New Zealand recently passed legislation to give victims of domestic violence a statutory entitlement to 10 days paid leave. The Philippines were the first, and presently the only other country to offer the same provision, under the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act 2004. A similar law exists provincially in Canada, but such statutory entitlement is rare throughout the world (The Guardian).

Does this law offer any real help to people suffering domestic violence?

Financial burdens and lack of resources are often one of the main reasons why victims do not leave their abusive partner. Women’s Refuge note that economic reasons often logistically stop women from leaving. The law gives victims an opportunity to move to a safe place, to organise their lives whilst getting paid. This is a strong move in favour of victims who have their own source of income, however it offers no protection to (often) women who do not work and have not worked for a long period. New Zealand has a very serious domestic violence record, so the statutory provision is a move in the right direction.

The law, which will come into force in April next year certainly recognises the need for employers to be aware of domestic violence issues. However, how will it be enforced, and how will victims know about their right to 10 days paid leave? Domestic violence charities will certainly advise those who come to them, the police will likely inform victims when called out to homes. However, at this point, when charities and the police are involved, it is likely to be after a substantial period of abuse. Will the victim still have a job or their own income?

For those in employment, should a burden be placed on employers to inform their employees, through their contract or ensuring information of their 10 days statutory paid leave is made readily available in the workplace? By placing a burden on employers to communicate this right, hopefully the victim will be aware of the information early on when they still have a job. The legislation allows victims to request the 10 days paid leave without having to give evidence of the abuse.

The legislation certainly means people are talking about domestic violence and abuse. It is a very serious issue for many women in the world. In the US the “no.2 cause of death… (for women) is being killed by a spouse or domestic partner” (Sen. Rod Monroe, D-Portland). Considering all the possible ways for a person to die; this is the second most likely cause for women under 50. So, why aren’t governments doing more to protect women? The legislation gives people a right, which means society is prompted to talk about domestic abuse and gives a legal pathway to victims. It gives some transparency to the subject. The reprieve of 10 days paid leave to get your life in order could make a real difference to people, if the information is readily available. The most dangerous time for a woman being abused by a partner or spouse is directly after she leaves. The Mississippi Coalition of Domestic Violence stated “The statistics are that women in abusive relationships are about 500 times more at risk when they leave”. This highlights how essential it is for women to be able to exercise this right without obstacle.

Whilst domestic violence in New Zealand (NZ) is extremely high, the country also has a strong history of advocating women’s rights. From being the first country to give women the vote in 1893, to the first world leader to take maternity leave. Jacinda Arden, Prime Minster of NZ took six weeks off, in which time she continued to read cabinet papers, whilst looking after her new-born child. Sexist questions were raised about how Arden would be able to manage both being a mother and a PM. A question that a man would never be asked. Arden’s partner has decided to be a stay-at-home parent, to take on the domestic responsibilities. This reversal of “traditional” gender roles is a progressive step and allows men to feel able to take on a domestic role, as equally as women can go back to work; guilt-free.

The connection between domestic violence and women’s rights/equality are closely linked. The attitude of how women should behave, what their role is, where they sit in society, are all related to violence towards women. It is not just the perpetrator, but also how we, as a society view the victim. For example, in relation to rape; what was she wearing, how was she behaving…? Would these questions be asked of a man? Would these questions be asked of an attacker?

Ultimately, the “10 days law” does not offer endless protection to women/victims, but it does allow society, businesses, and employers to recognise, without question or discussion that a woman’s (or man’s) abuse has a right to be acknowledged. It breaks the silence. The abuse towards men should not be forgotten, and highlighting violence towards women, does not undermine their suffering. NZ have through this legislation taken another step towards progressive feminism. It is a legal life jacket for victims of domestic abuse, to not be financially punished for needing time off to get out of a dangerous situation. It also re-enforces the message that violence and abuse can be spoken about at work, which is important for issues of transparency. Whilst it only offers protection to working victims, the law recognises the necessity of legal support channels. By imbedding victims’ rights in legislation NZ have reinforced not only an employer’s duty of care but also strengthens a woman’s place in society. Perhaps, the rest of the world ought to look to NZ for guidance?

