Well now….

So giving this prestigious prize to two frontline human rights activists does highlight the growing global recognition of the widespread and endemic sexual harms women suffer during wartime. But despite this welcome recognition – and in spite of the widespread reporting of sexual violence incidences in conflict – the international legal system lacks a binding legal convention on the prohibition of violence against women.

Is there a prohibition on violence to men? People? Yes? Then all are covered, no? No? Then why should there specifically be one about women?

24 comments on “Well now….

  1. During wartime? Who will enforce it? How? It’s one thing raising awareness, but what are you expecting me to do about it once I’m aware?

  2. War is hell covers it i think. Despite struggling with the difference between dying blood loss/shock by shrapnel and a dum dum bullet I still think the Geneva convention is a good thing.
    If you’ve the firepower and resources to be confident of victory or the consequences of defeat are not intolerable then you’ll play by the rules more or less. I don’t think that applies to ISIS.

  3. No mention of women in Berlin in 1945. The Left’s selective outrage.

    ‘hailed as a much-needed signal that the international community recognises the severity of this problem in an increasingly conflict-ridden world.’

    Liar. Conflict is way down.

    ‘International community’ is shorthand for Comintern. This article is communists exploiting women for the purpose of advancing global government. To Daniela Nadj, women are expendable in the war against capitalism.

  4. Violence against women should be banned in wartime?

    As a gentleman I agree.

    But last week the SJWs were arguing that there should be more women in the SAS.

    Which is to be ladies?

  5. “…the international legal system lacks a binding legal convention on the prohibition of violence against women.”

    Some sort of chromosome specific weapon that kills only males. That’s what we need. Then wars can break out all over the globe and these cunts would be happy, I suppose.

  6. @ BiI
    Just because they are in thge SAS doesn’t give you any right to hit them back.
    “Women can have it all”

  7. Well, that’s bollocks.

    Of course international humanitarian law has special protection for women. Even the dull-as-eff videos we have to watch every 6 months make that clear.

    4th Geneva Convention, Article 27:

    Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

    Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

  8. As Hilary Clinton put it…

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”

  9. @Andrew C: yes she did, in a speech to a domestic violence conference in El Salvador while Bill was President.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-victims-of-war/

    Note how Snopes ( a Left leaning site) tries to wriggle out of the consequence of her statement, while admitting she said it, tries to justify it by arguing ‘well civilians are the biggest victims of war’ etc etc. While completely ignoring the thrust of her argument which was that women suffer most because they’re alive while their menfolk are dead…….

  10. @SE: “Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour…”

    That’s a terribly old-fashioned concept, isn’t it? Hasn’t the GC moved with the times..!?

  11. Can I just say that my misogynistic and racist attitudes have just gone through the roof since the recent arrival of an unpleasant Australian female colleague who speaks at a decibel level greater than a pneumatic drill, making all thought process impossible.

    I’m party to all her conversations, without being a party to any of them.

  12. As Hilary Clinton put it…

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”

    Beyond parody.

  13. It’s a salutary lesson.

    Never play Twister with a Lefty.

    They can twist themselves into any shape needed when defending an argument.

  14. ‘So giving this prestigious prize to two frontline human rights activists does highlight the growing global recognition of the widespread and endemic sexual harms women suffer during wartime.’

    There is no ‘growing global recognition.’ This is just a FoS assertion by the Convertstation.

  15. Amongst all the other “Subeditor” oddities, shouldn’t “incidences” here be “incidents”? I’m not quite sure what is meant otherwise; some sort of statistical assertion? It’s like dearieme’s observation on “careening”–it’s obviously wrong on the simple literal level, but just possibly the author has in mind some relatively subtle idea.

  16. Surreptitious Evil said:
    “I’m just amazed they spelled honour properly”

    Written by a Swiss lawyer; you’d expect them to get things like that right.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.