CONGRATULATIONS to Eilidh Whiteford MP for getting her Bill to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention) through to the committee stage at Westminster.

Despite the filibustering of Tory MP Phillip Davies – who for 77 minutes tried to talk the bill to death – it eventually sailed through with only two votes against. Even the UK Government supported it. But I do wonder whether they really knew what they were voting for.

The Istanbul Convention obliges states to take practical steps to address violence against women in all its forms, and “to take measures to prevent violence against women, protect its victims and prosecute the perpetrators”.

I can see why the Tory Party wouldn’t want to be seen opposing the prosecution of perpetrators of domestic violence – but I find it surprising that they support an explicitly feminist convention.

The Istanbul Convention is underpinned by an analysis that “violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women”.

If this is what the House of Commons has ratified – almost unanimously – could all our feminist Christmases have come at once?

I suspect many MPs were embarrassed into supporting the Bill after hearing the powerful personal testimonies of Michelle Thomson and Tracy Brabin. But that consensus could melt like an ice cube in a furnace as soon as some of these MPs – specifically men with vested interests – start to realise the full implications of adopting a convention based on feminist principles.

The Convention, for example, gives women fleeing domestic abuse the legal right to access a refuge. How the Tories will be able to square that with their benefit cap that puts 67 per cent of domestic abuse refuges in England at risk of closure beats me.

So, forgive me for my cynicism. Sometimes apparent advances for women enshrined in conventions, or included in strategies, protocols and the like, fail to filter down to where it matters.

Take prostitution policy as another example. The Scottish Government defines prostitution as a form of violence against women. Yet women who are officially recognised as exploited through prostitution continue to be stigmatised as "a prostitute", lifted by the police for soliciting and prosecuted under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

Prostitution is a political topic that has generated huge controversy in the recent past – particularly between different strands of feminism and within progressive political circles.

On one side, there are folk like me who agree with the Scottish Government that prostitution constitutes violence against women. I am more inclined to support the Nordic way of doing things, which criminalises demand – in other words the buyers of bodies.

Others, notably Amnesty International, support the legalisation of prostitution, including pimping and brothel keeping. They describe prostitution as “sex work” and see it as a free choice that can empower women.

I’ve expressed my views on the subject in this column before, so I won’t go over old ground. The competing analyses are diametrically opposed. People tend to support either the Nordic model or the idea of “sex work” as liberation.

Underlying the debate are tensions between “second wave”, “third wave” and “fourth wave” feminism. Explaining these differences would take at least a column in itself. Suffice to say, passions run high and views are deeply held.

But I often wonder whether the women appearing in court for soliciting would feel included in discussions about radical feminism, intersectionality and queer theory. I’m not sure they would respond with enthusiasm when invited to “check their privilege”.

Maybe it’s time for activists to put aside a winner-takes-all mentality to achieve practical change for women. It might even be possible to forge an alliance, albeit only temporarily.

Too many women are still targeted by police for desperately trying to sell sex to feed their children or their addictions.

Today, in cities across Scotland, plain-clothes officers patrol the streets waiting to huckle a woman who offers sex for money. She’ll then be charged with soliciting, dragged before the courts, and probably fined. Then, that same night, she’ll be back out on the streets.

If you’re in the camp that agrees prostitution is violence against women, you’ll surely agree that the victims of that violence should not be criminalised.

And if you see prostitution as just another occupation like any other, you’ll surely agree that “sex workers” should not be criminalised.

And if you’re the Scottish Government, you’ll surely recognise that there is a wide consensus in favour of immediately removing some misery from women’s lives.

And surely, whatever our respective analyses of prostitution may be, we can all agree that section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 needs to go.