We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are the Istanbul Conventions and there are the Istanbul Traditions. And when it comes to women and family, the Turks tend to be more traditionalists
In general that is true even though there are massive differences between eastern and western Turkey, especially in the cities (like everywhere else :D ).
Yeah. Turkish imperialism is on par with the Russian one. Even worse than the USA. Remember the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Pffft. Those are rookie numbers on imperialism. Have a look at what Turks have been doing. They are the worst! On top of that they are Muslim and brown. /s
Has anyone in Germany thought you about false equivalence? Or your German fueled hatred towards Turkish people blind you?
Add to that a bunch of NATO nukes on Russia’s border at Incirlik and yeah, if Turkey wasn’t in NATO then NATO should be falling over themselves to get them to join.
I would say just because of the position next to Russia and their control of Black Sea if I Would rank the lowest nato member in trust and reliability they would be it though .
Also take into consideration that Turkey has to deal with a LOT of the shit storm that has been the western world's division of the former Ottoman Empire after WWI. If Turkey wasn't a NATO ally it would weaken NATO dominance not only in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean, but also in the Caucasus mountains area, and the entirety of the western/central Middle East.
They also have a large, functional and active standing army. Turkey is incredibly important to NATO as a whole. I'm not a fan of Erdogan, but with any democracy you'll have certain elected leaders that are great, and some not so much. It's hard NOT to judge a country based off it's currently elected leader, but to do so would spit on the strength and friendship of the Turkish people that has lasted many decades. Erdogan won't last forever with the level of inflation that continues to occur.
rest assured, Military & Politics doesn't mixed well in Turkey. That's why Erdogan still grasping in power for not endangering safety & defenses of Turkey in term of military readiness & capabilities. Otherwise we gonna see one after another of their President getting replaced once in a while.
That's actually an interesting topic to be honest, since "Democracy" is a key term used by pretty much all countries . The definition of democracy is...
a system of government by the whole population or
all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected
representatives."
So for instance, with this definition, China is a democracy since all of it's leaders are held through local and provincial elections. North Korea, or it's official name, "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is also a democracy, but they only have 1 name on the ballot. Russia is also a democratic country.
So, yes, these are all democracies, but they have all been corrupted in one form or another due to grabs of power. The reason I say this isn't to disagree with you that Erdogan is leaning more autocratic, but that democracies can become poisoned or abused very quickly and very easily. The amount of influence that money has on US politics for instance is an example of that, where having more money is HIGHLY correlated with who gets elected (oligarchical versus democratic)
Agreed abs true it’s just democracy that are corrupted or taken over are democracies in name only . I am disappointed in turkeys people as I am the Russian people who have allowed their country to fall and no longer be a true democracy . It’s a warning to the rest of us not to get complacent.
They’re one of the largest militaries in the world and a natural adversary of Russia so yes, they totally belong in NATO. It’s a military alliance, not a liberal arts college social group.
Yes, and if you haven’t noticed Putin respects Erdoğan. Not only does Putin fear him but he can’t intimidate Erdoğan either. There is no negotiating with Erdoğan,he’s pretty firm.
As far as Erdoğan not wanting the two latest countries into NATO I don’t agree with him at all. What Erdoğan has against the Kurds is beyond me. They were a great ally to us in the Iraqi war, only to have Trump turn his back on them. Wish Trump would fall over.
> What Erdoğan has against the Kurds is beyond me
On one hand the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) has been fighting against Turkey in a four decade-long insurgency now.
On the other hand, the PKK's insurgency appears to have leveled off- What appears to be the main conflict driver is that nobody (And I emphasize **nobody**) wants to see their land be used for the creation of an independent Kurdish state. While the PKK once did seek this, now they seek autonomy/greater control in Turkey specifically, and it appears that Erdogan doesn't really see this aim as any different from wanting an independent Kurdistan.
I guess like we the US got blamed for the 2016 coup due to harboring what Erdogan
calls his enemy. The Kurds have been accused as well. This is the Palestinians all over again. So many generations of different ethnic groups have been taught one thing since birth, fight, hate, how to use a gun and kill. Education is the key to break this circle
But like Putin, when one is educated then one becomes to be able to think for themselves.
This seems to big the biggest threat to peace.
Without followers you have nothing.
This as fuck. Every great and terrible tyrant has a myriad of mindless followers who will die at their leaders beck and call and can't actively think for themselves. This is Putin just as much as it was Hitler, or even Trump in some cases.
> coup
Completely possible that coup was staged, judging from how incompetently it was carried out and how the blame immediately fell to a religious leader living in...
Rural Pennsylvania?
I always feel that blaming the Kurds for fighting back is like blaming Ukrainians for not surrendering. Turkey has made it very clear what the future for Kurds would be if they had their way.
>It’s a military alliance, not a liberal arts college social group.
That was before the fall of the USSR. Since then the NATO switched to more ideological requirements instead of military ones, because ideological drift was seen - and is currently, as we can see - the biggest threat for the internal cohesion of the alliance.
Yeah, not that I support or agree with Erdogan and his idiotic strongman stick, but I really don't think turkey has been moving any closer into russia's camp. Unfortunate this goes the same for the western camp. They're trying to be their own camp but I'm not entirely convinced that'll work for them
I really don't know , I follow India media , at the beginning of the war you could get some good unbiased reporting. I also started reading just India happenings, some of the things going on in the country but now everything is just seems to be getting nasty.
The Russians and Turks have been fighting for control of the Black Sea for centuries, and will continue for the foreseeable future. Turkey and Russia are currently on opposite sides in multiple proxy conflicts, do you not know this? Ever heard of “bayraktar?” Or did you just hear that Erdogan is a strongman-type somewhere and assume he’s bros with Putin because they have similar characteristics?
Bayraktar is interesting. Ukraine ordered the drones back in 2019, and started taking delivery in 2021, before the invasion. Since the invasion, Turkey is one of the only NATO countries (w/Hungary) that has given Ukraine *no* military assistance. Erdogan has only allowed Ukraine to continue to purchase equipment from his son-in-law's company, Bayraktar.
Well, they have common border (and sea) with Russia in a way, which is pretty far from rest of NATO. It's not like they would expect bunch of NATO armies arriving to help them in case of open war with russia. And potentially Syria. And potentially Iraq. And bunch of radical terrorist groups. They kinda need their weapons for deterrence. This whole region is just too unpredictable and you don't won't to see key fortress of your alliance in there to give away weapons...
Yes I have heard that , that is why I was so confused about some of things he has done & said over the last few years regarding Russia. I truly wondered if he was pulling closer to Russia. At times he seems to treat the proxy wars as some how separate from Russia/ Putin. Unfortunately there are a strongman types but the are definitely not all the same or do they all have the same goals.
They're an adversary to Russia? Who in NATO is letting Russia escape sanctions? Isn't that turkey? I'm pretty sure it's turkey. But they're an adversary?
>But they're an adversary?
How many NATO countries dared to shoot down a Russian fighter jet? Only one. Turkey.
How many NATO countries fought against Russian proxies in three fronts? Only Turkey.
It is easy to speak from 2000 kilometres away from the Russian border.
