‘Cynical and completely reckless’ Latvia has the highest femicide rate in Europe — including Russia. Its parliament just voted to exit a treaty protecting women from violence.
In September 2025, a right-wing populist party in Latvia introduced legislation to withdraw the country from the Istanbul Convention, a key international treaty aimed at protecting women from violence. In the lead-up to the vote, thousands of people took to the streets of Riga in protest, a petition against the bill garnered more than 22,000 signatures, and over a dozen European countries urged the parliament to reconsider. Nonetheless, a majority of deputies approved the withdrawal — including some of the same people who voted to ratify the treaty less than two years earlier.
According to the latest available U.N. data, Latvia has the highest per-capita femicide rate in Europe (ranking above Russia). When the Istanbul Convention came into force there in January 2024, it marked the culmination of years of work by rights activists, who overcame political pushback and disinformation campaigns portraying the treaty as a “Trojan horse” spreading “gender ideology.” One of those activists was Beata Jonite, an expert on gender-based violence at the leading Latvian women’s rights organization MARTA Center.
Jonite has been fighting Latvia’s exit from the Istanbul Convention since she learned it was in the works, attending parliamentary committee meetings and keeping Latvian society informed through videos on TikTok and Instagram. She was one of the main organizers of the first protest against the withdrawal, and has planned an even bigger demonstration for November 6. Latvia’s president has refused to sign the controversial bill into law, returning it to parliament for reconsideration. But according to Jonite, whether public opinion will trump political maneuvering remains uncertain. Meduza spoke to Beata Jonite about the roots of the campaign against the Istanbul Convention, what de-ratifying it would mean for Latvian women, and how this might still be avoided.
The following interview has been lightly edited and abridged for length and clarity
— Where did the bill on withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention come from? And what have the last few weeks been like for you?
— The most shocking thing is how it came out of the blue. There was no catalyst, nothing that happened in society that would trigger moving towards the de-ratification of the Convention. This is a purely political move: it was a tactic by the party Latvia First to basically destabilize the government. There’s really no other way to explain it.
When I found out about it, I was in Romania at the annual Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) conference — and I had caught the flu. So I’m sitting there with a fever, coughing at a conference while writing a letter to members of Parliament trying to explain the many benefits that the Convention has already brought to Latvian law. I sent the letter on September 24, and the bill came before Parliament on September 25.
To this day, there hasn’t really been any logical explanation for it. The arguments are completely absurd. The most frustrating part is that when you’re trying to combat fantasies with facts, you’re not even on the same playing field. And this is common in all disinformation tactics across the globe — it’s Trump 101, Putin 101. It’s really difficult to explain the truth to people who fundamentally believe that the convention is a “Trojan horse.” We worked so hard for so many years before the ratification process to debunk all of these myths.
Technically, the E.U. ratified this convention, so every E.U. state is already bound by its articles. But without Latvia’s ratification, it lacks the monitoring element. Today, the GREVIO commission, which is the Istanbul Convention’s monitoring body, came to Latvia for the first time. We’ve been waiting for this for a decade — and then they come three days after the Parliament votes to de-ratify it.
The GREVIO Commission is meeting with ministries, the police, and every possible stakeholder. They have a full schedule here. Today, they asked questions to a multitude of different NGOs. The specifics are confidential, but they asked very high-quality, significant questions about the disadvantages of our laws and what we can do better. This is such valuable input for us as an NGO, because we can be screaming from the rooftops at our politicians to change laws or improve services, and they just won’t listen to us. But this way, we actually have someone behind us saying, “Hey, listen to these guys, they’re talking about important things.”
Sign up for The Beet
Underreported stories. Fresh perspectives. From Budapest to Bishkek.
— Were you shocked when the de-ratification bill passed?
— The bill’s passage was not a surprise, because the parties had stated their opinions. But still, we had that big protest with 5,000 people on [October 29], and all of us were feeling hopeful.
My colleagues and I were there, in parliament, last Thursday, listening to this absolute nonsense coming from the floor. Lawmakers were voting on 17 amendments, and debating every one of them, so it took 13 hours. And during the last couple of amendments, I realized: This is not okay. This is not how the parliament should work. This is about something so much bigger than the Convention. We need to announce the next protest right now, because people need to realize that politics impacts everybody’s lives. Given that one in three women [globally] suffers from violence, everyone of us knows somebody who has gone through this. And this is such a disrespectful way for parliament to make decisions.
So, in that last hour, I decided on the time and place of the next protest, spoke to some of my colleagues, made some calls, collected nine electronic signatures, and literally the minute before the vote, I pressed send on the protest application.
So we were prepared, but it still hurt. Because when you organize on that scale, and you see how many people actually care about this and how little the parliament does, it’s hurtful. There are now videos circulating of MP Ingmārs Līdaka, from the Greens and Farmers Union, being asked by the press, “What are your main arguments for de-ratifying the Convention?” And he said, without any shame, “Because I want to.” That is not how a member of parliament should make their decisions. It’s just cynical and completely reckless.
