Yesterday a resolution was passed in Europe calling for the EU to accede to the Istanbul Convention (2011), the most important international -legally binding- treaty. against violence against women and domestic violence. Italy has already ratified the Convention in 2013while six European countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia) have not yet done so. Yesterday's vote is preliminary to the accession of the entire EU to the Convention.
Incredibly Fratelli d'Italia and Lega MEPs abstained from voting. Alessandra Basso e Susanna Ceccardi of the League even voted against.
Apparently the orientation of the Italian government would have been the favourable voteand, consistent with the 2013 ratification, but The fear of displeasing Catholic extremism - notably the Pro-life - led the right-wing MEPs to the compromise of abstention, This also displeased the pro-lifers themselves, who had demanded a unanimous and united vote against from the right.
A disastrous and unacceptable choice, argued in an equally unacceptable manner: according to the head of the delegation of Fratelli d'Italia-Ecr in the European Parliament Carlo Fidanza "with our abstention we wanted to reaffirm our concern about gender-related issues... Once again we wish to denounce the constant instrumentalisation of the Convention by the rainbow left, who would like to make it yet another Trojan horse to impose the LGBT agenda".
Very similar motives -and this should be enough to embarrass the right-wing MEPs- to those with which Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan explained his exit from the Convention with a decree-gulp in March 2021. For the ruling party in Turkey (Akp) the Convention It would damage family unity and encourage divorce, as well as include references that can be exploited by the LGBT community. According to the Associated Press note, those attacking the Convention claim that "The treaty promotes homosexuality through the use of categories such as 'gender', 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity'. that pose a threat to Turkish families'..
The Istanbul Convention has nothing to do with the concept of gender identity as it is understood today in LGBT claims, or 'free choice of gender irrespective of birth sex' (self-id). Also in the Italian discussion on Zan law reference was made to the Convention to defend the concept of 'gender identity': but this interpretation is absolutely forced.
Article 4 of the Convention states that "The implementation of the provisions (...) shall be ensured without any discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender (...) sexual orientation, sexual orientation, sexual orientation or sexual orientation.gender identity". But in 2011, when the text of the treaty was extended, Gender identity' referred to women's freedom from gender stereotypes, that is, the non-obligation to conform one's behaviour to the roles assigned to traditional femininity, and not to queer claims.
The meaning of the Istanbul Convention cannot therefore be misunderstood in any way. In every passage of the text 'gender' is understood as 'female gender' and is always associated with women, beyond doubt. Right from the preamble it states that "the achievement of thegender equality de jure and de facto is a key element in preventing the violence against women"; we talk about the "structural nature of violence against women, as it is gender-based". Article 3(d) reads "the expression '.gender-based violence against women' means any violence directed against a woman as such". And so on (the whole text can be found here).
Gender identity as it is understood today (self-id) therefore has nothing to do with the Istanbul Convention, which cannot be an instrument of the gender politics and basis for LGBT claims and forting the Convention in this sense harms women which are literally between two misogynistic fires, Catholic -and Muslim- extremism and queer instrumentalisation.
To the detriment of women, The Istanbul Convention has been regularly cannibalised by the Lgbtq to impose their own demands, namely gender identity. There is no circumstance in which the Convention has not been unexpectedly referred to in order to impose content that has nothing to do with the Convention, and safeguards must be put in place against this misinterpretation. But the instrument must be saved in every way.
The PD MEP Giuliano Pisapia sensibly asked the government to rethink this position before the plenary vote: "The hope is that the Italian government will not vote against or abstain when, we hope very soon, there will be the final vote of the Member States to ratify the accession of the entire European Union. Italy must take responsibility for finalising the accession process that was started years ago'.
There is still time, therefore, to correct the shot.
Marina Terragni
