the costs of legal advice, the inaccessibility of lawyers and the legal system and also the exhaustion that is a real life part of life for people who are marginalised and excluded.

We’re ending today with a final reflection from Sandy Brindley, CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland and a part-time PhD student at the University of Glasgow School of Law. Sandy explains why she still believes the legal reform is important but for the impact on the lives of people in the justice system, and also as an educative tool for change in wider society.

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. 

There are limits, I think, when you 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 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 a part-time PhD at the University of Glasgow. I’ve been interviewing women –  they’re called complainers in Scotland, survivors going through the justice process around 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: 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 that prison does actually have – as much as there are many flaws to the system – prison does have an important role, and that it enables women to feel safe for at least a period of time while their 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 look at the definition of rape and gave a definition of consent for the first time back in, I think, was it 2009, the Sexual Offences Act.

But anyway, we set out a definition of rape, which included male rape for the first time, which I think was important. We also defined consent as “free agreement,” and it set out a list of circumstances where can 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 and a proper public education campaign and community engagement, particularly with young people, to say: this is what the law is.

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

We had another example that recently where there was a judgment, an appeal judgment 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 to us, I’ve really seen quite a lot of this in rape exams, like forensic rape exams.  Defence lawyers – I was speaking to an advocate, in a case the other week, who was saying they’ve just seen this so much in cases where they’re defending young men – like so many of these cases, sexual offence cases involving 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 this being a normal part of sex. 

So 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 courts.

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, and 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 and 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. The law has a really important role there.

Jen Ang

And that was Sandy Brindley, concluding today’s podcast by reminding us that the different ways the law can be a tool for change – where, for example, it works to keep us safe from people who do harm, and where it is an educative tool for setting, or even changing, social norms.

Lots more big ideas today, from our guests, and I’d love to hear what you, our listeners, make of it all: for you, is the law a barrier or a tool to greater equality, or perhaps, both?

Meanwhile, heartfelt thanks to Talat Yaqoob, Pinar Aksu, Tim Hopkins, Pheona Matovu, Satwat Rehman, Amanda Amaeshi, Tressa Burke, Heather Fisken and Sandy Brindley, for their contributions to today’s episode.

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

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

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

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

This is a love letter to the Scottish land itself. And to the power of poetry and place.

The Corbenic Poetry Path lies just a short distance outside of Dunkeld, the gateway to the Scottish Highlands. It is open to the public, and is curated – and cared for – by the amazing people who run the Corbenic Camphill Community, a residential care facility for adults with learning disabilities.

It is a path that winds through woodland, across a field, down to the river, and back up to the road again.. punctuated by small acts of poetry.

Sometimes, fresh and crisp and sometimes weathered and gently worn (not unlike me … and how I’ve changed over the nine years since I first came here).

Early in the walk, the poem “Field Holler” invites you to consider what it means to feel at home, in a place.

Field Holler

Today I stand in a field and shout

It is good to stand in a field and shout

To stand somewhere you can call your own

Somewhere you can find a place

Somewhere you can call home

And shout

Last week, this poem hit home different, for a few reasons.

First, in the intervening years, I’ve learned something about neurodiversity (ND), and also about masking* – the conscious modification of instinctive and natural ND behaviour in order to meet mainstream (non ND) expectations around social interaction – and in that journey, I’ve come to accept that we all “mask” in different ways.

And sometimes – like last week – what I’ve got deep inside me, is a shout.

These last few weeks, I’ve had lots of thoughts: Big thoughts. Angry thoughts. Afraid thoughts. Ashamed thoughts.

And instead of shouting, I have been mostly silent.

There are many different reasons why we choose to stay silent, but one very significant reason for people who sit further from power, privilege and social norms – is because speaking your truth (or being your true self) runs a greater risk of direct retaliation just for being you.

And by retaliation, I mean actual emotional or physical harm to individuals.

Today, in the UK (including Scotland) people are harmed, every day, simply because of who they are.**

This has always been true, but for years, we all agreed this was injustice, and it needed to end…now, unless we start making a radical change in how we respond, we can only expect more harm, for more people.

And the end point: everyone – without exception – loses something of themselves, and of the better part of their humanity.

So what’s the answer?

