Labour Campaign for Human Rights held a fascinating event this evening to discuss what our workers' rights might look like after Brexit. The panel (Keir Starmer MP, Polly Toynbee, Schona Jolly QC and Narmada Thiranagama, moderated by Stewart Wood) made it clear that, whatever our relationship with the EU looks like in the future, we need strong assurances that laws protecting our workers' rights are safe: no discrimination in the work place, maternity and paternity rights, fair working hours, proper health & safety standards and equal pay.

Voters need to know that leaving the EU could mean these rights are lost, and any campaign to save them needs to tap into how people feel so they see relevance to their life and not merely more impenetrable words from Westminster that fail to resonate.

Finally, and just as importantly, throughout the debate at this election and beyond, we must speak up and challenge the minority who have used Brexit as a vehicle to express their racism. All parties must unite to speak out loudly, so there can be no doubt that Britain is a place that celebrates diversity.

Human Rights and the British Military

My latest human rights piece for Left Foot Forward on Theresa May's unpatriotic proposal to take our military outside the scope of human rights laws:

Despite Theresa May’s attempt to bill herself as a compassionate and egalitarian leader, she is pressing ahead with plans to reduce the protection afforded by human rights laws. 

Organisations concerned with justice have already been nervously awaiting the various details of the Bill of Rights, which will replace the Human Rights Act. Now, the Conservative Party have announced plans for the British military to opt-out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

This means that there will be a presumption that the ECHR does not apply in warfare,

The aim is to prevent what May calls an ‘industry of vexatious claims‘ against our soldiers. In particular, it seeks to restrict the ability of people to claim they have been subjected to certain human rights abuses by British soldiers who served in previous conflicts. 

The ideology behind this policy is that soldiers have gone out to risk their lives for the UK and therefore should not have to endure the stress of defending false claims that they violated other people’s rights. The proposal is potentially a vote winner because it is seen as defending the military against a society that has become too politically correct and obsessed with human rights. 

However, vote winning or not, it is based on a misguided and patronising view of our brave soldiers.

We should seek to hold our military to the highest standards in the world – the most professional, able and moral. Lessening the requirements on them to be held to account if they do something wrong does not show the British armed forces the respect they deserve.

It wasn’t long ago that the Tories brought in tribunal fees to put workers off from bringing claims in employment tribunals. This too was based on the argument that there are too many vexatious claims. Workers’ rights campaigners highlighted that many cases are brought legitimately; a campaign that went ignored by the government. 

Similarly now, human rights organisations have been quick to point out that the vast majority of claims against the military are not false or vexatious. Therefore, no matter how stressful or expensive defending a claim might be, it is right that there is recourse to upholding human rights. This right should apply no matter what nationality or colour the claimant may be.

Only days ago we saw in the press that our soldiers are being accused of committing multiple acts of torture against Iraqi men, women and children. The devil will be in the detail but, if the Conservative Party proposals hope to prevent these types of claims from being heard, they are a backwards step for our nation.

When announcing this proposal the government emphasised the cost to the taxpayer in defending human rights claims against soldiers, suggesting it is a waste of our country’s money. This may well be a popular narrative, after all, who wants to waste money defending false claims? However, it is depressing that the cost of human rights can be seen as an excuse to remove the access to justice. 

Just as with legal aid cuts, this policy sees justice as something that is expendable if it costs more than the government would like.

The patriotic rightly want to see British soldiers protected from spurious claims. A system of throwing out cases without evidence is what is needed – it is most unpatriotic to want to remove the need to comply with certain human rights laws altogether. 

Where would this stop? Is the fact that a police officer’s job is stressful a reason not to expect the forces to comply with equality standards to tackle problems with institutional racism? Of course not. 

The proposed policy is an ironic failure in reasoning. The ECHR aims to ensure British people fulfil their obligations to treat other humans with dignity when representing our country at home or abroad; a fundamental part of our international standing. 

The better way forward would be to show the world that our military is expected to treat all humans with the highest level of respect. Let’s set the standard higher, not lower. 

Tom McNeil is Director of the Human Rights Act Campaign at the Labour Campaign for Human Rights

EU Referendum and human rights talk

Tonight I spoke to Labour members in Wyre Forest, West Midlands about the EU Referendum and human rights and how we should never be scared to call out bigotry when we come across it. We must challenge the lies and misleading stories in papers like the Daily Mail and Express, whose interest is in selling papers and not the truth.

