The court cases 5000-K784901-21, B2005-21, T3591-21 (Sweden) show in practice how the Istanbul Convention functions. To uphold this treaty, there has been an absolute stripping of men’s rights, theft of evidence, manipulation of testimonies, theft of complaints to the European Court, mail tampering, property theft, taking control of children’s assets and subsequent manipulations, etc. In Sweden, verbal accusations are sufficient without any physical evidence and despite inconsistencies in the verbal accusations. It is important to examine the complete case file, including video testimonies and police audio recordings of statements. Given the falsification of evidence, it is necessary to demand the complete case file, including all written submissions.
Initial information about Petra Quick (ID SWE: 841127-5087) is available on the website www.PetraQuick.com, with updates to the site happening every week.
Now there is a scholarly article on the topic of the Istanbul Convention and its abuse in practice.
Ing. Patrik Nacher
Member of Parliament for the ANO movement. Originally perhaps a good intention to highlight violence against women has turned into madness, to borrow a word from my book ‘Madness of the Politically Correct Era.’ And I dare say that the second and third words from the title of the book are also appropriate for the topic of the Istanbul Convention — it is yet another proof of the pseudo-correctness of today. Protecting women and fighting against violence through prevention is certainly commendable; however, existing laws are sufficient for this. Disagreeing with the Istanbul Convention therefore definitely does not mean not protecting women or not fighting against violence against women, but rather disagreeing with the insane gender ideology that can easily be abused. After all, the #MeToo campaign is a beautiful example of how far ‘protection’ against sexual harassment can go. This is not about gender equality, but about something that surpasses even the previous absurd attempts at positive discrimination. The convention will among other things require a ‘change in attitudes, traditional gender roles, and stereotypes that make violence against women acceptable.’ So, it starts with quotas for representation of men and women, through introducing various measures to spread new gender roles, support of non-profit organizations that will carry these measures, control, and possible removal of information supporting the traditional concept of the role of men and women in society. Here we are openly talking about censorship and nobody even tries to pretend that this is not the case. And all of this will be overseen by new experts, a new monitoring body (GREVIO). Social engineering pales with envy.
JUDr. Daniela Kovářová
Lawyer and President of the Union of Family Lawyers, former Minister of Justice of the Czech Republic, Senator: Sexual violence is sanctioned and its victims are sufficiently protected by a range of legal regulations. Any ratification would mean that the Istanbul Convention as a whole would become part of Czech law. Because it would be a regulation with the highest legal force, it would take precedence over all domestic laws and would need to be applied preferentially over Czech domestic law, which would change the legal environment. The Istanbul Convention is based on different principles (gender) than Czech law. Although supporters currently deny this, after ratification there is a risk of breaking the professional duty of confidentiality (especially for lawyers, notaries, bailiffs, tax advisors, etc.), disadvantaging perpetrators of one group of crimes (by banning mediation, amicable resolution of the case and evidence, extending the statute of limitations, loss of parental rights, etc.), significant financial expenditures benefiting non-profits and institutions dealing with violence, or prioritizing one group of victims (women) over another (for example, seniors). It gives the green light to the education of a new person who is to reject gender, traditions, and customs as dangerous; moreover, re-education is to be specifically aimed at boys and men. By ratifying, we entrust significant powers to an independent body (GREVIO) and its members with immunity and many authorities. Therefore, I do not recommend ratifying the Istanbul Convention and for the same reasons, the Union of Family Lawyers also rejected it.