For me, it’s the same as always… (even as I need to remind myself):

Find your field – the place where you feel like you can really be you

Make your mark – shout, or dance, or write poetry, or just lie on your back, flat against the earth – claim your place, breathe deeply, remember that you belong

Bottle the magic – not sure why I have fireflies in mind (summer, childhood), but try to find ways of bringing back the goodness of being you in a place where you belong, to ground you, in your work to do the radical change

…

When you get back, here are some places you can start to make a difference in Scotland, today.

Get marching at the Scotland Demands Better rally on 25 October – a family-friendly rally against poverty, and for a future Scotland where every household can thrive and prosper

Join the Women Against the Far Right Scotland campaign – to make sure that women’s rights are never weaponised by the far right against migrants, and keep the focus on a safer Scotland for all women

Join Let’s Change the Act – the campaign to decriminalise abortion in Scotland and secure women’s reproductive rights

…

Thanks for dropping in again on The Long View – I hope I brought you something useful, and brightened (rather than burdened) your day!

Do you have a favourite “field” (either literal or figurative) where you go to do your shouting, and find your peace?

Would love to hear about that (or shout outs for other campaigns or actions that are about welcome, and not exclusion) in the comments!

* On masking, I’m not seeking to minimise the effort and exhaustion that comes for some ND people when they have to mask in order to get on, or even survive. The effort is most likely enormous, unfair and sometimes quite destructive. I’m just saying that empathising with “masking” is accessible to all of us – because none of us are living, breathing 24/7 models of what socially expected behaviour looks like. For an autistic perspective on masking, here is a video from Andrew Burnett on what masking feels like, for him

** In my devotion to academic rigour, I started to research and summarise a series of 2024-25 statistics here, to support my point. Then it got too depressing, and I stopped. If readers would like to share what you know about how individuals and communities are harmed because of identity – racial , gender, religious, social class and so on – you are welcome to do so, in the comments.

Host: Jen Ang

Talat Yaqoob

“In one case that was described, it was because a young woman had decided to start wearing the hijab, that was reason enough for her to be considered potentially radicalised. Now that is the demonisation of our religion, that’s a demonisation of the expression of religion and religious belief, and so that is an example of where the implementation of so-called protection in law is implemented in way, and in my view also written in a way that demonises a particular community.”

Jen Ang

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

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

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

We also have a content warning for you: as mentioned, some of the activists we interviewed with work with women and girls survivors of violence and that means there are some references to sexual violence, including rape, in this episode.

Jen Ang

Today, we’re going to look the answers we got to our first question: 

Do you feel the law works equally for you, or for your community?  Why, or why not? 

Across, the board, the answer for our guests was, “no – the law is not working equally for me, and my community,” and it was easy for them to express the reasons why…

Let’s start with this reflection from Pheona Matovu.  Pheona founded the charity Radiant and Brighter in Glasgow to create opportunities for racialised migrant people and families to overcome barriers to successful and healthy living, in Glasgow.  

She thinks the law treats racialised people unequally – and that is exactly what it is designed to do.

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.

It’s there to keep those it thinks are wrong, right. And perhaps those that are wrong and can pay more, do different.

 So my work is with the 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 against 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 that 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 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 that it is it has been um designed equitably in order to achieve equity.

Jen Ang

Satwat Rehman, who has served as the Chief Executive Officer of One Parent Familes Scotland for 14 years, agrees – sharing from a related perspective why she, and the single parents she works with, feel the law is working exactly as it is intended to do so: by excluding and impoverishing single parents and their children.

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 minoritised 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. 

Jen Ang

So here, Satwat mentioned the benefit cap and the two-child limit. These were both reforms made to the welfare system by the UK Government which limits the amount of income a family can receive when they are receiving mainstream benefits. And these cases were taken by Child Poverty Action Group, which is a charity, in conjunction with other organisations in order to challenge the effect of the welfare reform limits for poor families across the UK.

Satwat Rehman

But those cases haven’t been successful because of the way the law was made and its intent. 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 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 go into work, even though work may never be sustainable or affordable for them in terms of lifting them out of poverty. 

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? 

Jen Ang

Picking up this theme of a disconnection between how the law is made, who the law serves, and who is impacted by inequalities in the law, Pinar Aksu, a migrant rights campaigner, theatre practitioner and PhD Student at the University of Glasgow sees this disconnection as intentional, and rooted in deep historical tradition designed to reinforce inequalities.

