Violence Is the Face of Men's Discrimination Against Women
When the UN Assembly established the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 1999, the debate surrounding the phenomenon of subjecting of women to various forms of violence and exploitation was already gaining momentum within certain states and globally. Adopted two decades earlier, the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) had already linked women's oppression to pervasive stereotypes and invalidating narratives. Feminist scholarship flourished in Europe and in the US in the same years. This is another way of saying that for over 40 years the international community and the scientific community have recognized a global problem of violence targeting women.
Subsequent studies in law and social sciences have shed light on this phenomenon. They all point in the same direction. Violence against women should not be narrowly viewed as a manifestation of extreme brutality or the wield of vicious power exclusively by exceptionally malevolent individuals. Instead, it magnifies the existence of a violent subculture that targets a category of individuals because their belonging to a specific gender is considered an indicator of minority status in terms of both physical and political force. Violence occurs and must be understood in the broader context of discrimination against women, even presupposing discrimination. In a 2014 case addressing sexual abuse in a context of generalized violence, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights used clear and direct language. In Espinoza Gonzales v. Peru, the Court stated that gender violence is "una manifestación de las relaciones de poder históricamente desiguales entre mujeres y hombres" (a manifestation of historically unequal power relationships between women and men).
In essence, violence against women has a discriminatory purpose, as it is perpetrated to affirm men's positions of power and domination over women's free will. Categorizing violence against women as gender-based violence holds meaningful legal implications, signifying a violation of various rights and principles: the right to personal integrity, honor and dignity, the prohibition of torture, sexual violence, and discrimination against women. Thus, understanding violence requires moving beyond the logic of mere protection to embracing the idea that women should be empowered by eliminating forms of discrimination that restrict their space in the economic, social, and political spheres.
The issue of violence against women is not solely a concern for criminal lawyers tasked with devising sophisticated ways to protect women, provide rapid responses, and prevent violent episodes or escalations in familiar contexts. While criminal approaches are crucial, they are insufficient. Equally essential and yet insufficient is the need to address cultural attitudes, stereotypes, and misrepresentations of women's roles in society. Violence against women must be understood within the broader context of the still limited representation of women in the political sphere, where decisions on priorities of political actions are made.
An encouraging sign comes from Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, Richard de la Tour. He has argued that, when it comes to asylum seekers, EU law should be interpreted as to recognize the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution for all Afghani women. In other words, because of all the legal measures and the government conducts adopted against them they all deserve the recognition of refugee status. Ultimately, what the AG suggests is that the limitation of women's rights under the Taliban regime is motivated by a discriminatory intent that eventually results in violence.
It is crucial for European countries to understand that violence against women takes different forms but always rests on a hideous discriminatory intent that we should be able to identify in all manifestations of power that impact on women's lives.