Abstract
In this article I explore major legal arguments against the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention) by the Czech Republic. I argue that the examined arguments are based either on falsehood or on constructions that violate basic rules of legal interpretation and fundamental legal principles.
I suggest that for the public debate to be meaningful, it must shift its focus away from pseudoproblems and onto a proper analysis of the current ways of addressing domestic violence and violence against women in the Czech Republic, and an assessment of whether these can be best improved by ratifying the Istanbul Convention or by a different set of measures.