Pinar Aksu 

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. 

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, and the 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, and when we’re designing and defining what migration is. And I think that’s something 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 obviously it sometimes benefits certain people, it doesn’t benefit other people who really need protection.

I also find it fascinating the way the performative side of the law as well, and that’s something I’ve been looking into within my research about how the laws are designed, how legislations are designed, how they are being proposed, and 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 just, yeah, group of people making decisions for 1000s 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

Similarly, Talat Yaqoob, a political commentator, activist and co-chair of the National Advisory Council for Women and Girls, sees the law as intentionally unequal, but because it sits within a wider context of systemic inequality – and is just one of the ways in which that inequality is perpetuated.

Talat Yaqoob

So if I was to talk about it for myself and the vast majority of communities I work with, that would be, you know, the community of women of sisterhood, the community of colours that I work with. So whether it’s black, Asian, minority ethnic communities, disabled people’s communities that I work with, and then Muslim communities of which I am part and also work with… and it’s a resounding no. 

With the intention, you would hope, the intention of the law – seeing everybody as equal – would be there. But the law in itself does not sit in a vacuum away from the realities of society, whether historic or or current, existing. The institutionalised, the systemic inequalities, are threaded into which laws are made, how they are made, and critically, how they’re implemented. And the mindsets, the thinking, the institutionalised inequalities, across the board within that, they will come to the fore in all of those spaces: wherever law is being written, developed, implemented. 

So unless there is some real proactive work to rectify that. Then, actually, in the current society we exist within, can it ever treat everybody equally?

Jen Ang

In Talat’s view, this leads to a kind of double-speak, where laws designed to keep the public safe, in reality operate to create unsafe spaces, for some people, and the law becomes an instrument to exclude, harm and demonise minoritised groups.

Talat Yaqoob 

The Counterterrorism and Security Act of, I think, 2015. So in law, in writing, that is about keeping the nation and the nation’s people safe. But actually it has created unsafe spaces, insecurity and concern for those of us who will appear Muslim, who are – particularly for black and brown men – for hijab or burqa wearing women and we see that largely through the way in which the Prevent strategy, which is obviously part of that Act, is implemented. 

Jen Ang

Talat has referenced the Prevent strategy. The Prevent strategy is the UK Government’s flagship counterextremism policy. It aims to identify people at risk of committing terrorist acts and to intervene.  But controversially, to achieve this aim, the Prevent duty requires public bodies including schools, nurseries, universities, social services and health care providers to monitor and report people they suspect are vulnerable to extremism. That brings teachers, doctors, social workers and others into the realm of people who have responsibility for doing this.

Talat Yaqoob 

Now, human rights organisations have repeatedly called out and evidenced the racism and Islamophobia that is inherent in the way in which the Prevent strategy has been implemented, and how it is being used as a method to penalise rather than protect. 

And in particular, what I often go to is a way in which the Prevent strategy has a obligation on those who work in public sector, public authority spaces – so within our NHS, within schools – to report what they determine as extremism, and the definition of terrorism within it is so wide, and if you think about systemic inequality and leaving it to the perceived objectivity of an individual to decide what is extremism, we have seen multiple reporting and referrals to Prevent which have been wholly inappropriate, unevidenced, a disproportionate number of children and young people. 

In one case that was described, it was because a young woman had decided to start wearing the hijab. That was reason enough for her to be considered potentially radicalised. Now that is the demonisation of a religion. That’s a demonisation of the expression of religion and religious belief. And so that is an example of where the implementation of so-called protection in law is implemented in a way, and in my view, also written in a way that that demonises a particular community.

Jen Ang

Another way of looking at this question – does the law treat you and your community equally – is to look at equality under the letter of the law, or reform of the actual language and substance of the law in order to make it more equal.  

This is an area where many of the activists I spoke to have first-hand experience of advocacy success – leading to, among other things, the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

Tim Hopkins, who is an LGBT activist and also former director of the Equality Network, describes his assessment of how equality under the law for LGBT+ people has progressed since the 1980s in Scotland, but also ponders the challenges that remain for defending the rights of trans and non-binary people – under those same laws – today. 

