MEPs were presented with some shocking statistics at the Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee Hearing on Mobbing and Sexual Harassment on June 20th. Sexual assault and violence can happen in practically any situation, at any moment, mentioned hearing rapporteur and Italian politician, Pina Picierno, after noting that more than half of women in Italy between the ages of 14 and 65 have been sexually harassed at some point in their lives. Sadly, this statistic proved to be in line with the EU norm, where reportedly 1 in 3 women have experienced physical or sexual violence, or both, since the age of 15.
Sexual harassment and violence in the workplace, as well as in politics, was one of the main focuses of this FEMM Committee Hearing. The conversation began with Brigitte Filion, a representative from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, who presented data from 55 women parliamentarians from 39 countries all around the world on their experience with sexual harassment and violence being women in politics.
Results showed that, in many cases, these women felt targeted solely because of their gender: 65.5% of respondents reported that they had personally been subjected several times, or often, to sexual or sexist remarks in the workplace, and 32.7% reported experiencing harassment such as exposure to insistent and uninvited behaviour. Even more shockingly, 44.4% of respondents reported receiving threats of death, rape, beatings or abduction.
Although the majority of the respondents in the study were non-European (only 15 of the 39), the European politicians were also found to have experienced harassment, often targeted at their very legitimacy as women in politics. One European parliamentarian noted that her status as a single, unmarried women places her at the brunt of many sexist remarks, reporting that she “receives e-mails, sometimes accompanied by pornographic images, and the message ‘get out of politics; get married instead.” This reported experience was, sadly, just one of many similar experiences.
“The study’s findings confirm that sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians are very real and widespread,” said Brigitte Filion in an interview with EU-Logos Athena, “they suggest that the phenomenon knows no boundaries and exists to varying degrees in every country, affecting a significant number of women parliamentarians.” The experience of these women parliamentarians is but one example of the ways in which sexual harassment and violence can have an effect on the work and day-to-day lives of women.
The Istanbul Convention: a light of hope?
While these numbers undoubtedly represent a dismal reality regarding continued violence towards women, a light of hope shines from the European Union’s increased commitment to tackle these issues. On June 13th, the EU officially signed the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. The signing of this treaty, known by many as the Istanbul Convention, represents a massive step towards a pan-European approach to bringing these issues to the forefront.
The treaty, which focuses on prevention and protection against violence, as well as prosecution of perpetrators, sets legally binding standards with which governments must comply in approaching the issue of violence against women. While all EU member states have already signed the Convention at the national level, the signing of this treaty at the EU level allows for greater coordination between the two levels of government and will encourage the treaty’s ratification across the EU. As well, the treaty will be applied internally within the operations and institutions of the EU and will allow for the much needed collection of data regarding the issues of harassment and violence against women.
To date, the Istanbul Convention is the only broad legal instrument for addressing gender based violence and domestic violence. In a 2016 study put out by the European Parliament on violence against women, the need for legally binding measures at the EU level was stressed. It noted that while EU directives were currently in effect to tackle similar gendered issues, these directives were too wide in scope, and did not explicitly reference violence against women in many cases. As well, they study noted a strong need for a common definition of violence against women and criminalisation across member states. Without a common definition, coordination on this front is difficult.
What is included in the Istanbul Convention?
As previously stated, the convention primarily focuses on three key issues: prosecution, protection and prevention.
At the level of legal definitions, the convention ensures that violence against women is considered a crime. Psychological and physical violence, sexual violence, rape, stalking, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, forced abortion and forced sterilization are all included under the list of ‘crimes’ under the Convention, notwithstanding their religious or cultural ‘justification’. This definition allows for a comprehensive and universal understanding of violence against women to ensure proper and effective prosecution of these crimes.
Another way the convention aims to create more effective methods of prosecution is by ensuring timely investigation of allegations of violence, while also giving more power to police to effectively deal with perpetrators. In doing so, the convention seeks to bring these crimes out of the legal realm and into the law enforcement system where they can create an impact for women on the ground. These measures will hopefully also have an impact on reporting rates, which are currently extremely low. The European Commission estimates that only 30% of victims of violence report the most serious incidents to law enforcement. They attribute this trend to barriers involving women’s sense of shame in reporting themselves as a victim of violence, as well as an overall sentiment that reporting will do very little, or nothing, to help their situation.
In terms of protection for victims of violence, the Istanbul Convention includes the need to provide many important services such as shelters, 24/7 telephone helplines, and specialised help. The Convention stipulates that these measures to protect victims should “be based on a gendered understanding of violence against women and domestic violence and shall focus on the human rights and safety of the victim,” as well as “aim at the empowerment and economic independence of women victims of violence,” especially for vulnerable persons and child victims.