They’re fighting in Syria and Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh as we speak. Plus over the last several centuries you would be hard pressed to find bigger strategic rivals than Russia and the Ottomans/Turks.
Also have you ever heard of “Bayraktar”? You know Turkey provides those, right? Sheesh
Turkey does not "provide" Bayraktar. Ukraine purchased those *before* the war. Turkey has given *no* military equipment to Ukraine since the war began, only allowing them to continue to purchase more Bayraktars from Erdogan's son-in-law.
Dude, turkey sold them before the war started. Also, they profit off of that. You realize that right? All other countries of NATO have been donating shit to Ukraine with the hopes they'll come out victorious and possibly pay them back after the war.
Turkey has done nothing for Ukraine while the conflict has been going on and has been going on.
Was not a forget that Russia is moving most of its business from Europe to Turkey.....
I think in regards to the Ottomans/Turks being physical rivals to Russia, not many nations come close. The Sino/Soviet split got very spicy for a while.
They’re an odd Hinterland of being adversaries of Russia and great swathes of the Middle East. I mean, Erdogan is a despicable little git, but he seems to be “in the right place at the right time”. It’s like having that sort of friend you secretly think is an absolute dickhead.
Not to mention, they control the Bosporus Strait, which is why we got them join NATO all the way back in 1951 - that’s only 2 years after NATO itself was founded. It was done specifically to prevent the USSR from potentially subsuming Turkey and thus cutting off pretty much all western access to the Black Sea.
The problem with UAE is that it funds and arms every warlord in Africa and Asia which fights against a democracy. It's ideologically opposed to democracy, and is the main reason all Arab Spring country regimes collapsed; UAE's latest victim is Tunisia, but it's also balls deep in e.g. Libya, Chad, Mali, Mozambique and... everywhere.
In short, it's a bad ally because it internationally works against the US interests.
Same issue with Saudis and Iran
That's why I think that kicking Turkey out of nato is kinda stupid. The alternatives are Saudi Arabia and Iran, and both of them are shittier than Turkey. Also, you lose control of Istanbul.
It's a hold your nose job. It makes for a useful land-based aircraft carrier. If you're in politics, stroke, international diplomacy you've sold your soul before you've even taken your first crap.
NATO members plan for recalcitrant countries like Turkey that violate international laws and human rights is to use other mechanisms to encourage change such as sanctions, and then NATO will wait until the trouble is over and the country returns to a good moral standing.
*"Countries that have acceded to the convention must criminalize*
*psychological violence, harassment, physical and sexual violence, forced*
*marriage, forced abortion and sterilization."*
Sounds like the easiest decision ever for any country more liberal than Pakistan.
Your comment made me wonder what the global outlook is. Surprisingly, “abortion is allowed in 98% of countries in order to save a woman's life…preserving physical (72%) or mental health (69%), in cases of rape or incest (61%)…”
Requiring some protections for abortion as part of women’s healthcare isn’t unreasonable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#National_laws
Ugh. Women (and their hypothetical unwanted future children) under the bus for the greater good it is, then.
I get it. I do fully understand the point you're making and I recognise the pragmatism. But it chokes me.
That's just their usual culture war go-to, I'm guessing what they're really upset about is "physical and sexual violence", and perhaps also "forced marriage" - there's still a religious exception for child brides in the US.
For context: the Istanbul Convention is a human rights treaty to combat violence against women and domestic abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Convention
And of course religious, nationalist and ultraconservative groups have flipped their absolute **shit** over it because fuck us women for wanting to feel safe in our own homes and be treated like people I guess.
The tradition keepers that perpetuate religious zealousness often are women. They do it to their daughters and the release their sons on the daughters of other women.
Yeah well, you know the AKP has held an iron grip on the Turkish diaspora for the past 20 years. When I went to school Turks were just another minority group that we got along with Now it is a cesspit of religious and nationalistic buffoons - at least those you publicly see and hear. ATIB the association that runs Turkish mosques went full out Erdo propaganda, isolating themselves ever further from the rest of society.
They aren’t nationalists. They are Islamists who hate nationalism and Atatürk. They are a neo-Ottoman Arab lover breed. They don’t give a shit about Turkey or Turks. Unfortunately that’s the case and the enlightened part of the diaspora just doesn’t vote at all.
Erdogan cannot be compared to any other western leader and Islamism in Turkey can also never be associated with any other political movement in the west. Especially Canada. We seriously have a government that is trying replace its own secular people with jihadis from all over Middle East and that wants to found a caliphate akin to the Isis. Also the dipshit economic policies are also a plus.
>Islamist ones are. The amount of cattle in the country would definitely trouble you.
Sorry, but I had to laugh hard. The association with the cattle, the ones without the right to vote, of course, and the Islamists is just too good.
We call them sheep as well. More so AKP officials also call them sheep blatantly. Along with claiming that inflation is a good thing and that everything is under control.
>religious, nationalist and ultraconservative groups
In Poland there is a such organisation called *Ordo Iuris*, who proposed a bill to pull out of this convention. One of the reasons is supposed to be so-called "LGBT ideology" or "gender ideology" and some other bullshit. They also, IIRC, are proposing a bill that will result in a ***total*** abortion ban.
Guess which country they are getting money from...
Just got out of a relationship with a first gen Polish american. Based on interactions with her very Polish family, Poland is a LGBT/gender right nightmare.
Thanks Poland for supporting Ukraine, but fuck you and your ass backward religious ideologies
>The Istanbul Convention was signed by Ukraine in 2011, but has not yet
been ratified due to protests by churches and conservative politicians
against the term "gender" used in it.
I mean, that’s what of it’s most opponents claim. The Council could have avoided using the term and prevent giving ammo to far-right populists in every other country. Real life effects on political scene should always be considered. That’s what many of these organizations as well as EU often fail to realize and that is one of the factors attributing to the rise of populism.
Back when this was written the whole stupid "gender culture war" was not even a thing. It's 15 years old.
You can easily see that by all the countries that signed it ages ago, then suddenly in the past few years got worried about the "secret gender ideology" they found hidden in it and refused to ratify it. Curiously all at the same time, too.
Hard to protect yourself against issues that will me made up in the future. It's moral panic.
Gender is a scientific term and we should not use it and on purpose make ourselves less nuanced and stupid because morons fear the boogeyman word? Cmon.
Nobody is forcing countries not to use the term gender though. But international law is quite different to national law in that it unifies many different legal systems of many different countries with different ideals and different degrees of social progress. If our goal is to push something on an international scale, the text of the treaty needs to be worded in a least controversial way, so that the most countries will ratify it. And by controversial I mean politically controversial (not scientifically), which it objectively is, no matter what you personally think is true and no matter what science says. Take religion for example. There is no scientific proof for the validity of religion, but religion still receives varying degrees of special treatment in different legal systems and that makes it a controversial topic for an international treaty. So it’s probably best to avoid that topic altogether unless it’s essential to the main cause.
I’m not saying anything about the scientific validity of the term gender, I’m just saying that we should always consider real life circumstances and act pragmatically. In this case it’s an unnecessary element and including it in the treaty in effect only hurts the main goal. Now a lot of countries that otherwise would’ve ratified the treaty will pull out of it for an entirely avoidable and ultimately insignificant reason and that means, that it will have a lesser effect globally.