Tim Hopkins

Yes, so I suppose when I thought about this, I was also thinking about the definition of law. There’s kind of two dimensions to that, for the work that I’ve been involved in for a long time. One is what the law itself says, what is in criminal law, what is criminal and what isn’t. In a civil law, what are people’s rights and so on. So that’s one dimension. 

Then the other dimension is how the law works and you know, being able to uphold your rights and what’s involved in that. To answer the question, when I started campaigning, which was back in the 1980s, the whole environment was that the law treated us very unfairly as LGBT people. 

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

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

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

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

But both those things have been seriously undermined this year, in particular, by the Supreme Court judgment back in April in For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers which is a huge problem for trans people. So for trans people, the law is definitely not working at the moment. 

Jen Ang

Sandy Brindley, CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland, has also seen legislative change in seeking justice for survivors of sexual violence, and she reflects on how we may have come far, but we still have far to go.

Sandy Brindley

So I started in Rape Crisis as a volunteer, in I think it was 1994. it was only 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 and 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, and 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 is a woman who – this is devastating for her. It 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 all the time I’ve worked at Rape Crisis, that 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. 

Undoubtedly, you just need to look at the statistics, how many cases never make it to court, and the low conviction rate of those that do. It is 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 experience it 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. I was like in my early twenties filled 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 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 if who have experienced sexual crime. I think it’s getting better but think there’s still a lot to do.

Jen Ang

In the last part of their reflections, both Tim Hopkins and Sandy Brindley pick up on another way in which activists assess whether or not the law is working equally, and that is, by looking to outcomes – as experienced by some of the communities the law is supposed to be serving equally.

The disability justice movement was also key behind the move to adopt the Equality Act 2010 and a range of other modern legislation designed to better protect and support disabled people to access their rights.

Tressa Burke, a disability rights activist with over 30 years of experience, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Glasgow Disability Alliance, expresses her frustration at the failures of the law on the books to lead to real, lasting change for disabled people.

Tressa Burke

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, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Equality Act. I’m also talking about and 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.

 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

Heather Fisken, Chief Executive Officer of Inclusion Scotland, Scotland’s leading disabled people’s organisation, agrees.

Heather Fisken

I think the short answer is no, unfortunately. It should. absolutely should. But no. And I think the evidence spells that out.  We still have a massive employment gap.

Disabled people are not getting jobs they apply 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.

Jen Ang

And finally, some of our guests turned from thinking about the law as it is made in Parliaments, or the failures of the law to achieve the aims of legislation, to the actual physical and emotional experience of people as they become subjects of the legal system – by being drawn into a legal process – or as they encounter the court system.

Let’s start with this recent example from Davie Donaldson, a leading Travellers rights activist.  Davie describes in this longer excerpt his attempts to bridge the disconnect between a bureaucratic court system and a bewildered Traveller family who were pursued by a Scottish local council in an attempt to prevent them from settling on their ancestral lands.

Davie Donaldson 

Well, mean, where do I begin, right? I mean, my work since I’ve been about 15 has been trying to disentangle and navigate paths that were never built for Gypsy Travellers, right?

Infrastructures that were always built for settled populations and settled people are inherently difficult for Gypsy Travellers to navigate for a number of reasons.

But when it comes to the legal system and the law, that task just becomes mammoth.

I think as well it’s important to recognise that for Gypsy Travellers, the law has always been weaponised in Scotland. um I mean, you can go right back to the early 1500s and see some of the first anti-Gypsy legislation being brought into play.

And from that point onwards, the law has always been seen by settled communities –  particularly settled authorities who don’t want a Gypsy Traveller or nomadic people to exist at times – the law’s always been their tool in which to curtail that. 

And so for Gypsy Travellers, it’s always been this David and Goliath battle since the very start of their, I guess, experience with our modern law system and its foundations.

For me, my experience has been trying to navigate that both as an individual, but also as an advocate for communities, right? And what that often means is trying to take wording from this really alien,.. alien educated environment to the layman, to the local kind of communities who perhaps have had very limited education, certainly not third, um you known, second and third levels of education, but also trying to think about, well, where is the law trying to confuse communities?

Because oftentimes when they bring me in, it’s: we’ve received this document and we don’t know what it means. Or we’ve received this citation and we have no idea what it means. I mean, only recently, give you an example, last week I was contacted by a family who were travelling.

It’s also important to notice that for Gypsy Travellers’ experience with the law and with the justice system, it tends to be at these, what could be called conflict points.

