There are fanatical opponents of the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence in Armenia. They believe that in case of adopting that law, Armenian families will be destroyed: the state will take the children away from the parents if the latter tell their children, “do your homework”, will take the wives away from the husbands, if there is a quarrel in the family, etc. Some of the people involved in that group think that malicious Europeans have deliberately made the incident in Armavir kindergarten to carry out the “family-destroying” law propaganda.
There are also people in Armenia, in this case it would be better to say, women, women’s organizations that are fanatical supporters of the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence. Describing the horrific cases happening in Armenian families, they consider that the adoption of the law will prevent those cases. And if anyone doubts that something will change with the adoption of that law, that person is for violence, a propagandist of discrimination and a representative of the dark forces.
Of course, it is normal that people have their own convictions, and it is very good that they have the opportunity to express those. But the most ridiculous thing is that both sides are dissatisfied … with “Aravot”. They are so stuck in the debate that they want everyone to be either on their own or in the opponent’s trench.
“You’re recreant”: those who believe in the “family-destroying” nature of the draft accuse us with such expressions. “Why do you let them speak out? Their ideas are groundless”, feminism-prone women complain. Neither the labels, such as, “anti-national”, “recreant”, “Turkic”, “Vasak Syuni”, etc., are important here, nor assigning us the role of a judge, to decide what is grounded, and what is not. The accusations are not the interesting aspect her (personally, I have heard much tougher accusations within 25 years). Much more interesting is the fact that fanatic supporters of any direction are very similar to each other in one aspect: to accuse those who have a discreet and moderate position.
As for the main question, I can only express my personal position (the others in the “Aravot” staff may have different opinions). The adoption of the law is not as important as the movement towards a society where there will be less violence, aggression, intolerance. The law might have a role of only some 5 percent. The remaining 95 percent depends on the will of the society.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
