UN Adopts Plan to Combat Violence Against Women

[Johan]

UN Adopts Plan to Combat Violence Against Women

Conservative Muslim and Roman Catholic countries and liberal Western nations approved a U.N. blueprint to combat violence against women and girls, ignoring strong objections from Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood that it clashed with Islamic principles and sought to destroy the family.

After two weeks of tough and often contentious negotiations, 131 countries joined consensus Friday night on a compromise 17-page document that Michelle Bachelet, the head of the U.N. women's agency, called historic because it sets global standards for action to prevent and end "one of the gravest violations of human rights in the world, the violence that is committed against women and girls."

"People worldwide expected action, and we didn't fail them," she said to loud applause. "Yes, we did it!"

On Wednesday, the Brotherhood, which has emerged as the most powerful political faction in Egypt since the 2011 uprising, lashed out at the anticipated document for advocating sexual freedoms for women and the right to abortion "under the guise of sexual and reproductive rights." It called the title, on eliminating and preventing all forms of violence against women and girls, "deceitful."

Last week, Egypt proposed an amendment to the text saying that each country is sovereign and can implement the document in accordance with its own laws and customs, a provision strongly opposed by many countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

It was dropped in the final compromise drafted by the meeting's chair. Instead, the final text urges all countries "to strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and girls and to refrain from invoking any custom, tradition and religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination."

When countries were polled on their views on the final draft, there was fear among the declaration's supporters that Egypt would oppose it, which would block the consensus required for adoption.

The head of Egypt's delegation, politician and diplomat Mervat Tallawy, surprised and delighted the overwhelming majority of delegates and onlookers in the crowded U.N. conference room when she ignored the Brotherhood and announced that Egypt would join consensus.

"International soldarity is needed for women's empowerment and preventing this regressive mood, whether in the developing countries or developed, or in the Middle East in particular," Tallawy told two reporters afterwards. "It's a global wave of conservatism, of repression against women, and this paper is a message that if we can get together, hold power together, we can be a strong wave against this conservatism."

Tallawy, who is president of the National Council for Women-Egypt, said she has told this to Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi, who came from the Muslim Brotherhood,

"I believe in women's cause. I don't take money from the government. I work voluntarily. If they want to kick me out they can. But I will not change my belief in women," she said. "Women are the slaves of this age. This is unacceptable, and particularly in our region."

A number of Muslim and Catholic countries including Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Holy See and Honduras expressed reservations about elements of the text — but Libya was the only country to dissociate itself from the final document though it did not block consensus.

Two weeks after the US passed the extension of The Violence Against Women Act, which was massively rejected by the GOP. When it comes to women and the way they should be treated, the GOP agrees with the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's Mollahs... :clap:

 

[JaanaRuutu]

I've said it all along, extreme Conservatives in the US and Islamist Extremists are the same fucking people, just different colors, and the only reason they hate each other is because they call each call their god a different name. Extremism is extremism is extremism.

I am happy progress is being made.

 

[meesterperfect]

well here is what the violence against women act of 1994 does, in the USA.
It allows a woman to get a temporary restraining order against her husband, boyfriend, father of their children. to go to the police dept., and with no evidence whatsoever tell them they wan't a temporary restraining order.
The cop then must call judge. The judge will not deny it, he/she will grant it to cover their own ass.
The cops then go find the man. Tell him he has 5 minutes to get his shit and leave. And he must leave with basically the clothes on his back.
Then, he can't even contact his children, theyre gone. The woman can then clean out the bank account, money gone.
So now the man is broke and homeless and forbidden to his God given right to see his children, but he still has to pay the bills mind you.
Meanwhile the woman has everything. The poor bastard guy can't even hire an attorney to defend himself, and a public defender doesn't handle that stuff.
Then usually, its dismissed in court. Either because the woman doesn't show up for the hearing or the judge doesn't see any evidence. or its made permanent. More often than not the only crime the man has committed is that he loves his children.
Either way at that point the guy is screwed either way.
Its just a tool,a trump card the woman can play in any divorce or custody issue..........And the kids usually suffer the most.
Other than that its useless. If a man really wants to harm a women he's gonna do it whether or not a piece of paper tells him to keep 500 ft away or not.
So those of you who thinks its such a good thing, youre really clueless.