Regularly, those are experienced as Gypsy Travellers travelling. And because we don’t own the land in which we travel, oftentimes it leads to evictions. And evictions are kind of the key trigger point for our experience with the justice system.

So I was contacted by this family who were travelling. They stopped on a disused airfield. And they’d stopped at eight o’clock at night. They pulled onto this airfield.

And by three o’clock the next day, they’d received a Supreme Court of Session document, outlining that they were to be evicted with immediate enforcement.

And they had 24 hours to respond to this written enforcement letter, which was about 15 pages long. And that they had to respond in the form of answers to the Court of Session, which also meant that unless they were able to appoint a solicitor between three o’clock and five o’clock that day, and the solicitor was to be able to read over this document and be able to submit answers on their behalf, they were going to have to put the answers into the Court of Session by hand delivery.

Now, you can imagine the mammoth task that that would be for anyone, but particularly for this family, it’s important to notice that they’d just been evicted from an industrial estate. All of their ancestral camps in the area had been blocked off.

And so they had a number of young children. We had elderly people, a number of disabilities present on the camp as well. And so for this family, it was really important, perhaps more than others, to be able to be in a very safe location. A number of their children had quite severe autism, so they couldn’t stop at the side of the road because of the worry of traffic and the bairns needing space, right?

So they were beside themselves with worry. They had no idea what this meant. All they knew is that the letter threatened sheriff officer action where their vehicles would be town away, where their caravans would be removed from the site, and where police enforcement might happen. So they were terrified.

So they contacted me. They sent me photographs of the citation that that evening. I did my best to read through it from the kind of garbled photos. And then we together pulled together some answers.

And I then drove from the north of Scotland to Edinburgh and to hand deliver it to the Court of Session.

Now, when I got to the Court of Session, I was immediately faced with a security barrier.

I’d got there at one o’clock. I had to go up to the main office to speak to the reception and say, look, I need to go to the Court of Session and hand this document. And they said, well, I’m sorry, but the Court of Session’s on its lunch break. So you won’t be able to get down there until two o’clock.

I said, OK. And they said, but you can wait. So I sat down and I waited for the hour. 

And in that time of waiting, and this is why I mentioned this, what might seem quite, and I guess, an insignificant part of the story, but waiting is something that is highly triggering for Gypsy Traveller communities.

Because waiting, particularly in a formal environment like a court or even just in an office building, it triggers all of those juvenile memories of being excluded at school, of being made to feel different, of dealing with the justice system in a way that’s inherently unjust.

And so even for me, I guess I’m used to dealing with professional folk and police and social services and so on. But nonetheless, waiting in that moment was highly triggering.

I felt my anxiety peaking.

I felt my heart rate going.

And at moments, I wanted to walk out, right? I wanted to leave that building.

I didn’t want to be there anymore in this really structured environment that was felt like the walls were closing in on every side.

Eventually I got through. We got through the barrier, went down to the office.

When I got there, I handed the document to the reception. They said, right, we need to check this. So then another period of waiting. So I then had to wait for another hour.

By that stage, and one of their office staff had had the document reviewed and checked by some seniors. They came back and they said, right, have you contacted the solicitor?

And I said, no, because I know the name of the solicitor, but it’s a big multinational kind of firm. But I don’t know the name of the individual solicitor who’s dealing with the case.

I wasn’t given any contact details because interlocuter that we’d been given missed out a lot of the appendices. So we weren’t given all the information that the Court of Session had been given.

We weren’t given contact details for the solicitor’s firm. Instead, we were just given the formal address of the Court of Session. 

So the admin said, “well, you have to speak to the solicitor. We can’t accept these as answers because they’re not in appropriate format.”

I said, “Right, okay.  But what is the appropriate format?” 

“I can’t tell you that.”

I said, “Right.” 

He said, “You know, you can have these in online.”

I said, “I can’t because I’m not a solicitor.” 

He said, “Ah, okay. In what capacity are you acting with the occupiers?”

Now, I knew before going there that I couldn’t do anything that would imply I was a solicitor because then I’d be breaking the law.

So I was very, very careful, but then I also wanted to ensure that it was clear that the document had been written with the occupiers and therefore that these families, you know, they weren’t having something placed on them, but they’d actually written this document alongside me, albeit with some support around, you know, their rights and legislation and so on.

