2024-09-05 04:58:57
When Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) and Federal Family Minister Lisa Paus (Green) talk about intimate partner violence, they all use the term “feminism”. It describes killing a woman because of her gender. Women are especially affected by intimate partner violence: In 2023, the Federal Criminal Police Office counted 179 people who died as a result of an act committed by their partner or ex-partner. More than 80 percent of these victims are women. It is good that the federal government pays attention to this problem.
However, the definition according to which every woman killed by her partner or ex-partner is killed because of her gender is questionable. This is exactly what ministers are suggesting when they generally describe intimate partner murders with female victims as feminism. Many men can follow patriarchal thinking patterns. Some believe they “have” a woman. This contradicts the basic legal view of humanity. The right to freely choose a partner is part of general personal rights. It is the same for women and men.
It is not an automatic execution
If paternity is a reason for killing, it can be female. But anyone who declares every intimate partner killing a woman’s reputation suffers in this way ignores the often complex motives behind the relationship. Contrary to what is sometimes said, it is not negligent if we “only” talk about a relationship. It is a generic term that has its justification.
From a legal point of view, the classification of intimate partner murders is already complex: the Federal Court of Justice does not automatically classify them as murder. Sometimes only the perpetrators are responsible for murder. There are good reasons for this: for killing to be murder, it must be a murder element in the criminal code. The act of murder may be the underlying motives of the offender. They occur when, according to the general moral theory, your actions are at the lowest level and are therefore also reprehensible. This definition makes lawyers who are not confused, not in the case of intimate partner violence: Is not every killing essentially punishable?
In character, that may be so. However, according to the law, it is wise to carefully distinguish between murder and manslaughter. Whether judges accept motives depends on the overall assessment of the crime. They must fully assess the circumstances of the crime, its history, the character of the person who committed it, his living conditions and his relationship with the victim. This should continue to occur when gender is in question. There is no need for a serious crime of feminism to punish intimate partner violence. It would also be a constitutional requirement because it would benefit injured women over men.
What really helps?
The Party recently submitted a proposal to the Bundestag for a corresponding addition to the crime of murder. After the summer break it will be discussed in the Legal Affairs Committee. The traffic light would do well to agree to the proposal. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like that: in the first reading of the bill, your MPs put down all the reservations. The FDP argues that related crimes cannot be avoided by increasing the threat of punishment. Maybe that’s right. Changing the norm will also contribute to gender equality.
The SPD and Green MPS, on the other hand, use the word feminism in the same undifferentiated way as Faeser and Paus. This is also a mistake because not only women, but babies and senior citizens will benefit from the murderous version of the use of physical superiority. Bundestag debate is partly characterized by an irrelevant identity politics culture. To better protect women, it helps to use the tone-of-the-truth – and careful use of the rules.
#relationships #feminine