The recent decision by the Latvian parliament — now suspended for a year — to withdraw from the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, commonly known as the Istanbul Convention, has stirred considerable controversy in Estonia as well.

Politicians who criticized the Latvian parliament's decision have attempted to demonstrate their ideological "orthodoxy," ranging from the prime minister, who unequivocally interfered in Latvia's internal affairs with his public criticism, to the 57 members of the Riigikogu who issued a joint statement.

Minister of Health Karmen Joller went so far as to call the attempt to withdraw from the convention "shameful." In a game of rhetorical one-upmanship, some declared the Istanbul Convention a benchmark for belonging to the Western cultural sphere (Kristo Enn Vaga), while others framed it as a reflection of humanity and postwar solidarity (Hendrik Johannes Terras).

Meanwhile, among the parliamentary groups of EKRE, Isamaa and the Center Party, who consider themselves conservative, only Riina Solman from Isamaa and Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart and Andrei Korobeinik from the Center Party found it acceptable to sign the joint statement. However, this does not mean that the remaining MPs are indifferent to the welfare of women. The issue lies elsewhere entirely.

In reality, the Istanbul Convention is a clearly ideological document. Its rhetoric about combating violence against women conceals radical gender ideology positions that are wholly unacceptable to conservatives and the convention serves as a tool for imposing these views. Here are some examples.

Article 3 defines gender not as a biological category but as a set of socially constructed roles, behaviors and attributes. This means that countries joining the convention must adopt the concept of social gender — a core tenet of radical gender ideology and transgender ideology.

Much of gender ideology is based on this very premise: that gender is not biologically determined and immutable, but rather socially constructed and changeable. In other words, being a woman is not something one is merely born into — it's something any man can become.

In the same vein, Article 4 obligates states to prohibit discrimination, including on the basis of social gender. This means the state must not refuse to treat men as women if they identify as such. Experience from several countries shows that this approach can reduce safety for women — for example, when a biologically male offender who identifies as a woman demands to be placed in a women's prison or when a man who identifies as a woman seeks to compete in women's boxing matches.

Article 6 requires countries to promote "gender-sensitive policies," which, given the previous definitions, means a rethinking of gender roles and traits through an ideological lens.

Articles 8 and 9 call for allocating financial resources to promote these ideological positions, not only through state and government institutions, but also through NGOs and so-called civil society organizations (including various nonprofits and foundations that promote gender ideology).

Article 12 obligates countries to promote changes in the socially and culturally determined behaviors of women and men in order to root out customs, traditions and practices based on stereotypical gender roles. This undoubtedly includes the supposedly stereotypical belief that women are expected to fulfill a maternal role and men a paternal one. Should such beliefs truly be eradicated by declaring these societal expectations unacceptable?

Furthermore, Article 14 calls for eliminating stereotypical gender roles through education at all levels — from preschool to university — including curricula, continuing education programs and sports, culture and media initiatives.

There is absolutely no doubt that such far-reaching obligations to reshape societal attitudes, especially in a way that normalizes gender and trans ideologies, give the convention a distinctly ideological character that is unacceptable to conservatives. In this way, the Istanbul Convention functions like a Trojan horse: its rhetoric about combating violence against women conceals a radical ideological ambition to reshape society far beyond just ensuring women's welfare — it seeks to redefine who is even considered a woman.

It's also important to understand that the Istanbul Convention does not in fact protect a single woman in practical terms. The convention is not a self-executing legal act but a declarative document requiring states to align their laws with its stated principles. Nothing prevents Estonia from adapting its legislation and the practices of its law enforcement and judicial bodies to provide protection to women without this convention. In many respects, relevant laws have already been adopted and would remain in force without the Istanbul Convention.

Therefore, instead of focusing on ideological slogans and political attacks, we should assess whether our laws and the way they are implemented are sufficient or whether they need to be reviewed in certain areas.

For example, we should ask whether it is acceptable to impose suspended sentences for violent crimes against women or whether the conditions for allowing such sentences are narrowly defined enough. Such lenient practices are exactly what allowed the perpetrator of the recent fatal car crash in Nõo to previously stab his partner, despite having attacked her with a knife in the summer as well, without facing actual prison time.

In conclusion, it is likely that all politicians, and certainly all parties, oppose violence against women. But to focus on genuinely shared and indisputable goals, we must not tie this issue to hidden ideological agendas, as the Istanbul Convention does. Nor should the fight against violence toward women be turned into a political pose or a tool for attacking opponents. If the goal is to sincerely protect women, then we must pursue it honestly and directly.

And one final observation. Amid all of the above, we must not forget that in reality, the most significant state-imposed discrimination in Estonia still targets men. It is men, after all, who are legally required — under threat of punishment — to participate in national defense and, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives for the country. No comparable obligation exists for women.

If, however, the societal expectation that women might fulfill a maternal role is deemed a stereotype that must be eradicated, then the question must also be raised of how to subject women to state obligations equivalent to those faced by men. That could provide ample food for thought in expanding this discussion.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!