Latvia: plans to exit the Istanbul Convention
The parliament in Riga has voted to withdraw Latvia from the Istanbul Convention, which obliges countries to provide better protection for women and girls. Critics of the convention say the gender ideologies it contains pose a threat to the country's traditional family values. If the decision is implemented, Latvia would become the first EU country to withdraw from the Convention. More than 5,000 people protested against the decision outside the parliament on Wednesday.
Divided over a controversial term
Journalist Kārlis Streips gets down to brass tacks in LA.LV:
“Both in parliament and in our society, it is claimed that the Istanbul Convention is dangerous. As far as I can tell, this is mainly because it contains the term 'social gender'. This has prompted some not particularly intelligent people to conclude that the convention will make all children think they want to change their gender. Nonsense. ... If you want to change your gender, that is your sovereign right, but you have absolutely no right to tell someone else they can't. ... It's not surprising that politicians have brought up this issue. The next parliamentary elections are less than a year away, and apparently they have decided to use it to win votes.”
Chasing away a Trojan horse
Commentator Bens Latkovskis shows understanding for the decision in Neatkarīgā:
“We must acknowledge one fact: the world is changing, and the ideological Trojan horse hidden in the Istanbul concept is one of the reasons why so many people are turning away from the European 'light'. ... The Istanbul Convention has shaken up the existing political landscape. Whether this will lead to significant changes in the political order is still an open question.”
Debate about values just a pretext
TVNet editor-in-chief Toms Ostrovskis sees a political power struggle behind the decision:
“The show put on by the parliamentary groups over the Istanbul Convention is not about values but about power. ... The ideology of 'family values' merely serves as a smokescreen aimed at presenting political action as 'defence of values'. This power game has already taken its toll: artificial divides in society, dwindling trust in the state leadership, the normalisation of fearmongering as a substitute for discussion, the relativisation of the rule of law and a loss of reputation among allies. The result is not a 'victory of values', but a decline in the quality of governance.”