On Thursday, the 30th of October, with votes from the opposition and the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS), the Saeima adopted a law for Latvia to withdraw from the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, the so-called Istanbul Convention.
The bill was submitted by the opposition party Latvia First (LPV), and it was also supported by other opposition parties—the National Alliance (NA), United List (AS) and For Stability!—as well as politicians from ZZS, which is part of the ruling coalition. The coalition parties New Unity (JV) and The Progressives did not support withdrawal from the convention.
Fifty-six deputies voted in favor of withdrawal, 32 JV and Progressives MPs voted against, while two deputies—Igors Rajevs and Didzis Šmits—abstained. The debate on the bill lasted more than 13 hours.
The withdrawal law was adopted under an expedited procedure; however, the two-thirds majority required to limit the President’s options was not reached. This leaves the President the possibility not to promulgate the law and to return it to parliament for reconsideration. Opponents of the decision have also mentioned other possible ways to halt or delay the law’s entry into force—turning to the Constitutional Court or calling on the President to suspend promulgation to allow time to collect signatures to initiate a referendum.
Initially, LPV’s draft law did not even have an explanatory memorandum,
which LPV produced within a couple of weeks. LPV argues that the current practice of implementing the Istanbul Convention does not allow one to be sure whether, in every case, state and municipal institutions take measures against violence and its risks in accordance with the principles contained in the declaration appended by Latvia.
LPV is dissatisfied that several other states party to the Istanbul Convention—Austria, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland—have raised objections to Latvia’s declaration appended upon ratification. In all of these objections, the main argument was that the declaration is incompatible with the convention’s provisions, i.e., it is considered an impermissible reservation. LPV concludes that the international community does not agree with the declaration expressed by the Saeima and objects to Latvia’s understanding under which it has approved the convention and assumed the international obligations enshrined in it.
LPV believes that withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention will “eliminate problems in the application of its norms” related to Latvia’s appended declaration and its non-recognition by several other states party to the convention. LPV also contends that withdrawal will give the state more freedom to allocate budget funds directly to those measures and to those state and municipal institutions and NGOs that “truly need funds” for preventing and combating violence.
LPV’s initiative was joined by the other opposition parties.
Although the convention aims to eradicate violence, opposition deputies traditionally single out and emphasize the term “gender” used in one of its provisions, attributing to it a negative impact on traditional family values.
In this matter, the opposition is also supported by ZZS politicians within the coalition, who have claimed that the Istanbul Convention offers an ideological rather than a practical approach to the problem, since its content is largely based not on specific instruments to combat violence but on an ideological view of the so-called “social gender.”
ZZS sided with the opposition in a vote at the end of September, thereby creating marked instability in the ruling coalition. The coalition partners have pledged to work to adopt next year’s “security budget,” but few politicians now express confidence in Prime Minister Evika Siliņa’s (JV) government’s ability to work in the long term. Support for ratifying the Istanbul Convention was one of the foundations for forming Siliņa’s government and for including ZZS in a coalition with JV and The Progressives.
Meanwhile,
most experts and NGOs working on violence prevention oppose the plan to withdraw from the convention,
expressing concern that it will weaken protection for victims of violence and harm Latvia’s international image in the eyes of Western allies.
On Wednesday, a protest against withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention took place outside the Saeima. At least 5,000 people participated, making it one of the largest public protests in recent years. By contrast, on Thursday, a picket in favor of denouncing the convention gathered around 20 people outside parliament.
President Edgars Rinkēvičs has so far spoken very cautiously about denouncing the convention, without expressing support for either side. He says he is trying to maintain neutrality so as not to become a participant in the pre-election struggle. Rinkēvičs has acknowledged that, after the Saeima’s decision, the question of withdrawal could land on “his desk,” at which point he will consider it comprehensively and make a decision.