And I said, “Well, I’m an advocate, so I’m just wanting to help the families get their voices heard.”

“Ah, but you have to be acting in some capacity. What capacity?” 

And I said, I knew I couldn’t admit that I had no idea what he was asking. But at the same time I was terrified to do anything which might get me in in hot water. So I think he eventually realised this and he said, “look, I would go to the and solicitor’s office.”

So I left there. I drove to the headquarters of the solicitors, went in.

Of course, I had no idea what solicitor I was asking for. I had no case reference or anything like that. I just had this legal document.

And I just handed it to someone and I said, look, I said, I really hope this counts as within the 24-hour period because otherwise these families are facing eviction to nowhere. There’s nowhere for them to go.

Eventually, I got an email back from the solicitors and they said they would consider the position, because there was clear evidence that there would be a breach of public sector equality duties. There was clear evidence of there was no EQIA – no Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment – had been carried out. It was impossible for it to have been carried out in that time period anyway.

So there were significant concerns because it was a public authority who was doing the enforcement.

So I then went back that night, drove up to the north-east of Scotland, went to visit the families, showed them, told them what had happened, gave them a hand copy of the letter, and so on, for their records.

And when I was speaking to them, they said, “I don’t know what all the problem’s about. There’s no mess. There’s no antisocial behaviour. There’s been no complaints. All we want is somewhere safe for our kids to stay.” 

And I think that one example shows you just the David and Goliath task that often exists for families. 

Jen Ang

Davie described earlier his own anxiety whilst waiting in the Court of Session to be seen, rooted in his own experiences with places of formal authority – and he goes on to describe the impact for the families he works with of encounters like these with the legal justice system.

Davie Donaldson 

Many of the families that I work with have low rates of literacy. They have an absolute fear of the justice system. 

So if they’re ever given anything formal, their minds immediately go to: “What will happen to my children? Will social services get involved? Will my children be removed? What will happen to me? Will I end up in prison?” 

You know, there’s such a lack of information around the rights of Gypsy Travellers within the community. But there’s also this predetermination of, well, they’re going to find it wrong against me anyway.

So what’s the point? You know, so it’s a difficult situation. 

Jen Ang

And finally, I’d like to return to Pheona Matovu, whose opening reflections we listened to at the start of the podcast.  

She asks us whether the law – as we know it, and define it – is even the right place to start as a way for humanity to deal with the deep, disturbing and difficult problems we bring to our courts – and her questions gently urge us to consider whether the law can ever treat us equally, and whether, as a tool, it can be wielded with humanity.

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 [Refugee] 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 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 –   don’t even like the language asylum seekers, 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? So in that regard, 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 courts to express themselves and be judged by law.

How can you judge a situation so dire, with the law? 

Jen Ang

 And that concludes today’s episode, in which a number of prominent Scottish activists sat down to talk to us about our first big question: does the law treat you, and your community, equally?

Across the board, our guests said: ‘no’ the law does not treat us equally – and they told us exactly why they thought that. 

Some people asked whether it makes sense to speak about the law as separate from political, economic and cultural forces. For them, the legal system is a reflection of systemic inequality, which is either intentional or due to an oversight, a failure to think about equity in designing the law and a failure to include or involve and communities in the designing who would be most adversely impacted by it. 

That was never a requirement to be met in developing the law, and by and large and it still isn’t – although there are strong moral and principled arguments, and some legal arguments, in favour of doing so. 

 What does it mean, some of the guests ask, that we allow there is such a wide gulf between those who make the law, and those who experience its impacts – and so few ways of bridging that divide?

Some of our participants reflected that they had seen progress towards equality under the law, but others – looking to outcomes – pointed out that whilst we may have seen progressive modernisation of our legislation (the laws passed by Parliaments) we are not seeing real change on the ground for excluded and discriminated against groups, including disabled communities, racialised communities, nomadic peoples, and, of course, trans and non-binary people. 

We heard a few different perspectives on how triggering and traumatic interactions with the formal court systems can feel, and ended the episode with a poignant question – whether the law can ever treat us equally, and can it, as a tool, ever be wielded with humanity?