Ing. Aleš Juchelka
Member of Parliament for the ANO movement First of all, it needs to be said that everyone, whether supporters or opponents of the Istanbul Convention (IC), is against any form of violence, including domestic violence. Punishing domestic violence and helping its victims is what unites us. This was also stated at my seminar in the Chamber of Deputies, and everyone agreed on that. However, violence is only addressed in part of this ‘commendable’ document. Reading other sections and passages, one gets a chill down one’s spine, as it reminds you of a time we haven’t had for 30 years, which seems to be coming back. Only the class struggle is being transformed into a battle between men and women. The normative part of the IC considers only women as victims of violence and aims to eliminate gender-based violence against women, thereby essentially labeling men as the exclusive perpetrators of violence. This makes the IC discriminatory. The execution of justice should be neutral, regardless of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. A perpetrator doesn’t have to be just a man; what if, for example, a daughter abuses her elderly father, a woman abuses another woman, or a man abuses another man? The IC only mentions this marginally and unclearly. And this ‘ideology’ runs through the entire IC like a red thread. It aims to proactively educate citizens, but especially men and boys, against violence, to promote the actual equality of women with men, also by strengthening women’s powers, and to support the work of relevant non-governmental organizations and civil society actively involved in combating violence against women. Additionally, according to the IC, domestic violence can also be considered ‘gender-based violence against women, resulting or potentially resulting … in psychological and economic harm.’ However, it doesn’t explain what this specifically means. It does not talk about any children, men, or seniors as victims. The Czech Bar Association even points out the possibility of breaking attorney-client privilege. I believe that the IC is an unnecessary document that, instead of uniting society, further divides it and deepens inequality. Everything regarding domestic violence, stalking, female genital mutilation, etc., is already covered by our legal system, including the eviction of perpetrators from the household. If this is insufficient, let’s discuss it.
Ing. Hana Lipovská
IVK and Masaryk University The Istanbul Convention introduces into the legal system and society a harmful newspeak. Subtle changes start with the most basic terms: up to now, a woman has been defined as an adult person. The Convention defines a woman also as a girl under 18. Similarly, violence is no longer just physical and psychological violence, but also discrimination. Gender discrimination is also understood to mean everything related to sexual orientation, age, health status, marital status, or migration and refugeehood. Besides sex and gender, the convention introduces categories of transgender people, transsexuals, crossdressers, transvestites, and ‘other groups that do not conform to what society defines as a man or woman.’
Paragraph 85 introduces into the legal system the ‘necessity’ of reeducation, as states are supposedly required to strive for changing the mentality and attitudes of citizens. According to the convention, special protection is deserved not only by pregnant women but also by drug addicts, prostitutes, or migrants, including illegal ones. We could go on like this. Many seemingly innocent words acquire entirely new dimensions in the commentary and further referenced documents (just in the preamble we find over 20 references) not unlike a certain Czech regulation, according to which a dog is also understood as a ‘cat, pig, horse, and ocelot.
Member of Parliament The preamble of the Istanbul Convention claims that violence against women is a key mechanism imposing a subordinate role on women in society and that it has a structural nature. It also asserts that European women are subjected to forced marriages, genital mutilation, and so-called “honor crimes”. I emphasize that any form of violence against women has always been unacceptable in the European cultural environment. The same can be said about the “subordinate role in society.” Such a thing doesn’t exist. There are no mentions of female genital mutilation or honor crimes even from the darkest times of our history… Europeans don’t do such things. On the contrary, women were always protected in European culture for many reasons, and as the bearers of life, they were also shown due respect. The promotion of the Istanbul Convention is a response by anti-civilization neo-Marxist revolutionaries to the situation they created themselves with their immigration policy. They are trying to convince us that immigrant violence against women is best resolved by re-education… of Europeans! The Istanbul Convention claims that it’s necessary, for the greater good, to limit the rights of an entire group of citizens whose original sin is belonging to a certain gender. Half of the population is deemed guilty a priori! Genderists aim to break millennia-old and time-tested behavioral patterns and replace them with newer, “better,” “more scientific” ones. How many times has humanity paid for such utopian social engineering? The prosperity of every society is not random, but is derived from the universally accepted behavior patterns of its members. If we break these patterns, the inevitable result must be rapid changes in all areas – starting with the economy and ending with the security situation. The real consequence of the Istanbul Convention will not be increased safety for our women but the exact opposite. If European men become timid and easily controllable creatures (and this is the main aim of the Istanbul Convention), then women will have no choice but to rely on the protection of non-European men. Even if genderists don’t like it, women need the protection of men, and European men have provided this to their women throughout history. To conclude on a lighter note: if we are convinced that what will liberate our women the most is a burka, healthy competition in the bedroom, and a couple of slaps when they talk back, then let’s hurry up and ratify the Istanbul Convention.