Beata Jonīte, a representative of the women’s rights organization “Marta,” stressed that since the Istanbul Convention was ratified, people have been seeking help much more often. Andra Švinka, a representative of the association “Skalbes,” noted that the number of people seeking help has increased because “people feel that the state protects them.” In her view, without an international monitoring mechanism, the state may lack the capacity to cope with the problem at a national level.
Representatives of the center “Dardedze” emphasized that
the contribution of the Istanbul Convention is a clear system for working on violence prevention,
and that, based on it, a violence prevention plan for 2024–2029 has been developed, setting out the responsibilities of all ministries and other institutions.
Meanwhile, Ombudsperson Karina Palkova explained that the term “gender” highlighted by opponents of the convention refers to people’s social roles, not biological sex. She stated that the convention is consistent with the values of the Constitution. The convention does not require recognizing additional genders, nor does it promote gender transition, she said, addressing widespread misconceptions. She also pointed out that the convention does not interfere with family terminology; its main goal is to prevent domestic violence. According to Palkova, the convention makes violence prevention a duty of states and disciplines them in this area.
Judge Inga Reine of the EU General Court stated that Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention would create a negative presumption against the country and could potentially adversely affect interstate cooperation, while doing little to reduce Latvia’s obligations.
In parallel, a majority of Saeima deputies supported a declaration prepared by NA, ZZS, and AS, which they present as an “alternative to the Istanbul Convention.” The Progressives and JV opposed it, arguing that parties seeking to denounce the convention are trying to “whitewash themselves,” creating the illusion that such a declaration could in any way be an alternative to the convention. “Marta” representative Jonīte noted that a local political statement cannot replace the convention because it does not provide mechanisms for state obligations and oversight.
In Latvia, the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—the so-called Istanbul Convention—entered into force on the 1st of May of last year.
It is an international treaty requiring participating states to develop coordinated policies to better protect women
from all forms of violence, as well as women and men from domestic violence. Among other things, states must ensure comprehensive assistance and protection for victims; crisis centers; a 24/7 helpline; and specialized support centers for survivors of sexual violence, and must protect and support children who witness violence.
(The following repetition appeared in the original text and is retained here for completeness.)
The bill was submitted by the opposition party Latvia First (LPV), and it was also supported by other opposition parties—the National Alliance (NA), United List (AS), and For Stability!—as well as politicians from ZZS, which is part of the ruling coalition. The coalition parties New Unity (JV) and The Progressives did not support withdrawal.
Fifty-six deputies voted in favor of withdrawal, 32 JV and Progressives MPs voted against, while two deputies—Igors Rajevs and Didzis Šmits—abstained. The debate on the bill lasted more than 13 hours.
The withdrawal law was adopted under an expedited procedure;
however, the two-thirds majority required to limit the President’s options was not reached. This leaves the President the possibility not to promulgate the law and to return it to parliament for reconsideration. Opponents of the decision have also mentioned other possible ways to halt or delay the law’s entry into force—turning to the Constitutional Court or calling on the President to suspend promulgation to allow time to collect signatures to initiate a referendum.
Initially, LPV’s draft law did not even have an explanatory memorandum, which LPV produced within a couple of weeks. LPV argues that the current practice of implementing the Istanbul Convention does not allow one to be sure whether, in every case, state and municipal institutions take measures against violence and its risks in accordance with the principles contained in the declaration appended by Latvia.
LPV is dissatisfied that several other states party to the Istanbul Convention—Austria, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland—have raised objections to Latvia’s declaration appended upon ratification. In all of these objections, the main argument was that the declaration is incompatible with the convention’s provisions, i.e., it is considered an impermissible reservation. LPV concludes that the international community does not agree with the declaration expressed by the Saeima and objects to Latvia’s understanding under which it has approved the convention and assumed the international obligations enshrined in it.
LPV believes that withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention will “eliminate problems in the application of its norms”
related to Latvia’s appended declaration and its non-recognition by several other states party to the convention. LPV also contends that withdrawal will give the state more freedom to allocate budget funds directly to those measures and to those state and municipal institutions and NGOs that “truly need funds” for preventing and combating violence.