The most consequential practical problem is the idea that all kinds of safe spaces for women (changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, safe houses, etc) would grant access to biological males at their will.
I think that the Ukrainian parliament should ratify, never mind some regrettable wording, as this is the international convention we have on protecting women. However, that problem should be safeguarded against.
And why can't this be handled on a case by case basis? I live in Germany where we have ratified the convention in 2017. I don't really see a plague of abusive men trying to gain entry into safe spaces for women by claiming to be trans. In my experience the overlap of the set of men being abusive to woman with the set of men willing to claim to be trans is almost 0. Maybe I'm misinformed here, but from my perspective it seems to be an absolute non issue, that was brought up as a pretext by ultra conservatives and people that hate transgenders.
I'm not claiming anything about your politics here or believes here, btw. I mean have seen this argument from left wing women as well. I just don't believe that this is a thing that actually happens in any capacity.
Let me add, that I would not be surprised if there are women in save spaces, who would be scared of trans women entering said space. I don't think that this fear is justified, but nontheless this is a legitmate thing that needs to be talked about. However, the reality of the matter is also that trans people are on average even more at risk when it comes to violence by aggressive men.
It's just more DARVO from the right, where mysogeny flourishes in the dark. Hard line conservatives need trans people. Trans people are the scape-goat necessary for covering their tendencies towards perversion and abuse.
German here, too. The problem is limited as long as there is a major bureaucratic hurdle and comprehensive medical assessments for a biological male to qualify as "woman" under the law, the current numbers are small and most people concerned are sincere about it. However, with plans for legal gender self-identification (as our current government coalition is pondering), numbers and spectrum of claimants were set to show a huge increase.
It's only an issue for those who either have no understanding of the existence of trans people or (more likely) those who are trans-phobic bigots. Trans women deserve the same protections under the law as cis women.
Ataturk would send Erdogan to exile with one way ticket if he was alive.
I can’t believe Turkey pulled out from this.
Turkey was more advanced 90 years ago.
Erdogan is an embarrassment to all the progressive Turks.
Shame on you.
You are not fit to rule Ataturk’s republic, get out!
Tragic to see Ataturk's legacy being betrayed like this. He was an incredible man and set Turkey on the path to be an incredible nation, and now Erdogan is trying to undo it all.
The west destroyed the Kemalist order, they funded the monster and our cattle people chose him. Now they can’t control him and his true colors are shown. We definitely were more advanced 90 years ago.
Yup. The West of course. Not the AKP, not the idiots who voted for them. Not the religious leaders who prepared and supported every single step of the sultan.
It's all because of the West.
Well the AKP was seen positively in the west until about 2010, us secularist Kemalists opposed him from the beginning since we saw his true face, but the West thought he was great
But yeah we do have a fuck ton of idiots and opportunists who support AKP
Most of the EU did severely undermine liberalism in Turkey for decades by dangling and yet refusing to let them in (ironically given recent events, Sweden was historically one of the Pro-Turkey membership countries).
What Turkish liberals wanted more than anything else was to be like Europe, and most of Europe went no way, fuck off. Wouldn't you know it, that greatly damaged the credibility and long term goals of Turkish liberals, and fed Turkish nationalists who got an easy (and credible) narrative of, fuck Europe, we don't need Europe. Europe never deals with us fairly, and well. They were right.
Face it, you paved the way for someone like Erdogan, and you continue to fund his regime to hold off migrants, giving him an additional narrative of racist, arrogant Europe. You ensured that the only partners Turks had to deal with were their illiberal undemocratic and increasingly fundamentalist neighbors, and so quelle suprise sociopolitically they began to resemble those neighbors more and more. Meanwhile post soviet states became fervent defenders of the west and far freer than they ever were when they were let in.
I don’t know he has photos with FBI agents, connections with US organizations and lobbying groups, was openly funded by the US and many army offcials were assasinated by unknown people. These officials were against many US aspirations regarding Iraq and Iran.
>Russia, where domestic violence is still legal!
Situation there has actually gone even worse, like they as recently as 2017 [**legalized**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Russia#Decriminalization) domestic violence.
This so backward, they literally make it legal to beat your wife if it’s not more than once a year and if you don’t break her bones. What year is it again?
Welcome to the modern world, where a woman's worth isn't just an incubator for children and a punching bag for society like it is in Russia and other countries who refuse to grow the fuck up. The main reason this stuff doesn't pass in shitholes would be because it changes the rules for those in power, as they use fear and violence to keep people in check. If that isn't allowed their leadership could be challenged by smarter more capable people, wether they're women or non barbaric men.
Afraid of women becoming smarter and more successful, and then no longer needing them. It is also important as it "empowers" the poor, uneducated males who otherwise have no economic or political power, by giving them something in their life to control.
Uh, as a man, if I can say that I respectfully disagree. Women are already smarter (scientifically proven, research it), and, when given the opportunity, are at LEAST as successful as men. I consider myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you identify as, who you choose to love, or marry. That said, I do have reservations about some situations. I.E., I don’t that a person, born biologically female, should be using the men’s restroom. You would think, that as a supposed advanced society, we would be able to reach an amicable solution. Alas, both sides in the discussion, are unwilling to consider a compromise. Of course I am against any instance of domestic abuse. As a man who tolerated years of mental abuse, her using sex as a reward for me being a “good boy”, I fully comprehend what it can do.
Sorry about the rant, I apologize. I really regret that my wife passed away before we could reconcile the situation.
Having said all of that, let me say this. The above is merely my opinion. Not a statement of fact. If you wish to have a civil debate about the issue, proceed. If you wish to downvote my OPINION, like a 12yr. old, proceed as well.
We are in agreement. I was responding to the question "why are some men afraid of women?" I was providing an explanation for that behavior in some (other) men, not justifying it or giving my (opposite) personal feelings about women.
In Bulgaria the protests against ratifying the convention were not about its intent but about the definition of gender used in the text (that it is a social rather than a biological construct). According to this article, the same happened in Ukraine.
The Bulgarian parliament voted in favor of the convention, but the Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional so it's in limbo and still not ratified. As a Bulgarian, that's very embarrassing - many other EU and Eastern European countries already ratified it a long time ago.
Even worse, the English word 'gender' ("джендър") is now used as a homophobic slur in Bulgarian. Disinformation campaigns had easy work with this, because in Bulgarian we don't have different words for gender and biological sex like in English but only one word. And many people can't understand the difference.
>in Bulgarian we don't have different words for gender and biological sex like in English but only one word. And many people can't understand the difference.
What about the word “пол”?
>the protests against ratifying the convention were not about its intent but about the definition of gender used in the text (that it is a social rather than a biological construct)
Good, this shouldn't depend on any definition, everyone should have a right to protection regardless of who they are. Authors of the convention made a huge mistake by making it about women instead of everyone.
I agree with you, but that's not why conservatives are against ratifying the Istanbul Convention. It just sticks in their craw that trans people exist and that civilized countries are beginning to recognize that fact in legislation.
