Close Menu
    Welt

    Das lettische Parlament stimmt für den Ausstieg aus dem globalen Frauenschutzabkommen

    Share.
    View 11 Comments

    11 Kommentare

    1. arcanehornet_ on

      I know this country is pretty irrelevant on the global stage, but this was really not the best way to get them a headline

    2. neatambiance on

      There aren’t more important or popular things to do in the Latvian parliament than to leave a treaty protecting women’s rights?

    3. mouzi-- on

      It’s a shame to see a headline like this. Although as mentioned in the article this was probably tactical move by the right wing populists before the election.
      Nevertheless I don’t understand who doesn’t want to protect women? Isn’t that pretty traditional value after all?

    5. E4g6d4bg7 on

      Ive noticed that when Western media writes about a country leaving the Istanbul Convention they always refer to it as a treaty about protecting women even though the opponents of the treaty clearly state their issue is with the gender ideology hidden within the treaty. This isn’t the first country to leave the Istanbul Convention and I doubt it will be the last.

    6. SamwisethePoopyButt on

      Don’t let the stated reasons fool you, right wingers *love* decriminalizing domestic violence.

    7. Arcca2924 on

      Just to note – I’m Latvian and followed this. Major theory seems to be that this was a part of genuine campaign to split community and distract from actually important issues by purposefully misinterpreting specific terms and even outright lying. As we all can see – it was successful so far.

    8. DefenestrationPraha on

      I wonder how many downvotes this comment will attract, but AFAIK there has been no difference in development of domestic violence in countries which adopted the Istanbul Treaty vs. those which haven’t. Which indicates that the treaty is, in fact, useless for its main purpose. If it was efficient, the difference should be already visible after 10 years or so.

      In medicine, we demand evidence-based treatments and laugh at people who use Ivermectin to treat Covid. Shouldn’t we extend the same level of scrutiny to laws that promise to remedy societal pathologies? Or are we happy to treat laws like the food supplement industry, where almost anything goes and *caveat emptor*?

    9. Green_Lotus_69 on

      The title is designed to mislead people regarding a topic they haven’t been adequately educated on.
      ​The underlying reasons for the desire to withdraw (from a treaty or similar framework) are complex:
      ​For women, laws already exist—many dating from the era when the original treaty was established—that provide protection. These protective laws are unlikely to change.
      ​The motivation to quit is rooted in the perceived lack of benefit derived from additional enforcement, particularly concerning the existing rules within the treaty.
      ​The United States serves as a prime example where the introduction of these new-world rules regarding gender—and the regulations associated with them—creates an unnecessary rift. Enforcing these rules is a net negative because it exacerbates the division between the general public and a select group of individuals who, lacking a strong sense of self, aggressively attempt to compel others to abide by their standards.

    Leave A Reply