Chamber and committees

As we mark the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, the scourge of violence against women and girls continues to stain society in Scotland, in the United Kingdom and across the world.

The figures are spine-chilling. In Scotland last year, 1,721 young women and girls aged 18 or under reported domestic abuse and 405 girls under the age of 16 reported rape or attempted rape. Up to 90 per cent of women and girls with learning disabilities have been sexually abused. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It is an outrage. It is utterly shameful, and it must end. However, public outcry is not enough.

The criminal justice system has a vital role to play in tackling that violence but, as Fiona Mackenzie from the “We can’t consent to this” campaign has emphasised, we cannot prosecute our way out of that crisis. We must tackle the root causes, as well as the conviction rate.

Karen Ingala Smith, who spearheaded the counting dead women campaign, argues in her book “Defending Women’s Spaces” that

“Men’s violence against women is more than a number of individual acts perpetrated by individual men … it is a social and political issue.”

She is right, of course. It is about sex inequality and challenging attitudes and behaviours that enable men’s violence against women. It is about power and control.

Misogyny has loomed large over the lives of women and girls since the dawn of time, but in the era of TikTok and toxic influencers such as Andrew Tate, misogyny has become radicalised and amplified. Pornography—freely available and readily accessible—glorifies the objectification and subjugation of women. It has become mainstream online entertainment and it normalises sexual violence. All that has further devalued and commoditised women and girls, and our focus must be on challenging and dismantling those attitudes.

Last week, I lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament—which I am pleased has received cross-party support—to pay tribute to Gisèle Pelicot. The words of that remarkable woman—

“it’s not for us to have shame, it’s for them”—

resonated loudly throughout the world.

However, where are the men? That question was posed at an event that I co-sponsored with Claire Baker last night. Hosted by Beira’s Place, it discussed the dangerous and destructive practice of non-fatal strangulation. With the exception of Russell Findlay, the room was full of women. It was exactly the same at Pam Gosal’s event with For Women Scotland the previous day, which touched on the prevalence of pornography in schools. This is not about middle-class women of a certain age—although I fall into that category—but about women and girls of every age and every imaginable demographic. It is about the beliefs, attitudes and actions of men—and how can those ever change if men in positions of influence do not show up?

I agree with the Scottish Government that education is key. There is a lot that Police Scotland has got wrong when it comes to women, but the “Don’t be that guy” campaign was powerful. It challenged the behaviour of men, not women, who for too long have been forced to modify what they wear and what they do to protect their safety. That kind of messaging must be repeated and reinforced as much as possible, if it is to successfully unpick the impact of misogyny and pornography.

Earlier this week, Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, described the

“onslaught on women-specific language”

as a

“new form of #ViolenceAgainstWomen”.

Today, this is a consensual debate, but it is a debate that is taking place just days after the Supreme Court met to decide what counts as a woman. That ambiguity was created by the Scottish National Party Government. If our own Government cannot define a woman, how can it plausibly secure our safety?

When vulnerable women and girls cannot rely on single-sex spaces to support them after experiencing violence and sexual abuse because of that ambiguity, where do they turn? Where do they go? When a member of the Scottish Parliament is wrongly accused of being transphobic for standing up for women’s rights, as I was yesterday by Patrick Harvie, what signal does that kind of bullying send not just to women and girls but to men and boys? It is shameful.

Will I get the time back?

I am glad that the minister has said that. I would like her to share that with her colleagues and make sure that it is enshrined, and to say that to the King’s counsel who represented the Government, who needed a flow diagram to describe this. The minister should have a conversation with her very own Government KC.

Today’s debate is an opportunity to take stock, to call for greater accountability and to demand renewed action. Violence against women and girls can and must be prevented, but to get there the Government and the Parliament must look inwards as well as outwards.

Do the Scottish Government and the minister believe that one of the best ways to improve the situation with violence against women and girls is through education and educating young people?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance after Patrick Harvie MSP inappropriately suggested earlier today that I was dragging Scotland’s culture sector into “Tory transphobic culture wars”. His comments followed a question that I raised about Creative Scotland’s support for free speech after a member of staff attempted to stop bookshops stocking the work of gender-critical author Jenny Lindsay.

I ask, under rule 7.3.1 of the Parliament’s standing orders, whether describing gender-critical views as “transphobic” is in line with the courteous and respectful manner that is expected of members in this chamber. It was disrespectful to the women and girls watching proceedings today. Those comments were shameful.

To ask the Scottish Government when it expects its preparatory work to conclude and the review into Creative Scotland, which was announced in September 2024, to get under way. (S6O-04057)

Gender-critical author Jenny Lindsay wrote in her latest book, “Hounded”, that

“in a democracy … no person or group should be permitted to force their own subjective beliefs on those who take a contrary position”.

Yet, that is precisely what Creative Scotland did when a member of staff tried to prevent Ms Lindsay’s book from being stocked by bookshops because she was wrongly deemed to be transphobic. That was cultural authoritarianism at its worst.

The planned review into Creative Scotland is welcome, but can the cabinet secretary provide assurances that the process will look at the importance of protecting free speech for authors and artists who seek support for their work from a public body?

Minister, that does not help people who are on delayed discharges and need packages of care or the integration joint boards. However, as you say, we could tussle all day on that.

I look forward to seeing progress on the situations for those 84 learning disabled people who are in delayed discharge.

You touched on assessments and said that more work is needed. The committee heard concerns about waiting times for assessments and diagnosis that were not addressed in the LDAN consultation. What action is the Scottish Government taking to address a growing demand? You highlighted the huge demand for assessments.

The issue that you talk about with psychiatrists is huge. There is no workforce plan and the issue has not shifted since I came into this job nearly four years ago.

Suzi Martin from the National Autistic Society Scotland shared with the committee last week that Scotland

“is already falling behind England, where … data on waiting times”

for autism and learning disability assessment

“is collected, disaggregated and published.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 26 November 2024; c 5.]

How can the Scottish Government manage what it is not measuring in relation to assessments?