The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence or Istanbul Convention, is an international convention which came into force here in July 2019. It has been the subject of huge controversy in those countries where a debate was allowed. But in many countries including Ireland there was no debate. Here the media either with government to ensure there was no discussion on Radio or TV, no articles appearing in the press, and no lawyers asked to comment on its long-term consequences. It was voted through by the Dáil without comment by any TD.
Six EU countries have not ratified the convention: Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Slovakia, all formerly under Soviet rule. Poland has expressed reservations, Turkey withdrew from it.
Even a casual read of the Convention will reveal to an average reader that it is not based on evidence, but rather on very hardline feminist ideology from the 70s and 80s. In fact on domestic violence, a vast amount of evidence directly contradicts its contents.
This is why no government minister has chosen to defend it in public.
From the Preamble we select just one ideological statement from among many:
Recognizing 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;
According to this, all men connive to keep women in subjection and do so by means of violence. This is a manifestation of the co-called “patriarchy”, a basic principle of feminist ideology not open to question.
This statement is not evidence-based and has been utterly discredited by numerous studies.
For example, the highly prestigious Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project or PASK report finds that
“except for sexual coercion, men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.”
A more extensive account of domestic violence, all of which is consistent, is here.
From the main body of the Convention, here are some of the most contentious articles.
Art. 3 Definitions
c Gender shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men
d gender based violence against women shall mean violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately
Of course, with regard to (c ) above, science has shown that gender is influenced by our genes (50%+ ) and much more than by the socio-cultural environment.
And with regard to (d ), the notion of gender-based violence is not defined in general but is used exclusively in reference to violence against women. However female on female violence is not considered here though it is relevant. It does not appear to be gender-based.
We know from studies that lesbian violence is more frequent and at least as severe as heterosexual violence.
According to Article 3 and the preamble ALL violence against women is gender-based. The notion of gender-based violence against men does not warrant comment.
Actually the great majority of violent crime is committed against men (and most of it by men) and so affects men disproportionately but nobody has ever suggested it should be called gender-based.
The Bulgarian Constitutional Court in its ruling against the Convention pointed to the phrase “gender identity ” in Art 4.3 which it regarded as an attempt to smuggle gender ideology into the Convention.
But moving on:
Art. 4.4 Special measures to protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the Convention.
In Article 4.4 the convention attempts to grant itself a form of general absolution against the charge of discrimination by an extraordinary piece of verbal sleight of hand.
It attempts to legalise discrimination against men by denying male victims the special protective measures given to women and requiring the parties to the IC to agree that this will not constitute discrimination. It is, in essence, an effort to legalise institutional discrimination against men.
Article 5.1 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.
This could reasonably be interpreted by a court as a statement that women are not to be subject to forced restraint and detention by a Garda in the course of his/her duties. It is a breathtakingly blatant challenge to existing fundamental law on policing and creates a clear dichotomy between how the state should treat the two sexes.
Art. 8 Parties shall allocate appropriate human and financial resources for 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 NGOs and civil society.
There are almost no NGOs which are concerned with violence against men whereas there are scores on behalf of women. Unlike the case for women there are no state-funded organisations which act on behalf of men and to protect men’s rights. This is an issue of fundamental importance.
Art. 9 Parties shall recognise encourage and support at all levels the work of relevant NGOs and of civil society active in combating violence against women and establish effective cooperation with these organisations.
This is overtly discriminatory since it excludes those involved in combating other forms of violence. Moreover it encourages even more such groups to form in an already crowded field.
On Education it is extraordinarily prescriptive:
Art. 14.1 Parties shall take where appropriate the necessary steps to include teaching materials on issues such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender-based violence against women and the right to personal integrity, adapted to the evolving capacity of learners, in formal curricula and at all levels of education.
Art. 14.2 All the above to apply in informal educational facilities as well as in sports, cultural and leisure facilities and the media.
This amounts to a programme of state indoctrination in the underlying ideology with even the media conscripted.
Art. 18.3 This article requires that measures taken pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Convention “be based on a gendered understanding of violence against women”.
Again a fundamental ideological principle is to be enshrined in state policy, to be rendered sacrosanct and immune from criticism.
In summary this convention discriminates against men in a whole range of ways:
(a) The ideological statement from the Preamble which says men use violence to coerce and subjugate women will tend to create the presumption in a domestic incident that the man is guilty and the woman is innocent.
(b) From Articles 2.1 and 2.2 the state is required to apply the terms to all forms of violence against women but is not required to do so in the case of other victims.
(c) Men in domestic violence situations are already at a disadvantage. There is just one overstretched organisation for men with pitifully inadequate resources; there are almost no possibilities for a man unlike that for women, to be accompanied to court by a knowledgeable person to provide support. There are no shelters for men.
(d) Article 8 and particularly Article 9 will further exacerbate this imbalance.
(e) Article 14 requires all levels of the education system to be employed in inculcating an ideology and goes beyond this to sports, cultural and leisure facilities.
By its very title the Convention elevates violence against women to a higher level than violence against men. Minister McEntee thinks likewise: [Our] goal is clear: zero tolerance of violence against women. It recognises this is a problem that can only be solved by all of society and the Government working together, rather than treating domestic, sexual and gender-based violence as simply a criminal justice issue.
The cumulative effect reduces men to second class status.
David Walsh is Chairman of Male Advocacy Group Men’s Voices Ireland
For a more detailed account of the Convention see:
https://www.mensvoicesireland.com/issues/laws-that-discriminate-against-men/