On Thursday, with the votes of the opposition and the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS), the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) gave conceptual approval to a draft law on Latvia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, commonly known as the Istanbul Convention.
The bill was submitted by the opposition party “Latvia First” (LPV) and is supported by other opposition forces — the National Alliance (NA), the United List (AS), and For Stability!, as well as members of the ruling coalition from ZZS. The coalition parties New Unity (JV) and The Progressives oppose the withdrawal.
A total of 52 deputies voted in favor of the withdrawal, with none voting against and one abstaining.
Deputies from New Unity and The Progressives argued that withdrawing from the Convention damages Latvia’s international image, weakens efforts to combat violence, and spreads myths and Russian propaganda narratives about the Istanbul Convention.
Coalition MP Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica (JV) criticized that
the issue was being debated on the same day the Saeima was reviewing a report on the state language in Latvia.
She said that Parliament could be focusing on reducing bureaucracy instead of “stambulating”. Kalniņa-Lukaševica questioned why Latvia should “join the club of countries that spread Russian myths about the Istanbul Convention,” pointing out that all EU member states have signed or ratified the Convention. Latvia, she argued, cannot follow Turkey’s path, “where society has different values.”
She stressed that withdrawal would lower Latvia’s reputation: “The strength of a small country lies in its reputation and honor,” she said, asking whether MPs wanted Latvia to become a country that others stop listening to. She reminded colleagues that several foreign ambassadors and Ukrainian MPs had urged Latvia not to withdraw.
MP Gatis Liepiņš (JV) emphasized that the Convention is not merely symbolic but imposes real obligations to reduce violence. He listed reforms made due to the Convention, such as criminal proceedings for violence being initiated without a victim’s complaint. He stressed that claims about “gender identity” being imposed are myths.
Liepiņš warned that
the decision to withdraw would undermine Latvia’s reputation
and accused supporters of doing it for political ratings: “The Convention is not to blame for your party’s failures,” he said.
The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Lauma Paegļkalna (JV), stated that Latvia stands at a crossroads. If Latvia withdrew, it would be the only country in Europe to renounce an agreement it had both signed and ratified. She noted that myths and half-truths were being spread to justify withdrawal, and reminded that the Constitutional Court had ruled the Convention compatible with the Latvian Constitution.
MP Edmunds Cepurītis (The Progressives) called the move a “stain of shame” that would haunt the Saeima and individual deputies for years, describing it as an irresponsible use of parliamentary power that would set a precedent — “an EU country withdrawing from the ‘gold standard’ convention against violence.”
He criticized the bill as poorly evaluated before its first reading and emphasized that membership in the Convention strengthens parliamentary oversight and adds international accountability for protecting victims.
MP Andris Šuvajevs (The Progressives) noted that
during the debate only three LPV deputies — the bill’s authors — were even present,
suggesting that “they don’t care about the actual discussion.” He argued that the Convention protects all victims — including the MPs voting to denounce it — and that withdrawing means “rejecting values altogether, not embracing alternative ones.”
Šuvajevs cited PACE President Theodoros Rousopoulos, who on Thursday urged the Latvian Parliament to vote against withdrawal, saying the debate had descended into mockery of victims and conspiracy theories that shame both Parliament and Latvian society.
He accused ZZS of breaking its coalition promises, causing the debate to even reach this point, and warned that their voters would not ignore the inconsistency of their stance.
Opposition MPs, on the other hand,
accused the government of betraying traditional values and imposing ideology on society.
Mārcis Jencītis (LPV) claimed that New Unity and The Progressives were lying that the Convention was not ideological. He called it part of a “neo-communist ideology,” describing the concept of “gender” as the “Trojan horse of the Istanbul Convention.”
Ramona Petraviča (LPV) said Latvia must withdraw because the Convention serves “ideological goals unacceptable to us,” claiming it “promotes gender reassignment as a fashion trend.” She protested that opponents of the Convention are unfairly labeled “Putinists” or “wife-beaters.”
She insisted that withdrawal would not affect human rights or the Criminal Law, since Latvia’s Constitution and national laws already provide protection: “We are a sovereign country, not some schoolgirl,” she said, framing withdrawal as a political, not legal, decision.
Svetlana Čulkova (For Stability!) argued that
the Convention “imposes ideology” and that women are already protected by national laws and the police.
Viktorija Pleškāne, an independent MP, dismissed the Convention as “another bureaucratic project with nice slogans and empty promises,” saying that Latvia should focus instead on strengthening its own institutions.
Viesturs Zariņš (JV) countered the fearmongering around LGBTQ+ issues, saying he had known gay and transgender people throughout his life without ever feeling pressured by them, and criticized the “paranoia” in parliamentary debates.
Gunārs Kūtris (ZZS) argued that nothing would change after withdrawal, as Latvia already has sufficient legal protections. He noted that seven EU countries have objected to Latvia’s interpretative declaration attached to the Convention, and that ZZS had refused to support ratification fearing “foreign pressure on constitutional values.”
Meanwhile,
Edmunds Zivtiņš (LPV) challenged New Unity and The Progressives to “choose between positions or the Convention,”
implying they should resign from government if they truly cared about it.
Before the vote, a majority of MPs agreed to fast-track the bill, meaning it will be reviewed in only two readings. If passed under urgency, the President cannot veto it. The motion for urgency passed with 52 votes, fewer than the two-thirds required for a full veto override.
LPV argued that withdrawal would “resolve legal inconsistencies” arising from other states’ objections to Latvia’s declaration, and would give Latvia greater freedom in allocating budget funds for anti-violence measures.
Support for the LPV proposal from ZZS has shaken coalition stability — a coalition originally built on shared support for the Istanbul Convention under Prime Minister Evika Siliņa (JV).
Most experts and NGOs working on domestic violence prevention oppose the withdrawal,
warning it will weaken victim protection and damage Latvia’s image among Western allies.
For example, Beata Jonīte from Marta Centre noted that since ratification, more people have sought help, while Andra Švinka from Skalbes said victims “feel that the state protects them.” The Dardedze Centre stressed that the Convention provides a clear framework for preventing violence, forming the basis for Latvia’s 2024–2029 national action plan.
Ombudsperson Karina Palkova clarified that the much-debated term “gender” refers to social roles, not biological sex, and that the Convention does not promote gender change or conflict with the Constitution. She emphasized that the Convention obliges states to prevent violence and ensures accountability.
EU General Court judge Inga Reine warned that Latvia’s withdrawal would create a negative presumption against the country internationally and harm cooperation, while doing little to reduce its obligations.
In parallel, MPs from NA, ZZS, and AS adopted a declaration they call an “alternative to the Istanbul Convention,” though New Unity and The Progressives rejected it as a political attempt to “whitewash” the withdrawal. NGOs like Marta stressed that such a statement cannot replace the Convention, as it lacks binding commitments and oversight mechanisms.
The Istanbul Convention entered into force in Latvia on May 1, 2023. It obliges member states to develop coordinated policies to protect women and men from domestic violence, ensure access to shelters, crisis hotlines, specialized support centers, and safeguard children who witness violence.
Read also: Opinion | When national wealth becomes foreign property: how Latvia is losing its forests