 

[meesterperfect]

 

[JaanaRuutu]

well here is what the violence against women act of 1994 does, in the USA.
It allows a woman to get a temporary restraining order against her husband, boyfriend, father of their children. to go to the police dept., and with no evidence whatsoever tell them they wan't a temporary restraining order.
The cop then must call judge. The judge will not deny it, he/she will grant it to cover their own ass.
The cops then go find the man. Tell him he has 5 minutes to get his shit and leave. And he must leave with basically the clothes on his back.
Then, he can't even contact his children, theyre gone. The woman can then clean out the bank account, money gone.
So now the man is broke and homeless and forbidden to his God given right to see his children, but he still has to pay the bills mind you.
Meanwhile the woman has everything. The poor bastard guy can't even hire an attorney to defend himself, and a public defender doesn't handle that stuff.
Then usually, its dismissed in court. Either because the woman doesn't show up for the hearing or the judge doesn't see any evidence. or its made permanent. More often than not the only crime the man has committed is that he loves his children.
Either way at that point the guy is screwed either way.
Its just a tool,a trump card the woman can play in any divorce or custody issue..........And the kids usually suffer the most.
Other than that its useless. If a man really wants to harm a women he's gonna do it whether or not a piece of paper tells him to keep 500 ft away or not.
So those of you who thinks its such a good thing, youre really clueless.

This is all worst-case scenario and a lot of assumptions.

 

[meesterperfect]

its the most common scenario.
it really is.
the other normal scenario is - boy and girl argue> cops come> cops ask girl if she wants a tro> girl says yes> boy leaves>they make nice the next day> it goes to court and gets dismissed.
its a tool to keep the courts and everybody sucking off the courts teets making money.
it does very little to protect anyone.

 

[alaredo]

This is stupid... men are more violent to men that to women. People are violent.. Thats the way we are as humans. Acting as if one sex deserves more protection over another is dumb. Its either equality or not at all.

Im sick of hearing this whole, "we want equality shit, but grant us more protection too".. fuck that.
I was in public recently and saw a guy get sucker punched by a woman and he shoved her back from him after she hit him. He did nothing more than push her a way and call her a bitch and he walked away ... then he got arrested for getting physical with a woman. wtf!!!
I would have broke her fuckin jaw if i was him. She was lucky she hit him... cuz he did nothing. All started because he and that woman's bf or husband had words, so she hit him to do his dirty work i guess. Then after he got arrested they were laughing about it.
I told the cops what happened as did a couple other people, but the woman cop that was there kept yelling to get back and let them do their job...lol NICE WORK

These types of things make Some women, "not all though... let me make that clear," think they can do what they want, because they have special protection over men. Then half of the women agreeing to this shit have never been hurt by a man in their life... these same women just like the idea of having more empowerment.

I have friend who is a great father. His ex wife cheated on him with about 10 men. (NO EXAGGERATION)... They got a divorce and separated, and she signed all rights to her son to him.

She then got in an abusive relationship with a drug dealer, and my friend helped her get out and move in to his home with him and their son for a bit until she found a place to live. He didnt want his sons mom in that situation.

Now, Her parents have always wanted my friends' son to raise themselves.
They convinced her to set him up, so they could re-open a custody battle.
One night they got into an argument, and she locked herself in the bathroom and called the cops and said he was beating her. The police showed up and arrested him even though they said they saw no evidence of abuse.
When they released him, he wasn't even allowed in his own home at first, because she was there. Then when he got a judge to let him back home, she took temporary custody of their son and took him over to her parents and she left to go party it up that same night.
Now he is in a huge custody battle for his son with a druggy mom and crazy grandparents.
He has another court case to try and fight the criminal shit for abuse...
She had no marks on her, he never touched her, he helped her get out of an abusive relationship where she was dealing drugs with her ex, and then she pulls this shit. Just because she is a woman, the judge nullified the papers she signed rights to her son off and now my friend is fighting for partial custody with this crazy bitch.
He also has to clear his name in court in regards to the abuse...
Women do NOT need more empowerment... they are already believed for just about everything they say even with no proof. THAT is not right.
I think men are the ones who have lost any sense of power in these types of cases... STUPID.
These dumbass equality issues need to stop. NOW

