A cynic might suggest that Priti Patel wanted to get the Istanbul Convention (IC) signed-off quickly before she became at risk of losing her job under the new boss. But, to be fair, she said the ratification would be completed by end of July 2022 before Johnson resigned. And so, The United Kingdom ratifies the Istanbul Convention – Newsroom (coe.int)
I have addressed the contents of the IC several times before on this site and will not regale you again; see Equality, European Style | The Illustrated Empathy Gap and Istanbul Convention: Approaching UK Ratification | The Illustrated Empathy Gap and Ratification of the Istanbul Convention | The Illustrated Empathy Gap. It was always inevitable that it would be ratified. The political process in the UK is entirely in thrall to feminism.
A letter from the Home Office, in my possession, addressing the concerns of an MP over ratifying the IC contains this statement,
“I would like to reassure you that my ministerial colleagues and I are satisfied that the Convention applies to male victims of these crimes as well as female ones”.
The basis of this “satisfaction” is obscure as the Convention contains almost no mention of men or boys in the context of victims, nor does any of the narrative surrounding it (such as IC Change – Istanbul Convention). The only mention of men as victims is the usual throw-away line,
“Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence”
However, that does not imply inclusion of men within the requirements of the Convention. The rest of its 25 pages gives a very emphatic indication to the contrary.
“Boys” appear only in this para,
“Parties shall take the necessary measures to encourage all members of society, especially men and boys, to contribute actively to preventing all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention.” (i.e., violence against women and girls, my addition)
The IC presents as factual, as well as Government policy, the feminist perspective on history and on society in general, not just on matters relating to domestic abuse. It promotes a wild historical distortion which encourages grievance where none is necessary. It promotes a perspective on “gender” (sex) which is scientifically false. It promotes an aetiology of domestic abuse which has been repeatedly and definitively debunked.
The IC is part of a long-standing globalist power-play. It is deeply divisive. Divide and conquer is the MO in play, as it always was. The winners in this obscene game are not women but the elites. It’s their game.
The UK now becomes subject to examination and enforcement by a non-UK body (hence outwith our democratic influence) called Grevio, GREVIO Secretariat presents Istanbul Convention as a tool to improve access to justice for women victims of violence – Newsroom (coe.int).
The text of the IC can be found here for your delight & edification.
I’ve begun to believe there is a gendercide in play and the target is boys.
Bad news indeed. Though I am equally pessimistic about a “men’s rights” movement as such. I am heartened by the fact that a number of European governments have recognised the anti family nature of the convention and not ratified, and the Turks have of course de-ratified. Whatever any wider movement the truth is that mostly the public are oblivious to the detail of such things and the decisions are taken by a tiny number of people. This has been the success of feminists in lobbying at the heart of the civil service and government. After all we are in the process of deciding on a new PM and Government based on the actions of no more than a couple of hundred MPs and with the final decision pending a vote by less than 200,000 of the 40 millions electorate. At the most charitable the process as involved less than 1% of the public. So too legislation and treaties.
In short the tactic has to be to do as the feminists do and focus on civil servants and friendly MPs. Generally speaking in the UK mass movements have little impact unless their leaders gain the ear and get into the corridors of power.
People in the Men’s Issues movement need to take full responsibility for this.
Collectively, not enough energy was put into explaining to politicians what was in the Convention and what the implications of signing would be.
Besides your excellent blog-posts and work by others, GPUK produced a video https://youtu.be/64Il8Ob-Oyk and webpage https://genderparity.uk/istanbul-convention/ a couple of years ago and we wrote to every MP a few weeks ago.
It was not enough.
The lack of ‘in-group preference’ in men means that we seem to be incapable of creating anything as effective as, for example, Women’s Aid despite men earning the majority of the money in society and there being plenty of resources there which, if organised, would make an effective fight-back possible.
FULL responsibility? Do you mean “a share in the responsibility”? The whole of society bears responsibility, but not evenly distributed. Joint top in terms of culpability are the feminists and those politicians who find it convenient to go along with their demands rather than risk being bothered by truth, justice or even the protection of children. Second in the list is almost the entirety of the population – of all involved nations. The public are also wedded to the convenience of sticking their collective heads in the sand, their ignorance being as much wilful as ill-informed. The so-called men’s movement, in as far as such a thing exists, takes a rather lesser share of blame than the public at large – for at least recognising the problem and attempting, however poorly, to draw attention to it.
And don’t forget that some people have been attempting to draw attention to these issues – especially as regards family court issues, which are actually inextricably linked with DV issues – for well over two decades. F4J’s demonstrations were born of frustration that conventional democratic channels were not listening – as they still are not. And recall that this was preceded by the more measured, evidence collecting of the Cheltenham Group – whose massive compendium of factual evidence (1996) was summarily dismissed without even being read.
Yes, men lack in-group preference, which prevents a strong men’s movement emerging. And you will not overcome this, as it is innate (and evolved for a reason). This is precisely why I doubt that the conventional political / campaigning approach to these issues will work (though I’d be happy to be proved wrong). I long ago – following the same track you have been on – came to the conclusion that these issues would only be rectified after they resulted in catastrophic social collapse or replacement by a different culture proof against feminism. Feminism, in its modern form aided by our technology, is a social pathology against which the body politic has no effective immune response. The reason is that the preferencing of women was one of the key adaptions which, confined to the domestic arena, allowed Homo sapiens to thrive. But the combination of feminism and technology has permitted this preferencing to “go large”, and will never be sated because it is an innate drive (in both sexes).
Ok, maybe not ‘full responsibility’, perhaps your ‘share in the responsibility’ is better.
However, the tiny level of action to oppose this Convention has led to the current result.
‘The only thing needed for Woke to succeed is for god man to do nothing.’
Well, we’re not doing ‘nothing’, but we need to do 20 times more.
You are doing a great job, William. My rantings do not apply to you personally.
However, I do not share your pessimism.
Though my experience is mainly in the NHS and local government my observation on the civil service and ministers is much the same. In fact policy and guidance is rarely much influenced by politicians unless something prompts them to the effort to read stuff. In fact civil servants in particular seem to rely very heavily on a few “experts” and use them frequently to do their policy work for them. Hence consultations are designed to be closed to familiar “experts” rather than wide consultation, because the last thing they want is some dissenting voice . So generating some fuss and influencing a few key people to probe sufficiently to cause ripples can make a difference. In fact one can see this in the success of feminist lobbying in the corridors of power. In fact the success, after 2008, in being practically the only “Ring fenced” central budget (insulated from local authority cuts) has meant Refuge and Womensaid have garnered roughly £300millions a year and a large proportion goes on campaigns and lobbying in Westminster. Unsurprisingly this has meant all feminist lobbying always links to domestic violence in some way in the political centre. A strategy that has served them well. And one to observe and learn from.
I completely agree with William and Nigel on this, Mike. The men’s movement – even if it’s voice increased 30 times as you say – would just be branded misogynistic 20 times more by the feminist movement. They have absolute institutional capture, total media control of the narrative, and vast, vast amounts of funding to keep producing questionable studies and to keep lobbying. It’s like comparing China to the Federated States of Micronesia. Add to that the fact they have biology on their side, and it’s just a losing proportion. Not that it isn’t worth fighting, but really, don’t expect to ever win. As William said, short of societal collapse which would require re-emphasising the usefulness of men in the face of the victimisation narrative of women, nothing’s going to change. If you really want someone to blame – beyond the aforementioned feminists themselves and the corrupt politicians who enable them – blame the many many women who are well aware of the unfairness of some of the things the feminist movement pushes for (particularly wealthy, well educated women), but still go along with it so they can feel like they’re ‘fighting the Patriarchy’ and they deserve it because they’re victims somehow. Rich girls who like to think they’re battling for their Independence while big daddy Government does everything for them are a big part of this problem.