In late October 2025, the majority of the Latvian Parliament voted to denounce the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention. This move faced considerable civic protests and was ultimately suspended due to a presidential veto. Nevertheless, what happened in Latvia was not a mere national power play. The withdrawal attempt was a manifestation of a broader challenge posed to Latvia and to Europe in general by disinformation, the growing backsliding threats to constitutional democracies, and by an ancient monster still lurking in the shadows of Europe.

Prologue

Latvia signed the Istanbul Convention in 2016 but did not ratify it due to doubts on whether the notion of gender as a social construct in the convention are contradictory to the Constitution of Latvia and the so called traditional values. In 2021, the Constitutional Court largely cleared these doubts as it did not find the relevant norms of the Convention to be incompatible with the Constitution. In late 2023, the coalition holding a majority in the Latvian Parliament, consisting of three political groups – the centre-right New Unity, the centre-right Union of Greens and Farmers, and the centre-left Progressives – adopted a law on ratification of the Istanbul Convention.

At the request of the Union of Greens and Farmers, and as a condition for its support of ratification, a declaration was added to the Convention stating that Latvia would apply the Istanbul Convention in accordance with its Constitution and in a manner that does not “introduce a new understanding of sex (women and men).” Several Member States objected to Latvia’s declaration, arguing that it contradicts the object and purpose of the Istanbul Convention and amounts to an impermissible reservation.

The withdrawal

In mid-September 2025, five members of the Latvian Parliament submitted a draft law to the Parliament stipulating that Latvia should withdraw from the Istanbul Convention. Most of these MPs were a part of the Latvia First parliamentary faction, which is not a part of the coalition forming the current government. The program of this political party states that it unites the people of Latvia – patriots who support “family and Christian values” and who work so that Latvia would be, amongst other things, “an independent and democratic state making its own decisions instead of obediently following directives from abroad.“”

Nevertheless, a week later, the draft law was revoked as a new draft was submitted – now, not only by the MPs from Latvia First but also the MPs from two other non-coalition parliamentary factions: the nationalist conservative National Union and the centre-right conservative United List (later accompanied by the final political faction of the opposition: For Stability). Although no explanatory report was annexed to either draft law at first, some of the MPs supporting the second draft disclosed their motives for voting. These ranged from references to the Istanbul Convention as a mere document that does not “really” combat or prevent violence against women to mentions of the so-called “gender ideology” and the assumed transformation of society into “genderless creatures” because of the Istanbul Convention. Others associated the convention with alleviation of gender recognition procedure in Latvia implying that “we should not be going mad just because Europe is going mad.” A week later, a formal explanatory report was annexed to the draft law claiming that the reason for Latvia’s withdrawal from the convention is the objections of other Member States regarding Latvia’s declaration on the Convention and the following inability to apply the convention within the scope that Latvia intended to upon its ratification.

The possibility of withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention became real once the Union of the Greens and the Farmers decided to support the parliamentary opposition on the matter. On 16 October 2025, they voted in favour of a non-binding declaration envisaging that the Cabinet of Ministers should draft a national law relating to preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. The content of this declaration is similar to that of the Istanbul Convention, except for the reference to gender stereotypes as one of the core reasons for gender-based violence against women and gender inequality in general.

Finally, on 30 October 2025, the new parliamentary majority voted to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention. For the draft law to come into force, the President had to proclaim it. However, on 3 November 2025, President Rinkēvičs chose to exercise his right of suspensive veto and requested the Parliament to reconsider the withdrawal so that the next Parliament could make the decision on it after the election in the Fall of 2026. The majority of the Parliament agreed by deciding that the deadline for proposals regarding said reconsideration should be 1 November 2026.

When truth is lost

“When truth leaves us, when we let it slip away, when it is ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest.” These are the words of senator Mon Mothma in Andor (the Star Wars prequel). She was referring to the topical issue of whether one should call a genocide a “genocide”, nevertheless, her argument about the negative impact of the loss of truth and fact stands on its own. The deployment of myths and disinformation during the attempted withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention in Latvia illustrates this.

Latvian investigative journalists identified and debunked the most common myths about the Istanbul Convention, as these myths were present in the public debate regarding the withdrawal. The said myths related to alleviation of gender affirmation, the shrinking of the scope of the Istanbul Convention alleging that it applies only to LGBT+ people, the alleged destruction of social fabric and values through the educational system etc. The Council of Europe’s Q&A on the Istanbul Convention even identify the source of these myths – a number of religious and ultra-conservative groups. In the context of Latvia, these narratives are viewed through the lens of their alignment with the Kremlin messaging. Russia’s involvement in pushing anti-gender agenda in the international human rights arena has been highlighted by Dianne Otto, a law professor at the University of Melbourne.