I am sure many women on here wont like this, but too fucking bad its the truth. Again though, I am with a great woman, who would never pull this shit. Because she is not crazy. The problem is that when things like this happen, and thing are a bit lopsided in regards these issues, some people will abuse it. There is no room for that type of abuse of the system. Stick with the basics... When you hurt people, you get punished, when you abuse... you get punished... etc. Everyone should have the same basic human rights... plain and simple. These laws and regulations that do a lot of double talking, create more problems than they are worth.

 

[Rattrap]

This is stupid... men are more violent to men that to women. People are violent.. Thats the way we are as humans. Acting as if one sex deserves more protection over another is dumb. Its either equality or not at all.

Im sick of hearing this whole, "we want equality shit, but grant us more protection too".. fuck that.
I was in public recently and saw a guy get sucker punched by a woman...

I hate to tell you this, but your personal experiences do not reflect the norm (one of the many reasons why personal experience is worth fuckall in debate).

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) stated that that 91% of United States people whose rape accusations resulted in convictions against the accused were female and 9% were male. It also stated that 99% of the people convicted of and imprisoned in response to rape accusations were male, with only 1% of those convicted being female.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender *
99% male on to 91% female. I reject your premise.



* Yes, this is only one 'facet' of the topic at hand, but it's nonetheless telling.

 

[meesterperfect]

that shit happens all the time rattrap.
this law is pretty much only used to give women even more of the upper hand in custody or divorce matters.
don't believe me? go to the courthouse, watch the hearings, see for yourself.
oh but that would be personal experience so nevermind.

you know what too? isn't there already laws of against anyone hitting anyone ? its called assault.
isnt there already laws against threatening someones life or harming them? its also a form of assault.
if there is any proof that these things happened doesn't the person get arrested?
you think what you want, this law is not only useless but is really a way to keep the family court, child protection agencies ( which are actually unfit mother protection agencies) and everyone else connected to it, making money off it employed.
the law is so abused, the courts are full of proof of this each and everyday.

you know what happens a lot? a father files a motion in court because his kids arent being cared for properly, or he wants more time or whatever. the woman recieves notice of the hearing and gets a tro. you know what happens to the motion? it gets dismissed until the tro is taken care of. then the woman just doesnt go to court. after about 2 months its finally dismissed.
father files motion again, cycle continues. And nobody cares, meanwhile the kids are being ignored by the very system that claims to exist to help them.
thats why i am so against this law. it hurts the kids involved.

go to the courthouse, watch some hearings........this is almost all you see.

 

[Will E Worm]

Conservatives and Islamist are not the same people.

well here is what the violence against women act of 1994 does, in the USA.
It allows a woman to get a temporary restraining order against her husband, boyfriend, father of their children. to go to the police dept., and with no evidence whatsoever tell them they wan't a temporary restraining order.
The cop then must call judge. The judge will not deny it, he/she will grant it to cover their own ass.
The cops then go find the man. Tell him he has 5 minutes to get his shit and leave. And he must leave with basically the clothes on his back.
Then, he can't even contact his children, theyre gone. The woman can then clean out the bank account, money gone.
So now the man is broke and homeless and forbidden to his God given right to see his children, but he still has to pay the bills mind you.
Meanwhile the woman has everything. The poor bastard guy can't even hire an attorney to defend himself, and a public defender doesn't handle that stuff.
Then usually, its dismissed in court. Either because the woman doesn't show up for the hearing or the judge doesn't see any evidence. or its made permanent. More often than not the only crime the man has committed is that he loves his children.
Either way at that point the guy is screwed either way.
Its just a tool,a trump card the woman can play in any divorce or custody issue..........And the kids usually suffer the most.
Other than that its useless. If a man really wants to harm a women he's gonna do it whether or not a piece of paper tells him to keep 500 ft away or not.
So those of you who thinks its such a good thing, youre really clueless.

