Domestic violence and human trafficking: The role of the European Parliament

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Anna Karamanou MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT President of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality

It is a great honor and pleasure for me to participate, as President of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality of the European Parliament, in this meeting on Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking, which is organized by the Secretariat General for Equality, within the framework of the Greek Presidency of the European Union.

Violence against women and children is a widespread phenomenon in all societies. Domestic violence is the most concealed crime in the world and affects men, women, and children regardless of environment, age, or social status. This phenomenon requires special attention, given its widespread nature and the difficulty in identifying and eliminating violent behavior. Many people, in many countries, underestimate the problem of domestic violence or even consider it a personal issue that cannot fall under the jurisdiction of our legal system, despite the shocking statistical data. According to UNICEF, however, spousal violence causes more injuries and deaths of women aged 45 to 65 than cancer! In the European Union, at least 1 in 5 women has experienced violent behavior from their male partners, while 95% of all cases of violence against women occur in the home.

Furthermore, the International Organization for Migration states that, in the ^21st century, with the strengthening of migration flows, violence against women and children for the purpose of sexual exploitation has taken on explosive proportions. At least 500,000 women are victims of a new form of slavery, human trafficking for economic and sexual exploitation, known internationally as trafficking. Women and children are the most affected by this modern form of slavery, which is a denial of the right to freedom and security, the right to protection from torture, from violence, from all forms of mistreatment or degrading behavior, the right to a home and family, the right to education and employment, the right to healthcare, and all that makes human life dignified.

As first recognized in the Vienna Declaration of 1993, women’s rights are human rights, and violence constitutes a violation of human rights. Violence against women is a crime and a violation of their physical, psychological, and sexual-genital integrity.

Violence against women is the result of the historically unequal distribution of power between the sexes, the subjugation of one by the other, the ongoing devaluation and exclusion of the female gender from the sciences, the arts, education, literature, and from economic, social, religious, and political power. It is also the result of the identification of masculinity with power, dominance, harshness, the denial of emotions, and the sanctification of the use of violence. Of particular interest is the correlation made by modern approaches in the field of psychology [1] between gender and violent behavior. It is observed, paradoxically, that while women have always been the ones to suffer discrimination and continue to be in a disadvantaged position, they are not the ones who, driven by a sense of injustice, develop violent behavior. In reality, the opposite happens: the “strong” sex, despite holding power in every aspect of social, economic, and political life, is more violent, and its victims are usually the “weaker” women.

In order to understand this paradox, we must take into account how asymmetric the roles are that boys and girls are assigned from their birth in our modern patriarchal societies. First, we should observe that even the etymology of the related words links the male gender to violence. Thus, in both Ancient and Modern Greek, the word “andreia” (manliness) also carries the meaning of courage, while in Latin, the word “vir” (from which many words in various languages related to bravery, virtue, and courage are derived) simultaneously means both man and soldier. According to the different roles assigned to the two sexes, a man’s honor is intertwined with his ability to use violence as a means of resolving disputes (whether national, social, familial, or personal), while a woman’s honor is tied to specific sexual behavior patterns both before and during marriage. It is therefore considered normal for a man to resort to violence to rid himself of any supposed feeling of shame, humiliation, or disgrace, while this behavior is not accepted for a woman. Masculinity, according to the traditional patriarchal view, is by definition associated with the expectation, even the precondition, of some form of violent behavior under certain circumstances: during war, to punish the enemy, or to cleanse the “shame” that arises when one of the women in the family engages in extramarital relations. [2] It is well-known that so-called “honor crimes” are still on the agenda in many countries.

These are the reasons that have led many countries to promote programs for the treatment and behavioral change of violent men. In Austria, for example, legislation was passed according to which, in the case of a violent incident in the family, the person who leaves the home is the violent man, not the woman-victim. The focus, therefore, is on the prevention of violent acts and not only on supporting the victims.

In 1991, in Canada, a small group of sensitive men decided to take action to stop violence. They thought of promoting the “White Ribbon Campaign,” according to which any man who opposed violence against women would declare it by wearing a white ribbon on his lapel. Within just six weeks, one hundred thousand men were wearing it, and many participated in public discussions aimed at eradicating violence. Recently, they also issued a manifesto with ten points on what men can do to combat violence. The instructions, briefly, are as follows:

1/ Listen carefully to women… learn from women.

2/ Educate yourself about the problem.

3/ Study why some men are violent.

4/ Wear the white ribbon from November 25th and continuously for two weeks.

5/ Reject sexist language and jokes that demean women.

6/ Learn to identify and combat sexual harassment and violence at your workplace, school, and within your family.

7/ Support women’s programs.

8/ Examine whether your behavior contributes to the problem.

9/ Promote long-term solutions – legislative changes, shifts in mindset, and behavioral changes.