As the Istanbul Convention is an international treaty, the loss of truth regarding its content poses a direct threat to the rule of law and the principles guiding the interpretation of legal norms. Furthermore, Russia’s involvement in spreading anti-gender narratives globally coloured the withdrawal debate in the Latvian Parliament. MPs opposing the withdrawal did not shy away from highlighting Russia’s role in and support for the global anti-gender trend and, by extension, associating all MPs in favour of withdrawal with Russia. The leader of the New Unity political faction even suggested that withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention should be made conditional on approval from the state security institutions, indicating that the withdrawal is not a part of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by Russia. Moreover, both the supporters of withdrawal and their opponents used dehumanizing, derogatory language to describe one another.

These phenomena combined had a chilling effect on a still much-needed public conversation on the significance of stereotypical gender roles in gender-based violence. According to Eurostat, Latvia is one of the European “leaders” in the prevalence of femicide, yet the curiosity required to ask why is dimmed when the political discourse on the issue is chilled.

The awakening of Europe

The debate at the Latvian Parliament was not only filled with myths and disinformation but also showcased the global scale of the withdrawal attempt. The first such indication was the reveal of one of the inspirations for turning against the notion of equality underlying the Istanbul Convention. One MP from Latvia First emphasized the role of the United States of America as a strategic security partner for Latvia and reminded that President Trump “was one of the first to turn against the woke culture, genderism and, also, the uncontrolled currents of migrants.” She continued by saying that supporters of the convention cannot change the fact that Latvia is going to withdraw from the convention and that the only thing they can do is change their attitude and “face the direction of the USA.” By doing so, this MP proved (if any proof was ever needed) Anne Applebaum’s point that the decline of American democracy will inspire people in every corner of the planet.

The second indication was the hope for a far-reaching transformation of Europe. Another MP from Latvia First was confident that by withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention, Latvia would create a snowball effect. He hoped that “the Lithuanians and the Poles would follow” and that Europe would “awaken from this nightmare and be painted in normal colours.” Notably, in November 2025, the Estonian conservative nationalist EKRE was indeed inspired and started a campaign to gather signatures for Estonia’s withdrawal from the convention.

The response to this challenge was also one of European magnitude. President Rinkēvičs’ request for the Parliament to reconsider the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention was based on, amongst others, recognition of a threat to the “common European architecture of rule of law”. Furthermore, the President indicated that the Parliament should take into account the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in the Treaty on the European Union and seriously evaluate the impact of the withdrawal on the attainment of the EU objectives in the field of equality between women and men. President Rinkēvičs particularly underlined the need to evaluate the impact of the withdrawal on the transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, which needs to take place until 14 June 2027.

Although the President does not elaborate further, one should consider if, e.g., the attempted withdrawal and the loss of access to GREVIO (the supervisory body established under the Istanbul Convention) compromise the EU interests and obligations imposed on Latvia in Articles 38 and 43 of the Directive regarding supervision, evaluation, and transnational cooperation. Currently, GREVIO fulfils these functions in Latvia at least partly, and in this part cannot really be replaced by a national measure. This is relevant in light of the CJEU case law in Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie (para. 42), in which the CJEU reiterates that during the transposition period of a directive, Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive.

The “Monster”

For now, Latvia remains a Member State of the Istanbul Convention, and withdrawal no longer seems to be a priority on the country’s political agenda. Civil servants, NGOs, and many politicians are working tirelessly to implement the convention and make gender equality a reality in Latvia. Nevertheless, what happened in Latvia is both a warning and a reminder.

There is an ancient monster lurking in the shadows of Europe, to use Mon Mothma’s metaphor – a force that feeds on hearts and minds. It goes by many names: male supremacy, patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity, or, for some, the “traditional” or “natural” order of things. This monster had a feast when some Latvian MPs reinforced homophobic and transphobic myths about the Istanbul Convention, when they found the man who talks about grabbing women “by the pussy” aspirational, and when they projected “strong man” behaviour by either invoking anti-submission narratives, replacing the Istanbul Convention with national measures, or by dehumanizing fellow MPs.

This monster is not a single individual or party, but a structural threat that thrives wherever disinformation, myths, and patriarchal norms take root. It exploits gaps in public understanding, amplifies disinformation, and undermines democratic deliberation.

Latvia’s struggle illustrates that defending gender equality – and democracy itself – requires more than legislation. It demands vigilance, critical self-reflection, civic engagement, and the willingness to confront myths and disinformation wherever they arise. Because if we did lose the truth, the monster would be waiting in the aftermath – ready to scream the loudest.