While prosecution and protection are extremely important measures to tackle the issue of sexual harassment and violence against women, the Convention also considers prevention to be pivotal to this movement. Thus, it obligates those under the convention to implement various awareness-raising campaigns. For instance, at the level of school curricula, it is stipulated that content on “equality between women and men, non-violent conflict resolution in relationships, and the right to personal integrity” must be included. As well, it focuses on strengthening training for professionals dealing with victims of violence. For instance, after ratifying the convention, Spain created specialised bodies in police corps and the judiciary to deal with violence against women.
To date, the Istanbul Convention has received a great deal of support across the board. UN Women Deputy Executive Director Lakshmi Puri called the legislation a “gold standard,” urging the adoption of its practices not only in Europe, but all over the world.
Why does the Istanbul Convention matter?
Despite the omnipresent and recurring nature of sexual harassment and violence against women in Europe and abroad, much of the violence still happens under governments’ noses. With reporting rates low and number of instances high, the question becomes how best to not only implement a proper legal framework to deal with these issues, but also to ensure that legislation on paper is actually being carried out in a way that will have an impact in the day-to-day lives of women. In order to do so, policy must be developed in parallel with an overall mentality shift regarding issues that matter to women most.
The mere fact that this type of behaviour occurs, and is oftentimes seen as ‘normal’ or ‘how life works,’ represents a deeper social problem. Sexual harassment is just the tip of the iceberg that is sexism, articulated hearing speaker Irene Zeilinger, noting the importance of tackling the root causes of this type of behaviour towards women. When speaking about policy makers’ attempt to tackle violence against women, she noted that, “just chipping away at one part of the iceberg” does not work; instead, getting at the larger bulk of ice below the surface needs to be a focus. With this idea in mind, the Istanbul Convention is important for a few key reasons.
First, it recognises violence against women as gender-based violence. While this may seem like an obvious assumption, recognition of the disproportionate nature of violence committed against men versus women is key to creating effective policy. “[Sexual harassment] is not gender symmetric,” said Zeilinger, emphasising the need to write policy with this understanding in mind. Recognising this inequality is important both to understand the frequency at which violence is occurring to one sex more than the other – and thus implement measures to help victims and prevent violence more effectively – as well as to get at the core of why this violence is happening.
In the preamble to the Istanbul Convention, it is stated that the convention recognises that, “women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men” and “that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.” These distinctions are important to distinguish violence committed against women from regular instances of violence. When asked about the topic, Brigitte Filion noted that, “harassment and violence against women target women because of their gender. It is rooted in gender inequality and gender-related factors that contribute to the social tolerance of the violence and the widespread impunity for it.” Further, she noted that “these factors have been identified by the UN CEDAW Committee as the idea of men’s entitlement over women, the need to assert male control or power, enforce gender roles, or prevent, discourage or punish what is considered to be unacceptable female behaviour.”
In the same vein, the convention also recognises violence and sexual harassment against women as structural. “Sexual harassment is not about attraction… its about power,” said Zeilinger, echoing the preamble to the Istanbul Convention, which states that, “violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men.” This is an extremely important realisation, especially when considering instances of domestic violence, which is stated to “[affect] women disproportionately.” For instance, the conversation at the FEMM Committee Hearing touched upon the serious problem of femicide in Europe, which the World Health Organization calls “the intentional murder of women,” further stating that a “large proportion of femicides are of women in violent relationships, and are committed by current or former partners.” This structural imbalance is not only an issue in the home lives of women, but also in their public and work lives.
What impact does this mentality shift have on policy making?
As many of the speakers at the FEMM Committee mentioned, it is extremely important that policy regarding violence and sexual harassment against women keeps up with the times, creating measures that address the real experiences of women in the EU and around the world. “Policy should be made based on womens’ lived experience, not some academic or legal definitions,” Irene Zeilinger noted, also encouraging policy makers to mainstream the issue of sexual harassment and violence against women into all kinds of policy areas such as defense, transport, and urban planning.
In addition to bringing issues of violence and harassment against women to the forefront of different policy areas, providing measures to ensure that the policy is being implemented and is effective is key. “Passing laws and developing policies is not enough,” remarked Brigitte Filion, noting that without implementation, “these laws and policies will not fulfill their intended goals of ensuring survivors’ safety, strengthening offenders’ accountability and kindling in the minds of all members of the community intolerance for violence against women and girls.”
The recognition of sexual harassment and violence against women as distinct from other forms of violence is the first step towards addressing these issues as they currently exist in the world today. In doing so, governments, law enforcement systems, and civil society will be able to unite in under a common understanding of the problems that need to be addressed in order to make widespread change. The Istanbul Convention calls upon all these different actors to step up to the plate and make a difference.
