Edinburgh Rape Crisis, Rape Crisis Scotland, Mridul Wadhwa and Sandy Brindley
We are aware that some people feel Ms Brindley, CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS), is being subjected to a witch hunt, something our organisation would be expected to condemn. Therefore, we feel it is important to set out why we have grave concerns about Ms Brindley’s part in the recent debacle, and explain some of the history of the promotion of gender identity ideology in the women’s sector. Ms Brindley has denied she had any part in the hiring of Wadhwa for Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). This is true but it isn’t the whole picture.
Mridul Wadhwa first came to Scotland in 2005 to study for a Masters in the Management of Training and Development. He claimed that he worked for Shakti Women’s Aid from the time of his arrival in Scotland in 2005, although there is no official evidence of his recruitment at this time, and it is likely he was a volunteer. He has stated that he made some colleagues aware that he was trans.
Shakti said in 2017 that he had been employed for 8 years, putting his start date sometime around 2009, about the time that he moved permanently to Scotland. This is consistent with his LinkedIn profile, which gives a start date for the role of Information and Education Officer and Children’s Services team leader of 2008.
His job was likely part of the Information and Education Project, funding for which began in 2008 and ceased in 2013 which would tie in with the date he began working for RCS.
In 2014, Wadhwa also began working for RCS as Training and Volunteer Co-ordinator. The CEO of RCS who would have approved this hire was – and remains – Sandy Brindley. As Wadhwa continued to claim, including in his Linkedin entry, that he was also employed full-time by Shakti until 2017, the likeliest explanation is that this was some sort of secondment, which was set up for him the year after Shakti lost funding for his post.
Wadhwa said that he was an “out” trans person from 2010 which would mean Brindley was fully aware that he was male when RCS hired him in 2014. We have not been able to find evidence of any advertisement for the post at RCS, although they were using the Equality Act Schedule 9 occupational requirement to advertise other female-only roles at that time. Further corroboration that his trans status was known comes from a now deleted blog, Virginia’s Room (we have permission to share the story). The author recalls a party she attended about 16 years ago – around the time Wadhwa moved permanently to Scotland. The event was largely attended by members of the Indian community in Scotland, including one “MW” whom she perceived as “a friendly Hijra” (Wadhwa has identified with hijras in the past and claimed that, before the British Raj, they enjoyed a “position of privileged power“) . The author said she “could not fail to notice the Adam’s apple and the low voice” and assumed MW was trans, which did not concern her. Suddenly, the host asked the room if they thought MW was a man or woman, something she assumed MW would find “impolite and intrusive”. To her surprise, it was clear that MW not only welcomed the question, but that he had requested that the host posed it.
In RCS’s 2014/2015 annual report, Wadhwa (of RCS) features prominently in a picture with Brandi Lee Lough Dennell of LGBT Youth Scotland, James Morton of Scottish Transgender Alliance & Sandie Barton of Rape Crisis Scotland at the launch of Rape Crisis Scotland’s new LGBTI helpline.
In 2015, Wadhwa, identifying himself as an employee of RCS, gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee at Westminster, and argued that trans identifying men should be fully included in women’s services as, unlike “cisgender” men, “trans people are specific targets of systemic gender-based violence which marginalises and oppresses them as a social group”. He also argued for the removal of the occupational requirement clause as “discriminatory” to transwomen. He boasted that “none of the organisations I work for would ever consider using this part of the legislation and have very positive trans inclusive policies and encourage trans women to work and volunteer with them.” If this is true, it means that, despite citing Schedule 9 in job adverts, RCS were not adhering to the law in practice.
He went on to say that “all fund recipients from the Scottish Government’s Violence against women funds are expected to implement a trans inclusion policy as a requirement of the grant. I would welcome similar mandatory requirements of all public, private and third sector grant recipients and contractors receiving funding to carry out work with those affected by sexual violence and other forms of gender based violence.”
This funding requirement is a reference to that outlined by the Equally Safe Joint Strategic Board which stated that “To be eligible for funding, applicants are required to demonstrate the following in their application…Ensure that your service is inclusive to lesbian, bisexual, trans and intersex (LBTI) women. An LBTI Inclusion Plan should be submitted along with your application.” Wadhwa was not alone in promoting this line: as early as 2013, Emma Ritch of Engender was tweeting “All Government-funded VAW services in Scotland have a trans-inclusion plan”.
