News and Commentary

Due Process

Compelled Compliance: Resisting the Istanbul Convention  

Sharing is caring!

Compelled Compliance: Resisting the Istanbul Convention  

Sean Parker

January 19, 2023

When David Bowie as Ziggy Stardust in the early 1970s and Prince in the 80s played so entrancingly with what were then called gender roles, surely not even those astute seers of pop culture could have foreseen how thoroughly some of their young viewers and listeners might take it to heart.

Wasn’t it all just a silly phase they were going through? Tens of thousands of sex change operations later, many regretted, many not, the worlds of right and wrong, good and bad, and male and female are being gradually turned on their heads. By the back door however, because many populations resist this unmandated reframing of nature as a commercial life choice, while the ever-resourceful activists are aware there is more than one way to skin a cat. Give them control of a nation’s most popular Twitter accounts and they care not who makes its laws.

The Istanbul Convention is a document that approaches the issues of domestic violence in an extremely ideological way. The risk of the legal sanctioning of the concept of ‘third gender’ (recently rejected by Switzerland) is implicit. The definition of the term gender in the Istanbul Convention fully corresponds to the views expressed by the representatives of extreme feminism.

The agreement also emphasises that since gender roles are social constructs, they are not biologically determined. The assumptions of the theory of gender are based on classical Marxist concepts. According to many adherents to Marxism, conflict is inscribed in the very nature of historical phenomena, and determines the development of social life. Such a concept is based on the belief that social relations are based on antagonisms, with everything reduced to inter-power dynamics.

According to the Marxists, all the existing ethical, moral, legal and religious norms – referred to as the ‘superstructure‘ – serve to petrify existing socio-economic relations, known in Marxist literature as the ‘base‘. The gender theory adopted the perception of the family as a place of oppression from the ideology that forms its basis – i.e. radical feminism – especially from its ‘Second’ and ‘Third-Wave’. Genderism belongs to the broader category of neo-Marxist ideologies. From the philosophical point of view, this ideology is classified as one of the postmodern concepts.

Political activists have long known to set any aim as putatively impossible, and negotiate down from there. Now, however, the establishment is run by those who used to activate in opposition: the establishment is now the woke orthodoxy. Thus, concepts such as third gender, which the people of Scotland opposed while the Scottish National Party tried to ram it through, are introduced in cleverly worded clauses and legal loopholes, problems to sort out later, once the new progressiveness is supposedly established. This is a political tactic passed directly from the Bolsheviks to Tony Blair, stretching the baton arm across the length of the 20th century.

Sexual assault statistics are being intentionally increased by Operation Soteria in the UK, a partnership with US for-profit Soteria Solutions, a company responsible for destroying thousands of young men’s lives in that country off the back of the ‘campus rape’ hysteria. For the past decade this has been pushed and litigated by radical feminist academics including Stanford professor Michele Dauber, currently under investigation for online harassment.

The Istanbul Convention will extend this spirit of one-eyed vitriol to the sphere of domestic violence, which thorough research tells us is promulgated in a half of cases by women, and is frequently at its most virulent in female same-sex couples. And all of the messaging is anti-male. This is societal demonisation brought on by ideological hate, going on only one direction: female to male, the consequence of fifty-plus years of rabid histrionics.

Hiding subtle, difficult to legally challenge social changes in law is essentially mendacious and undemocratic, power exercised by stealth, and in bad faith since their designers know they won’t command the support of the people who may have voted them in for very different reasons. By the time they get to vote them out, the damage is done, and the social change embedded (if still wildly unpopular). Third genderism, along with all the other anti-male domestic violence and anti-instinct moves currently threatening mainstream society, is doomed to fail due to the toxic activism of those promulgating it.