Big questions, and I’d love to hear what you, our listeners, make of it all.  
Meanwhile, a very big thank you to Pheona Matovu, Satwat Rehman, Pinar Aksu, Talat Yaqoob, Tim Hopkins, Sandy Brindley, Tressa Burke, Heather Fisken and Davie Donaldson for their contributions to today’s episode.

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

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

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

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

Host: Jen Ang

Maria McCloskey

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

04:08.01

Maria McCloskey

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

04:16.10

Jen Ang

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

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

04:47.25

Maria McCloskey

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

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

05:52.33

Jen Ang

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

06:40.23

Jen Ang

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

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

07:07.30

Maria McCloskey

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

07:18.81

Maria McCloskey

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

06:52.24

Maria McCloskey

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

07:15 .00

Maria McCloskey

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

09:51.60

Maria McCloskey

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

10:07.15

Maria McCloskey

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

10:20.38

Maria McCloskey

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

Jen Ang

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

Here’s some recent news coverage from ITV News

Daniel Duffy, ITV News

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

Clodagh Miskelly

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

Daniel Duffy

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

Dorothy Whittingston

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

Jen Ang

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

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

15:31.16

Maria McCloskey

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

16:10.60

Maria McCloskey

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

16:25.96

Maria McCloskey

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

19:40.68

Maria McCloskey

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

19:51.57

Maria McCloskey

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

20:09.54

Maria McCloskey

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

20:43.77

Maria McCloskey

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

15:12.46

Maria McCloskey

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

29:55.58

Maria McCloskey

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

30:36.27

Maria McCloskey

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

Jen Ang

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

11:55.33

Maria

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

13:02.78

Maria McCloskey

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

13:30.22

Maria McCloskey

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

14:19.26

Maria McCloskey

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

14:55.92

Maria McCloskey

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

15:12.46

Maria McCloskey

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

15:31.16

Maria McCloskey

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

17:02.27

Maria McCloskey

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

17:41.82

Maria McCloskey

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

18:19.77

Jen Ang

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

21:03.38

Jen Ang

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

21:19.41

Maria McCloskey

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

21:40.31

Maria McCloskey

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

22:17.75

Maria McCloskey

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

23:02.81

Maria McCloskey

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

23:40.85

Jen Ang

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

24:12.87

Maria McCloskey

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

24:30.45

Maria McCloskey

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

24:55.99

Maria McCloskey

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

Jen Ang

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

25:11.97

Maria McCloskey

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

25:30.45

Maria McCloskey

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

25:58.26

Maria McCloskey

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

27:01.40

Jen Ang

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

27:26.48

Maria McCloskey

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

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

28:27.37

Maria McCloskey

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

29:06.84

Maria McCloskey

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

31:48.85

Maria McCloskey

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

32:10.85

Maria McCloskey

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

32:26.32

Maria McCloskey

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

 30:29 .70

Jen Ang

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

33:47.79

Jen Ang

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

33:55.70

Jen Ang

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

34:59.22

Maria McCloskey

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

35:20.14

Maria McCloskey

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

35:37.08

Maria McCloskey

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

36:27.54

Maria McCloskey

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

36:40.91

Maria McCloskey

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

36:52.77

Maria McCloskey

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

37:05.41

Maria McCloskey

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

37:57.70

Maria McCloskey

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

38:14.41

Maria McCloskey

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

39:04.16

Jen Ang

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

39:39.04

Maria McCloskey

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

40:07.83

Maria McCloskey

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

40:30.84

Maria McCloskey

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

40:47.45

Maria McCloskey

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

41:36.36

Maria McCloskey

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

41:47.49

Maria McCloskey

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

42:37.85

Maria McCloskey

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

43:28.16

Maria McCloskey

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

43:43.12

Maria McCloskey

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

44:08.23

Jen Ang

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

44:15.30

Maria McCloskey

[Laughs]

44:15.95

Jen Ang

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

45:17.97

Maria McCloskey

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

45:46.31

Maria McCloskey

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

46:16.32

Jen Ang

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

 46:35.84

Maria McCloskey

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

Jen Ang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Host: Jen Ang

Andy Sirel

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

Jen Ang 

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

Jen Ang

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

Andy Sirel

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Andy Sirel

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

Jen Ang

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

Andy Sirel

I think so.