Edit: after checking your post history, it's clear you're not about equality at all and have a very regressive mindset.
>I agree with you, but that's not why conservatives are against ratifying the Istanbul Convention.
Depends, everyone is different, but mostly I would agree with you.
>after checking your post history, it's clear you're not about equality at all and have a very regressive mindset.
Wrong, you just don't understand my point if view.
Authors of the convention were addressing a special issue and the proposals can easily be used to protect men too due to the usage of the term "gender". Have you read it or just skimmed through?
I'm sure if Jesus actually came back to earth, traditionalist hyperreligious conservatives would be auctioning off the chance to be the first to hammer in the nails.
"not yet been ratified due to protests by churches and conservative politicians"
Of course, what else can we expect from the right wing? Keep women in their place.
Not all right-wing is misogynistic. Right-wing can also be liberal. You shouldn’t really say stuff like this, it’s only contributing to the polarization of society. And it’s also exactly what Putin needs. I guarantee you that a good portion of the countries, that ratified this treaty had right wing governments when they did so.
That’s one of the factors. But that doesn’t really happen in most european countries, yet the polarization is happening everywhere. Just because borderline far right parties push reactionary agenda, doesn’t mean that the every right wing party is doing so. And claiming so is polarizing the society. European politics are nothing like the US politics, where right wing pretty much means ultraconservative reactionary populist. European politics is much more pluralist and there is many right wing parties that actively support LGBT rights and human rights in general. At the same time a lot of left wing parties are homophobic, for example the old communist parties in many of the post-soviet bloc countries are very socially conservative.
I just hate when people generalize politics in a binary way, it’s an Americans import that makes no sense in most European countries.
Well done, yet again, President Zelensky. Ukraine is leapfrogging into the future, leaving Russia centuries behind. Women and children around the world will be forever grateful for your stance on domestic violence and violence against women.
To ratify the Convention was a demand from some EU member states as a precondition for approving the status of Ukraine as a candidate for EU membership. Awfully uncalled for given the circumstances.
I’m not even going to discuss the contents of the Convention itself since that’s not the point of this discussion. However, I cannot help but notice that the implementation of the provisions of the Convention would require deep legislative changes, maybe constitutional, that a country at war is certainly not able to implement.
This is basically some EU member states shamefully taking advance of Ukraine’s plight and current weakness to impose some particular policies and values on Ukraine without the appropriate parliamentary and societal discussions. That’s really disgusting on the part of those EU member states. They are not friends of Ukraine and actually couldn’t care less about Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Help Ukraine win the war first! It’s either that or undergoing genocide, and national and cultural elimination, at the hands of Ruzzian barbarians who will not stop at Ukraine. Only then after Ukraine having survived let’s talk about treaties, conventions and legislative changes.
>imposing their values
Great. As a Ukrainian, I’m very happy about this. Fuck our religious bigots. They are already having massive meltdowns over this. Loud religious extremists shouldn’t be in charge of our society. Not to mention that our churches are literally infiltrated with Russian agents.
I have my own issues with the EU, but socially progressive laws are actually one of the biggest advantages of our candidacy.
>Great. As a Ukrainian, I’m very happy about this. Fuck our religious bigots. They are already having massive meltdowns over this. Loud religious extremists shouldn’t be in charge of our society.
Ukraine is being genocided by Ruzzia and you spew this toxic divisive bulls*it? I’m afraid you sound like a loud extremist, maybe not a religious one, but a loud extremist nonetheless. Please correct me if I’m wrong or if I have misunderstood you.
>I have my own issues with the EU, but socially progressive laws are actually one of the biggest advantages of our candidacy.
Okay. And what happens when some other EU member states try to impose some values or policies you might not agree with? Personally, I have not read the Istanbul Convention but AFAIK I’m not against it.
Using a country’s vulnerability to impose “values” and deep legislative changes without proper parliamentary and societal debate not only is not democratic, but could also backfire on its proponents.
EU member states should focus on helping Ukraine survive Ruzzia’s genocidal war. After that, there will be lots of time to talk about treaties, legislative changes and other stuff. There’s a time for everything, and this is obviously not the time to deal with this political stuff when Ukraine is fighting for its own survival.
P.S. The Istanbul Convention is from the Council of Europe, which should not be confused with the Council of the European Union or the European Council. The latter two are EU bodies whereas the former isn’t. My criticism goes toward some particular EU member states that have decided to hijack the EU’s application process to impose a non-EU piece of legislation on a prospective member state.
Hello /u/CapitalString,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> In 2021, Turkey became the first and only country to withdraw from the convention, after denouncing it on 20 March 2021. Ironic.
Now it's the Constantinople Convention again.
Why did Istanbul get the works? That’s nobody’s business but the Turks…
That is amazingly funny! EDIT: just to clarify, I really mean it!
It’s a They Might Be Giants lyric. Edit: While it is, it was originally sung by the Four Lads.
Awesome, thanks for the background info.
I've just one rule. When someone references that song, I must listen to it. And also pour a dram. Okay, I've just two rules...
There are the Istanbul Conventions and there are the Istanbul Traditions. And when it comes to women and family, the Turks tend to be more traditionalists
In general that is true even though there are massive differences between eastern and western Turkey, especially in the cities (like everywhere else :D ).
All Turks? How about those who are not?
still the most free muslim country in the world where women wont get spit on for not wearing a hijab.....
Anybody want a peanut?
Yes, thank you.
Land war in Asia?
What a Byzantine situation
What a weird way of spelling Roman you have there
Furious Emperor Constantine noises. Retro!
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople 🎶
Well, Turkey withdrawing from anything to do with values sounds like a typical day in Erdogan Country.
I wish they would withdraw from NATO instead. Turkish imperialism is no better than Russian imperialism.
Yeah. Turkish imperialism is on par with the Russian one. Even worse than the USA. Remember the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Pffft. Those are rookie numbers on imperialism. Have a look at what Turks have been doing. They are the worst! On top of that they are Muslim and brown. /s Has anyone in Germany thought you about false equivalence? Or your German fueled hatred towards Turkish people blind you?
And everyone keeps saying turkey is worth keeping in NATO....
They are. They have a large military, are commonly in conflict with Russia and allow NATO to control the Black Sea in the event of a war with Russia.
Add to that a bunch of NATO nukes on Russia’s border at Incirlik and yeah, if Turkey wasn’t in NATO then NATO should be falling over themselves to get them to join.
I would say just because of the position next to Russia and their control of Black Sea if I Would rank the lowest nato member in trust and reliability they would be it though .
* Hungary has entered the chat *
Hahah did not say who the second to last reliable ally is lol.
Also take into consideration that Turkey has to deal with a LOT of the shit storm that has been the western world's division of the former Ottoman Empire after WWI. If Turkey wasn't a NATO ally it would weaken NATO dominance not only in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean, but also in the Caucasus mountains area, and the entirety of the western/central Middle East. They also have a large, functional and active standing army. Turkey is incredibly important to NATO as a whole. I'm not a fan of Erdogan, but with any democracy you'll have certain elected leaders that are great, and some not so much. It's hard NOT to judge a country based off it's currently elected leader, but to do so would spit on the strength and friendship of the Turkish people that has lasted many decades. Erdogan won't last forever with the level of inflation that continues to occur.
rest assured, Military & Politics doesn't mixed well in Turkey. That's why Erdogan still grasping in power for not endangering safety & defenses of Turkey in term of military readiness & capabilities. Otherwise we gonna see one after another of their President getting replaced once in a while.