Recently, a committee of MP’s investigating the allegation of “fake news” used by the Leave campaign, found that the public had been specifically targeted and lied to. They were created by Canadian company Aggregate AIQ, who targeted people on Facebook about jobs, the NHS or animal welfare, or their prejudices on immigration. Essentially, these adverts were misrepresentations, fabrications and outright lies to convince people to vote leave in the 2016 referendum. They included the infamous £350m a week for the NHS, or Turkey joining the EU, or “We need an immigration system that ensures British young people more jobs”. The wording was vague on context but specific on action; however, it was lacking in truth. This is typical rhetoric of the far-right.

There is an environment where the far-right, fascist succeed. It is when people feel forgotten, undervalued and left without a positive outlook for the future. It is often created by either personal or national economic struggles, or the delusions of a golden age when things were better; often they were not. What drove people to vote against the EU; which had helped the UK develop the second strongest economy in Europe, and fifth in the world?

David Cameron’s Austerity programme, which from 2010 saw massive cuts in the welfare state, caused financial ruin for so many people. They ranged dramatically depending on location, for example; in Blackpool a reduction in welfare of £900, whereas in the City of London a lesser £100 (Independent, Thiemo Fetzer). Local authority spending dropped by 46% in some areas. There was a big difference in regions; between those that are more deprived and generally experience a lower rate of pay, against wealthier areas, with a higher average income. Looking objectively at the figures, it shows that where people felt like they had been left behind by the state, they were more likely to Vote Leave. Conservative austerity has led to an enormous rise in the number of foodbanks; over a million three-day emergency food supplies were delivered within a year (Trussel Trust). The number of over 60’s who are now homeless has risen by 40% since 2013 (The Big Issue). Recently, a cross-party group of MPs’ has warned up to 3 million children will go hungry over the school summer holidays (The Guardian). The Conservative’s Austerity programme created a desperate environment for those with the least, who were bombarded with fake news and propaganda, through social media campaigns, simple slogans falsely explaining complex matters and the targeting of adverts. Between austerity and propaganda, the referendum result of 2016 happened.

Referendums in the United Kingdom are not legally binding, they are advisory. As confirmed by Supreme Court Judge Lady Hale. The advisory referendum result has been deemed “the will of the people”, which is a fallacy. The seed was planted in a time of desperation for many under the Conservative Party’s austerity. It was fed by far-right propaganda, which aimed to convince people to abandon logic, and was authenticated as “legal” by a blind Parliament, who are more concerned about popularity than their constituents’ futures.

The committee backed-up the findings of the Electoral Commission, that Vote Leave broke electoral law. What does this mean for our democracy? As discussed, referendums are not legally binding. The effect on democracy is more about how the result came to pass. It is the putting aside of truth for a far-right delusion, where facts and constitutional law are ignored, when it does not fit Leave’s intentions.  The cruel environment created by austerity, along with far-right lies and targeted adverts have led the UK down this path of self-destruction. Will democracy survive if major campaigns can tell outright lies and use “fake news” propaganda to secure a victory, and get away with it? Are we at a point in Britain when logic and legality are secondary to the overbearing shouts of the far-right, who’s proven lies are accepted under the misguided notion of the will of the people?

Has Tory austerity reduced the deficit, or has it merely caused a referendum result, which will create a far greater economic catastrophe, than the pre-2010 debt? The irony should not be lost on you. The head of the Bank of England, Mark Carney has said Britain’s economy has experienced the slowest growth in the world since the referendum result. Does this time, marked in history, prove that when you reduce spending on critical areas of social standards, it leads to nothing but national disasters? Austerity and far-right propaganda are a dangerous combination in a democracy.

 

“My father told me that our democracy is very fragile, but it is a people’s democracy, both as strong and as great, as the people can be, but it is also as fallible as the people are. And that’s why good people have to be actively engaged in the process, sometimes holding democracy’s feet to the fire, in order to make it a better, truer democracy.” George Takei