Poland to withdraw from Istanbul Convention

[Vassenor]

I'm also not sure why you think that "most violence against men is perpetrated by other men" somehow disproves that men can be victims of domestic violence.

It doesn’t disprove it, it’s just less important and less worthy of state action than domestic violence against women. The Istanbul convention recognizes this may even be coded into law:

4Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.

They recognize this discrepancy here:

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

It’s not that it doesn’t exist. It’s just not important.

I'm not sure where you're getting "not important" from out of that text. It's outright saying "this exists as well and we also need to do something about it".

[Gormwood]

It'll be a shock when Poland passes nothing to fill in the gap and domestic violence against women rises.

[Radfems Inc]

It doesn’t disprove it, it’s just less important and less worthy of state action than domestic violence against women. The Istanbul convention recognizes this may even be coded into law:



They recognize this discrepancy here:



It’s not that it doesn’t exist. It’s just not important.

I'm not sure where you're getting "not important" from out of that text. It's outright saying "this exists as well and we also need to do something about it".

That’s actually the only sentence in the entire convention, beginning to end, that mentions men specifically being victims of domestic violence at all.

It’s clear from the context it’s not important, or it would have been mentioned outside of the preamble. Literally the only place it’s mentioned in is in a non active explanation clause in the preamble.

It’s clear if it can’t be mentioned in even a single operative clause in an 81 article treaty on the exact subject, it’s not viewed as important by the writers and signers.

[Vistulange]

So what is the approach then?

Change the thing to be gender neutral.
Explicitly include all victims of domestic violence in the wording.
Ensure service providers provide for everyone who comes.
Defund researchers who promote a sexist view of domestic violence.

This can literally be done without withdrawing from the Convention.

Defund researchers who promote a sexist view of domestic violence.

Yeah, let's not, because that's called government interference in free academia. Let their views be exposed to their peers after which they'll promptly be torn down, if it's without academic merit, and if they have merit, well, then they have merit.

The government should have absolutely no business in regulating what should and should not be researched.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

I'm not sure where you're getting "not important" from out of that text. It's outright saying "this exists as well and we also need to do something about it".

That’s actually the only sentence in the entire convention, beginning to end, that mentions men specifically being victims of domestic violence at all.

It’s clear from the context it’s not important, or it would have been mentioned outside of the preamble. Literally the only place it’s mentioned in is in a non active explanation clause in the preamble.

It’s clear if it can’t be mentioned in even a single operative clause in an 81 article treaty on the exact subject, it’s not viewed as important by the writers and signers.

Yes, viewing men as undeserving of protection is likely only one of the reasons that the authors are shit.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Change the thing to be gender neutral.
Explicitly include all victims of domestic violence in the wording.
Ensure service providers provide for everyone who comes.
Defund researchers who promote a sexist view of domestic violence.

This can literally be done without withdrawing from the Convention.

Defund researchers who promote a sexist view of domestic violence.

Yeah, let's not, because that's called government interference in free academia. Let their views be exposed to their peers after which they'll promptly be torn down, if it's without academic merit, and if they have merit, well, then they have merit.

The government should have absolutely no business in regulating what should and should not be researched.

Promptly be torn down.
Five decades and waiting now.

[Vistulange]

This can literally be done without withdrawing from the Convention.

Yeah, let's not, because that's called government interference in free academia. Let their views be exposed to their peers after which they'll promptly be torn down, if it's without academic merit, and if they have merit, well, then they have merit.

The government should have absolutely no business in regulating what should and should not be researched.

Promptly be torn down.
Five decades and waiting now.

Looking at the vast amount of theories that have been debunked in the social sciences, and at least my field, I'm inclined to think that the theories you think are shit, might actually have merit.

If they don't, well, show me some works that show them being crap.

[Thermodolia]

Tbh I thought the title said Turkey instead of Treaty and wondered why that was such a big deal

[-Astoria-]

Tbh I thought the title said Turkey instead of Treaty and wondered why that was such a big deal

To be fair, its name is kinda related to Turkey...

[Arcturus Novus]

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

It’s not that it doesn’t exist. It’s just not important.

That's... what the fuck even?

[Gormwood]

It’s not that it doesn’t exist. It’s just not important.

That's... what the fuck even?

It's almost like an account made to portray all the ball-chopping Amazon stereotypes of feminism including the dehumanization of males.

[Nuroblav]

Classic PiS there

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Rescinding this treaty does not permit domestic violence in Poland, and Poland will continue to enforce its laws against domestic abuse. Polish law does not tolerate beating one's wife and kids and anyone thinking the goal is to legalize spousal abuse is deliberately lying.