Jen Ang

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

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

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

Andy Sirel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC Anchor

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

Ola Jasim

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Andy Sirel

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

Andy Sirel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Andy Sirel

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

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Andy Sirel

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

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

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

Jen Ang

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

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

Andy Sirel

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

Jen Ang

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

Andy Sirel

Thanks very much, Jen Take care.

Jen Ang

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

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

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

Recorded 23 May 2025

Banksy’s newest work shows a judge, in a traditional wig and gown, using a gavel to strike a protestor lying on the ground below him, holding up a blood-spattered placard. It appeared a day after the Met Police arrested nearly 900 people at Parliament Square protesting in support of the proscribed group Palestine Action.

Defend Our Juries, who organised the protest, made this statement: “Among the 857 arrestees were vicars and priests, war veterans and descendants of Holocaust survivors, retired teachers and healthcare workers,” and accused the police of making “many false claims” to justify arresting peaceful demonstrators with signs that read: “I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action.”

Speaking for the Met Police, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Claire Smart, issued this statement: “You can express your support for a cause without committing an offence under the Terrorism Act ... we have a duty to enforce the law without fear or favour. If you advertise that you are intending to commit a crime, we have no option but to respond accordingly.”

But what if, (hypothetically) all possible ways of expressing your support for a cause become an offence under the Terrorism Act?

“But that could never happen,” you might protest.

How certain are you? And what exactly do you know about the process for proscribing an organisation as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000 – an act that was widely criticised when passed as putting forward too broad a definition of “terrorism” and too few mechanisms for holding the state to account for abuse of those powers?

You be the judge:

• Here is the explanatory memorandum prepared by the UK Home Office and laid before Parliament, with the draft order for proscription of Palestine Action (PA), alongside two other organisations: Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) and Russian Imperial Movement (RIM).
• Here is the debate in UK Parliament on 2 July 2025, during which MPs raised concerns and sought to differentiate the severity of the evidence with respect to PA as compared to MMC and RIM, and requested the option of voting separately on proscription of each organisation. Dan Jarvis, Minister of State for Security, refused, citing both precedent (this is the way we’ve always done it) and neutrality (refusing to unbundle possibly randomly bundled orders for proscription, somehow demonstrates that we are ideologically neutral).
• Neutrality is, of course, a fiction in matters of politics. And here, finally, is the list of the 385 MPs who voted in favour of proscription, and the 20 MPs who voted against.

The process of criminalising behaviour, and of making your actions – however right or just or private or justifiable you think they might be – illegal, is in most cases, quite clear.

But once your behaviour is criminalised, enforcement against you is backed by the full powers of the state.

The question that a human rights lawyer would ask – and that you should ask yourself (and keep asking yourself) is:

If this law were used against me, in circumstances where I feel I have acted reasonably, and my opponents have acted abusively, would the outcome be fair?

If you feel the answer is “no,” whether or not the law directly affects you today, consider whether – out of self interest, or solidarity – you should nevertheless do something to oppose, or reform, it.

For the record:

• The punishment for supporting a group proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, like Palestine Action, is up to a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment, or an unlimited fine.
• The punishment for criminal damage – what Banksy’s latest work is being investigated as – is a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
• The punishment for supporting a group that actually commits genocide…this is harder to calculate…for those of you reading this article who are criminal law experts, I’m all ears?

Some final thoughts

This is a picture of the site of Banky’s work a few days later: a foreboding shadow, after the fine detail has been scrubbed away.

There is something that sits uncomfortably, in this picture, and this political moment in the UK. The Met Police, and the justice system – in the name of defending the rule of law, the impartiality of the judiciary, prosecutorial discretion and the integrity of policing systems – being drawn into direct and visible conflict with a growing popular movement, committed to continuing to protest in favour of a cause – regardless of, and sometimes perhaps because of, the criminal consequences.

“When the law is used as a tool to crush civil liberties, it does not extinguish dissent – it strengthens it.” – Defend our Juries

…

If you enjoyed this brief interruption, and would like to continue thinking about the impact of Banksy’s latest work, I can recommend: Banksy’s erased mural: the irony of power by Ángela León Cervera

To learn more about your right to protest in Scotland, and practical solidarity: Scottish Community & Activist Legal Project

To donate to support Palestinians in Gaza: Medical Aid for Palestinians

First published on LinkedIn on 12 September 2025:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/solidarity-pursuit-justice-art-dissent-jen-ang-uwlee