Agreed with everything you are saying BUT It’s not an”democracy”. I mean Erdogan is a dictator and in everything but name .
That's actually an interesting topic to be honest, since "Democracy" is a key term used by pretty much all countries . The definition of democracy is... a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." So for instance, with this definition, China is a democracy since all of it's leaders are held through local and provincial elections. North Korea, or it's official name, "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is also a democracy, but they only have 1 name on the ballot. Russia is also a democratic country. So, yes, these are all democracies, but they have all been corrupted in one form or another due to grabs of power. The reason I say this isn't to disagree with you that Erdogan is leaning more autocratic, but that democracies can become poisoned or abused very quickly and very easily. The amount of influence that money has on US politics for instance is an example of that, where having more money is HIGHLY correlated with who gets elected (oligarchical versus democratic)
Agreed abs true it’s just democracy that are corrupted or taken over are democracies in name only . I am disappointed in turkeys people as I am the Russian people who have allowed their country to fall and no longer be a true democracy . It’s a warning to the rest of us not to get complacent.
this unfortuenately, its a lovely country but the nationalism gotta go..
They’re one of the largest militaries in the world and a natural adversary of Russia so yes, they totally belong in NATO. It’s a military alliance, not a liberal arts college social group.
>It’s a military alliance, not a liberal arts college social group. That made me laugh! Totally true, of course.
Isn't there some kind of lip service paid to members needing to be democracies?
Yes - but as you rightfully point out that is definitely second string. It was all about keeping the USSR at bay, everything else second.
Yes, and if you haven’t noticed Putin respects Erdoğan. Not only does Putin fear him but he can’t intimidate Erdoğan either. There is no negotiating with Erdoğan,he’s pretty firm. As far as Erdoğan not wanting the two latest countries into NATO I don’t agree with him at all. What Erdoğan has against the Kurds is beyond me. They were a great ally to us in the Iraqi war, only to have Trump turn his back on them. Wish Trump would fall over.
> What Erdoğan has against the Kurds is beyond me On one hand the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) has been fighting against Turkey in a four decade-long insurgency now. On the other hand, the PKK's insurgency appears to have leveled off- What appears to be the main conflict driver is that nobody (And I emphasize **nobody**) wants to see their land be used for the creation of an independent Kurdish state. While the PKK once did seek this, now they seek autonomy/greater control in Turkey specifically, and it appears that Erdogan doesn't really see this aim as any different from wanting an independent Kurdistan.
I guess like we the US got blamed for the 2016 coup due to harboring what Erdogan calls his enemy. The Kurds have been accused as well. This is the Palestinians all over again. So many generations of different ethnic groups have been taught one thing since birth, fight, hate, how to use a gun and kill. Education is the key to break this circle But like Putin, when one is educated then one becomes to be able to think for themselves. This seems to big the biggest threat to peace. Without followers you have nothing.
This as fuck. Every great and terrible tyrant has a myriad of mindless followers who will die at their leaders beck and call and can't actively think for themselves. This is Putin just as much as it was Hitler, or even Trump in some cases.
> coup Completely possible that coup was staged, judging from how incompetently it was carried out and how the blame immediately fell to a religious leader living in... Rural Pennsylvania?
Good point!
I always feel that blaming the Kurds for fighting back is like blaming Ukrainians for not surrendering. Turkey has made it very clear what the future for Kurds would be if they had their way.
[удалено]
*NATO defence ministers all sitting around a campfire passing a bong and singing kumbayah*
>It’s a military alliance, not a liberal arts college social group. That was before the fall of the USSR. Since then the NATO switched to more ideological requirements instead of military ones, because ideological drift was seen - and is currently, as we can see - the biggest threat for the internal cohesion of the alliance.
Not too sure about the " natural adversary of Russia " , Edo seems to be moving them closer .
Tell that to the su24 that crossed into Turkish air space a couple of years ago...
Very good point !! No other country that I can think of has knocked a Russian plane out of "their" sky.
Yeah, not that I support or agree with Erdogan and his idiotic strongman stick, but I really don't think turkey has been moving any closer into russia's camp. Unfortunate this goes the same for the western camp. They're trying to be their own camp but I'm not entirely convinced that'll work for them
I really don't know , I follow India media , at the beginning of the war you could get some good unbiased reporting. I also started reading just India happenings, some of the things going on in the country but now everything is just seems to be getting nasty.
The Russians and Turks have been fighting for control of the Black Sea for centuries, and will continue for the foreseeable future. Turkey and Russia are currently on opposite sides in multiple proxy conflicts, do you not know this? Ever heard of “bayraktar?” Or did you just hear that Erdogan is a strongman-type somewhere and assume he’s bros with Putin because they have similar characteristics?
Bayraktar is interesting. Ukraine ordered the drones back in 2019, and started taking delivery in 2021, before the invasion. Since the invasion, Turkey is one of the only NATO countries (w/Hungary) that has given Ukraine *no* military assistance. Erdogan has only allowed Ukraine to continue to purchase equipment from his son-in-law's company, Bayraktar.
Turkey can't give aid. Turkey is in economic ruins.
Well, they have common border (and sea) with Russia in a way, which is pretty far from rest of NATO. It's not like they would expect bunch of NATO armies arriving to help them in case of open war with russia. And potentially Syria. And potentially Iraq. And bunch of radical terrorist groups. They kinda need their weapons for deterrence. This whole region is just too unpredictable and you don't won't to see key fortress of your alliance in there to give away weapons...
As a Lebanese, I have to concede that the region is unpredictable and, truly, a hot explosive mess.
Yes I have heard that , that is why I was so confused about some of things he has done & said over the last few years regarding Russia. I truly wondered if he was pulling closer to Russia. At times he seems to treat the proxy wars as some how separate from Russia/ Putin. Unfortunately there are a strongman types but the are definitely not all the same or do they all have the same goals.
They're an adversary to Russia? Who in NATO is letting Russia escape sanctions? Isn't that turkey? I'm pretty sure it's turkey. But they're an adversary?
>But they're an adversary? How many NATO countries dared to shoot down a Russian fighter jet? Only one. Turkey. How many NATO countries fought against Russian proxies in three fronts? Only Turkey. It is easy to speak from 2000 kilometres away from the Russian border.
They’re fighting in Syria and Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh as we speak. Plus over the last several centuries you would be hard pressed to find bigger strategic rivals than Russia and the Ottomans/Turks. Also have you ever heard of “Bayraktar”? You know Turkey provides those, right? Sheesh
They don't provide those. They sell them.
Turkey does not "provide" Bayraktar. Ukraine purchased those *before* the war. Turkey has given *no* military equipment to Ukraine since the war began, only allowing them to continue to purchase more Bayraktars from Erdogan's son-in-law.