I can't believe the field day this site is having over Poland removing itself from an elitist, self-righteous treaty that has more of an agenda than its stated, holy goal.

If you think that a nation as fundie as Poland, which follows a religion explicitly forbidding any form of domestic abuse to a woman or child, in any way whatsoever, is going to suddenly start beating their wives because some treaty with an underlying agenda is not placed on the country, you are even more of a lost cause than I thought.

If you read the actual reason Poland withdrew, you will find that this treaty, which is supposed to protect the innocent, also requires students to push liberal propaganda in schools, which has nothing to do with domestic abuse.

[Vassenor]

Rescinding this treaty does not permit domestic violence in Poland, and Poland will continue to enforce its laws against domestic abuse. Polish law does not tolerate beating one's wife and kids and anyone thinking the goal is to legalize spousal abuse is deliberately lying.

I can't believe the field day this site is having over Poland removing itself from an elitist, self-righteous treaty that has more of an agenda than its stated, holy goal.

If you think that a nation as fundie as Poland, which follows a religion explicitly forbidding any form of domestic abuse to a woman or child, in any way whatsoever, is going to suddenly start beating their wives because some treaty with an underlying agenda is not placed on the country, you are even more of a lost cause than I thought.

If you read the actual reason Poland withdrew, you will find that this treaty, which is supposed to protect the innocent, also requires students to push liberal propaganda in schools, which has nothing to do with domestic abuse.

what liberal propaganda would that be?

[Radfems Inc]

That's... what the fuck even?

It's almost like an account made to portray all the ball-chopping Amazon stereotypes of feminism including the dehumanization of males.

I mean, my view is in agreement with the treaty you support. I’m not sure how you can disagree with my characterization and still support the treaty that attempts to encode it into law.

I think it’s maybe due to lack of courage. You want to support my views, but don’t want to be seen as supporting it, hence why you support Istanbul but not the person who says the same thing not buried in piles of legalese.

[Arcturus Novus]

Rescinding this treaty does not permit domestic violence in Poland, and Poland will continue to enforce its laws against domestic abuse. Polish law does not tolerate beating one's wife and kids and anyone thinking the goal is to legalize spousal abuse is deliberately lying.

I can't believe the field day this site is having over Poland removing itself from an elitist, self-righteous treaty that has more of an agenda than its stated, holy goal.

If you think that a nation as fundie as Poland, which follows a religion explicitly forbidding any form of domestic abuse to a woman or child, in any way whatsoever, is going to suddenly start beating their wives because some treaty with an underlying agenda is not placed on the country, you are even more of a lost cause than I thought.

If you read the actual reason Poland withdrew, you will find that this treaty, which is supposed to protect the innocent, also requires students to push liberal propaganda in schools, which has nothing to do with domestic abuse.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Something like 40% of American police commit domestic violence against their own families, but it's still very, very illegal. Poland's withdrawal from this treaty is a red flag regardless of the official legality of wife-beating.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

It'll be a shock when Poland passes nothing to fill in the gap and domestic violence against women rises.

Every First World nation, and every EU member, has laws on the books preventing domestic violence. Poland had laws prohibiting domestic abuse before this treaty, and they will have laws prohibiting domestic abuse after this treaty.

The difference is that Poland's laws will actually protect women alone, instead of being a backdoor into ideological propaganda with riders advancing things that are not relevant to domestic abuse. Most international treaties have a backdoor to advance the zeitgeist's current agenda (AKA squarely opposed to social conservatism).

[Vistulange]

Rescinding this treaty does not permit domestic violence in Poland, and Poland will continue to enforce its laws against domestic abuse. Polish law does not tolerate beating one's wife and kids and anyone thinking the goal is to legalize spousal abuse is deliberately lying.

I can't believe the field day this site is having over Poland removing itself from an elitist, self-righteous treaty that has more of an agenda than its stated, holy goal.

If you think that a nation as fundie as Poland, which follows a religion explicitly forbidding any form of domestic abuse to a woman or child, in any way whatsoever, is going to suddenly start beating their wives because some treaty with an underlying agenda is not placed on the country, you are even more of a lost cause than I thought.

If you read the actual reason Poland withdrew, you will find that this treaty, which is supposed to protect the innocent, also requires students to push liberal propaganda in schools, which has nothing to do with domestic abuse.

Poland has no state religion. Therefore, it's not Poland which is Catholic, but rather its citizens.

Following from that, are you somehow insinuating that all adherents of a given faith practice all of its commandments to the letter? Because if you do, I've got a bridge to sell to you.

[Vassenor]

It'll be a shock when Poland passes nothing to fill in the gap and domestic violence against women rises.

Every First World nation, and every EU member, has laws on the books preventing domestic violence. Poland had laws prohibiting domestic abuse before this treaty, and they will have laws prohibiting domestic abuse after this treaty.

The difference is that Poland's laws will actually protect women alone, instead of being a backdoor into ideological propaganda with riders advancing things that are not relevant to domestic abuse. Most international treaties have a backdoor to advance the zeitgeist's current agenda (AKA squarely opposed to social conservatism).

Riders such as what?

[Stellar Colonies]

The Istanbul Treaty should be rewritten to combat all forms of abuse, instead of deliberately ignoring certain types and unintentionally(?) allowing them to continue and/or worsen to focus on others.

However, Poland's reasons for withdrawing are because they are getting, eh, extreme, which I'm not altogether okay with. I'd rather have an improved, more inclusive treaty than one which falls to pieces entirely as countries pull out of it.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Something like 40% of American police commit domestic violence against their own families, but it's still very, very illegal. Poland's withdrawal from this treaty is a red flag regardless of the official legality of wife-beating.

Where did you get that statistic? From Kapernick?

No, Poland's withdrawal from the treaty is an assertion of national sovereignty and a refusal to submit to the socially libertine agenda of the EU. Like all treaties from modern international organizations, it has an underlying agenda to impose a certain series of socially liberal doctrines (including, particularly under WHO, baby killing as a "human right") and ideological propaganda. There are provisions under the treaty not related to domestic abuse.

Furthermore, if we prescribed actual punishments to domestic violence, we MIGHT see it go down. I believe that beating your wife and/or kids should be punishable, at maximum, by death. The Christian religion explicitly stood up and directly commanded all domestic abuse to cease ("love your wife as your own body"). We do not take it as seriously as we should. We have this epidemic for the same reason we have child porn and pedophilia everywhere: we have the audacity to release them from prison.

[Saiwania]

Why is it called the Istanbul Treaty? Since when was Turkey ever trusted on the issue of womens' rights given that it is an Islamist nation that has gradually stopped being very secular since the Erdogan era? Poland is probably correct to withdraw from a treaty if it is obsolete.

[Vassenor]

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Something like 40% of American police commit domestic violence against their own families, but it's still very, very illegal. Poland's withdrawal from this treaty is a red flag regardless of the official legality of wife-beating.

Where did you get that statistic? From Kapernick?

No, Poland's withdrawal from the treaty is an assertion of national sovereignty and a refusal to submit to the socially libertine agenda of the EU. Like all treaties from modern international organizations, it has an underlying agenda to impose a certain series of socially liberal doctrines (including, particularly under WHO, baby killing as a "human right") and ideological propaganda. There are provisions under the treaty not related to domestic abuse.

Furthermore, if we prescribed actual punishments to domestic violence, we MIGHT see it go down. I believe that beating your wife and/or kids should be punishable, at maximum, by death. The Christian religion explicitly stood up and directly commanded all domestic abuse to cease ("love your wife as your own body"). We do not take it as seriously as we should. We have this epidemic for the same reason we have child porn and pedophilia everywhere: we have the audacity to release them from prison.

So the convention is bad because it lets women control their own bodies? Am I reading that "baby killing" comment correctly?

[The Lone Alliance]

The Istanbul Treaty should be rewritten to combat all forms of abuse, instead of deliberately ignoring certain types and unintentionally(?) allowing them to continue and/or worsen to focus on others.

However, Poland's reasons for withdrawing are because they are getting, eh, extreme, which I'm not altogether okay with. I'd rather have an improved, more inclusive treaty than one which falls to pieces entirely as countries pull out of it.

This really, if Poland had withdrawn under the statements that "They will return when 'the treaty is more inclusive" then that arguably would be a good thing, sadly however they aren't.

[Stellar Colonies]

Where did you get that statistic? From Kapernick?

No, Poland's withdrawal from the treaty is an assertion of national sovereignty and a refusal to submit to the socially libertine agenda of the EU. Like all treaties from modern international organizations, it has an underlying agenda to impose a certain series of socially liberal doctrines (including, particularly under WHO, baby killing as a "human right") and ideological propaganda. There are provisions under the treaty not related to domestic abuse.

Furthermore, if we prescribed actual punishments to domestic violence, we MIGHT see it go down. I believe that beating your wife and/or kids should be punishable, at maximum, by death. The Christian religion explicitly stood up and directly commanded all domestic abuse to cease ("love your wife as your own body"). We do not take it as seriously as we should. We have this epidemic for the same reason we have child porn and pedophilia everywhere: we have the audacity to release them from prison.

So the convention is bad because it lets women control their own bodies? Am I reading that "baby killing" comment correctly?

It's 'bad' because it deliberately ignores certain forms of abuse. It should be more inclusive.