10/ Take educational and awareness-raising initiatives.

Today, the campaign has expanded to Europe, as in 1999, with the initiative of the European Parliament, the European campaign for zero tolerance of violence against women in Europe was launched. The campaign, which was part of the framework established in Beijing in 1995, aimed to break the silence and promote awareness among European citizens, with particular emphasis on domestic violence. In the European Parliament, many were seen wearing a white ribbon on their lapel, symbolizing “zero tolerance for violence.” Will a similar campaign be launched in Greece?

The fight against violence against women has always been a priority for the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality of the European Parliament. However, despite the immense efforts made by the Committee, much more still needs to be done. Special emphasis has been placed by our Committee on raising public awareness and condemning all forms of violence, particularly the trafficking of women and domestic violence. Since 1986, the European Parliament has been actively working to address this issue, expressed through a series of reports, documents, proposals, and decisions. [3]

DAPHNE PROGRAM

The most recent milestone in this long-term effort to combat violence against women is the DAPHNE program. In 1996, two cases of pedophilia shook Europe, making it imperative to take even more intensive action against these phenomena, both at the European level and within the member states. After the Dutroux scandal — the kidnapping and murder of two young girls in Belgium — the European Parliament, together with the European Commission, decided to promote a more ambitious plan for the fight against violence. As a result of this effort, two new programs were launched.

The STOP program was designed with the goal of combating human trafficking and addressing sexual exploitation, and it is considered a precursor to the Daphne program.

The Daphne initiative was the result of the European Parliament’s allocation of 3 million ECU in the 1997 Community budget for combating violence against women and children. The Daphne initiative (1997-1999) received widespread acceptance and support.

According to the initial proposal of the Daphne initiative, only NGOs and volunteer organizations could apply for funding. The proposals were limited to a duration of 12 months, so long-term planning for two or three years was not possible. Between 1997 and 1999, the Daphne initiative funded 149 programs with a budget of 13 million euros.

The Daphne program (2000-2003) was adopted by the decision of the European Parliament and the Council (293/2000/EU[4]), with a total budget of 20 million euros for a four-year period. The aim of the decision was to promote a multiannual program to support Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in their efforts against violence against women, children, and young people. Although the member states have the primary responsibility to address the problem, the European Community supports their actions by encouraging the creation of networks, the exchange of information and best practices, and raising public awareness about the causes and consequences of violence.

The Daphne program introduced a series of changes. For the first time, multiannual programs were funded, and applications were allowed from a broad range of organizations, including NGOs, public organizations, and institutions. One of the most important changes during the 2000-2003 period was the expansion of the program’s geographical scope, so that EFTA/EEA countries, Central and Eastern European countries, Cyprus, Malta, and Turkey could participate in the program, even though they were not yet eligible for funding from the Daphne program.

During the first two years, Daphne received an overwhelming response that exceeded all expectations. In 2000 and 2001, more than 1500 and 1000 applications, respectively, were submitted to the Commission. This massive response demonstrated that the program clearly met a need that had been strongly felt within the NGO sector.

The program has also positively influenced the relevant policies of the member states, as a number of very important new laws on the rights of women and children have been enacted in European countries. It has also impacted the actions of the international community, where the program’s significant contribution to the fight against violence is recognized.

In April 2002, the Commission issued an extremely important report on the development of the Daphne program,[5] in which it presented a clear and detailed assessment of the program’s progress during its first two years. In September 2002, the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution with a recommendation from the Spanish MEP Mrs. Avilés Perea,[6] regarding this report. Given the achievements thus far, Parliament supported the continuation of the program after 2003, in order to make the most of the experiences from the previous years.

However, according to the decision, the program’s budget was inadequate, given its objectives and the overwhelming response it received. Parliament called for the program to be extended in the following years to allow for the full participation of candidate countries and to take into account the fact that, on average, only 13% of the programs were accepted, a figure that did not satisfy the involved organizations and institutions.

Furthermore, Parliament reiterated its view that the actions the European Union should take to combat violence as a violation of human rights required a more appropriate legal basis than that provided by Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities (related to public health). As a result, it called on the members of the European Convention on the Future of Europe to propose the inclusion of a strong legal basis for combating violence in the new Treaty.

On December 31, 2003, the Daphne Program (2000-2003) will be completed. However, the need for a program to combat violence against children, youth, and women remains, as demonstrated by the overwhelming impact of the first phase of the Daphne Program. Thus, in addition to the European Parliament’s request for the continuation of the program beyond 2003, the Commission adopted a new proposal on February 4, 2003, for a second phase of the program, covering the period 2004-2008. [7] The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality is currently reviewing this proposal, with Mrs. Lissy Gröner as the rapporteur. The report is expected to be adopted in an extraordinary session on June 30, so that the first reading in the European Parliament can take place before the summer.