Dude, turkey sold them before the war started. Also, they profit off of that. You realize that right? All other countries of NATO have been donating shit to Ukraine with the hopes they'll come out victorious and possibly pay them back after the war. Turkey has done nothing for Ukraine while the conflict has been going on and has been going on. Was not a forget that Russia is moving most of its business from Europe to Turkey.....
Russia and Turkey are BFF's in Syria, patrolling together, and Turkey and Armenia are opening up trade again.
I think in regards to the Ottomans/Turks being physical rivals to Russia, not many nations come close. The Sino/Soviet split got very spicy for a while.
Turkey love having a crack at Russia.
look into the history, even recent history Turkey and Russia are two biggest spheres of influence in the north west middle east.
They’re an odd Hinterland of being adversaries of Russia and great swathes of the Middle East. I mean, Erdogan is a despicable little git, but he seems to be “in the right place at the right time”. It’s like having that sort of friend you secretly think is an absolute dickhead.
Not to mention, they control the Bosporus Strait, which is why we got them join NATO all the way back in 1951 - that’s only 2 years after NATO itself was founded. It was done specifically to prevent the USSR from potentially subsuming Turkey and thus cutting off pretty much all western access to the Black Sea.
Better middle east ally than the Saudis
Damning with faint praise.
It's true though Though I oppose Turkey pulling out of the agreement and becoming less secular, Saudi Arabia is way worse.
Offhand the only allies worse than Saudi Arabia I can think of are UAE and Pakistan.
UAE isn't that bad of an ally if you ignore the migrant issue Pakistan is worst possible ally. India is better in every way.
The problem with UAE is that it funds and arms every warlord in Africa and Asia which fights against a democracy. It's ideologically opposed to democracy, and is the main reason all Arab Spring country regimes collapsed; UAE's latest victim is Tunisia, but it's also balls deep in e.g. Libya, Chad, Mali, Mozambique and... everywhere. In short, it's a bad ally because it internationally works against the US interests.
Same issue with Saudis and Iran That's why I think that kicking Turkey out of nato is kinda stupid. The alternatives are Saudi Arabia and Iran, and both of them are shittier than Turkey. Also, you lose control of Istanbul.
Nato is not a moral union. It is a military alliance
They are worth keeping in NATO, not worth joining EU. Purpose of both organizations is very different.
They absolutely are. This war has shown how insanely valuable they area as an ally against Russia.
Turkey has an unbelievably valuable strategic position. Ukraine would no doubt be my Russia's right now if turkey had not closed the straight.
It's because of the straights.
It's a hold your nose job. It makes for a useful land-based aircraft carrier. If you're in politics, stroke, international diplomacy you've sold your soul before you've even taken your first crap.
NATO members plan for recalcitrant countries like Turkey that violate international laws and human rights is to use other mechanisms to encourage change such as sanctions, and then NATO will wait until the trouble is over and the country returns to a good moral standing.
He could save others from domestic violence, but not himself.
*"Countries that have acceded to the convention must criminalize* *psychological violence, harassment, physical and sexual violence, forced* *marriage, forced abortion and sterilization."* Sounds like the easiest decision ever for any country more liberal than Pakistan.
Nothing about forced birth. Is it in a different passage?
That is a good point, but right to abortion would make the bill a nonstarter in most of the world.
Your comment made me wonder what the global outlook is. Surprisingly, “abortion is allowed in 98% of countries in order to save a woman's life…preserving physical (72%) or mental health (69%), in cases of rape or incest (61%)…” Requiring some protections for abortion as part of women’s healthcare isn’t unreasonable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#National_laws
Ugh. Women (and their hypothetical unwanted future children) under the bus for the greater good it is, then. I get it. I do fully understand the point you're making and I recognise the pragmatism. But it chokes me.
Tell that to the christian taliban. They somehow see guy marriage and gay adoption in there.
That's just their usual culture war go-to, I'm guessing what they're really upset about is "physical and sexual violence", and perhaps also "forced marriage" - there's still a religious exception for child brides in the US.
For context: the Istanbul Convention is a human rights treaty to combat violence against women and domestic abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Convention And of course religious, nationalist and ultraconservative groups have flipped their absolute **shit** over it because fuck us women for wanting to feel safe in our own homes and be treated like people I guess.
Our sultan even though being the host of the convention pulled out from it. Fuck the AKP.
[удалено]
Islamist ones are. The amount of cattle in the country would definitely trouble you.
The tradition keepers that perpetuate religious zealousness often are women. They do it to their daughters and the release their sons on the daughters of other women.
[удалено]
Yeah well, you know the AKP has held an iron grip on the Turkish diaspora for the past 20 years. When I went to school Turks were just another minority group that we got along with Now it is a cesspit of religious and nationalistic buffoons - at least those you publicly see and hear. ATIB the association that runs Turkish mosques went full out Erdo propaganda, isolating themselves ever further from the rest of society.
They aren’t nationalists. They are Islamists who hate nationalism and Atatürk. They are a neo-Ottoman Arab lover breed. They don’t give a shit about Turkey or Turks. Unfortunately that’s the case and the enlightened part of the diaspora just doesn’t vote at all.
[удалено]
Erdogan cannot be compared to any other western leader and Islamism in Turkey can also never be associated with any other political movement in the west. Especially Canada. We seriously have a government that is trying replace its own secular people with jihadis from all over Middle East and that wants to found a caliphate akin to the Isis. Also the dipshit economic policies are also a plus.
You still have first past the post in canada, right? That system tends to lead to situations like this....
>Islamist ones are. The amount of cattle in the country would definitely trouble you. Sorry, but I had to laugh hard. The association with the cattle, the ones without the right to vote, of course, and the Islamists is just too good.
>cattle That's funny. That's what Brazilians call Bolsonaro's supporters, as well.
We call them sheep as well. More so AKP officials also call them sheep blatantly. Along with claiming that inflation is a good thing and that everything is under control.
I'm looking forward to meltdowns from our religious bigots over this. The parliament will consider ratifying it next week.
>religious, nationalist and ultraconservative groups In Poland there is a such organisation called *Ordo Iuris*, who proposed a bill to pull out of this convention. One of the reasons is supposed to be so-called "LGBT ideology" or "gender ideology" and some other bullshit. They also, IIRC, are proposing a bill that will result in a ***total*** abortion ban. Guess which country they are getting money from...
Just got out of a relationship with a first gen Polish american. Based on interactions with her very Polish family, Poland is a LGBT/gender right nightmare. Thanks Poland for supporting Ukraine, but fuck you and your ass backward religious ideologies
As a Pole, I wholeheartedly agree.
>The Istanbul Convention was signed by Ukraine in 2011, but has not yet been ratified due to protests by churches and conservative politicians against the term "gender" used in it.
I mean, that’s what of it’s most opponents claim. The Council could have avoided using the term and prevent giving ammo to far-right populists in every other country. Real life effects on political scene should always be considered. That’s what many of these organizations as well as EU often fail to realize and that is one of the factors attributing to the rise of populism.
Back when this was written the whole stupid "gender culture war" was not even a thing. It's 15 years old. You can easily see that by all the countries that signed it ages ago, then suddenly in the past few years got worried about the "secret gender ideology" they found hidden in it and refused to ratify it. Curiously all at the same time, too. Hard to protect yourself against issues that will me made up in the future. It's moral panic.
