The Istanbul Convention: «pro» and «contra»

It is worth remembering that today the IC has been signed by 46 countries and the EU, and on March 12, 2011 Turkey became the first country to have ratified the IC. That said, the IC took effect on August 1, 2014 following its ratification by ten EU member-countries. Of interest is the fate of the document in the ensuing seven years. Thus, Russia disregarded recommendations on IC ratification as stating that its provisions were contrary to «country’s fundamental approaches to the protection and promotion of traditional morale and principles of state family policy».

It will suffice to mention that Ukraine signed yet not ratified the IC in 2011 while Poland with its strong catholic traditions (IC ratified in 2015) was the first to have commenced exiting procedures lodging claims as follows: definitions «gender» and «sexual orientations» as set forth in the IC text are of «ideological nature» and rejected by the authority and society as harmful and infringing parents’ rights. Major drawback of the document is the formulation of the «so-called socio- cultural sex as opposed to the biological one». 

Particular emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that practically all religious organizations of Europe advanced objections to the IC contents. Thus, the Council of Churches points out that the question lies in the obtrusion of gender ideology which substitutes a traditional concept of biological sex for mental socio-cultural scheme and subsequent popularization of same-sex relations.

In the view of religious figures, a notion of «gender» that forms the basis of the IC has nothing to do with women’ protection against violence.

It ought to be noted that Bulgaria declined from ratifying the Convention due to a vigorous protest of orthodox clergy. Also, some public representatives qualified the Istanbul Convention as «a false bottomed suitcase», and a term gender as «a chameleon word».

It is worth pointing out that Armenia signed the Istanbul Convention in 2018 failing to ratify it so far. Some clauses are criticized as follows: the document opens the way to the propaganda of «unconventional genders of all kinds». Thus, educational institutions of Armenia will have to explain children that there is «a third sex» and that «it is totally normal». «If ratified, there’ll be no obstacles for creation of same-sex families and adoption of children while men counting themselves as women will be exempted from service and thus weaken fighting capacity of the Armenian army.

In Latvia, convention opponents declared that the IC makes the Latvian people dependent upon an ideology of radical feminism which is inadmissible.

It must be admitted that an ever-growing number of people, organizations and countries are alive to inexpediency of introducing «gender» notion into the legal framework. In the meanwhile, states that ratified the Istanbul Convention are meant to follow its legal provisions.

To be convinced of this, it is essential to identify the gender definition as set forth in the IC: «socially designed roles, models, actions and attributes the society deems it to be fit for men and women» (Article 3с). At first sight, there is nothing controversial in the definition; however, a part of experts in liberal Germany is inclined to think that the IC purpose is to destroy the democratic law; in other words, «an IC final objective is not a struggle against gender inequality but destruction of legislative framework and suppression of democratic resistance of peoples fighting against supranational, global and anti-national bureaucracy» (German expert, September 20, 2019, OSCE session).

As viewed by the speaker, legislative changes aimed at removing domestic violence resulted in two dismal results: 1. strengthening of government intervention in domestic proceedings regardless of public outcry; 2. demands of feminists for protection of gender rights of women.

It is important to keep in mind that the factors cited above tend to erode legal regulations. Thus, the vitally important presumption of innocence has increasingly been renounced in favor of the principle of absolute protection of «woman-victim». The US and European societies are conscious of the fact that the violence issue is turning into an instrument of climate of fear and guilt. There are numerous legal suits against «abusers» and «harassers» whose presumption of innocence frequently remains unclaimed.

In the meanwhile, IC advocates tend to believe that concerns over the document are stirred up by ruling conservative (largely male) parties and religious organizations.

The point to be emphasized is that the said circles believe that the Istanbul Convention tends to undermine traditions and Christian religion of the country. In other words, the IC is an attempt to destroy family and propagandize «sexual distresses».

Of interest are attitudes of European countries with Islamic traditions to the document. The point is about Turkey as signatory to the Convention. Note that country’s religious figures are inclined to believe that dangerous focus on the gender enables LGBT adepts to push transgender relations into societies forcibly through stage-by-stage removal of ordinary terms «male and female». It must be acknowledged that the practice of this sort is applied to paradoxically affecting the culture basis – language: novelties offer refusal from markings «he» and «she» in return of neuter gender («genderqueer»).

Note that critics claim that present-day feminists and IC proponents profess that their overriding priority is not vindication of the rights of women but blurring of any differences between male and female and, as a matter of fact, denial of legal gender equality. All things considered, representatives of radical feminism and LGBT community prefer to focus solely on «domestic abuse» and instill ideas of family’s malignity as human institution.

These critics, together with their western colleagues, believe that the feminists renounce the presumption of innocence. In support of their views they refer to cases where rumors of alleged «economic violence» by husband or «psychological violence» by father result in baiting persons of this kind.

In July 2019, Ali Erbash, head of the Religious Department of Turkey, made it clear that «we see a number of perversions being pushed by means of certain slogans such as «gender equality … 

In the meantime, ideas that women might renounce the mother-to-be and men the father-to-be are none other than perversion abhorrent to nature. It is no mere coincidence that this principle has historically and universally been rejected and condemned by all systems of beliefs».

To his thinking, the most notorious clause 1 of Article 12 IC is as follows: «The parties are taking necessary measures to make changes in social and cultural behavioral patterns of male and female and eradicate prejudices regarding female inferiority or stereotype views on roles of men and women». In so doing, they inculpate attempts to change for the worse the biological and spiritual nature of male.

What may be said about fierce disputes disintegrating the unity of society? On the one hand, there is a well-known historical struggle between traditionalism and modernism fraught with countless victims among groundbreakers. On the other hand, there is ineradicable impatience and subsequent intolerance and again the same victims, this time, from groundbreakers. Suffice to recall post-revolutionary events in all countries, racial turmoil in the United States in 2020…

The easiest thing to do is to revise disputable clauses of the Istanbul Convention; however, who is responsible for logically tempted decisions?!

On March 6, 2020 EU Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Kestutis Yankaukas declared the following:

«The gender issue is of priority importance in all EU projects in Azerbaijan. It’d be sound if Azerbaijan joined the Istanbul Convention».

It must be acknowledged that while at Baku nearly all CE and EU political figures are engaged in voicing the above-mentioned half-requests and half-demands.

More interestingly is Azerbaijan’s decision on the issue, especially as Azerbaijan has firmly kept from signing the Istanbul Convention…

Ali Abasov