— What kind of weight does the Istanbul Convention carry? What concrete benefits does it bring for women’s safety?
— There’s a common misconception that, “Oh, we ratified it a year ago, but what has changed? Has violence massively gone down?” But the thing with any international treaty is that it’s not a magic wand. Nothing is going to change in a very short time. Yes, you can change or better implement laws within a year. But you can’t fundamentally change human behavior or values, which is where violence itself comes from.
But from a legal standpoint, so much has happened. It used to be that the MARTA Centre, where I work, would spend five or 10 years fighting for laws to be implemented, and nothing would happen. But suddenly, in the last two and a half years, so much good has come from this. There were amendments to include emotional violence in criminal law. There have been amendments in criminal law to increase the sentences for threats and for stalking. For the first time ever in our history, we created a national action plan on violence alleviation. Last November, we actually created laws that cover sexual harassment, meaning it now formally exists as a crime. (It’s under the administrative law, so it’s not a criminal offense, but it’s better than nothing.) They also implemented electronic monitoring for perpetrators. So there’s been a lot of very concrete changes.
At the same time, the Convention is also symbolic. Right now, we’re really seeing how we’ve come to a crossroads in terms of what direction we’re taking as a country. Are we taking the path of Georgia and Hungary? Or are we staying with the core of European values? The discussion isn’t just about the Convention anymore — it’s about where we want to head as a country. And it’s united people in a very beautiful way that hasn’t been seen since, I’d say, the fight for our independence.
We’re expecting 10,000 or 15,000 people to come to the [next] protest against the de-ratification. And Latvia is a country where people do not take to the streets; we’re very passive, very cold Nordic people. The letter to the president to send this legislation back for review gathered 60,000 signatures in three days. It’s also unprecedented for there to be such huge political involvement and activity; usually, we barely get enough people to participate in elections.
The president came out with a statement today, saying that he will not sign this law; he will send it back to parliament for review. We’re very hopeful that the parliament will make a decision in accordance, first of all, with the interests of our country and its women especially; and second of all, based on facts and not fantasies.
— The rhetoric being used by the parties that want to de-ratify the Istanbul Convention is similar to the Kremlin’s narratives. Do you see any connection?
— Russia, which is not a member of the Istanbul Convention, uses very similar narratives about “anti-gender” and the “destruction of traditional families.” These are all things that we know the Convention does not impact; it doesn’t have such power. It only has the power to protect women and victims against violence. So there are striking similarities in their narratives, but I wouldn’t say it’s a case of the Kremlin directly influencing our parties; it’s more a case of them believing in narratives that were originally created and spread by the Kremlin.
— How high does Latvia rank among European countries in terms of violence against women?
— Horribly high. Ironically, it actually is “Latvia first” — we are number one right now in femicide rates per capita in Europe. According to 2023 data from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, Latvia currently ranks higher than Russia. (Latvia is number one, Russia is number two, and Lithuania is number three.)
To anyone who has researched domestic violence and abuse, femicide is actually one of the most reliable statistics. It’s data that you can’t really manipulate, because a person can only be killed once. And we know from experience and research that women are mainly killed by their partners, ex-partners, or other men in their life.
Considering this femicide data, this move to de-ratify the Istanbul Convention is just an unbelievable step to take. Because the road to femicide happens when women do not trust the system and do not report [abuse]. Or when they do report it, and then the initial reactions are not exactly what they should be. Any misstep on the part of [social] services or law enforcement at first contact can create distrust in the system. And very often, we still hear victim blaming: the police don’t trust the victim when they show them or tell them that they’ve been abused. And then the victim doesn’t have confidence to turn to institutions anymore. And that, sadly, very often results in femicide.
Our only hope is you. Support Meduza before it’s too late.
Right now, the parliament is sending a signal to hundreds of thousands of women that their lives are not of value. They’re removing some sense of confidence in the system and trust in their parliament and their government. They’re saying, “Our misinformation, propaganda, fear of the word ‘gender,’ and all of these strange, thought-up problems are larger than how important your lives are to us.” And I think that’s the most tragic thing about it: this can actually impact lives. Any number of women who lose faith in the system and our institutions are women who might not report. And if they don’t, they might get killed. It’s as simple as that. And it’s an incredibly sensitive thing to be playing political games with.
But there are positives to all of this. This is an unprecedented moment in Latvian history, where [violence against women] is the main issue everyone is talking about. People are so united. And that’s the beauty of what we’re seeing right now in civil society and in humanity: the fact that people still can care if they’re given the right information. It’s a really important movement that we all collectively started.
I don’t know what’s going to happen next; we have a protest on Thursday, so that’s the main thing we’re focusing on. Afterwards, we don’t know whether it’s this parliament or the next one that’s going to review this law. Right now, it could essentially get shelved for an unconditional amount of time. The parliament doesn’t have an obligation to put it on the agenda for next week or the week after that. So we just have to wait and continue putting societal pressure on the politicians. We need to send the message that this is not the way to make decisions, that we want to stay part of the European family of values, and we do not agree with this.
Interview by Sam Breazeale