"Why would measures meant to protect somebody from violence ever be considered discriminatory in the first place?" Well, if it's sanctioned discrimination by l

"Why would measures meant to protect somebody from violence ever be considered discriminatory in the first place?" Well, if it's sanctioned discrimination by law, then it could clearly be seen as problematic. For example, this convention may make it possible for police to 'err on the side of the female' during domestic 'he said / she said' interventions, i.e. requiring the male to vacate the premises during a cooling off period, even when it's a ambiguous situation. The problem is that domestic violence is a two way street. From the CBC (Canada) [1] " it looks like the average rate of violence perpetrated by men in intimate partner relationships is about 22 per cent, and by women it was actually found to be about 28 per cent" i.e. literally women it seems quite substantially more likely to commit violence against men than the other way around, in Canada. (Obviously doesn't take into account things like degree of violence etc.). The reference to the Istanbul Convention I'm not sure is hugely relevant to the presentation, but on the presenters slide he is identifying that men face institutional discrimination: they are called to war, they die on the job, they have biased laws vis-a-vis domestic violence etc.. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/why-louis-ck-is-wrong-to-police-ticket-sales-diversity-in-the-judiciary-and-domestic-violence-against-men-1.3775006/men-are-victims-of-domestic-violence-more-often-than-you-think-1.3776182 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/why-louis-ck-is-wrong-to-pol...