Latvia Withdraws from Gender Equality Treaty Amid Conservative Backlash

Latvia’s decision to withdraw from a landmark gender equality treaty has set off a political firestorm at home and alarmed observers across Europe.

On Thursday, after a marathon 13-hour debate in the Saeima, Latvian MPs voted 56 to 32 to pull the Baltic state out of the accord, which was ratified by the European Union in 2023. While opposition parties led the initiative, it gained backing from members of the ruling Union of Greens and Farmers, one of the three coalition parties.

The treaty in question, which seeks to combat gender-based violence and promote equality, has long been a target for ultra-conservative groups. Critics argue that the accord undermines traditional family structures and promotes what they describe as “gender ideology.” Among the most vocal opponents is the political party Latvia First, whose leader Ainars Slesers has framed the debate in starkly ideological terms, urging citizens to choose between a “natural family” and “gender ideology with multiple sexes.”

For centre-right Prime Minister Evika Silina, the vote represents a significant setback. Earlier in the week, she joined demonstrators outside parliament in a rare public show of solidarity, warning that the fight against violence must not be abandoned. “We will not give up, we will fight so that violence does not win,” she told protesters.

The prime minister now faces a delicate balancing act. With one coalition party partially supporting the withdrawal, she must navigate internal divisions while preserving her broader policy agenda. The vote underscores the growing influence of socially conservative factions in Latvian politics, even within governing coalitions.

The decision has provoked an immediate public outcry. Within Latvia, a petition opposing the withdrawal has already gathered more than 22,000 signatures. Women’s rights organisation Centrs Marta has announced a protest for next Thursday, accusing MPs of ignoring the voice of the people.

Internationally, human rights and equality advocates have expressed deep concern. Equality Now, an NGO active across Europe, stressed that the treaty was not a threat to Latvian values but rather a tool to realise them. Karina Palkova, Latvia’s ombudswoman, urged politicians not to politicise the accord. The warning is clear: by withdrawing, Latvia risks isolating itself from broader European norms on gender equality.

European Institutions Respond

The head of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly, Theodoros Rousopoulos, described the vote as “an unprecedented and deeply worrying step backwards for women’s rights and human rights in Europe.” He drew attention to the example of Turkey, which abandoned the treaty four years ago, observing that femicide and gender-based violence had subsequently risen sharply.

Rousopoulos’s remarks highlight the treaty’s role not merely as a symbolic statement but as a practical instrument in combating gender violence. Latvia’s departure, he implied, could embolden similar moves in other EU member states, potentially weakening the continent-wide framework designed to protect women.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

The vote, however, did not reach the two-thirds majority required to make the withdrawal immediately binding. This gives President Egils Rinkevics the option to return the bill for further consideration. Speaking on X, the president pledged to evaluate the decision according to constitutional and legal criteria, rather than ideological or political pressures.

This introduces a possible avenue for reversal or delay. Members of the ruling coalition, including the Progressives, have indicated they may appeal to the Constitutional Court. Such a review could compel the Saeima to reconsider its approach, underscoring that the treaty’s fate is not yet sealed.

At its core, the debate reflects a broader tension between ideology and practical human rights protections. Proponents of the withdrawal frame the treaty as an affront to traditional family values, portraying its provisions on gender identity and equality as a form of foreign imposition. Opponents, by contrast, argue that the treaty is a practical framework aimed at reducing violence, protecting victims, and promoting equality in schools, workplaces, and public life.

The intensity of the debate within Latvia mirrors wider European conversations about the intersection of social conservatism and human rights obligations. It also illustrates the difficulty of reconciling national political dynamics with commitments made at the EU level, particularly when supranational agreements intersect with culturally sensitive issues.

Potential Consequences

Should Latvia formally withdraw, the consequences could be profound. The country may find itself increasingly isolated from EU initiatives aimed at gender equality, potentially affecting funding streams, social programmes, and cooperation with European institutions. On the domestic front, vulnerable populations could face setbacks in legal protections and support mechanisms aimed at preventing gender-based violence.

Equally concerning is the precedent the move sets. If one EU member state can overturn the treaty on ideological grounds, other socially conservative governments might follow suit, eroding the continent-wide consensus on basic human rights standards.

The coming weeks will determine whether Latvia’s withdrawal becomes final or whether constitutional and legal checks slow or reverse the process. Protests, petitions, and international pressure may influence MPs to reconsider. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Silina and her allies must navigate a highly charged political environment, balancing coalition dynamics with public opinion and European expectations.

The Latvian case illustrates a difficult truth for Europe: while treaties and accords provide a framework, they cannot enforce values in the absence of political consensus. The tension between progressive human rights commitments and conservative social politics is now on stark display, and how Latvia resolves it may have implications far beyond its borders.