LPV’s initiative was joined by the other opposition parties. Although the convention aims to eradicate violence, opposition deputies traditionally single out and emphasize the term “gender” used in one of its provisions, attributing to it a negative impact on traditional family values.
In this matter, the opposition is also supported by ZZS politicians within the coalition, who have claimed that the Istanbul Convention offers an ideological rather than a practical approach to the problem, since its content is largely based not on specific instruments to combat violence but on an ideological view of the so-called “social gender.”
ZZS sided with the opposition in a vote at the end of September,
thereby creating marked instability in the ruling coalition. The coalition partners have pledged to work to adopt next year’s “security budget,” but few politicians now express confidence in Prime Minister Evika Siliņa’s (JV) government’s ability to work in the long term. Support for ratifying the Istanbul Convention was one of the foundations for forming Siliņa’s government and for including ZZS in a coalition with JV and The Progressives.
Meanwhile, most experts and NGOs working on violence prevention oppose the plan to withdraw from the convention, expressing concern that it will weaken protection for victims of violence and harm Latvia’s international image in the eyes of Western allies.
On Wednesday, a protest against withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention took place outside the Saeima. At least 5,000 people participated, making it one of the largest public protests in recent years. By contrast, on Thursday, a picket in favor of denouncing the convention gathered around 20 people outside parliament.
President Edgars Rinkēvičs has so far spoken very cautiously about denouncing the convention,
without expressing support for either side. He says he is trying to maintain neutrality so as not to become a participant in the pre-election struggle. Rinkēvičs has acknowledged that, after the Saeima’s decision, the question of withdrawal could land on “his desk,” at which point he will consider it comprehensively and make a decision.
Beata Jonīte, a representative of the women’s rights organization “Marta,” stressed that since the Istanbul Convention was ratified, people have been seeking help much more often. Andra Švinka, a representative of the association “Skalbes,” noted that the number of people seeking help has increased because “people feel that the state protects them.” In her view, without an international monitoring mechanism, the state may lack the capacity to cope with the problem at a national level.
Representatives of the center “Dardedze” emphasized that the contribution of the Istanbul Convention is a clear system for working on violence prevention, and that, based on it, a violence prevention plan for 2024–2029 has been developed, setting out the responsibilities of all ministries and other institutions.
Meanwhile, Ombudsperson Karina Palkova explained that
the term “gender” highlighted by opponents of the convention refers to people’s social roles, not biological sex.
She stated that the convention is consistent with the values of the Constitution. The convention does not require recognizing additional genders, nor does it promote gender transition, she said, addressing widespread misconceptions. She also pointed out that the convention does not interfere with family terminology; its main goal is to prevent domestic violence. According to Palkova, the convention makes violence prevention a duty of states and disciplines them in this area.
Judge Inga Reine of the EU General Court stated that Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention would create a negative presumption against the country and could potentially adversely affect interstate cooperation, while doing little to reduce Latvia’s obligations.
In parallel, a majority of Saeima deputies supported a declaration prepared by NA, ZZS, and AS, which they present as an “alternative to the Istanbul Convention.” The Progressives and JV opposed it, arguing that parties seeking to denounce the convention are trying to “whitewash themselves,” creating the illusion that such a declaration could in any way be an alternative to the convention. “Marta” representative Jonīte noted that a local political statement cannot replace the convention because it does not provide mechanisms for state obligations and oversight.
In Latvia, the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—the so-called Istanbul Convention—entered into force on the 1st of May of last year. It is an international treaty requiring participating states to develop coordinated policies to better protect women from all forms of violence, as well as women and men from domestic violence.
Among other things, states must ensure comprehensive assistance and protection for victims; crisis centers; a 24/7 helpline; and specialized support centers for survivors of sexual violence, and must protect and support children who witness violence.
Read also: Nordic parliament speakers express concern that Latvia may withdraw from the Istanbul Convention