Man “glassed” by his girlfriend
The Istanbul Convention: The Council of Europe brings you legally enforced feminism. It brings you protection for women and girls – only – which wouldn’t have done the guy pictured much good (glassed by his girlfriend) nor many more like him. But they don’t exist, do they?
The Istanbul Convention is the colloquial name for the “Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence”, which can be found here. It is a collection of guidelines complete with taxpayer-funded compliance inspectors which embodies radical feminist ideals, and will infringe on, if not remove entirely, many of the individual human rights of male citizens of Europe.
The very extremity of these proposals protects them from being challenged – because decent people will simply not believe that the Council of Europe could possibly endorse “infringing on, if not removing entirely, many of the individual human rights of male European citizens“. Let the document speak for itself then.
The Council of Europe is NOT the European Union. It is an entirely separate body, with a wider membership but does not have the power to impose laws. It does, however, have the power to enforce laws. It majors on human rights issues. For example, The European Court of Human Rights is one of the best known functions within the Council of Europe.
Under Council of Europe rules only 10 member states are required to ratify a Convention in order to trigger its entry into force. This occurred on 1st August 2014, eleven countries having then ratified the Convention: Andorra, Albania, Austria, Denmark, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Italy, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, Spain and Turkey. By March 2016, 21 of the 47 member states had ratified the Convention – and 40 of the 47 have “signed” it. The UK has signed but not ratified the convention, so it is not (yet) law within the UK. (See also this post).
Feminist groups within the UK, e.g., the Equality and Human Rights Commission, are exerting pressure to have the Convention ratified. A UK parliamentary answer in June 2015 suggests the UK government is actively working on progressing ratification, though this is likely to require the matter to come before the UK parliament. (See the update in this post). The rest of this post gives some indication of what ratification in the UK would mean.
The document is outright feminism, and hence intrinsically sexist. It is staggering, but unfortunately true, that the Council of Europe, with its pretence of liberalism, is about to put into force a set of measures which will enshrine anti-male fascism as formal policy. Below I extract some key points, in italics.
Text in green indicates where I have swapped gender words for race words, e.g., “women” becomes “white people” and “men” becomes “black people”, in order to emphasise the prejudice of the document.
Article 1 – Purposes of the Convention
“Protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence; design a comprehensive framework, policies and measures for the protection of and assistance to all victims of violence against women and domestic violence; promote international co-operation with a view to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence; provide support and assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to effectively co-operate in order to adopt an integrated approach to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence.”
The whole document is concerned only with females. Nowhere is it recognised that men are the victims of violence. And yet it is well known that, (i) men are the main victims of violence in general, and, (ii) men are at least equally victimised by their female partners as vice-versa. The incontrovertible evidence that this is so has been summarised here and in Chapters 1 and 2 of Men and Boys in the UK: A Primer.
Doing the gender-race swap the objectives of this vile document become:-
“Protect white people against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against white people and domestic violence; design a comprehensive framework, policies and measures for the protection of and assistance to all victims of violence against white people and domestic violence; promote international co-operation with a view to eliminating violence against white people and domestic violence; provide support and assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to effectively co-operate in order to adopt an integrated approach to eliminating violence against white people and domestic violence.”
The Purpose continues,
“Contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and promote substantive equality between women and men, including by empowering women.”
Firstly note that this has nothing to do with violence. It has been smuggled into a Convention on violence in the hope that the ratifying bodies would be too weak, too stupid or too frightened to object – and they were. This Convention will oblige member countries to “promote substantive equality”.
If you are new to the murky world of gender politics you might be forgiven for thinking that this is surely unobjectionable. But, no. That is because you do not appreciate what “substantive” means in this context. Let me clarify. I believe in equality of opportunity (and equality of respect). But what if rigorous equality of opportunity does not lead to 50% of MPs being women, and 50% of the Boards of major corporations being women? What if rigorous equality of opportunity still stubbornly creates a society in which the bulk of engineers and technical workers are men? Never mind if this arises through the operation of people’s choices, and despite everything being strictly fair. As far as feminists are concerned, fairness is not the issue. They insist that substantive equality must mean equal representation of women in these (desirable) areas. So “substantive equality” means implementing policies in which jobs are not given to the most able or the most qualified, but are given preferentially to women in order to meet 50/50 quotas – enforced by law. This is substantive equality.
Note, though, that substantive equality would not involve 50% of bin men being women, or 50% of roofers, welders, plumbers, agricultural labourers, sewage workers, road diggers, car mechanics, etc., being women. Nor would it involve women becoming 50% of work related deaths, rather than the current 4%. Nor would substantive equality be implemented to enforce 50% of men in professions where they are currently the minority, such as teaching, nursing, social work, health visitors and vets – and perhaps doctors and lawyers soon, judging by the preponderance of women graduates in these subjects. In short, substantive equality is gender discrimination. This kind of verbal legerdemain has served feminists well to date.
Then we get this,
“In order to ensure effective implementation of its provisions by the Parties, this Convention establishes a specific monitoring mechanism.”
This is particularly chilling. An organisation known as GREVIO already exists within the Council of Europe. They are the modern-day witch-finder generals tasked with enforcement. They will work with local feminist groups to ensure that “progress” against the Convention’s objectives are being made, putting the squeeze on politicians if they are not complying.
Article 2 – Scope of the Convention
“This Convention shall apply to all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence, which affects women disproportionately.”
This is a flat lie. Domestic violence does not affect women disproportionately. In any case, the Convention is stated to apply to all forms of violence – so why are men, the undisputed majority victims, excluded from its protection? No reason is given. Instead we get,
“Parties shall pay particular attention to women victims of gender-based violence in implementing the provisions of this Convention.”
Do the gender-race swap to get:-
“Parties shall pay particular attention to white victims of race-based violence in implementing the provisions of this Convention.”
Nice. And then we get,
“This Convention shall apply in times of peace and in situations of armed conflict.”
This would appear to rule out the deployment of women in combat zones – despite their right to join the armed services. No doubt “substantive equality” will ensure that 50% of generals are women nonetheless.
Article 3 – Definitions
“’Violence against women’ is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender-based violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.”
Note how broad is the scope of “violence” in this definition. If a male partner merely suggested he might change his job to one that paid less – perhaps because he was too stressed by his current employment – this could constitute a threat to harm the woman economically – and hence be an act of violence.
Also, one cannot but be drawn to an implied corollary of the first statement, i.e., that violence against men is not a violation of human rights. This Convention does not regard men as human. It is not for nothing that MRA got changed to MHRA. The men’s rights movement is a struggle to have men recognised as human. That’s how bad it is.
“‘Gender’ shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men.”
This is proof if you could possibly need it that this whole document is a work of feminism. Only feminists believe that gender is a social construct. This theory has been roundly, thoroughly, emphatically and repeatedly refuted by psychologists. It is known, as a scientific fact, that gender is predominantly innate. That known scientific falsehoods can be promulgated in an EU-wide Convention is a measure of the arrogance of the feminist lobby, and their conceit in their power.
“‘women’ includes girls under the age of 18.”
This serves to emphasise that, whilst female children are included in this document’s concern regarding violence, male children – of any age – are not. You may think I read too much into this, but recall that this is a legalistic document upon which national legislature is to be based – and feminists have a track record of harbouring murderous intent even to male babies – see here.
Article 4 – Fundamental rights, equality and non-discrimination
“Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.”
Do the gender-race swap on this:-
“Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect white people from race-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.”
Article 5 – State obligations and due diligence
“Parties shall refrain from engaging in any act of violence against women and ensure that state authorities, officials, agents, institutions and other actors acting on behalf of the state act in conformity with this obligation.”
What does this mean? The term “state officials” includes the police. But the police are (rightly) sanctioned to use necessary force to subdue a criminal if failure to do so would result in harm – to anyone. This is a fundamental aspect of the obligation on the police to protect the public. But this clause would appear to mean that the police would be unable to act if the criminal in question was female.
Article 8 – Financial resources
“Parties shall allocate appropriate financial and human resources for the adequate implementation of integrated policies, measures and programmes to prevent and combat all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention, including those carried out by non-governmental organisations and civil society.”
Ah! Now we get to the real purpose of this document. The feminists have been using domestic violence as their chief fund raiser for over 40 years. This continues their great tradition – but now writ large, Europe wide.
Article 11 – Data collection and research
“Parties shall undertake to collect disaggregated relevant statistical data at regular intervals on cases of all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention.”
And since the Convention is concerned only with violence against females there will be no requirement to collect data on violence against males, thus continuing to encourage the myth that it doesn’t happen.
“Parties shall support research in the field of all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention in order to study its root causes and effects, incidences and conviction rates, as well as the efficacy of measures taken to implement this Convention.”
The feminists are always very keen to ensure that as many men as possible are being convicted and put in prison. Note that there will be no obligation to support research into violence against men or boys, since this is not ‘covered by the scope of this Convention’. It defies belief, doesn’t it, that such a blatantly inequitable document could be produced and ratified by the Council of Europe. The other part of this clause relates to Enforcement and the delightful inquisitors of GREVIO, referred to above.
Article 12 – General obligations
“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., against females).”
This is another really chilling one. It raises the spectre of “re-education camps” for males who do not conform to the required feminist model. Try the gender-race swap on this one:-
“Parties shall take the necessary measures to encourage all members of society, especially black people, to contribute actively to preventing all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention (i.e., against whites).”
And any uppity niggers will catch it hot!
“Parties shall take the necessary measures to promote programmes and activities for the empowerment of women.”
Err, please Mr Bumble, Sir, aren’t they already empowered? – WHAT, BOY!?
Article 14 – Education
“Parties shall take, where appropriate, the necessary steps to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men….gender-based violence against women….in formal curricula and at all levels of education.”
That is, it will be obligatory to teach feminism in schools. This is Yvette Cooper’s vow to raise boys as ‘confident feminists’ writ large, EU wide.
“Parties shall take the necessary steps to promote the principles referred to in paragraph 1 in informal educational facilities, as well as in sports, cultural and leisure facilities and the media.”
That is, feminism must control every aspect of life. What does this remind me of? Oh, yes, totalitarian communism.
From the Preamble
“Recognising that the realisation of de jure and de facto equality between women and men is a key element in the prevention of violence against women.”
No, it isn’t. Firstly, women already are equal – in fact privileged – and domestic violence is still with us. Secondly, the incidence of partner violence in lesbian relationships is greater than in heterosexual relationships – which completely trashes the “men are the problem” view of domestic violence, doesn’t it? And thirdly, it has been known ever since Erin Pizzey opened the world’s first shelter for battered women in Chiswick in 1971 that domestic violence is a learnt behaviour stemming from coming from a violent family – and this results in violent women just as often as violent men. By pretending that the cause of PV is other than what it truly is, the feminists are responsible for the continuance of PV. One day they will be held to account for this.
“Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women.”
Utter bollocks for the reasons already enunciated above. This statement is another definitive proof that this document is irredeemably feminist are should be burnt.
“Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.”
More utter bollocks. Subordinate? Women? What planet are you on?
“Recognising, with grave concern, that women and girls are often exposed to serious forms of violence such as domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage, crimes committed in the name of so-called “honour” and genital mutilation, which constitute a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls and a major obstacle to the achievement of equality between women and men.”
Yet more utter bollocks. Every single one of these “gravely concerning” areas of violence: partner abuse, sexual assault, forced marriages and so-called ‘honour’ crimes, affect men to a comparable degree. And that they dare mention genital mutilation as an area in which females are discriminated against is infuriating, see here for a brief glimpse of the truth.
“Recognising the ongoing human rights violations during armed conflicts that affect the civilian population, especially women in the form of widespread or systematic rape and sexual violence and the potential for increased gender-based violence both during and after conflicts.”
And the deaths of men in war do not count? But worse, in many instances, especially in Africa, men are also raped as part of the atrocities of war. And their plight is then worse than that of women’s since they will be rejected by their wives, receive no help of any sort, and probably be thrown in prison if they let their victimisation be known – see here for example.
“Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men.”
False. It is well known that, (i) men are the main victims of violence in general, and, (ii) men are at least equally victimised by their females partners as vice-versa. The incontrovertible evidence that this is so has been summarised here and in Chapters 1 and 2 of Men and Boys in the UK: A Primer. Women, in fact, are not exposed to gender based violence. It is war which is the pre-eminent example of gender based violence – in which men are the overwhelming majority of the victims.
Lord save us.