MUDr. Jitka Chalánková
Senator I fundamentally reject the ratification of the convention. Nobody doubts that violence against others, including domestic violence, must be penalized. It’s good to remember the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 – by the way, the provisions of the Istanbul Convention contradict this declaration in many points. Our legislation and institutions already have the necessary laws at their disposal. We can rightly consider the Istanbul Convention a Trojan horse. For the first time, it defines and introduces the concept of gender, gender identity, into the legislative process. For the first time, it speaks of gender as a social construct. This fabrication from the workshop of social engineering must be resolutely rejected. Given that the convention aims to eradicate traditional gender roles and stereotypes, it forces the inclusion of such teaching materials in curricula at all educational levels or cooperation with non-governmental organizations. A parallel supervisory mechanism will be created here, which is not subject to Czech law. Women and men are placed in the position of class enemies with the aim of influencing men and boys. The principle of guilt will be established, which is the exact opposite of traditionally understood law. There is a real risk of the obligation to break confidentiality in certain professions. There will be no possibility of mediation and reconciliation; punishment must always follow. And it’s not just about violence against women but also against so-called particularly vulnerable individuals— for example, members of countless sexual minorities today. And it will be enough that the victim will feel harmed due to their so-called gender identity in all its diversity. Children will need to be introduced to all of this very soon, thus prematurely sexualizing them, which I consider a crime. A specific monitoring committee GREVIO (15 members, predominantly women) will oversee all this, with its own rules of procedure, and its members enjoy immunity. In collaboration with NGOs in individual countries, they will monitor the application of the convention’s provisions. Failure to report suspicion is assumed to be criminalized. Such an attempt has already appeared in the Chamber of Deputies. This is not fantasy. For example, in Norway, but not only there, they already live like this. Children are “protected” from their biological parents in such a way that, for the so-called best interest of the child, they are taken away from parents under often fantastical pretexts or preventively. Parents are placed in supervised homes with cameras. If they disagree with these procedures, which the totalitarian power has determined as the best interest of the child, the children are taken away from them. This is not fear-mongering; this is today’s reality in Europe. Anyone who really wants to defend human rights must resolutely oppose such totalitarian practices. Including the ratification of the Istanbul Convention.”
Marketing Consultant, Copywriter, Founder of the ‘Angry Mothers’ association, which advocates a return to common sense and naturalness. The basic principle of the Istanbul Convention is to eradicate ‘incorrect’ gender stereotypes. It aims to re-educate society and turn women into a discriminated group that needs protection. In our legal system, the actor of events is a human being—women and men have the same value. The Istanbul Convention wants to eliminate this ‘injustice.’ The weaker woman must be protected. However, ultimately, any protective measures fail. Protected women end up in a weaker position and it fosters a sense of frustration and weakness in them, depriving them of personal responsibility. Don’t we already have enough various minorities that have been devastated by positive discrimination? That is one of the reasons why the Convention is a fundamental threat to European women. It will turn them into weak beings, incapable of defending themselves. Additionally, activists will be strengthened in their interest, who will then ‘bully’ the entire society. Another tool for eliminating competition or inconvenient people will appear. Just point to inappropriate gender behavior. An army of lawyers, activists, and social engineers will complete the work of destruction. If you anger them, you will be eliminated. Another blow to the already damaged relationships between men and women… This isn’t everything, but just this alone is enough for a reasonable person to consider the Convention a madness that must be nipped in the bud.
