The UK should not ratify the Istanbul Convention
The Istanbul Convention is simply – it’s authors claim - a measure to reduce violence against women. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has recently announced that if no objections are raised in the next two weeks, the UK will adopt the Convention at the end of July (2022). However there are serious flaws in the Istanbul Convention, which means it is a matter of urgency that it should be rejected rather than adopted.
What is the Istanbul Convention? The long name is ‘Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence’. It is named after the city in which it was signed in 2011, and the goal is that it is adopted by member countries of the Council of Europe, which includes the European Union (EU) and Britain. Although it purports to be simply about protecting women and girls from violence, it goes far beyond this remit.
In the examples that follow, those familiar with gender studies will recognise two themes. The first theme is patriarchy theory, which is the cornerstone of the Duluth model of domestic violence against women. The second theme is the assumption that gender is simply a social construction, without any influence of nature, evolution or biology. Both of these assumptions are ideas that are easily proved incorrect, but this hasn’t reduced their influence on policy makers in recent decades.
As a consequence of these two themes, we find that in the Istanbul Convention, as with other documents based around these themes, a familiar pattern of bias is seen:
Men are typically portrayed as perpetrators and presumed guilty simply for being men
Women are seen as victims and in need of social protection
When men do harm to women, they're motivated by power, control and misogyny
Violence against men is relatively unimportant
“I’m sure that when parliament agreed to this Convention, most MPs and peers had not read it. Even today we are stumbling towards ratifying a treaty which the majority of UK citizens would not support if they knew what was in it.”
I will now cite four of the articles (i.e. sections) of the Convention that demonstrate these inherent flaws.
Article 3 definitions: What is meant by ‘gender’.
“Gender shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that are given society considers appropriate for men and women.”
In other words, gender is simply a product of cultural influences. There is plenty of evidence that gender is influenced by biology as well as social influences, but the important point is that if the government accepts that biology plays some part in gender, then they have to accept that changing aspects of your gender is not such an easy task.
The Convention introduces a definition of ‘gender based violence’:
“Gender based violence against women shall mean violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.”
Looking at the first part of the definition: “Violence that is directed against a woman simply because she is a woman” - hardly any violence against women comes into this category. Domestic violence by men against women is more often due to substance use or psychological issues, such as inability to cope with feelings of anger and frustration, and little to do with any kind of patriarchal desire to control women.
In the second half of the definition: “…or that affects women disproportionately.” There are few categories of violence which unquestionably affect women disproportionately e.g. female genital mutilation. For most of the other categories of violence, although some of them have a higher proportion of women than men, these cannot be said to be disproportionately against women to such a degree that you can ignore the male victims. For example, around a third or more of victims of domestic violence are male victims. Because violence against women is little to do with misogyny, measures to reduce violence against women that are based on the idea of removing misogyny from men, are going to be relatively ineffective.
Article 14 on education.
“Parties shall take, where appropriate, the necessary steps to include teaching materials on issues such as …gender based violence against women.”
So you are supposed to accept that the violence against women is gender-based and you are supposed to teach this to your children in school. They add “adapted in the evolving capacity of learners in formal curricula and all levels of education”. So, if the UK ratifies this treaty, right from primary school, we will have to find ways to teach children that violence is gender-based. (And also that they're not actually boys and girls. They may be able to choose a gender). The consequence of this is lessons teaching that:
men are violent
women are victims
gender is a choice
you can choose your pronouns
you may be transgender.
I’m sure that when parliament agreed to this Convention, most MPs and peers had not read it. Even today we are stumbling towards ratifying a treaty which the majority of UK citizens would not support if they knew what was in it. Do we want our children to be taught these ideas?
“After analysing the underpinnings of the Istanbul Convention, do we want our laws to be built on these assumptions, or would you rather that Parliament decides which assumptions our laws are built on?”
Article 16: Preventative intervention and treatment programmes
“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to set up or support programmes aimed at teaching perpetrators of domestic violence to adopt non violent behaviour in interpersonal relationships with a view to preventing further violence and changing violent behavioural patterns.”
If you read that sentence in a gender-neutral fashion, it seems perfectly acceptable… except of course they've already decided that domestic violence is gendered, so actually this only applies to men. One consequence is, since the Istanbul Convention assumes that the perpetrators are mostly men, there are only perpetrator programmes for men in the UK. This means that female perpetrators will not be offered help, which seems unfair to women.
Article 18: General Obligations
“Parties shall ensure that measures taken pursuant to this chapter shall be based on a gendered understanding of violence against women and domestic violence, and shall focus on the human rights and safety of the victim.”
After analysing the underpinnings of the Istanbul Convention, do we want our laws to be built on these assumptions, or would you rather that Parliament decides which assumptions our laws are built on?
The consequences of the UK adopting the Istanbul Convention would be bad for men, women, and children:
Gender bias in documents e.g. the anti-male interpretation of the Equalities Act
Damage to the family by the claim that gender differences are social, cultural and not related in any way to evolution or biology
Confusion over gender in many young people.
Bias in the family court, which assumes that the woman is the victim
Ignoring of violence against men and boys.
Can we use the Equalities Act 2010 as a shield to prevent the inequality of the Istanbul Convention? In my role at Gender Parity UK, myself and colleagues appealed to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and asked them about these biased documents. They told us that these documents did not contradict the Act because recognition of domestic abuse as a gendered crime is also key to fulfilling the UK's international legal obligation under the Istanbul Convention. It's a Catch-22 that Joseph Heller would be proud of.
So, if we don't ratify the Istanbul Convention, does that mean women are left vulnerable to violence? Not in the least, because we can take several much more effective measures:
Ensure that all the sensible elements in the Istanbul Convention are included in UK law, but in a gender-neutral way. (Many of them are already covered.)
Either create a general strategy for tackling violence against individuals of both sexes, and scrap the violence against women and girls strategy, or create a parallel violence against men and boys strategy.
Change the remit of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission so that it implements the Equalities Act to protect both sexes.
What can you do to help?
The deadline for MPs etc to take action is around 12 June, so immediate action is needed. Priti Patel offers two routes:
1 That someone raises an objection in Parliament to the ratification
2 “Article 78(2) of the Convention allows countries to make a reservation on certain provisions of the Convention. This means that the country will not be bound by that particular provision.”
People are entitled to ask the government to ‘make a reservation’ against some of the damaging sections identified above. If you go to the further information section below you will find out what steps you can take to achieve this.
Further information
*Istanbul Convention https://genderparity.uk/istanbul-convention/
and https://genderparity.uk/2021/03/08/issues-with-the-istanbul-convention/
*Advice on writing to your MP https://genderparity.uk/write-to-your-mp/
*Find your MP and their email address https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