In 2018, Brindley gave her view on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill which she said would make no difference to Rape Crisis Services: “I think the most important thing to say is that [the proposed legal changes] should make no difference to the provision of women-only services – that’s where some confusion has arisen. There isn’t any Rape Crisis which would ask to see documentation of gender.”
The Holyrood Magazine article also quoted Wadhwa – again highlighting his employment by RCS: “Rape Crisis Scotland has had a policy of self-declaration much longer than the discussion, longer than I have been at RCS. There isn’t anything which Rape Crisis Scotland does that would be impacted by this. I just can’t see anyone abusing self-declaration.” Ironic, as Wadhwa was clearly abusing a system of self-ID by taking jobs reserved for women.
In 2018, Engender released a podcast on the GRA. Engender CEO, the late Emma Ritch (then chair of RCS board), was joined by Wadhwa and Becky Kaufmann of STA, a former prison officer and father of eight, to argue the merits of allowing men into women-only spaces. Wadhwa, still working as volunteer co-ordinator at RCS, confirmed the regular involvement of STA in RCS and boasted of the “more explicit” inclusion of biological men in volunteer recruitment.
RCS tweeted the podcast and supported Wadhwa’s comments, saying it demonstrated “why it’s important that rape crisis services in Scotland are trans inclusive”.
Emma Ritch was an enthusiastic proponent of self ID, and chaired the RCS board from 2016. Ritch (who once spoke at Liberal Democrat Voice fringe meeting advocating for the inclusion of trans-identified men in women’s services) and Brindley promoted the narrative that self-ID was embedded in the Rape Crisis system without problems.
In 2019, Wadhwa was appointed manager of Forth Valley Rape Crisis (FVRC), a job explicitly advertised under Schedule 9 – the clause he claimed his organisation never used.
RCS said they were “approached by the press seeking to find out if certain posts within our organisation are held by trans women. We would like to make it clear that we will never disclose the trans history of any of our employees or volunteers”. This, of course, was one of the failings identified at the Tribunal where the “right” of staff to keep their sex secret superseded the right of survivors to know the sex of a counsellor. They went on to say “Trans women are an important and valued part of our movement.”
Brindley deleted her Twitter account some time ago, but archives remain of her interactions over self-ID, Gender Recognition Reform, and RCS’s position on single-sex spaces. In 2020 she hit out at an advert placed in the Scotsman by FWS and LGB Alliance which said “Self-ID gives Predators the Green Light”. Apparently unaware of high profile cases in the UK and elsewhere, Brindley claimed “Ads like this are intended to exploit women’s genuine fear of rape.”
In these tweets Brindley continued to make the disingenuous case that, as supposedly women-only services already operated on a self-ID basis, Gender Recognition Reform would make no difference. This neatly avoided answering whether this policy was justified or even legal. It also raises pertinent questions about what Brindley considers constitutes a female only space.
By 2020, one might have been forgiven for assuming that work in the Violence Against Women sector was largely a springboard for Wadhwa’s political aspirations (he first stood as a council candidate in 2017) as he was on two SNP short lists for the 2021 Holyrood election. One of these, Stirling, was supposed to be women-only and his candidature prompted complaints. Sandy Brindley, however, was fully supportive, tweeting, “So pleased to see @mridul_wadhwa standing. She is one of the most passionate and compassionate woman I have had the privilege of working with 💜”. When she received a reply saying “he’s not a woman and shouldn’t even be in the post he’s in”, Brindley answered “Neither of these things are true. I think you should delete this tweet. I am going to report it.“
That year, Wadhwa boasted in an Out for Indy podcast that he had “the privilege of being a woman who passes” which he used to his “advantage” as it gave him “access to spaces and to people… not all trans people would have that access.” This sheds worrying light on a line of questioning pursued by Naomi Cunningham KC at Roz Adams’ Tribunal. She asked ERCC board member Miren Sagues whether or not Wadhwa would be expected to disclose his sex to survivors. The answers were confused – not least because Sagues maintained that Wadhwa was a woman – but she maintained that Wadhwa was “open” about being trans and would disclose this to survivors. However, she also insisted that Wadhwa was not obligated to reveal his sex and while he had the “right” to share the information, the survivor had no right to be told.