Mgr. Jiří Kobza
Former diplomat and businessman, now an SPD MP (Freedom and Direct Democracy party) There are many of them – including the impact on our broader social order. It’s another far-reaching binding supranational legal regulation. The Convention represents a breakthrough into the Czech legal system and societal traditions. It brings the risk of sanctions for Czech citizens from international courts (European Court of Human Rights). The document does not aim to correct or harmonize criminal law but rather to forcefully intervene in society and change it. It introduces into legal views, where equality of legal subjects should prevail, the obligation to henceforth consider in all respects a gender perspective harboring undisguised hatred towards men and boys. An inevitable negative aspect is also the obligation for contracting parties to create and finance a comprehensive ‘genderist’ campaign (indoctrination) permeating all layers of society, carried out by non-profit entities with foreign connections.
The tormentor is male. The Convention would encourage the spread of an atmosphere of denunciation and fear. There would be a risk of ordered breaches of medical and legal confidentiality. The Convention would generate an obligation for state support of educational campaigns associated with huge financial costs for public budgets. A fundamental danger (and likely intention) of the document is pressure to change traditional cultural and social patterns, social engineering, and an attempt to eradicate national and societal traditions. The document also means interference in educational curricula. There would be an unacceptable breakthrough into criminal law in the form of weakening the evidentiary practice and expanding the number of crimes where the penalty could be the removal of parental rights, i.e., a clear attack on the traditional family. The Convention’s detachment from the Czech criminal law system will bring chaos to the enforcement and application of the law. The implementation of the document would inevitably result in direct conflict with Islam and the Muslim community on European soil. The text is also in complete contradiction with Christian doctrine, which is one of the foundations of our civilization. It also threatens the constitutional right to freedom of conscience and religion. Lifetime immunity of members of the so-called expert monitoring group GREVIO is in conflict with Czech legal customs. Its adoption in the Czech Republic must not happen.
Ing. Jana Bobošíková
Former Member of the European Parliament
I consider the Istanbul Convention (IC) to be unnecessary and harmful for the Czech Republic. It can bring criminal repression, increased spending, increased administration, and strengthened powers for non-profit organizations.
Adopting the IC means that it will be given precedence over Czech law, a point that is rarely emphasized. Violence against citizens, including domestic violence, aid to its victims, and prevention are sufficiently regulated by existing legislation. As for the status of women in Europe, Czech women had the right to vote decades before women in France, Italy, Belgium, or Portugal. Under the guise of combating violence against women, the IC pushes for a change in the basic value framework of current Czech society. Adoption of the IC will disrupt the minimal value and institutional consensus upon which Czech legislation is based, with all the consequences, including the erosion of value and justice anchoring. If the IC is adopted, it will lead to the elimination of the principle of equality of citizens before the law, to discrimination on the basis of gender, to further destruction of partnership, marital, and family relations, and to further nationalization of privacy, family, and child-rearing. It will lead to the strengthening of the powers of non-profit organizations and to a situation where partnership, marital, and parental relationships in the Czech Republic will be assessed by a powerful supranational body in which the Czech Republic does not have a contractually guaranteed representation and where the majority can be made up of countries with completely different value frameworks.
Contract Protecting Women Targets Men
MUDr. Hanka Fifková
Sexologist and psychotherapist. She is a member of the Sexological Society of the Czech Medical Association, the Psychiatric Society of the Czech Medical Association, and the Czech Psychotherapeutic Society. She is also the author of many books.
The Istanbul Convention has sparked debates and passions. I find it alarming that many lawyers from various countries have criticized it. It is a Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. It newly defines some criminal offenses, such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage, forced abortion, or sterilization. The contract requires individual states to include these offenses in their criminal codes. It also aims to change the cultural patterns of behavior of men and women and is directed against all customs and traditions that support the perception of women as inferior beings. It also fights against the stereotypical perception of female and male roles.
Many have commented on the text, which spans dozens of pages, including lawyers from the Czech Republic. They made it clear: our law already covers all the mentioned offenses, including domestic violence or stalking. The text of the treaty has debatable passages.
- Parties commit to eliminating all forms of discrimination against women, promoting their true equality with men, and strengthening their powers. How are we to understand this? Women in our republic have the same powers as men, so are we going to strengthen the powers of women at the expense of men?
