We applaud Philip Davies’s efforts today to stop the bill ratifying the ideologically-motivated Istanbul Convention. A short BBC piece is here. The first paragraph alone justifies Davies’s efforts:
Conservative MP Philip Davies says he disagrees with the “fundamental premise” of a bill urging the government to ratify an international agreement on combating violence against women, because it does not mention violence against men at all. [our emphasis]
The end of the piece:
The bill on ratifying the 2012 Istanbul Convention, put forward by the SNP’s Eilidh Whiteford, later passed its first parliamentary hurdle by 135 votes to two.
Ministers said they supported the bill but would seek to amend elements of it later during its parliamentary passage.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I can scarcely believe it passed by such a majority.
What with this and, the Leveson equiry section 40 (read about it in this weeks SPIKED if you haven’t already) it’s a very bad end to the week despite the admiable Philip’s spirited rear guard action.
LikeLike
I expect that very few had read the Convention itself. From the title it sounds like a really good “virtue signalling” opportunity for MPs. I think the two MPs who voted against are brave indeed. For its really easy to twist it into them being for “violence against women”.
The American feminists led the way with the “Violence Against Women Act”. This has proven a model for others as it proved a hugely successful Trojan horse to import a raft of provisions, often with no link to violence, into Federal law. So far in England though there is a Gov. approved VAWG Strategy which has a similarly wide reach the Law (as in the Eqality Act or more recent Domestic Abuse Act ) is “gender neutral”.
LikeLike
‘I can scarcely believe it passed by such a majority.‘
I can.
LikeLike
I occasionally keep abreast of the news in the old country and the mention of Eilidh Whiteford caused me to search Wikipedia. Quite an interesting read. Seems she graduated in English and Scottish literature, followed by studies in Canada, then a Phd in Scotland. I was nearly impressed with the doctor title except that she epitomises the privileged,white, middle class feminists type.
She became a lecturer in Scottish Literature before ending up as co-ordinator, policy adviser then campaign manager in the charity sector. Yet another Harman type I thought. It got worse. It seems Whiteford accused Labour’s Ian Davidson of threatening to give her “a doing” (doing=beating). A formal complaint was made to the speaker of the house. Davidson apologised for any offense that may have been caused while simultaneously denying threatening remarks. Liberal, Labour and Conservative committee members all stated that no threats were made. It gets even murkier when SNP Joan MacAlpine’s staff member Gail Lythgoe seemingly became involved in urging a Women’s Equality group to become involved in unsubstaniated allegations against Ian Davidson.
So, from J4mb and from Milo’s blogs we can see that when women make threats it seems to be a case of ‘you go girl’ whereas when females make unsubstantiated allegations it seems to be a case of ‘why don’t you believe me? a poor little woman’.
The one heartening news from the old country is that on reading the Scotsman blogs it would seem that near enough every article on Sturgeon and her feminist Scocialist National Party is met with absolute condemnation by commentators.
LikeLike