Read on Twitter
Following Engender’s AGM this weekend, and in advance of our appearance at the @SP_Justice committee next week, we have written the following with regard to some areas of concern.
Thread https://forwomen.scot/16/11/2020/engender-agm/?fbclid=IwAR3tDJM_TZH8iiAT94NWx4aiYHzrZzVwQTvZDowB9OQvibRg2FyMuwL_eAs
Thread https://forwomen.scot/16/11/2020/engender-agm/?fbclid=IwAR3tDJM_TZH8iiAT94NWx4aiYHzrZzVwQTvZDowB9OQvibRg2FyMuwL_eAs
During the session with the Justice Secretary, several committee members, notably @aewingmsp, @liamkerrMSP & @Liam4Orkney raised concerns about the omission of sex as an aggravating factor, contrary to the recommendations of Lord Bracadale. https://forwomen.scot/16/11/2020/engender-agm/?fbclid=IwAR3tDJM_TZH8iiAT94NWx4aiYHzrZzVwQTvZDowB9OQvibRg2FyMuwL_eAs
It was clear that, in making this decision, @HumzaYousaf was reliant on the submission produced by Engender whom he apparently regarded as a national and representative organisation.
However, this does not seem to be the case.
However, this does not seem to be the case.
Despite being funded as an intermediary organisation, Ms Ritch stated “Engender is not funded for a huge amount of engagement and are not presenting our work as advocating on behalf of the members or as representative of women.” We are therefore unclear who they mediate between.
Naturally there is much of value in Engender’s work, yet we question why what seems to amount to the views of a small number of women is given such significance. Viewed in this light, their input should carry no more weight than other policy organisations.
Certainly, we do not believe that their work should be given preferential weighting beside, for example, the high quality and meticulous research of @mbmpolicy.
We are incredibly concerned that misapprehensions on the part of Mr Yousaf may lead to the decision on sex as an aggravating factor being delegated to an unelected - and potentially unrepresentative - working group rather than MSPs. @liamkerrMSP & @Liam4Orkney picked up on this.
@HumzaYousaf appeared to believe that there was an issue with including sex as it would apply to men and women. We are puzzled as to why he & women’s org believe this, and if they realise similar objection could be made about the characteristics of race and sexual orientation.
Other comments at the AGM indicated that Engender appeared to have information about the likely make up and deliberation outcomes of the working group (including sex would “not be helpful”).
We would like to ask: if membership does not admit engagement and the opportunity to forward arguments and there are no other ways for women in Scotland to have an input to the position Engender takes, which perspectives are “privileged” and how this is determined?
We are pleased that members of the @SP_Justice committee are raising questions on these matters and thank them for taking the time to address it.