- The text also tries to define the term “gender-based violence against women.” This is violence against women that occurs because they are women. Many of them indeed become victims of sexual deviants or psychopaths who are heterosexually oriented. However, we also find surprisingly many men who become victims of similar perpetrators because the perpetrators are homosexually oriented. If the Council of Europe wants to define some violence as gender-based, why does it discriminate against men and not also define violence committed against a man because he is a man?
- Parties will do everything necessary to ensure that every citizen, especially men and boys, actively participate in the prevention of all forms of violence covered by this contract. I’m trying to imagine how officials will enforce this. Boys will probably fulfill this obligation in school. But what about men? Will they attend mandatory training? Will attendance be taken? And how will they punish those who do not show up?
- Parties will take necessary or other measures to ensure that any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal, and physical expression of a sexual nature aimed at violating the dignity of another person is subject to criminal or other legal penalties.
What constitutes a violation of a person’s dignity? Will it again be enough for a woman to point a finger and say, “Me too. He violated my dignity by the way he looked at me!”
- The parties shall take the necessary steps to promote changes in the social and cultural patterns of behavior for both women and men. The goal is to eliminate prejudices, customs, traditions, and other practices based on stereotypical roles of women and men. A lot of research has confirmed that most very young boys, given a choice, will naturally gravitate towards a toy car, while most very young girls will choose a doll. This is a natural response. How will the “eradication of ingrained prejudices” be implemented for these toddlers?
We could go on like this for quite some time. But let’s ask ourselves, what useful thing does the Istanbul Convention bring us? It’s hard to say. If it primarily targets the inhabitants of Europe, who come from countries where girls experience clitoral mutilation and women are genuinely abused, I think it will fail. It won’t extend into the closed-off no-go zones that even the police are afraid to enter. European countries’ legal systems already have sufficient means to prosecute and punish such acts. The fundamental question is whether they actually do it. However, it doesn’t seem like that’s the main objective of the Istanbul Convention. In my view, the Convention is aimed primarily at normal men. From the examples I’ve cited, it’s clear that the Convention is strongly biased against them. Moreover, I believe there’s no need to protect women in our country in the way that the authors of this Convention imagine. In our culture, women have long been free to do what they want—be it becoming a pilot, a seamstress, a strong athlete, or a delicate fairy. Each woman can choose according to her own feelings and capabilities. I’m not saying it’s always easy, but no one will persecute them for it. But what about a man who enjoys embroidery or knitting? Who will stand up for him in society? Many studies have shown that boys who don’t fit gender stereotypes—being gentle and passive, for example—are about ten times more likely to be bullied than little girl soccer players.
The division of roles is a natural outcome of our biological essence. Certain role divisions that arise from our biological nature are natural. Men are indeed different from women in certain respects. From the time of their conception, they develop under the influence of testosterone. Maybe it would be better to consider this in upbringing rather than ignoring or denying it. Women and men can hardly be the same, and no amount of gender education will change that.
There’s no doubt that violence against women is a serious matter. Just like violence against anyone, including men. That’s why I can’t help but feel that the Istanbul Convention serves merely as a vehicle for an ideology aimed against men. And any such closed, one-sided, and propagandistic ideology is dangerous.
Istanbul Convention: Too General and Extremist
By PhDr. Mgr. Jeroným Klimeš, Ph.D.
The Istanbul Convention suffers from a typical issue colloquially known as “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” The main intention of its creators focuses on four basic phenomena that sometimes appear in Islamic countries: Sexual violence, including rape; forced marriage; mutilation of female genitalia; and forced abortion and sterilization (Articles 36, 37, 38, 39). Most people in the Czech Republic would agree with these points. However, many parasitic clauses have been smuggled into the document, of which most people are unaware and do not understand the consequences. The Convention is very general and criminalizes a wide range of life situations. This primarily involves the criminalization of parents and the prohibition of reconciliation in partner conflicts.
