TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Ireland signs protocol on violence against women

The Government signed the Council of Europe Convention on Violence Against Women, a move which was welcomed by Amnesty International at today’s Universal Periodic Review.

File: Colm O'Gorman, Amnesty International
File: Colm O'Gorman, Amnesty International
Image: Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland

THE IRISH GOVERNMENT committed to signing protocol on violence against women today at a UN Human Rights Council meeting.

The country signed the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Council of Europe Convention on Violence Against Women.

Colm O’Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland, addressed the UN Human Rights Council following the statement by Ambassador Gerard Corr, Ireland’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva during a hearing as part of Ireland’s Universal Periodic Review.

Colm O’Gorman said Amnesty welcomes decisions to sign these treaties, saying they should strengthen human rights in Ireland, and will help fight violence against women.

We note that UN treaty bodies have expressed concern at the prevalence of violence against women and girls in Ireland. We further note the high withdrawal rates of related complaints to police and low number of convictions in such cases.

He added:

We hope the Government will quickly sign these treaties, and then move to ratify them to ensure the fullest possible protection for people living here.

The convention on violence against women was adopted in April 2011 and is described as:

the first legally binding instrument in the world creating a comprehensive legal framework to prevent violence, to protect victims and to end with the impunity of perpetrators. It defines and criminalises various forms of violence against women (including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, stalking, physical and psychological violence and sexual violence).

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognises the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, which derive from the “inherent dignity of the human person”.

Regarding Ireland’s agreeing to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Mr O’Gorman said:

There is no excuse for the five-year delay since Ireland signed this treaty on enforced disappearances. Quickly ratifying the treaty is essential, both as an act of solidarity with the disappeared around the world, but also if Ireland’s candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council is to have its best chance of success.

Amnesty International Ireland welcomed Ambassador Corr’s statement that Ireland would provide the council with an interim progress report but was critical of the refusal of the Irish Government to fully accept some recommendations.

Colm O’Gorman said:

While there was some good news today, we are disappointed that the Government failed to fully accept the recommendation to put housing and health rights into Irish law.

He said that the severe funding cuts in these areas makes it all the more necessary to put these rights in law to protect the most vulnerable, and called on the Government to ensure ways of doing this are examined by the Constitutional Convention.

The organisation also noted what it called the Government’s “disappointing” response to recommendations on Traveller ethnicity and corporal punishment of children, and the failure to address the abuse suffered by women and girls in the Magdalene laundries.

Read: Ireland’s  human rights record under spotlight at UN>

Read: Iran “concerned over human rights violations in Ireland”>

Read next:

Comments (28 Comments)

  • Jacob 15/03/12 #

    Shouldn’t ALL people be offered the same protection under the law?

    Reply
  • It should be pointed out that not one thing in this declaration is NOT already illegal in Ireland.

    Quangos and NGOs trying to justify their existence by speaking for the allegedly voiceless.

    Reply
  • Violence against men is ok then ??

    Ahh so again the old double standard applies…..

    Reply
  • EM 15/03/12 #

    This is very good obviously and we should all support efforts to stamp out all abuse in the home against either partner but just as an aside I notice that “female genital mutilation” is metioned there. I wonder what is required to make “male genital mutilation” as deplorable an act as female genital mutilation? It seems to be largely accepted as ok in society which is simnply wrong.

    Wonder if the Journal could do an article on this?? Aoife?
    (apologies for detracting from the main story)

    Reply
    • I find the comments made by men on articles focusing on women very disappointing. Nobody is saying that violence against men does not happen, it does and should be dealt with alongside many other issues in our society that should be addressed. However this article is about increasing protection for women – can you not be happy that this is in place for the sake of your sisters, mothers, wives?girlfriends? When did men get so bitter towards women?

      I am not saying this to incite but i would be very upset if a close male to me saw this as anything other than extremely positive

      Reply
    • what do u mean by male gender mutilation? I havent heard of this before or of its prevalance. (genuinely)

      Reply
    • He means circumcision.

      Reply
    • The reason that the term “female genital mutilation” is used instead of “female circumcision” as it used to be referred to is to help prevent people making the association with male circumcision as if they were in anyway related. Personally I am not in favour of male circumcision but I do realise that is not the same as FGM. FGM involves a very dangerous and massively painful procedure carried out on yourng girls without the use of anesthetic. Apart form the immediate medical dangers it also results in the victims being unable to have a normal pleasurable sex life. Male circumcision is not in any way comparable.

      Reply
    • oh, circumcism is hardly in the same league as female genital mutilation…. dont really think it is fair to compare the two…

      Reply
    • It’s already been posted on the Journal a few times, including once by me, so I’ll spare everyone the link but the reaction to Sharon Osbourne’s “jokes” about a man being castrated by his wife says it all about Western society’s attitude to the mutilation (cutting off and destroying) of male genitals

      Reply
  • “It defines and criminalises various forms of violence against women (including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, stalking, physical and psychological violence and sexual violence).”

    “There is no excuse for the five-year delay ”

    Well, I can think of one excuse – all those things are already illegal

    Reply
  • I think there is a need for specific legislation on violence against women, because of its prevalence, i dont think its saying violence isnt committed against men thats not the issue thats for another discussion.note that in most cases men are the perpetrators of violence against women,

    Reply
    • Violence against women isn’t prevalent at all, when compared to violence against men.

      The gender of the perpetrators is irrelevant, but it’s very noticable that women who kill men are treated very leniently by the courts. Claire Nolan’s recent sentence a good example.

      Can’t we just treat everyone equally?

      Reply
    • Violence against women is prevalent in society, whether it is also very prevalent in men is another social issue that undoubtedly needs addressing, however for women you also have issues of sexual violence (ie rape) and FGM – hence the the need to have a specific protocol against violence for women.

      Reply
    • jrbmc 15/03/12 #

      It should one law to protect all , that’s the point!

      Reply
    • no thats not the point – the issues are gender specific – how can there be one law to protect all in the instance of FGM for example. nobody is saying that men should not be protected against violence but the article is not about that.

      Reply
    • There is already laws against rape – in fact there’s two (and for good measure they are skewed against men)

      FGM is already illegal under our laws on assault and sexual assault. And has there been a case of it yet?

      Why would we bring in more laws to make something doubly or trebly illegal to protect the half of the population that experiences less violence in the first place?

      Reply
  • What about the batterburgers and battered sausages who is going to protect them, !!!!!!!

    Reply
  • It is good to see the light of the world being shone on the bog of Ireland. The usual Neanderthals are out now to defend the status quo.

    Reply
  • This gives me the creeps

    Reply

Add New Comment