Britain attempts to weaken European domestic violence deal

Leaked documents show the UK questioning definition of violence against women as a violation of huma

Today, International Women's Day, will see the Home Secretary, Theresa May, launch the government's strategy on tackling violence against women.

Yet documents leaked to the Times (£) show that Britain is trying to water down an international agreement to protect women against domestic and sexual violence.

The Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence has been two years in the making and was ready to be signed off by the 47 member states.

But, in an unprecedented step, Britain has intervened to object to the wording "violence against women is understood as a violation of human rights". Instead, it wants "violence against women constitutes a serious obstacle for women's enjoyment of human rights".

It also wants to alter the document so that it applies only in peacetime, and not during armed conflict – a surprising request, given the widespread international use of rape as a weapon of war.

José Mendes Bota, president of the Committee on Equal Opportunities at the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, said he was "very concerned about UK objections". Reportedly only Russia supports the idea of reopening negotiations.

This intervention seems utterly inexplicable. As Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, points out:

Britain was part of establishing an international consensus in the 1990s that violence against women should be treated as a human rights abuse. So why on earth is the Tory-led government ripping up this now?

A spokesman for the Home Office told the Times only that a "detailed action plan" would be announced later today, including "the action we are taking worldwide" for the first time. It remains to be seen whether today's revelation will be addressed.

Back in July, May said that her ambition was "nothing less than ending violence against women and girls". The government's claims to be strengthening women's rights at home sound distinctly hollow if it is covertly seeking to weaken them internationally.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The divisions within Labour

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change.

Labour is a party torn between its parliamentary and activist wings. Since Jeremy Corbyn, who this week appealed desperately for unity, was re-elected by a landslide last September, Labour has become the first opposition in 35 years to lose a ­by-election to the governing party and has continually trailed the Conservatives by a double-digit margin. Yet polling suggests that, were Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenged again, he would win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, many of the party’s most gifted and experienced MPs refuse to serve on the front bench. In 2015 Mr Corbyn made the leadership ballot only with the aid of political opponents such as Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Of the 36 MPs who nominated him, just 15 went on to vote for him.

Having hugely underestimated the strength of the Labour left once, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not do so again. In the contest that will follow Mr Corbyn’s eventual departure, the centrists could lock out potential successors such as the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Under Labour’s current rules, candidates require support from at least 15 per cent of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

This conundrum explains the attempt by Mr Corbyn’s supporters to reduce the threshold to 5 per cent. The “McDonnell amendment” (named after the shadow chancellor, who failed to make the ballot in 2007 and 2010) is being championed by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Jon Lansman of Momentum, who is interviewed by Tanya Gold on page 34. “For 20 years the left was denied a voice,” he tweeted to the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, on 19 March. “We will deny a voice to no one. We face big challenges, and we need our mass membership to win again.”

The passage of the amendment at this year’s Labour conference would aid Mr Lansman’s decades-long quest to bring the party under the full control of activists. MPs have already lost the third of the vote they held under the electoral college system. They face losing what little influence they retain.

No Labour leader has received less support from his MPs than Mr Corbyn. However, the amendment would enable the election of an even more unpopular figure. For this reason, it should be resolutely opposed. One should respect the motivation of the members and activists, yet Labour must remain a party capable of appealing to a majority of people, a party that is capable of winning elections.

Since it was founded, Labour has been an explicitly parliamentary party. As Clause One of its constitution states: “[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” The absurdity of a leader opposed by as much as 95 per cent of his own MPs is incompatible with this mission. Those who do not enjoy the backing of their parliamentary colleagues will struggle to persuade the voters that they deserve their support.

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change. Rather than formalising this split, the party needs to overcome it – or prepare for one of the greatest defeats in its history.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution