EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
It sounds beautiful in words - to fight violence and discrimination against women. But why should we accept the cultural Marxist "gender" ideology and define women as presumed victims and a protected category of people in need of special protection? "Positive" discrimination is not a way to fight discrimination. We are talking about the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, which has been widely reported in the media as the Istanbul Convention, which you can find in full text in Bulgarian here.
There has been a lot of tearful material written about the poor women victims of domestic violence here, in defense of the ratification of this convention, a lot of tears, a lot of snot, about how much this convention is needed to solve the problem of violence against women. I will state the reasons why I believe that this convention should not be ratified, because firstly, it is unlikely to solve any problem or improve the situation in any way, and secondly, because it is harmful.
The Convention contains everything its opponents warn us it contains, and more. At the same time, it contains everything its supporters assure us it does not contain, and more.
First, it treats violence against one of the two sexes as more significant. The Convention is specifically dedicated to combating violence against women, while not mentioning violence against men at all, because it is clearly not of (that great) importance. In practice, it is said that there are two types of violence, one is ordinary violence, the other is violence against women, which is special and special efforts should be devoted to combating it. This automatically makes women a kind of "protected" category of people who need special attention from the legislation when it comes to violence against them.
Thus, women are presumed to be seen as "victims," as the "weaker sex," when violence against them is given a special status. Which is particularly ironic given that such conventions are supposedly intended to improve equality between men and women. This is a particularly noble goal that deserves support. But how do we achieve it by creating special legal regimes that treat members of one sex differently from members of the other?
However, let us now turn our attention specifically to the content of the convention itself. An excerpt from the preface:
“ Condemning all forms of violence against women and domestic violence;
Noting that the achievement of equality between women and men de jure and de facto constitutes a key element in the prevention of violence against women;
Noting that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to the domination of and discrimination against women by men, and to the prevention of the full advancement of women;”
The last paragraph in particular sounds like an excerpt from a textbook by a Gender Studies professor at an American university, or a book by a feminist ideologue. But let's move on.
“Noting the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the main social mechanisms through which women are forcibly placed in a subordinate position to men;”– the evil patriarchy tramples women and keeps them in a subordinate role
“ Noting with deep concern that women and girls are often exposed to serious forms of violence, such as domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage, so-called “honour crimes” and female genital mutilation, which constitute serious violations of the human rights of women and girls and a major obstacle to the achievement of equality between women and men;”
The last three, by the way, are practiced mainly in the Middle East, North Africa, and generally in Islamic societies, from where, by some strange coincidence, Europe imports a huge number of men, carriers of a culture according to which women are second-hand people, without rights, without having the opportunity, or even the intention, to replace the values and ideas of these people with European values. In other words, Europe itself, with its migration policy, exacerbates the problems it supposedly set out to fight. By the way, the convention is silent about the circumcision of men, that is, young boys, which constitutes genital mutilation, without the possibility for them to express an opinion on the matter or to agree. And this, by the way, is paradigmatic because it fights violence against women, the protected category of people.
“Noting that women and girls are at greater risk of gender-based violence than men;”– this may be true, but if, say, the convention achieves its goal and combats violence against women, violence against men will continue to exist, then will we address it separately? It mentions that men can also be victims of domestic violence, but from then on the emphasis is on violence against women and domestic violence.
So far, that was just the preface. The presumptions on which the convention is based.
The Convention aims to protect women from all forms of violence and discrimination. But it uses a rather broad definition of what constitutes violence and discrimination.
Article 3 a: “ violence against women” is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and means 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 private life;” - I raise the question of what IS NOT violence against women.
The Convention defines gender as a social construct, as a learned social role, and not as a biological reality, Article 3 in: “gender” means the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities and characteristics that a given society considers appropriate for women and men;”– no, gender does not mean that. Gender is a biological characteristic. Here, the English language distinguishes between “sex” and “gender”, the latter being imposed on the language by gender ideologists as something separate from biological sex, which is an absolute fabrication (originally, the word “gender”, by the way, had a purely grammatical meaning, equivalent to the term “rod” in Bulgarian grammar). Even if we assume that women are particularly vulnerable and in need of protection, which goes against my idea of equality and equality, and that the adoption of this convention is needed, why should we accept this, to put it mildly, unconventional idea of what “gender” is in order to protect women from violence?
Article 3 d: “gender-based violence against women” means violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman, or that predominantly affects women;”– how is this proven? How is it proven that an act against someone was committed solely because of their gender? Is there any reliable way to prove this in court? The Convention and its supporters are silent on this issue.
Article 4, paragraph 3: “ The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular the measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be ensured without any discrimination based on sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status or other status.”– Here gender is mentioned, which I assume in the Bulgarian text should mean gender. I am very interested in how a convention aimed at combating violence against only one gender will not discriminate on the basis of gender. Isn’t that the whole presumption? Of course, the answer is in -
Article 4, point 4: "Special measures necessary to prevent and protect women against gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under this Convention." - by defining for ourselves what is discrimination and what is not, as well as what is violence and what is gender.
In summary, I believe that the convention should not be adopted in its current form because:
It defines gender as a social construct, as a learned social role, rather than a biological reality, which makes no sense. For example, by this definition, someone who was born male could claim to be a victim of gender-based violence against women.
It defines the female gender, which clearly exists, and is not just a social construct, as a protected category of people who need special protection. It implicitly implies that women are the "weaker" gender. Will we have gender equality or not? We will not achieve it by treating women as a special category of victims. It seems to me that women themselves would be offended by such condescending treatment.
It defines the female gender as a victim of violence in need of protection, I assume from some other gender, which is also probably not a social construct, but with precisely defined biological sex characteristics.
It suggests the creation of new state, supranational, European bodies - more administration and bureaucracy, completely unnecessary. In addition to state and supranational bureaucrats, it opens up "work" for non-governmental human rights organizations and validates their existence, what a surprise that so many of them support this convention.
The meaningful excerpts from the convention are most likely already enshrined in our legislation. By the way, I wonder how much of our national legislation is dictated by international agreements and conventions. I also do not see how the adoption of this convention will be effective in achieving the stated goal, reducing violence against women. Or at least it will not be more effective than the current legislation, it will only create even more ineffective legislation. I am also worried that the people on whom the ratification of this convention depends, who will vote for it, will pay less attention than I have, and it will enter into force.
Ultimately, violence is violence, whether it is against women or men. Of course, we must fight against violence against women and aim to eliminate it. But we must not, in our efforts to achieve this, discriminate against men or treat women victims of violence as special victims. This is contrary to gender equality and offensive to women themselves.
Because by treating women as special victims who need special treatment and special legislation to protect them, we are reducing them to the very status of the "weaker" sex from which we supposedly aim to free them. That is not the solution. The solution is simply for the laws to be applied fairly to everyone, regardless of their gender (or race). Only in this way will we achieve gender equality.
