If the press release linked to the actual proposed amendments, we might have something to discuss. Otherwise this just looks like party political posing on International Woman’s Day (and be thankful it is that – imagine what the complaints about pancakes would be).

Inclined to agree with Watchman here: “watered down” could mean anything.

… imagine what the complaints about pancakes would be).

I imagine they would be far more interesting to me than an article / press release without any details about what is actually going on. I might try American pancakes tonight, for instance.

Here is an article with a bit more to it but there is still no discussion of the ‘why’.

@ 3 ukliberty

It is a tad odd that there is no discussion of the “why”. The more cynical amongst us might be inclined to assume that it’s just the usual atavistic Tory urge to have no truck with Johnny Foreigner and all that human rights nonsense…. they’re probably quite comfortable being in the company of those beacons of liberty and progress like Russia?

@ 4

That’s my pet theory too, but a bit of detail on the subject would help no end.

Of course, I should just nod sagely; after all, the baby-eating, women-hating Tory vermin-scum can’t possibly have a good reason for amending a bit of an international convention.

Anyway, here is Amnesty’s view.

@ 6

With due apologies to J.S. Mill;

“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

Of course not “all” Tories conform to the blimpish contrarian view that anything coming out of such organisations and conventions is by default wrong, and to be fought tooth and nail against,…… but enough do to make it worrying.

I’m also not denying that Labour had a pretty appalling record on civil liberties etc. during their time in power, but it’s hard not to see these moves as being motivated mostly by knee-jerk Tory contrarianism.

@ 6

I can’t say that Amnesty article is particularly leading me to rally against the Tories on this one. It says that the UK wants to define harassment as harassment (go figure) and to disinclude violence against women in combat situations, which I assume would mean treating it in the same way as violence against men in combat situations. Obviously violence has to be legislated differently when people have the legal right to shoot one another.

I still don’t think we’ve got the whole story here, but at first glance neither seems particularly unreasonable. It actually reads to me as if this legislation has been shown to have unintended consequences and the government is looking to reverse that.

Galen10,

I’m also not denying that Labour had a pretty appalling record on civil liberties etc. during their time in power, but it’s hard not to see these moves as being motivated mostly by knee-jerk Tory contrarianism.

With respect, if you don’t know what ‘these moves’ are, how can you come to a conclusion about motivations?

I’m not saying the Tories are goodies or baddies here – I’m saying there is insufficient information (which is actually their fault), for me anyway.

I’m currently inclined to agree with Chaise @8.

(I haven’t subscribed to the Times in order to see the leaked documents.)

@ 9

I’m happy to wait and find out more detail too… but 5 will get you 10 that in the end it will indeed be a case of the nasty party being nasty. Sometimes, if it walks like a duck…..?

@ 7:

“Of course not “all” Tories conform to the blimpish contrarian view that anything coming out of such organisations and conventions is by default wrong, and to be fought tooth and nail against,…… but enough do to make it worrying. “

Similarly, not *all* left-wingers are self-righteous prigs, who almost always impute the basest motives to their opponents and consequently have a knee-jerk opposition to everything that conservatives do…

“Taken alongside their continued refusal to sign the European Directive against human trafficking”

http://uknewsreporter.co.uk/now-eurocrats-run-brothels/678721/

“Now Eurocrats Run Brothels”

By Jonathan Smithers on Nov 7th, 2010 in World News

It appears that officials of the European Community can commit almost any crime including running a brothel and paedophilia with impunity. Even though Eurocrats have been committing these heinous crimes and misusing the diplomatic bag they have been able to retain jobs working for the EU. The punishment in some cases has been a demotion. One received a suspended court sentence for “living off immoral earnings and keeping a brothel.”

According to internal disciplinary records covering a 5-year period, obtained by the Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, little, if anything has been done to punish these serious crimes.

Mr Helmer commented: “These cases show that officials can commit almost any criminal offence or break any rule and get away with a slap on the wrist when other employees would get the sack.”

@ 12

According to a random blog that cites an unspecified internal memo? I’m convinced…

The irony of Yvette Cooper having the gall to call anyone a hypocrite very nearly caused me to spit tea all over my computer.

I’m not saying she’s wrong about this issue, not at all. But for her to use the word “hypocrite” despite her change in tune on benefits when moving from the cabinet to the shadow cabinet really does make me think of pots and kettles.

4. Galen10 – “It is a tad odd that there is no discussion of the “why”.”

Perhaps it occurred to them that it would be a problem for immigration? Perhaps they looked forward to the costs of paying for any woman who wanted to come to the UK and claim she was beaten by her husband (which would actually cover a significant proportion of the world’s population) and so entitled to asylum as they went through the appeals process?

“The more cynical amongst us might be inclined to assume that it’s just the usual atavistic Tory urge to have no truck with Johnny Foreigner and all that human rights nonsense…. they’re probably quite comfortable being in the company of those beacons of liberty and progress like Russia?”

Yes. Or they may have decided that meaningless tokenistic gestures by people far off and too cowardly to actually do anything about violence are pointless?

By the way, is it just me or did anyone else notice the illiberal demand included in this press release?

“Domestic and sexual violence organisations are struggling to keep support services open due to the scale of government funding cuts, and the complete removal of DNA for those arrested but not charged looks set to make it harder for the police to achieve rape convictions.”

I see. They still want an enlarged DNA database of people not convicted of any crime at all. Interesting.

@ 15

I noticed that. It’s a bit depressing when something that splits opinion like the DNA database issue is presented as black and white when that makes it easy to attack one’s political enemies.

16. Chaise Guevara – “I noticed that. It’s a bit depressing when something that splits opinion like the DNA database issue is presented as black and white when that makes it easy to attack one’s political enemies.”

I am not sure it does. A DNA database does divide opinion and there are views on either side. It is just that it went unremarked. That was odd.

@ 17

It’s being used that way though, isn’t it? Adding on that remark about the database being cancelled at the end makes it sound as if this is just one more piece of evidence that “they” don’t care about crime victims. Whereas the database was always hugely contentious.

A DNA database does divide opinion and there are views on either side. It is just that it went unremarked.

I saw it but couldn’t recall the proposed changes to the system, so I didn’t comment.