Why would measures meant to protect somebody from violence ever be considered discriminatory in the first place?

People complain about government-funded women's refuges not accepting male victims of domestic violence.

I think those people are wrong, especially if there are male refuges available.

> I think those people are wrong, especially if there are male refuges available.

Personally I think they are right, _especially_ if there are no male refuges available. Which according to my cursory glances seems to be the case, at least in London[0].

[0]: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/there-are-no-male-safe...

You've failed to show whether there are any government funded domestic violence shelters for women in London.

And reading your link it seems the government funding is clearly for both men and women:

> “Tackling domestic violence is a key priority in the Mayor’s Policing and Crime Plan. He has provided £2 million of funding for the Pan London Domestic Abuse Service – the biggest of its kind in London – which is open to men and women.

> “Through Survivors UK, the Mayor also supports male victims of rape and sexual abuse with funding to help them receive counselling through one-to-one support and advocacy support should they wish to report to the police and proceed through the criminal justice route.

Domestic violence shelters in the UK are almost entirely provided by charities.

I wasn't aware that we had specified the criteria as being government run, because of course refuges are operating as independent charities...

I thought it was about government _funded_ refuges?

In July of 2018, while under austerity, the government gave 19M GBP to various charities who support domestic abuse survivors.[0]

Curiously, zero of those charities allow men to enter their shelters.[1][2]

[0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/19-million-fund-to-suppor...

[1]: https://localgiving.org/charity/safenet/project/janes-place/

[2]: http://www.cih.org/resources/PDF/presentations/arch2015/1Vic...

"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-pol...

Unforunatately, the definition of violence is rather broad sometimes. Especially when such rules are in place.

The convention says this because the intent is to introduce measures which are clearly discriminatory (in the way they describe), but nominally intended to prevent violence against women in particular. Of course, a major error on their part is to limit it based on sex, which (regardless of your take on the expediency or righteousness of the distinction) is inherently discriminatory.