Poland to withdraw from Istanbul Convention

[Gormwood]

Excellent. I know the governments of Poland and Russia don't often see eye to eye, but I am pleased that Poland is following Russia's lead on restoring traditional values in regards to family and religion.

What's traditional about being able to beat your spouse whenever the mood takes you, and why is that a value worth preserving?

You're asking someone who admires Russian values which currently includes making LGBTs crimes.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Excellent. I know the governments of Poland and Russia don't often see eye to eye, but I am pleased that Poland is following Russia's lead on restoring traditional values in regards to family and religion.

Yeah, the trade there is probably tens to hundreds of thousands suddenly finding themselves as criminals simply because of their sexual orientation. Also, Russia's constitution reform was mainly to extend Putin's power, if that's the restoring traditional values you are referring to.

[Vassenor]

Excellent. I know the governments of Poland and Russia don't often see eye to eye, but I am pleased that Poland is following Russia's lead on restoring traditional values in regards to family and religion.

Yeah, the trade there is probably tens to hundreds of thousands suddenly finding themselves as criminals simply because of their sexual orientation. Also, Russia's constitution reform was mainly to extend Putin's power, if that's the restoring traditional values you are referring to.

Restoring the Tsar. -nod-

[Galloism]

That’s what the convention of Istanbul endorses - that those with greater social privilege and less likely to experience violence need to experience less violence.

IE, white lives matter.

Men suffering more violence I have no problem with. But isn't the treaty concerned with "gender based violence", ie not woman/woman or man/man?

Gender based violence is one of those weasel terms used to cement the privileged group's privilege and disregard or diminish the experience of the oppressed. It is used expansively when talking about violence women suffer, and construed extremely narrowly for violence suffered by men.

Ie, man beats his wife? Gender based violence.
Woman beats her husband? Not gender based violence.
Woman raped at a party? Gender based violence.
Man raped at a party? Not gender based violence.

We see this a lot.

Turns out the conservative ruling party is not in favor of dropping the treaty.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pola ... SKCN24R0GL

Given the conservative nature of the treaty’s acceptance of gender normative assumptions regarding domestic violence and violence in general, this doesn’t come as a huge shock.

It’s just the Justice Minister is more conservative than the ruling party at large.

Oh good. What are the odds it was the definition of gender in particular which boiled his kettle?

And not at all the disparate treatment of the genders.

High.

Bad people all around.

[Vistulange]

Yeah, the trade there is probably tens to hundreds of thousands suddenly finding themselves as criminals simply because of their sexual orientation. Also, Russia's constitution reform was mainly to extend Putin's power, if that's the restoring traditional values you are referring to.

Restoring the Tsar. -nod-

Don't quote me on this, but he probably unironically thinks that.

So, really, why waste time responding to him?

[Galloism]

In isolation this act is good. But the next steps the polish government takes are not likely to be good.

Withdrawing from a treaty that enforces privileged treatment of women is good, because now you have the option to do it right. But I doubt they'll do it right.

And what privileged treatment is being enforced by the convention? With actual citation from the text, please.

You DID read the part where the convention explicitly endorses that discrimination against men in favor of women is allowable, yes?

[Picairn]

You DID read the part where the convention explicitly endorses that discrimination against men in favor of women is allowable, yes?

What? Where? That sounds ridiculous.

[Vassenor]

And what privileged treatment is being enforced by the convention? With actual citation from the text, please.

You DID read the part where the convention explicitly endorses that discrimination against men in favor of women is allowable, yes?

Quote the text.

[Galloism]

You DID read the part where the convention explicitly endorses that discrimination against men in favor of women is allowable, yes?

What? Where? That sounds ridiculous.

You DID read the part where the convention explicitly endorses that discrimination against men in favor of women is allowable, yes?

Quote the text.

3The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as 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, state of health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status, or other status.

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.

Ie, if you make it only illegal to rape women and not men, that's ok and allowable under the Istanbul convention, as a special measure necessary to protect women (and only women) from gender based violence.

Discrimination is fine!

[Vassenor]

What? Where? That sounds ridiculous.

Quote the text.

3The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as 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, state of health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status, or other status.

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.

And that discriminates against Men how?