Campaigning to Remain in the EU

I'm campaigning in the rain this morning on the day of the referendum for a #Remain vote because I believe in protecting workers' rights, the environment and the UK's ability to trade freely in the EU. I don't come from a wealthy background, I'm not one of the 'establishment' and neither are thousands of other #Remain voters, so I won't be listening to those who pretend otherwise and I will be voting for what is good for the country.

SOAS Debate on Human Rights

Me getting impassioned at a debate on the importance of Human Rights in the UK at #SOAS - was great fun and a great debate - there's no question that the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights are great for the UK.

This is why we should stay in the EU

1. personal national identity is a complex thing but I can confirm I feel both British and European. I'm proud of much of our culture and I'm proud of our ability to influence within the EU and the world. The UK has a lot of influence in the EU and by not being economically tied in the way we are now, we would lose influence and the ability to be taken as seriously when shaping EU laws, which will affect our trade with the EU whether in or out.

2. Whether it is true or not that more of our export trade comes from outside the EU is not the right question to ask. Would you not trade with Tokyo just because we got more from New York? The EU contains some of the largest and most developed economies on the planet and therefore everyone should see that the EU is vital, no matter where the other important economies are - it accounts for billions of our trade. Being part of the EU does not prevent our non-EU trade. In fact by being closely linked to some of the world's other most significant economies (such as Germany and France) it helps our trade position with non-EU countries - greater bargaining power. No credible Leave campaigner has tried to pretend trading with the EU is not extremely important.

3. The economic ties between member states of the EU, helps maintain peace. It might seem highly unlikely any country of the EU would go to war with each other, but they could easily retaliate economically and refuse to cooperate or collaborate in other ways if we weren't so closely linked through the economic guarantees of the free trade principles. Let's also not forget that the close working relationships required by EU membership is vital for our ability to work together to tackle extremism. Leaving the EU will damage relations and could realistically make collaboration harder.

4. The EU has also helped provide other significant protections in the UK such as workers' rights, women's rights and environmental protection. They not only serve as a minimum protection, but they help prevent a race to the bottom across the EU, where certain standards of fairness are required as a minimum. For example, if one EU country reduces certain rights, the UK could end up reducing rights to ensure businesses continue to invest in the UK. To undervalue these benefits is to undervalue the importance of making life bearable for millions of hard working people. Certain Leave campaigners have suggested there are too many workers' rights.

5. The fact the EU is struggling financially should not be a reason to run away from it. Imagine if the world had said that to the UK in our darkest hour? It certainly wasn't the EU that did that to us, it was our banking sector. The fact stands that we continue to generate billions in trade with the EU, as well as being one of the largest (if not the largest) recipient of important EU funding such as funding for scientific research in our universities. 

6. People are concerned that immigration results in lower wages. However, the potential loss in trade for the UK if we left the EU (such as if we were subjected to tariffs) would mean a loss of jobs because there would be less business. In which case, not only would there be fewer jobs for workers to compete over (and thus giving businesses bargaining power even if there's less immigration) but the Government would have more freedom to remove certain workers' rights which are protected under EU law. Then there's the fact that to have free trade treaties with other countries we would probably need to have free movement anyway. Of course, free movement actually means the right to come and work. In general terms, if you don't work you can't stay. Immigrants contribute greatly both economically and socially and are far less likely to claim benefits according to the statistics. The head of the NHS has publicly said that the NHS would be in crisis without all the hard working immigrants who help it run. And I agree with the comments that say if we provided fairer opportunities and education to British people, they would be far better placed to beat the competition. That should be our priority in any event.

7. Obama didn't say we would be at the back of the queue if we left the EU for no reason, it was because he knows our ability to enter into meaningful trade deals is stronger when we come as a package with other heavy hitters. Further, the UK won't simply always or even often enter 'free' trade deals with non-EU countries in any event, out of legitimate fear of issues like trade dumping. On that note, the UK's economy is very diverse and closer inspection shows a more complicated landscape than just, for example, financial services. There are lots of forms of exports and our services sector is a broad church and not easily defined.

8. As for environmental rights, I know for a fact that there are some powerful lobbyists who want to weaken the protections afforded by the EU. The UK's environment has been improved in multiple ways by EU laws, such as improvement of British beaches and air conditions - issues we need to continue to work on.

Conclusion: far from uncertainty, the EU does provide a number of certain great benefits. I hope the UK chooses to be brave and uses it clout and innovation to stay in the EU and make it better and better. 