One of the most shameful incidents of Ms Brindley’s tenure was during the “SixWords” debate. In 2020, she led RCS in opposing Johann Lamont’s amendment to the Forensic Medical Services Bill. Having admitted in a Scotsman column that “The single biggest issue that women raise with Rape Crisis in Scotland about the process of getting a forensic examination after being raped is not having access to a female doctor”, Brindley, inexplicably dismissed the need for an amendment which would have made the right absolute. She wrote “some commentators see this as a development which would exclude trans women doctors from carrying out forensic examinations. If this is the intent of the amendment, it will not achieve this… the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably.” Yet sex is defined in law, while gender is not (something acknowledged by the Scottish Government who admitted they had no definition of “gender”). For legislation to be watertight, the correct legal terminology must be used. Brindley had raised the issue in briefings, and told the committee that “The lack of access to a female doctor is what causes the most trauma.” One might have expected that Brindley would be more, not less keen to assure protection, yet RCS briefings emailed to MSPs asking them not to support a rape victim’s right to choose a female medical examiner directed them to Brindley in the event of additional questions.
Once again, it was left to survivors to ask directly for support and to call out the inconsistencies of RSC’s position. One explanation for RCS’s stance is that it risked upsetting Wadhwa. In the event, he angrily left the SNP declaring he he could no longer call it home after they whipped MSPs to vote for the amendment. In an intemperate exchange with Shona Robison, Wadhwa declared that the amendment would not give survivors what they wanted and that MSPs had gone along with “those who promote the bigoted contempt for a minority group and have hijacked survivors trauma to further their cause”.
Isabelle Kerr, now CEO of Beira’s Place, was then the manager of Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis (GCRC). She posted her support for Johann Lamont’s amendment on Twitter, saying that not everyone in the network agreed with RCS. She recalls that this resulted in an angry telephone call from Brindley who insisted (erroneously) that such statements had to be run past RCS. Post the Tribunal ruling, Brindley has asserted that centres are autonomous, in 2020, she attempted to speak on behalf of them all.
When Wadhwa was appointed to the role of CEO of ERCC many women wrote in protest to the Equality and Human Rights Commission begging them to intervene. Sandy Brindley was unequivocal in her support: “Mridul Wadhwa brings to this role extensive experience working in the violence against women sector. All rape crisis centres in Scotland work within equality and employment law. There is a lot of misinformation and targeted harassment in relation to Mridul. We think this is unacceptable.” Wadhwa also made an immediate plea for sympathy on Twitter about the “horrid article” in the Times.
While Brindley had no hand in hiring Wadhwa for ERCC, the appointment was not wholly divorced from RCS. The chair of the ERCC board at the time, Kathryn Dawson, was (and is) the Sexual Violence Prevention Coordinator at RCS. She wrote: ““Mridul brings a wealth of experience to ERCC, from her work in the wider rape crisis and women’s movements, to her activism and campaigning on trans rights, BME rights and other equalities issues.” Senior RCS staff clearly saw no issue with appointing a man to run a Rape Crisis Centre.
In a statement from Scottish civil society organisations on the UK Government’s intervention on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in response to the Section 35 order in January 2023, Engender, RCS and others again made the claim that “Violence Against Women (VAW) services in Scotland already operate on the basis of self-ID… Rape crisis services in Scotland have been providing trans inclusive services for 15 years without incident.”
Meanwhile, survivors’ voices were ignored. Brindley claimed in 2019 that the centres that moved from being single-sex consulted survivors. We cannot find any record of such a consultation. RCS changed their Articles of Association in 2013 from “to relieve the emotional distress of WOMEN AND GIRLS who have been raped” (as in the 2003 Articles) to: “to relieve the emotional distress of INDIVIDUALS who have been raped”.
Survivors who did try to engage over the issue included the HEAL group whose devastating account of the October 2019 meeting with Brindley has been picked up in recent weeks.
Ms Brindley was also challenged on the subject at a meeting about Violence Against Women organised by the Scottish Women’s Convention (SWC) in May 2022. Brindley insisted that no men worked anywhere in the network and that Wadhwa was a woman. Many women were distressed and, later, SWC undertook their own report into single-sex services which categorically concluded:
Having listened to the women, our three key recommendations on this topic are:
- That all organisations state clearly that they have women only spaces under the equality Act 2010 single sex space provision.
- That the NHS and hospitals provide single sex spaces to protect the mental and physical health of all women.
- That proper support, counselling and trauma informed services are available to all women at all times which can help them to deal with the violence they have faced at the hands of males.
Sadly, for survivors of abuse and trauma, the Government and RCS were still shutting their ears and continuing to prioritise the wishes of employees above the health and wellbeing of traumatised women.
Note: This is an expanded version of a thread we posted on Twitter on 23/09/2024. In a future post we shall consider some of the wider pressure on services and the lobbying used to dismantle female-only provision.