[Kuraschia]

*sigh* Does anyone really think that Poland is withdrawing from this treaty to create a better one that would make women and men more equal? NO! They are withdrawing it so that they can start making the country less and less liberal. It's quite a shame that Duda was reelected as President, as I have a feeling Poland is turning into an ultraconservative hotspot under him. Next thing you know they're withdrawing from the UN Convention on Child Rights.

[Galloism]

And that discriminates against Men how?

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

[Picairn]

3The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as 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, state of health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status, or other status.

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.

No, protection of women's rights does not equal endorsement of violence against men, in fact it explicitly says that the implementation of the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of gender.

[Gormwood]

*sigh* Does anyone really think that Poland is withdrawing from this treaty to create a better one that would make women and men more equal? NO! They are withdrawing it so that they can start making the country less and less liberal. It's quite a shame that Duda was reelected as President, as I have a feeling Poland is turning into an ultraconservative hotspot under him. Next thing you know they're withdrawing from the UN Convention on Child Rights.

They'll draft a new convention to protect boys as well as mean girls, pinky promise.

[Galloism]

No, protection of women's rights does not equal endorsement of violence against men, in fact it explicitly says that the implementation of the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of gender.

And specifies it's not discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

[Kuraschia]

WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT HOW THE CONVENTION VIOLATES MEN'S RIGHTS! This is about Poland withdrawing from the convention, and you should know that Poland is not going to support equal rights for both genders, I'll tell you that.

[Galloism]

WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT HOW THE CONVENTION VIOLATES MEN'S RIGHTS! This is about Poland withdrawing from the convention, and you should know that Poland is not going to support equal rights for both genders, I'll tell you that.

Sexist country rejects sexist (in opposite way) convention.

We know.

[Vassenor]

No, protection of women's rights does not equal endorsement of violence against men, in fact it explicitly says that the implementation of the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of gender.

And specifies it's not discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

So what's actually stopping signatories from creating identical measures to help men?

[Vassenor]

WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT HOW THE CONVENTION VIOLATES MEN'S RIGHTS! This is about Poland withdrawing from the convention, and you should know that Poland is not going to support equal rights for both genders, I'll tell you that.

Sexist country rejects sexist (in opposite way) convention.

We know.

Oh right, you're still pretending that bit of the preamble that explicitly addresses the existence of violence against men and how it's a problem doesn't exist because it hurts your narrative.

[Galloism]

And specifies it's not discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

So what's actually stopping signatories from creating identical measures to help men?

Their sexism, mostly.

[Picairn]

Ie, if you make it only illegal to rape women and not men, that's ok and allowable under the Istanbul convention, as a special measure necessary to protect women (and only women) from gender based violence.

Discrimination is fine!

Negligence doesn't equal an active endorsement. This Treaty doesn't ban you from creating more laws concerning men's rights, in fact Section 2 Article 2 of the Treaty encourages member states to expand the protections to all victims of domestic violence.

Parties are encouraged to apply this Convention to all victims of domestic violence. Parties shall pay particular attention to women victims of gender-based violence in implementing the provisions of this Convention.

[Fortisinunum]

In my own view, I would have not made that decision. If it is within their national interest to do so, then fair enough (the treaty needs reform anyway). Yet I do not see this ending well...

[Galloism]

Sexist country rejects sexist (in opposite way) convention.

We know.

Oh right, you're still pretending that bit of the preamble that explicitly addresses the existence of violence against men and how it's a problem doesn't exist because it hurts your narrative.

Rather, when there is exactly one phrase in a non operative preamble, which acknowledges but then immediately diminishes the importance of violence against men, and not a single operative clause addressing it throughout the entire rest of the document, it support my narrative pretty handily.

We have a word for this.

Tokenism.

[Gormwood]

WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT HOW THE CONVENTION VIOLATES MEN'S RIGHTS! This is about Poland withdrawing from the convention, and you should know that Poland is not going to support equal rights for both genders, I'll tell you that.

Some people can't resist any pretense to rant against The Inherent Evils Of Feminism.

[Picairn]

And specifies it's not discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

BS. Protections for women doesn't equal allowing men to be abused without punishment. Just because the Treaty only covers women's rights doesn't mean that it forbids men's rights legislation from being made.