Theresa May to limit human rights for leadership

My latest piece on Left Foot Forward:

The Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday declared that the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR). Her stance has provoked outrage from the opposition benches and disagreement from within her own party.

Given that the ECHR has helped to prevent the abuse of children, deaths in custody, torture, homophobia and illegal stop and searches, it’s hard to see how May’s comments could be about defending justice.

Indeed, they may have less to do with human rights than with her bid to become Conservative Party leader.

This is not necessarily surprising – the Tories know a secret. They know that with their policies angering teachers, doctors, local authority workers, legal aid workers, charities, the fire service, midwives, people with disabilities, people who need tax credits to survive and many others, that the only way to stay in government at the next election is to pander to those voters who believe the UK is better as far away from Europe as possible.

May has chosen to support the ‘Remain’ campaign because she knows it would be catastrophic to our economy to leave – she knows driving the UK into a black hole of fiscal uncertainty would prevent her from ever becoming prime minister.

However, by backing the European Union she must now scramble to win back the confidence of the party’s right wing. To do this she needs to espouse anti-human rights rhetoric and make the front pages of the right leaning tabloids. 

It seems unlikely that she could even pretend to actually disagree with the improvements the European Court of Human Rights has made to the UK. Does she wish the court hadn’t said the UK was wrong not to allow gay people into the armed forces? Does she we wish it hadn’t said the UK was wrong to allow children to be hit? 

The reality: May is worried that by not joining the likes of Gove, Farage and Johnson in the Leave campaign, that she will have lost her appeal to core right wing voters. By breaking rank from official Government policy, she is hoping to reposition herself again as a hard-nosed Tory. 

She is happy to pull up the drawbridge on European influence, even though it has had a profoundly positive influence on our country.

Of course we mustn’t forget her short term goals either – pushing through her data surveillance agenda. Many people believe that the Investigatory Powers Bill breaches people’s right to privacy because it gives the Government a blanket power to retain their data without them needing to be under suspicion of crime. 

With the European Court of Human Rights set to review those laws and delivering a judgment later this year, perhaps it’s not just her leadership she’s worried about.

EU Referendum and your human rights

The EU Referendum is relevant to your human rights - my latest blog for Left Foot Forward:

Anyone who votes to leave the European Union so that the UK can escape the shackles of the European Convention on Human Rights will be disappointed.

No matter what the outcome of the EU referendum, the UK will still be required to uphold the rights enshrined in both the European Convention and the UK’s own Human Rights Act, because the European Convention on Human Rights is not an EU initiative. 

However, it’s reasonable to question whether it’s in the strategic interests of the ‘Remain’ campaign to clear up the confusion.

On the one hand it could be argued that if anti-human rights sentiment is a basis upon which people choose to leave the EU, we should make it clear that a withdrawal would not ‘free’ the UK from European human rights obligations.

At the same time, we don’t want to understate the dangers of leaving a regional collaboration that requires all member states to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of their citizens.

Perhaps we should focus on reshaping the conversation to explain the ways in which even the EU laws not included in the Convention promote human rights.

Take equal pay for women. This is one of the EU’s founding principles, embedded in the Treaties. Women must be treated equally at work and women who have suffered discrimination can take legal action without fear of retaliation from their employer.

Many EU initiatives also try to tackle violence against women through legislation designed to recognise victims’ rights. Such rights include minimum standards on the access to important information, support, protection and basic procedural rights in criminal proceedings for those suffering abuse. 

There are the EU laws specifically designed to prevent human trafficking, initiatives aimed at stopping female genital mutilation and protections for LGBTI rights. The EU bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and upholds legislation designed to protect the victims of discriminatory crime.

EU law is also vital for workers’ rights. It has brought in measures to improve health and safety at work, protect a minimum number of annual leave days and impose limits on working hours per week.

Critics out there will insist that we do not need the European Union in order to implement these laws and that’s technically true. However, do you really trust the Conservative government to continue pushing for improvement? 

After all, at the 2015 General Election, they expressed their love for the NHS but now the sell-off to private companies continues. It is far more likely to be EU law that results in more women on company boards, requires companies to publish gender pay gaps and prevent unfair dismissals.

One thing is clearly the case: the EU has its heart in the right place and has a solid track record of trying to improve our rights. If you want more of them, vote to stay.

Tom McNeil, Director of Human Rights Act Campaign and Labour Campaign for Human Rights and an Ex-Parliamentary Candidate for Labour

Human rights talk in North Warwickshire

Thanks to the Labour members in North Warwickshire today for hearing me speak on human rights and how the Human Rights Act actually brings human rights to the UK courts and gives us the power to hold our country to account.

Sadiq Khan MP and Social Enterprise

Here is the latest piece I have written for Progress Online about how Sadiq Khan MP understands the importance of social enterprise for a fairer economy:

Sadiq Khan is a politician who understands the impact that socially focused businesses can have on London and the United Kingdom. Back in September 2015, before he was selected as Labour’s candidate for mayor of London, Sadiq made an important media statement. He announced his vision for a public procurement system that gives social enterprises a genuine opportunity to show society the kind of mark they can make on our public services.

Specifically, Sadiq told us how he wants social enterprises to have a chance of successfully bidding to run London’s bus services. Key to his reformist ambition for a fairer type of business, Sadiq appreciates what we mean when we say ‘social value’.

Not everyone will necessarily define social value in the same way, but in simple terms it means taking into account the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the areawhen assessing a service provider’s bid. The concept is gaining momentum among progressive entrepreneurs and is now enshrined in specific legislation, as well as in public procurement laws. Social value seeks to replace a simplistic selection based only on the cheapest offer. Sadly, taking what appears to be a bargain in the short term is all too commonplace for some of our public commissioning bodies. That is why we need forward-thinking politicians like Sadiq – a future mayor of London prepared to look at long term savings generated by social enterprises that pile profits into improving society.

Social enterprises are businesses that pride themselves on providing social value: often reinvesting profits back into the community, paying fairer salaries and having a social mission as the basis of their existence.

Pioneers of the social venture world offer us exciting glimpses into what the future of the business world might look like. Consider Belu, the bottled water social enterprise that uses all its profits to fund clean water projects, having supported the charity Water Aid and donated over £1m to date. Belu does this while holding environmental standards as a primary concern – using the highest level of recyclable materials possible.

Then there is Bounce Back, that competes with private companies in the trade of painting and decorating. This social enterprise provides training, work experience and employment for offenders at the end of their sentences. It claims to have helped 80 per cent of their participants into paid employment. Bounce Back tells a compelling economic story on its website: it costs up to £90,000 a year to keep someone in prison and £29,000 to keep them on benefits. To train someone through Bounce Back costs just £2,500.

Back to the topic of transport, we then have HCT Group; a multimillion-passenger transport organisation that reinvests profits from its transport services, trains people who have been long-term unemployed and creates job opportunities in deprived communities.

Sadiq recognises the successful social enterprises that exist and the potential there is for a new type of economy. Sounds a little utopian doesn’t it? The Labour party owes it to Sadiq to get him elected as mayor of London so he can put his understanding of social value into practice and help the wave of social value continue.

———————————

Tom McNeil is director of the Human Rights Act Campaign at the Labour Campaign for Human Rights and a former parliamentary candidate. He tweets at @McNeil_Tom

Human rights talk in Nuneaton to Labour members

Today I spoke to Labour members in Nuneaton on behalf of the Labour Campaign for Human Rights.

I explained that the Human Rights Act has nothing to do with EU membership or the levels of immigration, that it does bring human rights cases to the UK courts, and that it has succeeded in helping bring justice to rape victims, people being forced into modern slavery and failures of public bodies to look after children and people with mental health problems; all in the UK - to name just a few cases.

Thanks to the members who were incredibly welcoming and asked brilliant questions.

Labour, Business and Human Rights

Here is my latest piece for Left Foot Forward on how Labour should promote human rights in the context of business:

There are no doubt a number of reasons for the Labour Party’s defeat in the general election in May 2015, but one major theme has been the idea that Labour could not be trusted with the economy.

Everyone knows that Labour urgently needs to figure out its business strategy to rescue it from even more years of fighting from the sidelines while the Conservative government presses ahead with its ideology in full force. 

There is an important point to take away from this though – many people from all parts of society, whether rich or poor, believe that the Conservatives know business. 

To much of the electorate, the Tories are clearly a trusted pair of hands in all matters economic; a political party that does not waste money, that helps businesses compete more, that makes businesses more efficient by cutting red tape and that looks to reward hard work.

I do not wish to dwell on an assessment of whether this is correct, although for the record I believe the Tories’ reputation is not deserved. Mainly this is due to their complete failure to make long term investments in vital areas such as early years’ education and mental health care, both of which have the potential for huge economic ramifications – positive ones if they get it right.

Similarly, the Tories’ desperate attempt to reduce the state on a foundation of ideology over sense does not make long term economic sense.

Now though, the Labour Party should embrace the concept of business. It should show voters that Labour values the role of business in society. This can be done in a variety of contexts, but Labour must pick its battles one step at a time.

Today, one of Labour’s major battles is that human rights is fighting a reputation crisis. With various major newspapers ripping the concept of human rights to pieces, many are unimpressed with what they understand human rights to represent.

I have suspicions that the Conservative Party’s proposal to change human rights law in the UK is mainly to trick the public rather than to actually change anything. Specifically, it wishes the public to think it is doing something to address what many believe are overly generous laws being abused by prisoners and terrorists.

Let us then use the business argument to shatter this nonsense. Thankfully today many organisations, both public and private, will often not work with others unless certain conditions of human decency are met. Why is this relevant? What this means is that embracing human rights in the way you do business can give an organisation the competitive advantage. 

By being more ethical and respectful of human life, business can grow or at least help itself beat those competitors that give humanity less courtesy. There are huge reputational gains to be made, which will lead to growth, a point which organisations and institutions like The Business and Human Rights Resources Centre and the United Nationsare keen to emphasise. 

In short, human rights can be good for business.

What does this have to do with Labour? It gives Labour the opportunity to plant two trees with one seed – help to improve the reputation of human rights (a core fundamental of what the Labour Party stands for), while promoting the future of good ethical business.

Human rights can impact business in a number of ways such as fostering non-discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, sex, race, nationality and religion, or the abuse of the public’s privacy and data. 

However, sometimes the abuses that need remedying are hidden. For those companies that operate abroad or rely on foreign supply chains we have to look harder to uncover injustices like environmental damage, forced labour and slavery, child labour, degrading treatment of workers and the stealing of people’s land.

Labour may have an opportunity here to change the world, boost profits and win votes at the same time.

Tom McNeil is the director of the Human Rights Act Campaign at Labour Campaign for Human Rights

Labour Members in Erdington

Recently I went to speak to Labour members and Jack Dromey MP in Erdington on behalf of Labour Campaign for Human Rights to dispel some of the nonsense and myths peddled about human rights by newspapers who are more interested in sales figures born out of telling horror stories rather than the truth. I had a great evening with great questions.

Labour - the Party of Socially Responsible Business

In my capacity as a Charity & Social Enterprise Lawyer I wrote this piece for Progress Online about how Labour should embrace social enterprise and a new movement designed to make businesses more ethical by becoming 'B Corps': 

This week the World Economic Forum in Davos hosts more than 1,000 chief executives and company chairs, and more 40 world leaders to discuss the future of global business and economics. It is at events like this that Labour should take the opportunity to endorse the exciting concept of social enterprise.

The Labour party needs to build the trust of businesses, and voters need to witness Labour doing so. The party cannot afford to be seen as anti-business and it should embrace the commercial world to make the economic landscape work for the public. It goes without saying – this might just help Labour win elections too. At the same time the party must always stick to its values – constantly emphasising the vital importance of social value and enterprise over greed. The good news is, this is something that the whole party can agree on.

The concept of social enterprise encompasses a variety of initiatives and has the capacity to transform the United Kingdom economy to make it one of the most progressive in the world. Excitingly, if enough noise is made at events like the World Economic Forum, perhaps it can transform the global economy as well.

Whatever form an organisation takes, it can call itself a social enterprise if what it seeks to do is genuinely put the interests of the community and the public benefit at the heart of its commercial endeavours. Labour should make this a bigger part of its political narrative – it presents an opportunity for Labour to promote business in a way that feels palatable and legitimate.

Couched in very simple terms, organisations can go the whole hog and forgo profit to become charities. Some look for a place in between, where they balance the desire to make a more modest return while having a meaningful impact on society, such as community interest companies. Others will wish to retain many of the hallmarks of a traditional profit making company, but now seek to increase their positive influence in society.

Labour can and should be an influencer for the latter category of businesses by congratulating and encouraging the ‘B Corp’ movement; a project designed to promote the constructive impact businesses can have on their communities and environment.