Yes :clap: This is more leftists trying to make a Utopia.

This is stupid... men are more violent to men that to women. People are violent.. Thats the way we are as humans. Acting as if one sex deserves more protection over another is dumb. Its either equality or not at all.


Im sick of hearing this whole, "we want equality shit, but grant us more protection too".. fuck that.

A lot of the time they are.

Some people are violent and that will never change.

It's not equality. That's not what the Feminist want. They want to be dominant.

that shit happens all the time rattrap.
this law is pretty much only used to give women even more of the upper hand in custody or divorce matters.
don't believe me? go to the courthouse, watch the hearings, see for yourself.
oh but that would be personal experience so nevermind.

The courts are extremely bias against men.

isn't there already laws of against anyone hitting anyone ? its called assault.
isnt there already laws against threatening someones life or harming them? its also a form of assault.
if there is any proof that these things happened doesn't the person get arrested?

Yes.

It's the Leftists who are trying to feminize everything.



Maher gets some things correct.

It's not anti-woman to talk about women and we're going to do it right now.

 

[Rattrap]

Your problem, as usual mp, is that you see everything through the incredible (I use this word by its literal definition: not credible) bias and double standard of your own experience. One of the reasons science is what it is is because people figured out hundreds of years ago that their experience doesn't necessarily fit reality - otherwise golly, how many people have seen Elvis and talk to a god on a regular basis?

that shit happens all the time rattrap.
this law is pretty much only used to give women even more of the upper hand in custody or divorce matters.
don't believe me? go to the courthouse, watch the hearings, see for yourself.
oh but that would be personal experience so nevermind.

This does often happen. Because the vast majority of the time it's warranted. You've told me your situation before so I know where you're coming from with this - but I come from the exact opposite (and much more common) situation. So there. Our personal experiences cancel each other out. Which leaves us with just facts:

Single fathers are far less common than single mothers, constituting 16% of single-parent families...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent#Father

In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.
[...]
Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

Fathers disappear from households across America

So yes, the courts are biased. Occasionally unfairly. But they have good betting odds that even if they picked the parent without any information to individual circumstance, they'd be making the right choice choosing the mother.

In summary, it's like this: men are more violent to women than vice verse, most of the time. That's why we're talking about these laws in the OP. Hell, violence and subjugation of women is built into most religions - including the one some fringe nuts like to cry is under attack here in the States. Women are better parents than men, most of the time. The evidence: the whole history of civilization (at least, I suspect, from when property became a thing and monogamy took hold), and some biology in there to boot. The bias this creates can be harmful in those relatively rare situations where the father is more capable than the mother - and this happens many times. What one needs to keep perspective on is what 'many' means in a sample of millions.

 

[bobjustbob]

The UN is a pretty useless organization when it comes to acomplishing anything. Human rights continue to be violated because soverign nations just thumb their noses at their resolutions.

 

[Will E Worm]

The UN is a pretty useless organization when it comes to acomplishing anything. Human rights continue to be violated because soverign nations just thumb their noses at their resolutions.

Because the UN is terrible and needs to go.

 

[bobjustbob]

Because the UN is terrible and needs to go.

You know what Worm, we all know they suck at what they are trying to do. Over 20% of their budget is paid by USA. That $7 billion is just chump change to keep the "World as it should be" people off our backs. Yea, the east side of Manhattan is a nightmare. The traffic and all of them conciliates that park anywhere they fucking want sucks. But for what it's worth we get veto so I guess we have to put up with it. Let the UN supporters bitch as much as they want about us. Go kick us out and park your asses elsewhere. We'll have high rise towers and a convention center in there before you can say Boo.

 

[PlumpRump]

Considering that the UN has been alleged, several, several times, over the past decade-plus of their "peacekeepers" raping women and children in Africa, Cambodia, Haiti and other countries, I think this is laughable. Clean up your own house, and then we'll talk.