[ad_1]
Looking at what has been happening in Lithuania in recent weeks, the very idea is that we have not been able to abandon that communist approach “who is not with us, who is against us” for thirty years. We do not realize in our relationships and lives that there is a need to argue with an opponent that not all people have to live the way they seem to most and ultimately that a person who thinks and lives differently He is not an enemy, but simply a person who thinks and lives differently.
Regarding the so-called Istanbul Convention, the impression is that the radical-conservative part of society is waging the final and decisive battle for traditional social values. What has just been lost and heard, and that the ratification of this convention means the gates of hell, and that there will be no family left, that the LGBT bats will take over us and all the other horrors. In short, the end of the world.
Although supporters of the ratification of the Istanbul Convention are accused of ignoring members of other sectors of society and nachališku Pressing for the ratification of the convention, I have the impression that it is the other party, for whatever reason, who is not willing to speak and considers that only one result is appropriate: the non-ratification of the convention. The image is being actively created that those who oppose are “pretty” who uphold traditional Christian values, and everyone else is already true enemies and servants of the devil.
The definition of gender in article 3 was the main source of concern.
So what about the Istanbul Convention actually? First of all, attention should be paid to the full title of the convention, which perfectly reveals its purpose. Therefore, we are talking about the Council of Europe Convention to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence, adopted in Istanbul on May 11, 2011. Article 1 of the Convention clearly establishes that its purpose is to protect the women against all forms of violence, prevent violence against women and domestic violence, contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and promote real equality between women and men. . Therefore, all the terms used in the Convention must be interpreted in the light of the objectives it pursues and not in light of the horrors and horrors created in the mind itself. All the more so since Article 2 of the Convention establishes very clearly that the Convention applies to all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence.
The definition of gender in article 3 was the main source of concern. By this definition, gender refers to socially formed roles, behaviors, activities, and traits that a particular society deems appropriate for women and men. This concept was immediately interpreted in such a way as to legitimize a third sex, transgender rights, and similar “horrors” here. But this is not the case. First, the definition links these traits to social attitudes. Second, we must make it clear that all of these concepts are aimed at achieving the main objective of the Convention, which is to protect women from violence. And for me, in fact, it doesn’t matter at all whether violence is used against a woman in a biological or social sense; in both cases it is not justified. Or maybe the opponents of the convention think otherwise …
Or is it the simple principle that “no sex” applies to the other side, as in Soviet times?
Another issue is education. It is explained that after ratifying the convention, we will have to explain to the schools in the schools that there are gays in the world, that there is a third sex, etc. Just a swamp of fornication!
Article 14 of the Convention. 1 d. Countries are said to take the necessary measures to include in the formal curriculum at all levels of education curricula adapted to the changing abilities of learners, such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, respect mutual, non-violent conflict resolution. in interpersonal relationships, violence against women based on sex and the right to integrity of the person.
Tell me what’s going on here Finally, even if the students are told about people of non-traditional sexual orientation, about the fact that they are the same people whose rights, like everyone else’s, are protected by the Constitution, what is wrong? Or is it the simple principle that “no sex” applies to the other side, as in Soviet times? In other words, if we are not talking about something, it is not. But it is ridiculous and reckless, just as it is ridiculous and reckless not to see changes in society.
I am more than sure that the ratification of the Convention will in no way interfere with the survival of the traditional family or the concept of gender and will in no way destroy these institutes. However, after ratification, women from the same traditional families will certainly be safer and violence against women in the family or in the immediate environment will not be justified on any grounds. Endorsement also means that these values will be introduced to children from an early age, beginning in kindergarten. What is wrong here?
Another argument from opponents is that national legislation is sufficient to guarantee women’s rights and, if something is missing, it can be adopted. Therefore, the ratification of the convention is redundant. The argument fails because, if an international commitment is made, the national legislature will not be able to change its regulation at any time. Also, if everything is going so well with us, then what is he so afraid of that ratification here?
I get the impression that the opposing side needs to show more what they are true fighters for traditional values and Christianity than to find a compromise or discover the reality of the alleged threats. If the objectives are like this, then that talk and discussion is not necessary at all for one of the parties. Pain.
It is unfortunate that the price of this circus is the opposition of the people, which is sought with great determination. Therefore, it is not funny at all.
Another sad situation is related to the dismissal of the chairman of the Seimas Human Rights Committee, VTRaškevičius. According to the initiator, more than 300,000 signatures were collected. So-called “public figures” claim that VT Raškevičius represents only LGBT rights and does not represent the rights of other citizens at all. It is obvious that it is foolish to look at the agendas of Human Rights Committee meetings to be sure. But the “public” most likely doesn’t need it at all. They need a scandal, a show and an image of fighters.
Who are we fighting against? It is obvious: LGBT people, who, as it must be understood, are the enemies of Lithuania and traditional values, have managed to place their representative in the chairmanship of the chairman of the Human Rights Committee through their secret network. Just a true crusade. Similarly, after 1933, the German National Socialists suggested in every way that Jews, homosexuals, Roma, and the disabled should leave Germany. Then he began to physically destroy them. So that intolerance towards those who otherwise live, think or look has nothing to do with democracy, the rule of law and, strange to the opponents, Christianity. Well, because of the cancellation itself, he’s going to a show and a circus. It is unfortunate that the price of this circus is the opposition of the people, which is sought with great determination. Therefore, it is not funny at all.
It is obvious that the chairmen of the Seimas committees are not chosen with the help of signatures, so they cannot be revoked. It is already the case in a democracy that sometimes there are people in power who do not like someone, but with that you have to learn to live and be sure of voting again in the next elections.
Well, in conclusion, there are two excellent quotes from the Constitutional Court on the values enshrined in our Constitution:
The Constitution, as the supreme act of legal force and treaty of society, is based on universal and unquestionable values: sovereignty of the Nation, democracy, recognition and respect for human rights and freedoms, respect for the law and the rule of law. right, limitation and service to the people, open and fair civil society and the rule of law.
The principle of equality is the basis of a democratic society. It obliges the authorities to treat the same facts in the same way before the law. This principle implies the natural right of a person to be treated on an equal footing with others, establishes formal equality for all people, as well as that people cannot be discriminated against or granted privileges.
Teacher. skilled. Dr. Vytautas Nekrošius is a member of the Lithuanian Green Party.
[ad_2]