ARTICLE 35 – PHYSICAL VIOLENCE: Parties shall take the necessary legislative and other measures to ensure that intentional acts of physical violence against another person are criminalized. Unfortunately, this article implicitly also applies to corporal punishment. Yes, it is not stated explicitly, but once this convention comes into force, it will be referred to in this article. The following Article 45 states that a child can be removed and parental rights revoked. The same article mentions monitoring and supervision. Does this mean authorities can install cameras in our apartments to ensure we are not excessively punishing? It’s not ruled out.
Similarly, with partner conflicts, the prohibition of reconciliation and mediation applies, along with the prohibition of contact between the parties in conflict, meaning that the child will be removed from the family and contact with the parent will be forbidden as per Article 56. Most people in the Czech Republic would not want to commit to any of this, but beware, it arises from the Convention. It is written too extremely and too generally.
ARTICLE 48 – PROHIBITION OF MANDATORY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS TO THIS EFFECT – Section 1: Parties shall take the necessary legislative and other measures to prohibit mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedures, including mediation and conciliation. Many cases of domestic violence arise from arguments. According to this Convention, as soon as the woman runs to the police, her dispute with the man is taken over by the state. From that point, the woman is also prohibited from reconciling with the man and retracting her allegations. The two can no longer intervene at all. The state will continue with the criminal proceedings until the man is completely convicted. This practically means that after one Saturday night argument, a forced two-year criminal proceeding will ensue, culminating in the man’s conviction without a statute of limitations (Article 58). It is clear that even if the two reconcile within a week, the man will either go to jail in two years or be given probation, with which he won’t find a job, etc. It is clear that this measure will break up many families. The following article states that the state must prevent contact between the wife and the husband.
The text you’ve provided is a complex, multifaceted critique of the Istanbul Convention in the context of Czech law and society. The Istanbul Convention is a treaty of the Council of Europe against violence against women and domestic violence. The text argues that the convention may lead to unintended negative consequences such as tearing families apart, making it more difficult to resolve domestic issues through mediation, and leading to abuses of the legal system.
Here’s a translation to American English, capturing the nuances of the argument:
Article 56 – Protective Measures, Point g: In the spaces of the court and other law-enforcement institutions, contact between victims and perpetrators will be limited to the absolute minimum; Does the Czech Republic want to commit to this? Based on one heated argument, the state will destroy a marriage by forbidding spouses to meet, and if so, only for a minimal time? The court cannot resolve their dispute through either mediation or conciliation. Parents are not allowed to reconcile with their children after a fight. Is this what the majority of the Czech population wants? I don’t think so, but that’s the implication of this treaty. Yes, bullying is a problem when it comes to confronting the victim and the aggressor, but domestic violence usually arises from trivial arguments. The Istanbul Convention does not distinguish between severe and regular types of domestic violence – it bans contact indiscriminately. It should focus only on extreme cases like female genital mutilation and leave these cases as they are today.
Abuse of This Convention: The biggest problem with partner conflicts is that authorities and the public do not see much into them. Diagnosis is difficult. Participants in the dispute lie massively. Eviction orders are widely abused. Courts struggle with false accusations of child sexual abuse. Investigations drag on for months or even years. The result is that the father loses the child. I say that in such cases, the best solution for the father is to start a family elsewhere, but practically no fathers are capable of that. The Istanbul Convention exacerbates this situation further by banning amicable solutions and mediation, banning contact between conflicting parties. The result will be more broken families, more alienated parents. The Istanbul Convention also forces the majority to accept the gender-focused view of violence advocated by a narrow group of scholars, which I personally do not agree with.
Real Issues We Need to Address: If I were to express my opinion on the Istanbul Convention as a whole, I would say no. It’s like fixing a watch with a sledgehammer. We need to discuss details that are the source of abuse against women and children. And not just those; the treaty systematically omits any mention of violence against the elderly and patients. Therefore, I briefly mention only in a few points what should change in this area:
a) Parents can lie in custody courts without punishment. b) If a child reacts strongly emotionally during handover between parents, it is undoubtedly emotional abuse, but courts do not ask for recordings. c) Courts force children to interact with their parents’ new partners even when they expressly reject them. d) If someone has been accused of sexual abuse, they can’t see their child from the moment of accusation. e) We need a registry of criminals who have committed crimes against children.