The B Corp movement, which originated in the United States, promotes an alternative vision for the role of business in society – one where businesses benefit members whilst also solving social and environmental problems. A B Corp is a for-profit business that meets a series of requirements designed to ensure it has social and/or environmental outcomes as part of its mission. This is heavily consistent with a Labour vision of commerce. The strapline of B Corp is that ‘B Corp is to business what Fair Trade certification is to coffee’.

With Fortune magazine describing B Corps as one of the Top 5 Business Trends of 2016, some of the world’s major undertakings such as Ben & Jerry’s and Natura are already well ahead of the curve. Other commercial giants are taking an interest too; Unilever’s CEO, Paul Polman, has committed two members of his senior leadership team to the initiative. Labour should take the opportunity to show its business credentials and promote this extremely promising development.

The movement launched formally in the UK in September 2015. A new charity has been set up called B Lab (UK): established to help businesses through the process of applying for B Corp status and certifying those who make the grade. To certify, a business must meet three requirements. There’s the performance test – a rigorous set of standards measuring the overall impact of a company on its stakeholders. The standards are developed by an independent committee with industry and sector expertise and include the following broad sections: governance, workers, communities, environment and impact business models. Next there’s the legal test requiring the organisation’s constitutional documents enshrine a commitment to promote the success of the business for the benefit of its members but also to have a material positive impact on society and the environment. Finally, all B Corps need to sign the B Corp Declaration of Interdependence which sets out a commitment to all stakeholders.

There are over a 1,500 B Corps across 42 countries and the movement now has the potential to grow significantly in the UK. If Labour takes the lead on this, it could be tackling misperceptions held about the party, while helping to progress our economy to one that gives more than it takes.

———————————

Tom McNeil is director of the Human Rights Act Campaign at the Labour Campaign for Human Rights. He tweets at @McNeil_Tom

This piece forms part of a guest-edit of the Progress site by Stephen Kinnock MP, covering the discussions at Davos on the economy, business and the World Economic Forum’s central theme this year of ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’. Follow the guest-edit today here

Labour Campaign for Human Rights

Since the general election I have taken the role as Director of the Human Rights Act Campaign for Labour Campaign for Human Rights to fight the Tories' shambolic plans to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998. Here is a piece I wrote for Left Foot Forward about how human rights campaigners should frame the argument: 

Picture a fancy logo and atmospheric lighting across a grand and beautiful landscape (as in one of the car adverts regularly driving across our screens) and the following words read to the viewer:

“International human rights laws seek to protect all humans across the globe. Human rights laws in the UK seek to protect, and often succeed in protecting, British people. The UK is a leader in human rights and wins the vast majority of cases in European courts. In the UK, human rights have helped make it illegal to hit children and impose greater obligations on councils to protect children from neglect. They have resulted in the military having to overhaul its justice system to ensure rape is properly investigated. 

“They have put the spotlight on police to ensure they investigate rape properly and protect people in custody and treat them with dignity. Human rights in the UK allow us to enforce better health care – services will be challenged if they don’t protect our families and friends when they are ill and need treatment. Human rights help us stop the scourge of modern slavery happening even within the UK. Human rights allows the UK to influence other nations – to stand as an international role model for how other countries should be treating their people. We can look other leaders in the eye and tell them that they too should ensure no one is tortured, that they hold fair trials and ensure equality for all people.”

Why is this vision needed? To those who embrace human rights, it can be hard to accept a rather disappointing reality. The reality is that a large number of the public are less convinced. 

A series of glowing endorsements is therefore urgently required to ensure human rights is given the promotion it warrants, alongside an abandonment of party politics that can serve to overshadow these vitally important messages.

As a principle that can transcend corporate sales, ‘human rights’ activists could learn from major brands to radically improve the reputation of their own cause. 

Many are rightly concerned with the Conservative government’s proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 with a new Bill of Rights. We don’t yet know what exactly the government proposes to do: perhaps make it harder to bring certain types of human rights claims; seek to distance the UK from Europe; or lessen the human rights obligations on Britain’s military acting abroad.

Important to realise though is that whatever this new Bill does, if indeed it comes into existence at all, the issue of human rights still has a big problem in the UK. 

Some may be forgiven for thinking that if we protect the Human Rights Act that’s job done. Wrong. 

First, the fact we need the Human Rights Act so much is precisely because injustices happen all of the time, meaning this vital legal tool is needed to enforce fairness, equality and justice. 

Secondly, and linked to the first, the big problem that will remain is that the ‘brand’ of human rights needs some serious public relations assistance. In turn, the dream and hope is that this will help us promote human rights throughout society to prevent injustice happening in the first place. Let me explain a little further.

Although human rights law in the UK strongly supports causes that nearly all of us would agree on, the relevant laws have a reputation problem. From knocking on hundreds of doors seeking the political views of the public, I have been taken aback by the generalised negativity towards human rights. 

Of course, you don’t really need me to tell you this; certain newspapers take great joy in proliferating falsities about human rights, which are greeted by large sales figures. This literary trowel of junk and misrepresentation leads to a cycle of strong derision of human rights. 

At this point you might ask me to tell you what those people I have spoken to actually say about human rights. Alternatively maybe you would like me to reiterate some of the tales told by certain media outlets. Well, I’m not going to, not directly at least.

It is often one of the first lessons taught to people learning advocacy – don’t repeat your opponents’ arguments as it helps cement them in the minds of those listening to the debate. Instead choose to frame your argument in a positive way that ensures only the truth is remembered by your audience and not one-line myths.

I find this inherently uncomfortable because I yearn to explain in clearly argued terms why certain ideas are held without any basis whatsoever.

However, I am prepared to put my argumentative nature to one side. Given the brevity of my opportunity to convince people otherwise, I will embrace the advocacy principle and repeat only the positive case for human rights. I don’t believe this strategy lacks integrity because I believe the myths do not merit airtime.

Trying to sell this message got me thinking about successful commercial brands we all know about. While it is true that Marmite has been impressively iconic for its self deprecating message of how one either loves it or ‘hates’ it, most brands perpetuate an unrelentingly positive image over many years so that the public trust it, rely on it and remember the good things. 

Big clothing brands breed stories of reliability. Drinks brands float the narrative of consistency and good taste. Major sports brands ooze victory. Human rights activists can learn from this. Let us spread this positive message.

An ‘advert’ to sell this wonderful product – well, more of a fundamental philosophy of humanity really – is needed more than ever. Again, picture a fancy logo and atmospheric lighting and so on; you get the idea.

All we need to do now is repeat this human rights advert hundreds of times like the big companies do, and let us see the growth of a brand that the public embrace, trust and live by.

Tom McNeil is the director of the Labour Campaign for Human Rights’ ECHR/HRA Campaign

Arden Academy Visit - Post Election

Even though I was profoundly disappointed not to win for Labour during the general election 2015 in Meriden, West Midlands, it was a huge privilege to be invited back to Arden Academy in November. Once again the students put me through my paces on nearly every political issue under the sun, from the Syria crisis, human rights, defence spending, welfare, the NHS and plenty more.

Human Rights and the Labour Party

Constituents have been contacting me in Meriden to ask me where Labour and I stand on human rights, including whether I support the work of Amnesty International. This is what I said:

"I am proud of Labour's record regarding human rights. To that end I would be disgusted to see Labour's Human Rights Act repealed, as is proposed by a number of Tories and UKIP. It is true that the European Convention on Human Rights sometimes results in the discussion of complex societal questions which not everyone will agree on, but decisions from the European Court of Human Rights have had profoundly positive effects on the UK. For instance, the rights of gay people serving in the army and changes to how rape investigations are conducted may never have happened or may have happened much more slowly if it wasn't for decisions coming from Europe.

All human rights are important to me and so I wouldn't necessarily single one out if elected. However there are certain issues Labour has focussed on in its manifesto, and which I support. 

Labour wants to pass a law that sees the gender pay gap published in big companies to address the continuing gender imbalance in the UK. Additionally Labour wants to strengthen the rules against maternity discrimination. Then there is the fact that far too many women are still the subject of domestic abuse. Labour will publish a Violence Against Women and Girls Bill which will seek to raise standards in addressing these problems and will make central funding for women's refuges and rape crisis centres more stable.

On the issue of race inequality, Labour promises to establish a comprehensive strategy to ensure our organisations, both public and private, are more representative of our diverse ethnic minority communities. 

Homophobic persecution across the globe has been well publicised in recent years and Labour commits to providing a stronger voice internationally to speak out against the abhorrent treatment of gay people and other sexual orientations and genders.

In terms of torture, clearly any such practice is heinous. To that end, I would always strongly support the work of Amnesty International. Further, Labour will continue to ring-fence funding for international aid and will maintain the commitment to give 0.7% of the UK's gross domestic income for these purposes. I understand that this money is often instrumental in providing support to those who may otherwise be vulnerable to human rights abuses."

Labour and Animal Rights

Many constituents in Meriden, Solihull have written to me on the subject of animal rights and welfare. It's clear that it is a very important issue to many people. In replying, I've said:

"Labour has been a strong advocate for animal welfare with the creation of the Animal Welfare Act which banned fur farming, driftnet fishing (to protect dolphins and sea birds), banned animal testing for cosmetics, alcohol and tobacco, refused to license testing on great apes and established the National Centre for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement which funds and researches alternatives to animal testing.

Today, Labour strongly opposes the badger cull and has done right from the start. It has committed to stopping any such further cull if elected and has campaigned on the issue throughout.

Labour banned fox hunting and would certainly not legalise it again. Labour has also, as with the badger cull, campaigned recently to ensure the Tories don't legalise it, which the Tories are proposing to do if they win the next election. 

Further, Labour now commits to going further with animal rights by tackling animal cruelty in circuses, laboratories (such as ensuring experiments on animals are reduced towards ending experiments on animals full stop), zoos, farms and puppy/kitten farms. 

In particular, I personally would like to see clearer labelling on food packaging so people are fully aware of the farming conditions for the food they are buying. I believe many would be horrified at some of the current practices that are allowed to go on."

Mary Creagh MP writes to Meriden Constituents

The other week I wrote to Labour's Shadow Secretary of State for Development, Mary Creagh MP, to let her know that constituents in Meriden, Solihull wanted to know what Labour would do about promoting proper sanitation in developing countries. Mary wrote back with the following:

"Dear Tom,

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding access to clean and safe sanitation for people in developing countries.

 

I agree it is vital that the international community do everything possible to help improve access to clean water supplies and sanitation in the developing world and I share your concern that an estimated 2.5 billion people – 1 in 3 people across the globe – still lack access to improved sanitation facilities.

 

There has been some progress on this in the last two decades and, indeed, the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) to halve the proportion of people without access to improved sources of water was met five years ahead of schedule.

 

I agree, however, that more needs to be done tackle this extremely serious problem and I know that campaigns by organisations such as WaterAid have been highly effective in drawing attention to this, including World Water Day (22nd March) and World Toilet Day (19th November). 

 

I understand that the Sanitation and Water for All High Level Meeting, which was held on 11th April led to 265 new commitments being made by 44 countries. These will focus on helping improve the use of financial resources, building capacity to deliver water and sanitation services, and coordinating resources in developing countries.

 

I am also pleased that universal access to water and sanitation currently features in recommendations for the UN’s Post-2015 Development Agenda. Labour will continue to monitor the discussions around the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals closely, and we hope that the final proposals will serve to improve access to clean water and sanitation.

 

Thank you once again for writing to me and for sharing your views. I can assure you that I will continue to follow this issue closely and press the UK Government play a leading role in helping to improve access to sanitation in the developing world. 

  

Yours sincerely,

 

Mary Creagh MP

Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Development"

Jon Trickett MP speaks in Meriden

This week from Labour's Shadow Cabinet, Jon Trickett MP came to speak at the Solihull and Meriden election launch in Chelmsley Wood.

Accompanied by Ravi Subramanian (regional secretary of Unison), Jon spoke of the real threat to the NHS under the Tories, who want to see an increase in private interests whereby public funds go to shareholder profits.

Ravi discussed how most healthcare workers he polled intend to vote Labour, but that there is a lot of work to be done to convince undecided voters.

I spoke of what I understand the trade union movement to be: fairer wages for the workers that make a successful business possible; the need for safety at work and not the unjust deaths of the hundreds dying in Qatar building football stadiums; and ensuring public funding goes to the hospital workers (fairer wages and working conditions) rather than private healthcare profits.

With a large turnout, the election launch was a huge success and sees us ready to fight this general election.

Hazel Blears MP Visit

This week Hazel Blears MP and I visited two social enterprises in the Meriden constituency.

The first was Gro-Organic which is an organisation that provides job opportunities for people with disabilities and complex mental health difficulties through gardening skills training.

The second was the Colebridge Trust that provides people with learning difficulties and people who are out of work for a long time with car part manufacturing jobs.

Both were fantastic examples of how investing in employment opportunities for people brings social and economic value. Skills training of this type presents the individuals concerned with genuine long term opportunities for paid employment to allow them to fully participate in society. This kind of social inclusion is not only humbling and right, but it also has economic value with the saved costs associated with isolation and societal exclusion.