Around a hundred women demonstrated in Brussels on Friday to denounce gender violence on the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on 25 November.
I can’t be fucked to find the original analysis I read on this, but IIRC France objects because they are already party to the Istanbul Convention which apparently defines things in a way that, they argue, not only is redundant but is more specific and therefore holds more legal weight.
I’m no jurist, but I think there’s more nuance to this subject than sensationalist headlines imply.
France, for instance, considers that rape can be considered to have occurred when “an act of sexual penetration or an oral-genital act is committed on a person, with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.”
So, what kind of non-consensual sex act couldn’t be argued to be rape under this definition? “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise” seems to cover all bases I can (perhaps naively) think of.
At least I don’t think we should so easily dismiss concerns that a competing definition might weaken the word of the law, as well intentioned as it may be.
So because France considers their definition to be the same or better, they block it from becoming the definition for the whole bloc where other countries have looser definitions. Make no sense and makes them the bad guy here holding off the progress.
Or they’re saying “come back with a better one”. That doesn’t seem unreasonable or evil, especially if the ultimate outcome IS a better definition of rape.
Again, I’m no jurist and I haven’t looked into the details of this, but I don’t think weakening the law in some countries is a good outcome even if it strengthens it in others. The French government’s stated concerns seem legitimate to me and I’d like to see those concerns addressed by the Commission before dismissing them as “bad guy behavior”.
(And let’s be clear here: I’m not French and I have no love for the French government, many members of which are or were accused rapists IIRC)
After reading about the convention, it doesn’t contradict the proposed definition, and the convention is using a definition limited in scope only defining violence against women or trans women. But not men, who can also be victims of rape. Also, the convention is voluntary, and any signatory country can leave it any time, like Turkey already did.
So again, there is no reason to oppose the definition as it’s currently proposed, as it doesn’t contradict the definition used by convention and expands it to cover areas that convention doesn’t.
This is just France being France. They are the obstinate teenager of the EU. It doesn’t need any logic, they just need to be both correct and different.
I can’t be fucked to find the original analysis I read on this, but IIRC France objects because they are already party to the Istanbul Convention which apparently defines things in a way that, they argue, not only is redundant but is more specific and therefore holds more legal weight.
I’m no jurist, but I think there’s more nuance to this subject than sensationalist headlines imply.
So, what kind of non-consensual sex act couldn’t be argued to be rape under this definition? “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise” seems to cover all bases I can (perhaps naively) think of.
At least I don’t think we should so easily dismiss concerns that a competing definition might weaken the word of the law, as well intentioned as it may be.
So because France considers their definition to be the same or better, they block it from becoming the definition for the whole bloc where other countries have looser definitions. Make no sense and makes them the bad guy here holding off the progress.
Or they’re saying “come back with a better one”. That doesn’t seem unreasonable or evil, especially if the ultimate outcome IS a better definition of rape.
Again, I’m no jurist and I haven’t looked into the details of this, but I don’t think weakening the law in some countries is a good outcome even if it strengthens it in others. The French government’s stated concerns seem legitimate to me and I’d like to see those concerns addressed by the Commission before dismissing them as “bad guy behavior”.
(And let’s be clear here: I’m not French and I have no love for the French government, many members of which are or were accused rapists IIRC)
After reading about the convention, it doesn’t contradict the proposed definition, and the convention is using a definition limited in scope only defining violence against women or trans women. But not men, who can also be victims of rape. Also, the convention is voluntary, and any signatory country can leave it any time, like Turkey already did.
So again, there is no reason to oppose the definition as it’s currently proposed, as it doesn’t contradict the definition used by convention and expands it to cover areas that convention doesn’t.
This is just France being France. They are the obstinate teenager of the EU. It doesn’t need any logic, they just need to be both correct and different.