While effective implementation of law will still remain a challenge, the EU’s signing of the Istanbul Convention in June was, without a doubt, a positive step towards achieving gender equality in Europe and across the world. A crucial next step will now be the ratification process both for the EU and amongst member states. In recent news, Norway became the 24th state to ratify the convention on July 5th. As well, the FEMM and LIBE committees voted on various amendments to the EU accession to the Istanbul Convention draft report yesterday, July 12th.
Hayley Stauffer
Sources:
EU newsroom reports:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/-/eu-to-join-istanbul-convention
http://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/-/eu-signs-the-istanbul-convention
Short summaries of the convention:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/the-convention-in-brief
https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/about-the-convention
Full text of the Istanbul Convention:
IPU report on Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians:
Factsheet on the Istanbul Convention:
‘This is What it Feels Like’ exhibit:
Highlights from the FEMM Committee:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/femm/home.html
Recording of the FEMM Committee meeting on June 20th:
http://web.ep.streamovations.be/index.php/event/stream/170620-0900-committee-femm
2016 Study on violence against women:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556931/IPOL_STU(2016)556931_EN.pdf
World Health Organization on femicide:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77421/1/WHO_RHR_12.38_eng.pdf
Image by the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phoebe-k-schreiner/men-to-men-stop-violence-_b_5708175.html
Désormais l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe (APCE) peut destituer son président et les vice-présidents. Une grande première. Réunie en plénière à Strasbourg, le 27 juin, l’APCE a adopté une résolution lui permettant de destituer en cas de faute grave son président, ses vice-présidents ainsi que les présidents et vice-présidents de ses différentes commissions. Il y a quelques jours, EU-Logos a publié un article consacré aux avis, recommandations et rapports du GRECO (groupe d’États contre la corruption) consacrés à la corruption et à la moralisation de la vie publique. Nous assistons, aujourd’hui, à une mise en pratique immédiate d’une partie des conclusions du groupe anti-corruption.
Pedro Agramunt, président de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe, avait été mis en cause en avril dernier avec beaucoup de vigueur, voire de violence, pour sa rencontre officielle avec Bachar el-Assad, un rencontre « patronnée en sous-main par la Russie ». Il avait effectué un déplacement en Syrie au mois de mars à l’invitation du Parlement syrien à bord d’un avion gouvernemental russe et sans en avoir informé les instances de l’Assemblée.
Au cours de l’audition Pedro Agramunt a tenté de se défendre en soulignant qu’il avait fait cette visite au titre du Sénat espagnol. Cet argument n’a pas été pris en considération dans le rapport de Liliane Maury-Pasquier qui faisait remarquer que « représenter une institution c’est agir en responsabilité du premier au dernier jour du mandat », 365 jours par an et 24 heures sur 24. Cela ne donne aucune liberté au président de l’APCE d’aller de sa propre initiative, en tout cas sans être mandaté par l’APCE, rencontrer un dirigeant d’un pays qui viole ouvertement et pendant des années les droits de l’homme. La démonstration était claire et l’APCE l’a acceptée par 154 voix contre 30 et 13 abstentions.
Cette mise en œuvre du nouveau règlement intérieur, adopté le 27 juin, débouchera inévitablement sur l’anticipation du terme de son mandat actuel. L’actuel président a été lâché de toute part, y compris son propre parti (le PPE) : l’Assemblée s’est prononcée par 38 voix contre 25 et 2 abstentions. Le président sera destitué rapidement car comme l’a souligné la rapporteuse Liliane Mary-Pasquier : « Il faut faire au plus vite (…) l’Assemblée est à un tournant de son histoire parce que jamais sa crédibilité n’a jamais été autant ébranlée, jamais sa réputation autant atteinte et son image autant salie ». « Pedro Agramunt ! Partez ! » lui a lancé la doyenne, la socialiste française Josette Durie. « Ça suffit ! Retirez-vous maintenant, tout de suite » a renchéri la libérale luxembourgeoise, Anne Brasseur.
L’APCE s’est ainsi dotée d’une nouvelle procédure qui lui permet de mettre en jeu la responsabilité institutionnelle de ses membres titulaires d’un mandat électif et de les destituer pendant que celui-ci est en cours. La réforme prévoit la possibilité de démettre le président à une majorité des deux tiers des suffrages exprimés, 24 ou 48 heures après le dépôt d’une motion de défiance déposée par un nombre requis de membres issus de plusieurs groupes politiques et de plusieurs des 47 États membres.
Quant à la question de la rétroactivité de ces dispositions soulevée dans le cas Agramunt, il fut alors avancé que la CEDH ne reconnait la pertinence de l’argument qu’en matière d’affaires pénales. La demande de destitution a donc été introduite selon les nouvelles règles et sera soumise au vote à la prochaine plénière de l’APCE à Strasbourg du 9 au 13 octobre 2017.