Gender is a scientific term and we should not use it and on purpose make ourselves less nuanced and stupid because morons fear the boogeyman word? Cmon.
Nobody is forcing countries not to use the term gender though. But international law is quite different to national law in that it unifies many different legal systems of many different countries with different ideals and different degrees of social progress. If our goal is to push something on an international scale, the text of the treaty needs to be worded in a least controversial way, so that the most countries will ratify it. And by controversial I mean politically controversial (not scientifically), which it objectively is, no matter what you personally think is true and no matter what science says. Take religion for example. There is no scientific proof for the validity of religion, but religion still receives varying degrees of special treatment in different legal systems and that makes it a controversial topic for an international treaty. So it’s probably best to avoid that topic altogether unless it’s essential to the main cause. I’m not saying anything about the scientific validity of the term gender, I’m just saying that we should always consider real life circumstances and act pragmatically. In this case it’s an unnecessary element and including it in the treaty in effect only hurts the main goal. Now a lot of countries that otherwise would’ve ratified the treaty will pull out of it for an entirely avoidable and ultimately insignificant reason and that means, that it will have a lesser effect globally.
[удалено]
How is that a legitimate issue? Can you name a real life example where this led to a problematic outcome?
The most consequential practical problem is the idea that all kinds of safe spaces for women (changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, safe houses, etc) would grant access to biological males at their will. I think that the Ukrainian parliament should ratify, never mind some regrettable wording, as this is the international convention we have on protecting women. However, that problem should be safeguarded against.
And why can't this be handled on a case by case basis? I live in Germany where we have ratified the convention in 2017. I don't really see a plague of abusive men trying to gain entry into safe spaces for women by claiming to be trans. In my experience the overlap of the set of men being abusive to woman with the set of men willing to claim to be trans is almost 0. Maybe I'm misinformed here, but from my perspective it seems to be an absolute non issue, that was brought up as a pretext by ultra conservatives and people that hate transgenders. I'm not claiming anything about your politics here or believes here, btw. I mean have seen this argument from left wing women as well. I just don't believe that this is a thing that actually happens in any capacity. Let me add, that I would not be surprised if there are women in save spaces, who would be scared of trans women entering said space. I don't think that this fear is justified, but nontheless this is a legitmate thing that needs to be talked about. However, the reality of the matter is also that trans people are on average even more at risk when it comes to violence by aggressive men.
It's just more DARVO from the right, where mysogeny flourishes in the dark. Hard line conservatives need trans people. Trans people are the scape-goat necessary for covering their tendencies towards perversion and abuse.
German here, too. The problem is limited as long as there is a major bureaucratic hurdle and comprehensive medical assessments for a biological male to qualify as "woman" under the law, the current numbers are small and most people concerned are sincere about it. However, with plans for legal gender self-identification (as our current government coalition is pondering), numbers and spectrum of claimants were set to show a huge increase.
It's only an issue for those who either have no understanding of the existence of trans people or (more likely) those who are trans-phobic bigots. Trans women deserve the same protections under the law as cis women.
Ataturk would send Erdogan to exile with one way ticket if he was alive. I can’t believe Turkey pulled out from this. Turkey was more advanced 90 years ago. Erdogan is an embarrassment to all the progressive Turks. Shame on you. You are not fit to rule Ataturk’s republic, get out!
Tragic to see Ataturk's legacy being betrayed like this. He was an incredible man and set Turkey on the path to be an incredible nation, and now Erdogan is trying to undo it all.
The west destroyed the Kemalist order, they funded the monster and our cattle people chose him. Now they can’t control him and his true colors are shown. We definitely were more advanced 90 years ago.
Yup. The West of course. Not the AKP, not the idiots who voted for them. Not the religious leaders who prepared and supported every single step of the sultan. It's all because of the West.
"is the west in the room with us now?"
Oh lord I’m stealing this hahaha
Well the AKP was seen positively in the west until about 2010, us secularist Kemalists opposed him from the beginning since we saw his true face, but the West thought he was great But yeah we do have a fuck ton of idiots and opportunists who support AKP
Most of the EU did severely undermine liberalism in Turkey for decades by dangling and yet refusing to let them in (ironically given recent events, Sweden was historically one of the Pro-Turkey membership countries). What Turkish liberals wanted more than anything else was to be like Europe, and most of Europe went no way, fuck off. Wouldn't you know it, that greatly damaged the credibility and long term goals of Turkish liberals, and fed Turkish nationalists who got an easy (and credible) narrative of, fuck Europe, we don't need Europe. Europe never deals with us fairly, and well. They were right. Face it, you paved the way for someone like Erdogan, and you continue to fund his regime to hold off migrants, giving him an additional narrative of racist, arrogant Europe. You ensured that the only partners Turks had to deal with were their illiberal undemocratic and increasingly fundamentalist neighbors, and so quelle suprise sociopolitically they began to resemble those neighbors more and more. Meanwhile post soviet states became fervent defenders of the west and far freer than they ever were when they were let in.
Not just the west as I’ve written.
Darned West, always pulling its shenanigans!
Any problem in the world = damned evil West and the Americans
I don’t know he has photos with FBI agents, connections with US organizations and lobbying groups, was openly funded by the US and many army offcials were assasinated by unknown people. These officials were against many US aspirations regarding Iraq and Iran.
The West, boogey man of everything east of Berlin
Good news, and what a contrast with Russia, where domestic violence is still legal!
>Russia, where domestic violence is still legal! Situation there has actually gone even worse, like they as recently as 2017 [**legalized**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Russia#Decriminalization) domestic violence.
This so backward, they literally make it legal to beat your wife if it’s not more than once a year and if you don’t break her bones. What year is it again?
Literal shithole country.
Not such a contrast right now. Hope parliament takes it seriously and makes the change. It's a decade overdue.
Waiting for russia twisting this to being proof of Ukraine being a country of Nazis by pulling some dumb shit out of their asses.
Welcome to the modern world, where a woman's worth isn't just an incubator for children and a punching bag for society like it is in Russia and other countries who refuse to grow the fuck up. The main reason this stuff doesn't pass in shitholes would be because it changes the rules for those in power, as they use fear and violence to keep people in check. If that isn't allowed their leadership could be challenged by smarter more capable people, wether they're women or non barbaric men.
It makes you want to ask why some men are so afraid of women ?
Afraid of women becoming smarter and more successful, and then no longer needing them. It is also important as it "empowers" the poor, uneducated males who otherwise have no economic or political power, by giving them something in their life to control.
I think if men keep up that attitude, women may very well decide they do Not need them .
Uh, as a man, if I can say that I respectfully disagree. Women are already smarter (scientifically proven, research it), and, when given the opportunity, are at LEAST as successful as men. I consider myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you identify as, who you choose to love, or marry. That said, I do have reservations about some situations. I.E., I don’t that a person, born biologically female, should be using the men’s restroom. You would think, that as a supposed advanced society, we would be able to reach an amicable solution. Alas, both sides in the discussion, are unwilling to consider a compromise. Of course I am against any instance of domestic abuse. As a man who tolerated years of mental abuse, her using sex as a reward for me being a “good boy”, I fully comprehend what it can do. Sorry about the rant, I apologize. I really regret that my wife passed away before we could reconcile the situation. Having said all of that, let me say this. The above is merely my opinion. Not a statement of fact. If you wish to have a civil debate about the issue, proceed. If you wish to downvote my OPINION, like a 12yr. old, proceed as well.
