Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Britain's Betrayal on Domestic Violence Vs Women's 'Right to Fight'

Nothing can be taken in isolation anymore. Everything is linked to something and it would seem the UK Governments latest is a prelude to something more sinister.

Anushka Asthana of The Times and Louise Noustrapour of The Morning Star reported today that the UK Government had effectively 'blown out' an agreement between 47 other countries that had ''taken two years to negotiate and was about to be signed off…." 
"...The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has been accused of hypocrisy as it emerges that Britain is trying to water down an international agreement to protect women against domestic and sexual violence.." Both these articles received little space or attention on their media platforms,  particularly in The Times.

Violence against women it seems, is ''Not a violation of their human rights"

The Government wants the suggestion on Human Rights taken out of the 'Convention on Preventing and Combatting Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence' and replaced with something a little weaker. Another part of the document they want changed is so that it will only apply during a period of peace and not during armed conflict… 

In the same newspaper, The Times-March 7th 2011, another article with a double page spread in 'Times Modern' (ironic?) went on to talk about 'women on the front line' and their right to fight on equal terms with their male counter parts in the various different theatres of war in operation around the world currently.  Promotion seems to be the crux of the piece stating that "joining the infantry or serving in small combat teams are areas where rising stars can shine….promotion rarely attends pen pushers and back-room staff..." This is of course if you can avoid catching a bullet long enough to make it back to England in one piece.  
The article written by Rosalind Miles claims that the primitive need to protect the life bearers is out dated and that "men make war not to defend the female but for property, pride or territory" This is about the only part of the article that can be agreed with!

Both these articles were written just in 'time' for International Women's Day. One loud and proud about putting women (our mothers, sisters and daughters) on the frontline fighting illegal wars for corrupt millionaires, the other almost without a whisper, virtually denouncing a human beings rights. 

Without wanting to be a cynic it would seem that the Government are needing all the help they can get as they stretch what military resources they do have along too many battle lines.  So by A) asking for a change in phrasing to incorporate violence against women as something that can only happen in a period of peace and B) looking to facilitate the move of women to the frontline and strategically having an article printed by a woman, on International Women's Day in the Times Modern (get with the Modern Times people) they are planting the seeds in peoples minds to make it acceptable?
I would imagine that  currently recruitment to the armed forces has been at a low and with the uprisings in the Middle East underway and the Wests thirst for oil continues to grow, more oil fields will need to be secured as these 'rogue rebels' clear their dictators or are quelled.

Do not underestimate the power of the subconscious. 

No comments:

Post a Comment