Pedro Agramunt est également mis en cause dans une affaire de corruption soulevée par l’ONG allemande European Stability Initiative. Au même titre que d’autres anciens et actuels membres de l’APCE, il est soupçonné d’avoir été soudoyé par l’Azerbaïdjan afin d’étouffer un rapport sur les prisonniers politiques. La création d’une commission d’enquête ad hoc a été décidée par l’APCE qui en a validé la composition. Les conclusions sont attendues pour la fin de l’année. Il s’agit d’une affaire relativement ancienne sur laquelle Amnesty International avait tenté d’attirer l’attention au début de l’année 2017 (cf. ‘Pour en savoir plus’).
C’est sur le plan politique et diplomatique que l’affaire va rebondir du fait de l’accusé et de la Russie. Dans un communiqué Pedro Agramunt a dénoncé une attaque visant sa personne, menée par l’aile gauche de l’APCE et la délégation ukrainienne, un véritable règlement de compte dans lequel le secrétariat de l’assemblée a apporté son soutien, selon Pedro Agramunt. Il justifie sa rencontre avec Bachar el-Assad par une volonté politique de dialogue qu’il a voulu appliquer aussi bien dans le conflit syrien que dans ses efforts menés auprès de la Russie afin que la délégation russe réintègre les rangs de l’APCE où elle ne siège plus depuis le retrait de son droit résultant de la sanction infligée suite à l’annexion de la Crimée. Pedro Agramunt a fait valoir également que la modification du règlement permettant sa destitution a été votée dans la précipitation sans consultation préalable de la Commission de Venise et à l’encontre d’un avis de la Direction des avis juridiques et du droit international public du Conseil de l’Europe pour qui le principe de sécurité juridique serait menacé.
De son côté la Russie a mobilisé sa diplomatie, Serguei Lavrov, ministre des Affaires étrangères, a informé le secrétaire général du Conseil de l’Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland ,que la Russie suspendait le versement de sa contribution au budget « jusqu’à la pleine et inconditionnelle restauration des droits de la délégation russe au sein de l’assemblé parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe ». Dans un communiqué complémentaire, la diplomatie russe dénonce « la dégradation de la situation » au sein de l’APCE et « la campagne de persécution frénétique » visant les parlementaires qui cherchent à normaliser les relations avec la Russie, allusion évidente à la situation de Pedro Agramunt. Remettant en cause ce versement, la Russie risque une exclusion se privant ainsi d’une plateforme diplomatique pour laquelle elle a beaucoup investi depuis son adhésion en 1996, affrontant un grand nombre de tensions spectaculaires. Jusqu’à aujourd’hui, elles furent toujours surmontées en raison d’un attachement fort de la Russie pour ce relais important de son influence au cœur d’une zone éminemment stratégique. En sera-t-il de même encore une fois ? La réponse dépend du seul Poutine qui, là comme ailleurs, alterne le chaud et le froid.
En deux mots, une conclusion s’impose aux yeux des grands praticiens et des hautes autorités pour la transparence de la vie publique : la lutte contre la corruption est trop morcelée, il y a un manque de coordination entre toutes les autorités de contrôle. Sur ce plan, un rôle renforcé du Conseil de l’Europe et du GRECO s’impose à l’évidence. Par ailleurs, il est important, vital même, d’éviter que ne se développe, à l’occasion des affaires, une culture de la suspicion et de la malveillance ; ces dérives menaçant le bon exercice de la démocratie. L’action de l’APCE est exemplaire et crée un précédent qui ne pourra être ignoré. L’impunité n’est plus permise, fermer les yeux non plus. À l’avenir tout contrevenant sera susceptible d’être dénoncé, poursuivi et condamné, de quoi faire réfléchir les imprudents.
Cet épisode gagnerait à être connu largement. Or, le silence ou la discrétion des médias l’a emporté. Comme, par exemple, en France qui, au même moment, connaissait plusieurs affaires dont certaines eurent des conséquences politiques d’une très grande importance. La concomitance dans le temps de ces affaires n’a pas permis qu’elles soient rapprochées entre elles. Pour l’édification de tous, parlementaires et citoyens.
Pierre-Henri Legros
Pour en savoir plus :
Une proposition de destitution à l’ordre du jour de la session d’octobre : http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-FR.asp?newsid=6726&lang=1&cat=9.
Destitution de Pedro Agramunt : http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/Xref/Xref-XML2HTML-fr.asp?fileid=23996&lang=fr.
L’APCE adopte une procédure permettant la destitution de ses membres : http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-FR.asp?newsid=6705&lang=1&cat.
Video du débat : https://vodmanager.coe.int/coe/webcast/coe/2017-06-27-1/fr/2.
Page web de la session : http://website-pace.net/fr/web/apce/plenary-session.
Amnesty International : Azerbaijan, allegations of suspicious money transfers and other violation of the parlementary assembly’s code of conduct in connection with its work in Azebaijan :https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur55/5556/2017/en/.