Johanna Niemi

Recently hiking in the Croatian mountains I thought I was disconnected from everything job-related. I just happened to mention to our local guide, a young man, that I had attended a conference on violence against women in the Balkan area. He thought about it and when we after a while again walked side by side, he cautiously asked whether I know about the Istanbul Convention. An interesting discussion ensued.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Picture:  Pixabay

For those who do not know about the Istanbul Convention, and there is no particular reason to know, it is the Council of Europe Convention on Violence against women and domestic violence, agreed upon in 2011 in Istanbul and in force since 2015. Matters about these issues are regulated in national laws, so basic knowledge that beating your wife or forcing anyone to sex is criminal is enough for most of us. If you know where to call for help, you are well informed.

Well, our guide told us that the Istanbul Convention is a hot topic in the Croatian media and politics, like it is in some other Eastern European countries, such as Poland and Russia. Not that anyone wants to defend wife beaters or sex offenders but the concept of family is a cause for concern. “What?” was my reaction; the Convention is not about family (law). It is gender, explained our guide, there is an assumption that the Convention requires member states to recognize gay marriage.

The truth is that the Convention has no position on who are part of a family. Such a definition has deliberately left out of the Convention. Actually, my critique of the Convention would go the other way: it has been too tightly tied to a heterosexual organization of relations. It is about men and women; it does not pay attention persons with different sex and gender identities, nor to different women and men.

Picture: Pixabay

Even more generally, the Convention does not appear radical at all. The legislative and policy checks it has prompted in the member states have been relevant and good but in no way radical or excessive. Check whether your country has enough shelters, support to the victims, training of professionals, are the criminal definitions up-to-date. The Convention has led to evaluations of laws and practices in many countries and reforms have been implemented. For example, the Nordic countries have assessed their rape laws. Sweden and Iceland have changed theirs to include non-consent as an element of rape. Such assessments and adjustments should have been done notwithstanding the Convention and cannot be regarded as radical at all.

The opposition to Istanbul Convention has been part of the conservative protection of “family values”. Protection of women as victims of violence should not be contrary to such protection of families. Therefore, there is all the reason to ratify the Convention and continue work to improve responses to violence. The discussion in the Eastern European countries may have done a service to this work; it has heightened general knowledge of violence and the need to do something about it. If people know what the Istanbul Convention is, they should also know that there are a number of things we can do about it.

Johanna Niemi is Minna Canth Academy professor and professor of procedural law at University of Turku