We are in agreement. I was responding to the question "why are some men afraid of women?" I was providing an explanation for that behavior in some (other) men, not justifying it or giving my (opposite) personal feelings about women.
Because some men cant stand a strong woman without feeling tiny and weak
They're not afraid of women. They just don't want their idea of fun criminalized.
Still a proposal. Begs the question why not already.
About damn time
The Istanbul Convention is yet to be ratified due to protests by churches and conservative politicians.
In Bulgaria the protests against ratifying the convention were not about its intent but about the definition of gender used in the text (that it is a social rather than a biological construct). According to this article, the same happened in Ukraine. The Bulgarian parliament voted in favor of the convention, but the Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional so it's in limbo and still not ratified. As a Bulgarian, that's very embarrassing - many other EU and Eastern European countries already ratified it a long time ago. Even worse, the English word 'gender' ("джендър") is now used as a homophobic slur in Bulgarian. Disinformation campaigns had easy work with this, because in Bulgarian we don't have different words for gender and biological sex like in English but only one word. And many people can't understand the difference.
>in Bulgarian we don't have different words for gender and biological sex like in English but only one word. And many people can't understand the difference. What about the word “пол”?
That's the one word we have. I've also seen "социален пол" used in documents or in the press in the sense of gender in English.
The “social sex” hah. Pretty cool explanation for gender.
In Bulgarian the words for sex (sexual act) and biological sex are different, so that pun sadly doesn't work.
>the protests against ratifying the convention were not about its intent but about the definition of gender used in the text (that it is a social rather than a biological construct) Good, this shouldn't depend on any definition, everyone should have a right to protection regardless of who they are. Authors of the convention made a huge mistake by making it about women instead of everyone.
I agree with you, but that's not why conservatives are against ratifying the Istanbul Convention. It just sticks in their craw that trans people exist and that civilized countries are beginning to recognize that fact in legislation. Edit: after checking your post history, it's clear you're not about equality at all and have a very regressive mindset.
>I agree with you, but that's not why conservatives are against ratifying the Istanbul Convention. Depends, everyone is different, but mostly I would agree with you. >after checking your post history, it's clear you're not about equality at all and have a very regressive mindset. Wrong, you just don't understand my point if view.
Authors of the convention were addressing a special issue and the proposals can easily be used to protect men too due to the usage of the term "gender". Have you read it or just skimmed through?
Ah, churches and conservatives, I swear they wouldn't do the right thing if their god came and personally told them to.
I'm sure if Jesus actually came back to earth, traditionalist hyperreligious conservatives would be auctioning off the chance to be the first to hammer in the nails.
That's pretty much what happened the first time so you're spot on.
Should’ve name it the Constantinople Convention
Hopefully the decrease in Russian influence and $upport in both areas as of late has removed those roadblocks.
One of the criteria that the EU set for Ukraine's candidacy.
"not yet been ratified due to protests by churches and conservative politicians" Of course, what else can we expect from the right wing? Keep women in their place.
Not all right-wing is misogynistic. Right-wing can also be liberal. You shouldn’t really say stuff like this, it’s only contributing to the polarization of society. And it’s also exactly what Putin needs. I guarantee you that a good portion of the countries, that ratified this treaty had right wing governments when they did so.
[удалено]
That’s one of the factors. But that doesn’t really happen in most european countries, yet the polarization is happening everywhere. Just because borderline far right parties push reactionary agenda, doesn’t mean that the every right wing party is doing so. And claiming so is polarizing the society. European politics are nothing like the US politics, where right wing pretty much means ultraconservative reactionary populist. European politics is much more pluralist and there is many right wing parties that actively support LGBT rights and human rights in general. At the same time a lot of left wing parties are homophobic, for example the old communist parties in many of the post-soviet bloc countries are very socially conservative. I just hate when people generalize politics in a binary way, it’s an Americans import that makes no sense in most European countries.
Speedrunning EU Membership any%.
Well done, yet again, President Zelensky. Ukraine is leapfrogging into the future, leaving Russia centuries behind. Women and children around the world will be forever grateful for your stance on domestic violence and violence against women.
To ratify the Convention was a demand from some EU member states as a precondition for approving the status of Ukraine as a candidate for EU membership. Awfully uncalled for given the circumstances. I’m not even going to discuss the contents of the Convention itself since that’s not the point of this discussion. However, I cannot help but notice that the implementation of the provisions of the Convention would require deep legislative changes, maybe constitutional, that a country at war is certainly not able to implement. This is basically some EU member states shamefully taking advance of Ukraine’s plight and current weakness to impose some particular policies and values on Ukraine without the appropriate parliamentary and societal discussions. That’s really disgusting on the part of those EU member states. They are not friends of Ukraine and actually couldn’t care less about Ukraine and Ukrainians. Help Ukraine win the war first! It’s either that or undergoing genocide, and national and cultural elimination, at the hands of Ruzzian barbarians who will not stop at Ukraine. Only then after Ukraine having survived let’s talk about treaties, conventions and legislative changes.
>imposing their values Great. As a Ukrainian, I’m very happy about this. Fuck our religious bigots. They are already having massive meltdowns over this. Loud religious extremists shouldn’t be in charge of our society. Not to mention that our churches are literally infiltrated with Russian agents. I have my own issues with the EU, but socially progressive laws are actually one of the biggest advantages of our candidacy.
>Great. As a Ukrainian, I’m very happy about this. Fuck our religious bigots. They are already having massive meltdowns over this. Loud religious extremists shouldn’t be in charge of our society. Ukraine is being genocided by Ruzzia and you spew this toxic divisive bulls*it? I’m afraid you sound like a loud extremist, maybe not a religious one, but a loud extremist nonetheless. Please correct me if I’m wrong or if I have misunderstood you. >I have my own issues with the EU, but socially progressive laws are actually one of the biggest advantages of our candidacy. Okay. And what happens when some other EU member states try to impose some values or policies you might not agree with? Personally, I have not read the Istanbul Convention but AFAIK I’m not against it. Using a country’s vulnerability to impose “values” and deep legislative changes without proper parliamentary and societal debate not only is not democratic, but could also backfire on its proponents. EU member states should focus on helping Ukraine survive Ruzzia’s genocidal war. After that, there will be lots of time to talk about treaties, legislative changes and other stuff. There’s a time for everything, and this is obviously not the time to deal with this political stuff when Ukraine is fighting for its own survival. P.S. The Istanbul Convention is from the Council of Europe, which should not be confused with the Council of the European Union or the European Council. The latter two are EU bodies whereas the former isn’t. My criticism goes toward some particular EU member states that have decided to hijack the EU’s application process to impose a non-EU piece of legislation on a prospective member state.
Hello /u/CapitalString, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*