The report proposes an increase in funding precisely because of the broad interest in the program and the inclusion of new countries. The Commission’s proposal refers to 40 million euros for the entire five-year period. However, the unanimous opinion of all members of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality is that this amount remains extremely low, as it does not allow more NGOs to benefit from the program or meet the pressing needs of the new member states.

On May 19, 2003, my Committee organized a public debate aimed at exchanging views between its members and experts on the issue of violence against women. Very interesting proposals were made for improving the program, such as the creation of a help-desk to assist NGOs from the new member states in developing their own programs and benefiting from the achievements of Daphne, as well as the establishment of a “think tank” to help the European Commission select proposals from the new member states, based on their specific social, cultural, and political characteristics.

Of course, the need remains for a better legal basis than that provided by Article 152 of the Treaty for combating violence against women. The new constitutional treaty should ensure that the “community acquis” regarding gender equality is fully maintained and further strengthened.

The Daphne II program will continue the effort to combat violence against women and children, and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality will fight to place the issue at the top of the European Union’s priorities.

Creation of a Center for the Combat of Violence and Trafficking of Women and Children – within the framework of the European Migration Observatory.

Greece is directly affected by the actions of internationally organized criminal networks because, due to its geographical position, it is both a country of reception and a transit point for trafficking victims. Therefore, in addition to the existing legislation, initiatives must be undertaken and specific measures designed to combat sexual violence and the trafficking of women and children. One such effective measure could be the establishment and operation of a Center, which would operate within the framework of the European Migration Observatory, whose headquarters, according to a decision by the European Council, has been designated to be in Greece. In a recent memorandum I submitted to the Minister of Public Order, Mr. Michalis Chrysochoidis, and the General Secretary for Gender Equality, Mrs. Efi Bekou, I requested their support for the establishment and operation of this Center, the responsibility for which would naturally lie with the General Secretariat for Gender Equality.

The main purpose of the Center will be to strengthen the response, both in Greece and throughout the European Union, to the problem of violence against women and children, with particular care for the most vulnerable groups, such as victims of domestic violence, single-parent families of women, victims of forced prostitution and trafficking, and migrant women.

The Center will aim to strengthen the capabilities and structures of the European Union for providing assistance and protection to the aforementioned groups, as well as for the development and promotion of European approaches to improve protection and support programs across the Enlarged Europe. Therefore, the Center will also contribute to strengthening the integration of the new EU member states into community structures for the prevention and combat of violence against these groups, as well as in preventing their social exclusion.

The Center will also aim to raise public awareness about the issue of violence and human trafficking at an expanded European level, and to change the prevailing stereotypical view of the victims of violence and trafficking, which often tends to be more negative towards the victims than towards the perpetrators. Additionally, it will contribute to enhancing the ability of victims to integrate into the broader social and professional framework, thereby counteracting discrimination and inequalities in access to the labor market, social services, healthcare, etc. The Center will also promote the social inclusion of trafficking victims who legally reside in their host countries, as well as voluntary return and reintegration programs in their countries of origin.

Taking into account the aspects of the phenomenon related to social and human rights, as well as gender-based discrimination, the Center will strengthen ties and network various parallel initiatives that have been undertaken at the community and national levels within the framework of various policy areas such as Employment and Social Affairs, Gender Equality, Development Policy, Health, Justice, Internal Affairs, and Foreign Policy.

I believe that solutions to the problem of domestic violence and human trafficking can only be found if the issue of violence becomes the subject of thorough study and research by specialized bodies. Our legal culture has, until now, failed in its attempt to combat these phenomena because its philosophy is completely flawed. The question posed by our legal system today, with regard to violence, is: “How great a harm did this specific act of violence cause, and what punishment corresponds to the one who committed it?” This way of thinking is now certainly incapable of leading anywhere. Only the willingness to identify the causes that provoke violence can help us find ways to prevent it — which should be our goal — the focus on punishing the perpetrators is not enough.

Anna Karamanou – Member of the European Parliament

www.karamanou.gr

e-mail:info@karamanou.gr

Tel. 210 77 75 223

Notes

[1] See James Gilligan: “Preventing Violence”, Thames & Hudson (London, 2001).
[2] James Gilligan: “Preventing Violence”, Thames & Hudson (London, 2001), p.56-65.
[3] OJ C120 of 16.5.1989, OJ C268 της 4.10.1993, OJ C32 of 5.2.1996, COM(96)0567, Sörensen Report of 19 May 2000, A5-0127/2000, Klamt Report of 12 June2001, COM(2002) 0071.
[4] T5-0398/2002 of 4.9.2002.
[5] Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the Daphne Programme (2000-2003), COM(2002)169 of 8.4.2002.
[6] A5-0233/2002 final
[7] COM(2003)54 final of 4.2.20031.