[quote R0wantrees]Case Study ScotsGov
(no date)
"Shakti Women’s Aid came into being in September 1985, when a small group of black women applied for funding, with the help and support of Edinburgh & Lothians Women’s Aid, to the (then) Edinburgh District Council, for funding to set up a separate refuge for BME women and their children fleeing from domestic abuse. In April 1986 the Edinburgh District Council Housing Department approved funding for office premises and two part-time workers, and by September 1986, the workers were in post.
Shakti’s definition of Domestic Abuse is wider than most, it not only recognises perpetrators as a partner or ex-partner, but also other family member such as in-laws.
Prior to the birth of Shakti BME women and their children were using the main stream women’s services, where some of them faced racism and discrimination. In addition, women found that the service provided to them was inappropriate and or did not meet their emotional, cultural, religious and practical support needs. It was recognised early on that a Specialist Refuge Accommodation was needed to allow BME women to overcome additional barriers such as communication, religious and dietary practices racial discrimination, which is unfortunately still a reality for many BME women living in Scotland, individual’s facing racism from people on the street to structural racism such as immigration laws, and other discriminatory practices which exist within mainstream service provision. In June 1987, the first refuge (Shakti) for BME women in Edinburgh was opened.
Current status
Due to the immigration rules Women with no recourse to public funds do not have the same rights as women who have indefinite to leave or is a British citizen. Consequently, these women may have to live in abusive relationships putting themselves and their children (if any) at risk of domestic abuse.
One of our biggest and most distressing challenges in recent years has been the marked increase in contact from women who, due to discriminative immigration rules, have ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ (NRPF), meaning they have no access to social housing, benefits and some of them have no right to work in the UK.
Women’s’ options are to return to their abusive partner or live on the streets, forcing them and their children into a very dangerous and unpredictable life.
We want to eradicate gender based violence and believe this must include all women, regardless of their immigration status. We believe that preventing these women from accessing services is a breach of their basic human right to be safe and live a life free from violence and fear.
In June 2016 three of our staff members completed a sponsored walk, raised around £1500 for these women.
In Scotland, for the past 20 years, Shakti has been at the forefront of campaigning and raising awareness about the problems faced BME women and their children who have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) and are subjected to domestic abuse.
Shakti is a member of the National No Recourse to Public Funds Campaign Group and has been actively involved in the Campaign to Abolish No Recourse to Public Funds. The Campaign Group have been successful in the Home Office introducing Concession for Destitute Victims of Domestic Violence (concession allowing victims of domestic violence on spousal visas with no recourse to public funds (NRPF’s) to access benefits and public housing while they apply for settlement under the ‘domestic violence rule’). The campaign is on-going.
In 2016 Shakti organised a conference on this issue ‘Disparity in Britain. Changing Europe: the real experiences of women subjected to domestic abuse’."
onescotland.org/nacwg-news/case-study-shakti/[/quote]
Thanks for finding all this Rowantrees. It sounds like Shakti was set up by women who saw a real need for an individual group of women who weren’t well served by the current service, and rather than trying to modify the present facility, which was presumably serving the women who were using it well, they set up a separate and dedicated service so that they could properly help those women.
Mridul came into that system, not to help the women directly, but to train others about the issues being dealt with. Having gained the trust of those who worked there, and having transitioned, Mridul moved over into roles that would usually be given to women. Still not frontline roles, but roles which carried more power.
Mridul Wadwha has mentioned before the feeling of gaining power, when working in a call centre, claiming on the phone to be a woman. That feeling of power was pleasant enough to Mridul to comment on it in an interview later.
So having gained a stronger foothold in a part of the system that catered exclusively for immigrant women, Mridul then describes a growing need to move from advocating for immigrant women to advocating for men who claimed they were women.
It might have been assumed, had a genuine need been identified, that an equivalent to Shakti could have been set up to serve men who claim they are women. But as we know, that is not what has happened.
And rather than ensuring women (and men who claim they are women) are properly catered for by small, individual systems that serve them well separately, Mridul has taken positions within larger (more prestigious?) establishments and is now attempting to bend them all to fit the group Mridul claims to represent.
It seems likely to me, looking at the series of events, that having tasted power, that power might be a significant driver of behaviour here. The roles taken appear to be in the higher echelons of this type of work, which increases the access and standing with those in positions of power in government.