The Istanbul Convention simply represents a step backward. Therefore, it must be rejected.
The Committee for Sexual Minorities is working on introducing the right to choose one’s gender, even without surgery.
Doc. MUDr. Jaroslav Zvěřina, CSc., Chair of the Czech Sexological Society
In the future, the Czech Republic could move away from the medical definition of gender and introduce the right to choose and change one’s gender through a mere bureaucratic procedure, depending on whether the citizen wants to be male or female. “It’s the total decadence of postmodern Euro-Atlantic civilization, where medical facts are denied, laws are pushed by lobbyists, and scientific research is banned due to political correctness,” says sexologist Jaroslav Zvěřina. According to a report by the Human Rights Council, its Committee for Sexual Minorities held discussions last year on the legal regulation of changing gender as a legal identifier of a person in various countries and on the experiences of trans individuals with the system of changing gender in the Czech Republic. “The system was mainly criticized for its rigidity, as it requires a diagnosis of gender identity disorder, then surgical intervention to eliminate fertility, and only then is the person’s name, surname, birth number, and subsequently documents changed. While this process may suit most trans individuals, some cannot or do not wish to undergo surgery for various reasons, such as health. However, they then cannot change their official gender,” the report states.
In some countries, they have already moved away from tying a person’s gender to a medical diagnosis, and people can change their gender as they wish, regardless of reality: “Abroad, many states have already abolished the requirement for surgical procedures for changing gender, or even completely detached themselves from sexual identity disorder as a medical issue, and consider gender identification as part of the general identification of the person, where only the person’s own wish and feelings matter,” the report describes. In such countries, individuals simply declare themselves men or women according to their own choice and apply for a change of gender on their birth certificate: “So, a person can change their gender through a mere bureaucratic procedure, when they declare themselves to be male or female regardless of their biological or other state,” the report of the Committee explains. Based on this discussion, a special working group for the rights of trans* people in the Czech Republic has been established, which will propose any changes. This group began its work in 2016,” the report states.
According to the respected sexologist Jaroslav Zvěřina, a lengthy novel could be written about this. According to him, sexual identity is predetermined: “Sexual identity, like sexual orientation, is a pre-formed attribute. In a few rare percentages—about 2%—there is a homosexual orientation. In a frequency of about 1:30,000, there is transsexual identification. In postmodern civilization, which relativizes everything, ‘gender’ has also become a selectable discipline,” Jaroslav Zvěřina explained the origin of this consideration. According to him, this development has various phases and eccentric solutions. “From Swedish kindergartens that refuse the pronouns ‘she’ and ‘he’ and promote some ‘it’ as gender-neutral, supposedly to avoid forcing children into either gender. As if sexual identity were a learned attribute,” wonders the Chair of the Czech Sexological Society. “In recent years, the lobby of lesbians, gays, transsexuals, plus various ‘queers,’ who have quite illogically also taken intersexual individuals into their argumentation—those born with not clearly defined gender, whose occurrence is about 1:100,000 births—has been strongly asserting itself in this area,” added the leading Czech doctor.
According to another statement from Jaroslav Zvěřina, the committee, in relation to his intentions, received expert information: “On behalf of the Sexology Society of the Czech Medical Association, we have informed the government committee of our position, which remains unchanged. Gender dysphoria or transsexuality are mental disorders that require specific therapeutic measures. As doctors who have been trying for decades to help these people, we do not consider it discriminatory or inhumane to condition a change in birth-assigned sex on castration. When a person changes sex through the established medical process, they receive long-term hormones of the opposite sex; who will then take care of their original gonads?” expresses the physician’s displeasure with politicians’ proposals. “If someone wants to act in the opposite sexual role and refuses surgical procedures, then according to our expert opinion, they have no reason to claim the opposite birth-assigned sex. Countries that allow this have situations where women are fathers of their children and men are their mothers. Some countries, not just for this reason, are actively banning the use of terms ‘father’ and ‘mother’ and recommend the neutral term ‘parent,'” the physician points out that a child is always born to a person with organs suited for it, that is, a woman, no matter what she calls herself.
