Poland on domestic violence treaty

by **flash2015** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:54 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:56 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:21 am
I wouldn't say it the same way as Jamiet said it
That’s it? That's all the criticism of Jamie's appalling comments we get?

You're a bloody disgrace, the lot of you. I'll waste no more time here.

I am not understanding. I thought you were pro-robust debate?

If Jamiet had said "Islam is pro-rape (in marriage)" would you be as appalled?

And following on with a "whataboutism" argument which you are so fond of...if you so appalled with Jamie why are you not appalled with Trump who makes worse statements on Twitter (and unlike Jamie Trump is usually not even close to the truth) all the time? Trump is the president of the USA with followers in the millions vs. the all of five people that will likely read this thread. Surely the POTUS should lead by example, no?

And personally, note that I have criticised the mods in the past for banning people that I have strong disagreement with.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:44 am

Actually I'm not going to leave it there - just in case anyone thinks I have a rabid, intolerant hatred of all religious people. I don't. I think all religion is nonsense and you're all hallucinating, but I don't hate.

My comments in this thread are directed at the Catholic Church as an institution, not against people of Catholic faith. As an institution, the Catholic Church has for generations, in many countries, as I said, repeatedly advocated for the right of husbands to control and rape their wives, and against the rights of women to leave violent and abusive relationships. They have opposed laws protecting the rights of battered wives. They have opposed laws which protect the right of a woman not to consent to marital sex. These are documented facts, some of which Flash helpfully linked to.

I am not saying that all Catholics support these positions. Some of them, I am sure, are good people. I am saying that as an institution, the Catholic Church has repeatedly done these things.

My pointing this out is not "bigotry", because I am making a statement of fact.

by **orathaic** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:20 pm

Yes, I am intolerant of people who think a man has a right to his wife's body.
And advocate for the law to prevent wives from bringing rape charges against their husbands.

They make the world a worse place for everyone, and their politics are, I hope, a thing of the past (at least in Ireland). Likewise, I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic schools (like 90+% of the Irish population).

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:34 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:56 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:21 am
I wouldn't say it the same way as Jamiet said it
That’s it? That's all the criticism of Jamie's appalling comments we get?

You're a bloody disgrace, the lot of you. I'll waste no more time here.

Good.

Off you fuck.

by **Octavious** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:56 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:21 am
I wouldn't say it the same way as Jamiet said it

That’s it? That's all the criticism of Jamie's appalling comments we get?

You're a bloody disgrace, the lot of you. I'll waste no more time here.

by **flash2015** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:21 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:15 pm
One imagines that the Catholic Church, were it represented here, would strongly disagree and protest vigorously against anti religious bias and bigotry. As much as such a debate would have been an enjoyable spectacle back in the old forum, the old forum is long dead and you are well across the line of the new forum.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech, as you insist on telling me. You are not allowed to indulge in religious bigotry.

How much do you actually know about the Catholic church (BTW, I was born and raised Catholic and went to Catholic school)? I wouldn't say it the same way as Jamiet said it, and things were much worse half a century ago (many, many stories coming from my mother)...but this is all well known stuff.

Things like this come up with 5 minutes of research:

https://www.acatholic.org/domestic-viol ... marriages/
https://www.catholicregister.org/item/2 ... asy-matter

Again, to their credit the Catholic church does know it has had problems here and is trying to address them:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/ ... -Final.pdf

by **Octavious** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:15 pm

One imagines that the Catholic Church, were it represented here, would strongly disagree and protest vigorously against anti religious bias and bigotry. As much as such a debate would have been an enjoyable spectacle back in the old forum, the old forum is long dead and you are well across the line of the new forum.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech, as you insist on telling me. You are not allowed to indulge in religious bigotry.

by **orathaic** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:19 pm

The have clearly opposed the introduction of laws which allow husbands be prosecuted for raping their wives, again. Under the guise of 'family values'.

by **Octavious** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:38 pm

Lol!

Are you trying to get Zultar to ban you again, Jamie? If I didn't know better I'd say you missed the attention. There's no harm in disagreeing with Catholicism, but declaring them to be pro-rape is pushing the definition of "facts" a hell of a lot, even for you. It's not even vaguely in the direction of the truth.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:28 pm

The Catholic church is traditionally pro-rape (within marriage) and has repeatedly advocated for the right of husbands to control and rape their wives, and against the rights of women to leave violent and abusive relationships.

Them's just the facts.

by **orathaic** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:57 am

Despite what the Polish government claim, I believe the real issue they take is based on this:

psychological violence (Art.33); stalking (Art.34); physical violence (Art.35); sexual violence, including rape, explicitly covering all engagement in non-consensual acts of a sexual nature with a person (Art.36), forced marriage (Art.37); female genital mutilation (Art.38), forced abortion and forced sterilisation (Art.39). The Convention states that sexual harassment must be subject to "criminal or other legal sanction" (Art. 40). The Convention also includes an article targeting crimes committed in the name of so-called "honour" (Art. 42).[1]

And my reasoning is that Conservative Catholic groups in Ireland were against so called 'marital rape' laws (back in the 80s, when divorce was also illegal, and they opposed legalisation... Presumably based on the same 'family values')

by **orathaic** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:50 am

Here is my take. The treaty is seen as problematic by certain extreme religious groups. Part of this is because ending domestic violence allows the state to break up families, and these ideologies believe in the primacy of the family (and women submitting to their husbands/fathers - so they are always within some family structure).

That is to say, they see this treaty as inherently contrary to their views on society and what they call 'family values' - which I see as inherently patriarchal.

To quote wikipedia:

wiki wrote: In a press release in November 2018, the Council of Europe stated that "Despite its clearly stated aims, several religious and ultra conservative groups have been spreading false narratives about the Istanbul Convention". The release stated that the convention does not seek to impose a certain lifestyle... instead it only seeks to prevent violence against women and domestic violence...Nowhere does the convention ever imply that women and men are or should be “the same”" and that "the convention does not seek to regulate family life and/or family structures: it neither contains a definition of “family” nor does it promote a particular type of family setting."[28]

NB the council of Europe is not the same organisation as the council of the EU despite the similar name.

Now i don't know what twisted ideas are going on inside their brain, but I think they go further than the council claims, I think they actually believe that this treaty is harmful to their views on how society should be organised. And what Poland has done is pick it apart to find an excuse to justify leaving (which BBC has quoted as 'education about gender' - I'm unclear what that means, does the treaty distinguish between sex and gender? Does it discuss trans vs cis gender?).

And finally, yes, I believe that undermining 'family values' by providing things like women's shelters and solid legal protections, sodomestic abuse victims can practically escape and legally not be forced back to their 'family home', is a good.

I hope you unquestionably agree with this stance.

EDIT: I found what the treaty says about gender:

wiki wrote: The Convention also contains a definition of gender: for the purpose of the Convention gender is defined in Article 3(c) as "the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men".

by **Octavious** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:33 am

I'm no fan of the Polish PiS Party (take care when searching for these chaps on Google, kids. It can return up some very unusual results), which is as disturbing as as you could imagine any political wing of the Catholic Church to be.

But in this particular instance claiming they're supporting domestic violence seems somewhat far fetched. It may well be that domestic violence increases (hard to say without knowledge of what the treaty actually does that Polish law doesn't) but if so it seems very much a side effect rather than the goal.

by **orathaic** » Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:45 pm

In our continuing series on fecked up proto-Fascist movements: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-53538205

I think the anti-sex ed, anti-LGBT, Anti-abortion access right suddenly turning out to be anti-woman is absolutely shocking </sarcasm>

Why does 'family values' equate with supporting domestic violence?

Poland on domestic violence treaty

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Re: Poland on domestic violence treaty

Poland on domestic violence treaty