Earlier, a joke is today a tool of political correctness. According to further words from Jaroslav Zvěřina, humor has become a key political issue: “I must admit that at the beginning of this development, like when Australian airlines introduced a ‘third sex’ for passengers years ago, I took it as a silly joke. Today, it is unfortunately a key issue for some human rights political activists. Where it will end, I don’t know. I see it as one of many symptoms of the total decadence of postmodern Euro-Atlantic civilization,” admits the physician. And he adds alarming information that the politics of so-called correctness has reached the stage of banning scientific research: “Recently in Canada, radical trans lobbyists kicked a leading world sexologist out of a university workplace because he dared to plan ‘completely politically incorrect research.’ He wanted to examine hormonal ratios in children with sexual identity disorders. Such research is supposedly intolerable because transsexuality is not a disorder. Similar research on homosexuality was stopped long ago,” adds the physician.
The Future of Gender in the Hands of Activists
What future awaits citizens of the Czech Republic when it comes to the choice of gender? ‘The future? A plurality of orientations and genders, with the effective help of international and non-governmental organizations,’ states Jaroslav Zvěřina, the chairman of the Sexological Society, on the last page of his current professional presentation, including an overview of legislation in several Western countries:
In 2009, the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court concluded that official gender recognition does not have to include surgical gender reassignment, as long as the individual concerned can successfully demonstrate that ‘their feeling of belonging to the opposite sex is most likely permanent’ and ‘is externally expressed by resembling the appearance of the opposite sex.’
Based on the ruling of January 11, 2011, the German Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Transsexuals Act that required permanent infertility and surgical alteration of sexual organs for official gender recognition. Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 3295/07, January 11, 2011.
Based on the judgment of December 19, 2012, the Swedish Administrative Court of Appeals invalidated the sterilization requirement in the gender recognition law as contradicting the Swedish constitution and the right to privacy and prohibition of discrimination. The court stated that sterilization in this context represents forced medical intervention if required for recognizing a certain benefit or right, in this case, official gender recognition. The sterilization requirement is ‘outdated,’ does not correspond to ‘current social values,’ ‘represents a very intrusive and irreversible intervention into the human organism,’ and is discriminatory because it applies only to trans individuals.
This development was in many cases inspired by groundbreaking legal regulations concerning gender recognition that were adopted in Argentina in 2012 and are still considered the most progressive in history. These regulations allow individuals to change the gender listed on all their official documents based solely on the submission of a sworn statement confirming the desired change, without any further medical requirements. See the Argentine Gender Identity Law (2012).
On September 1, 2014, a new Danish law on gender recognition came into effect, which is entirely based on the concept of self-determination and which abolished all previously applicable medical requirements, including psychiatric diagnosis, sterilization, and hormonal treatment.
On July 1, 2014, a new Dutch law on the rights of transgender individuals came into effect, simplifying the procedure for official gender recognition, including the abolition of requirements for hormonal treatment, surgical procedures, and sterilization that were previously in place.
Interview: A New Totalitarianism is Coming
After two forms of totalitarianism, Nazism and Communism, which trampled on human rights, now comes the totalitarianism of human rights, says psychiatrist and theologian Max Kašparů.
Assoc. Prof. PaedDr. ThDr. MUDr. et MUDr. Jaroslav Maxmilián Kašparů, Ph.D., dr.h.c., psychiatrist, educator, writer, Greek Catholic priest.”
This is simply a translation of your text and should not be interpreted in any other way.
Avoid the Istanbul Convention at All Costs. Lawyer and publicist JUDr. PhDr. Tomáš Břicháček, Ph.D.
The expert text was translated by artificial intelligence: