Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How Romania's feminists are fighting back

Sian Norris meets the feminists taking to the streets.

You may have read about the anti-corruption protests that happened in Romania this February. But one month later, another march strode through Bucharest. This time it was members of the Church and the Coalition for Family taking to the streets. Their demands? Tighter restrictions on women”s right to abortion.

“It was quite scary,” activist Irina Ilisei explained to me when we spoke earlier this month. Co-founder of the Feminism Romania website and the activist group FRONT, Ilisei is a vocal supporter of women”s reproductive rights. “There have been pro-life protests before,”  she continued. “They attracted a couple of hundred people. But this time there were a few thousand, and not just in Bucharest, but all over the country.”

Not everything on the anti-abortion protest was how it first seemed. Orthodox and Neo-Protestant church leaders and the Coalition for Family chanted “life” while marching past pro-choice graffiti emblazoned across the city”s walls. At the heart of the march, feminist activists held up placards proclaiming “this is how you stamp on women”s rights”. Romania”s feminists were not going to take this assault on their human rights lying down.

“When the protests were smaller, we tended to leave them alone,” Ilisei explained. “We didn’t want to risk making their demands more visible. But this time, a group of feminists in Bucharest took subversive steps to challenge the anti-abortion movement. It was funny and clever to see pro choice and pro LGBT messages on the walls and on the streets where the march took place.”

Abortion has been legal in Romania since the fall of Ceausescu. Under his rule, it’s estimated 10,000 women died as a result of so-called illegal abortions. For post-communist Romania, legalising abortion was seen as a way to move forward from the horrors of the dictatorship.

Although abortion is now legal and free, the reality of accessing the procedure is much more complex. Terminations are only available in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and some private clinics only offer it up to ten weeks. Meanwhile, doctors can refuse to carry out an abortion. The result is that many women with an unwanted pregnancy are unable to access their legal right to a free termination. It’s a situation Ilisei has seen again and again:

“It can be very difficult for women to find a place where they can have an abortion, and in rural areas it”s even harder. We have had women calling us from different regions of the country, even in big cities, telling us they can”t find a hospital that offers the procedure. So on the one hand we have freedom of abortion, but then you go to the hospital and you are denied one. The doctors say it”s their choice to refuse. That”s not good enough. The hospitals need to make sure they have someone who can provide these services.”

It’s these existing difficulties which make the recent attacks and protests all the more worrying. If those demanding increased restrictions on women”s reproductive rights make political gains, then women will struggle even more to access the medical care and support they need to end an unwanted pregnancy.

But how credible are the threats to abortion rights in Romania? To measure that, you need to understand the power of the Orthodox Church and the Coalition for Family. Last year, the latter managed to secure a 3 million strong petition to permanently ban same-sex marriage via the constitution. As a result of the petition, all major political parties agreed to consider the change. This is not a fringe group.

At the same time, the Orthodox Church has declared war on sex education - something which is key to women”s reproductive health, equality, and in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. The church”s influence has made it very difficult to teach women and men about their options when it comes to sexual health and reproductive rights. And while comprehensive sex education is therefore rare, church-backed organisations like Pro Vita are going into schools to teach an anti-abortion message.

“Religion is very embedded in Romanian society” Ilisei explained to me. “Nearly 90 per cent of Romanians declare themselves Christian Orthodox and the Church is very powerful. If they tell their congregation that sex education will corrupt their children, then parents aren”t going to give permission for it to be taught. But we all know education and access to contraception is vital to improving women”s rights. I agree we need to minimise the number of terminations. But we can’t do that unless we have sex education.”

For Ilisei, the threat to women”s bodily autonomy exists in an international context where abortion is increasingly under attack. She cites as examples the attempted ban in neighbouring Poland, Trump’s hardline attitude to women”s rights in the USA, and the nationalistic “family values” rhetoric of Putin’s Russia:

“After 1989, one of the arguments for defending women”s rights in general was that it was the progressive position of western democracies. Now the argument goes “we can restrict abortions because developed countries like the US are doing so too”. We”ve seen a swing back to nationalism and traditionalism in Romania - a type of ‘let”s make Romania great again’ - in the same way populist politics have taken hold elsewhere in the west.”

The feminist movement in Romania is small. But it’s vocal. Take the campaign launched by FRONT this International Women”s Day. Across social media, they posted “thanks for the flowers but…” completing the message with feminist demands such as “we want reproductive rights” or “we want you to use a condom”. The campaign went viral, and was accompanied with a performance outside Bucharest”s Ministry of Justice.

Coupled with the subversive infiltration of the anti-abortion march, it’s clear that Romania”s feminists are not going to stand by quietly and watch as their reproductive rights are attacked.

“For a long period of time we thought that abortion was such a basic right, that this battle was won,” said Ilisei. “We now realise that the fight for women”s reproductive rights isn”t over yet.”

Sian Norris is a writer. She blogs at sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.com and is the Founder & Director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival. She was previously writer-in-residence at Spike Island.

Getty.
Show Hide image

The Brexit Beartraps, #2: Could dropping out of the open skies agreement cancel your holiday?

Flying to Europe is about to get a lot more difficult.

So what is it this time, eh? Brexit is going to wipe out every banana planet on the entire planet? Brexit will get the Last Night of the Proms cancelled? Brexit will bring about World War Three?

To be honest, I think we’re pretty well covered already on that last score, but no, this week it’s nothing so terrifying. It’s just that Brexit might get your holiday cancelled.

What are you blithering about now?

Well, only if you want to holiday in Europe, I suppose. If you’re going to Blackpool you’ll be fine. Or Pakistan, according to some people...

You’re making this up.

I’m honestly not, though we can’t entirely rule out the possibility somebody is. Last month Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair boss who attracts headlines the way certain other things attract flies, warned that, “There is a real prospect... that there are going to be no flights between the UK and Europe for a period of weeks, months beyond March 2019... We will be cancelling people’s holidays for summer of 2019.”

He’s just trying to block Brexit, the bloody saboteur.

Well, yes, he’s been quite explicit about that, and says we should just ignore the referendum result. Honestly, he’s so Remainiac he makes me look like Dan Hannan.

But he’s not wrong that there are issues: please fasten your seatbelt, and brace yourself for some turbulence.

Not so long ago, aviation was a very national sort of a business: many of the big airports were owned by nation states, and the airline industry was dominated by the state-backed national flag carriers (British Airways, Air France and so on). Since governments set airline regulations too, that meant those airlines were given all sorts of competitive advantages in their own country, and pretty much everyone faced barriers to entry in others. 

The EU changed all that. Since 1994, the European Single Aviation Market (ESAM) has allowed free movement of people and cargo; established common rules over safety, security, the environment and so on; and ensured fair competition between European airlines. It also means that an AOC – an Air Operator Certificate, the bit of paper an airline needs to fly – from any European country would be enough to operate in all of them. 

Do we really need all these acronyms?

No, alas, we need more of them. There’s also ECAA, the European Common Aviation Area – that’s the area ESAM covers; basically, ESAM is the aviation bit of the single market, and ECAA the aviation bit of the European Economic Area, or EEA. Then there’s ESAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, which regulates, well, you can probably guess what it regulates to be honest.

All this may sound a bit dry-

It is.

-it is a bit dry, yes. But it’s also the thing that made it much easier to travel around Europe. It made the European aviation industry much more competitive, which is where the whole cheap flights thing came from.

In a speech last December, Andrew Haines, the boss of Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said that, since 2000, the number of destinations served from UK airports has doubled; since 1993, fares have dropped by a third. Which is brilliant.

Brexit, though, means we’re probably going to have to pull out of these arrangements.

Stop talking Britain down.

Don’t tell me, tell Brexit secretary David Davis. To monitor and enforce all these international agreements, you need an international court system. That’s the European Court of Justice, which ministers have repeatedly made clear that we’re leaving.

So: last March, when Davis was asked by a select committee whether the open skies system would persist, he replied: “One would presume that would not apply to us” – although he promised he’d fight for a successor, which is very reassuring. 

We can always holiday elsewhere. 

Perhaps you can – O’Leary also claimed (I’m still not making this up) that a senior Brexit minister had told him that lost European airline traffic could be made up for through a bilateral agreement with Pakistan. Which seems a bit optimistic to me, but what do I know.

Intercontinental flights are still likely to be more difficult, though. Since 2007, flights between Europe and the US have operated under a separate open skies agreement, and leaving the EU means we’re we’re about to fall out of that, too.  

Surely we’ll just revert to whatever rules there were before.

Apparently not. Airlines for America – a trade body for... well, you can probably guess that, too – has pointed out that, if we do, there are no historic rules to fall back on: there’s no aviation equivalent of the WTO.

The claim that flights are going to just stop is definitely a worst case scenario: in practice, we can probably negotiate a bunch of new agreements. But we’re already negotiating a lot of other things, and we’re on a deadline, so we’re tight for time.

In fact, we’re really tight for time. Airlines for America has also argued that – because so many tickets are sold a year or more in advance – airlines really need a new deal in place by March 2018, if they’re to have faith they can keep flying. So it’s asking for aviation to be prioritised in negotiations.

The only problem is, we can’t negotiate anything else until the EU decides we’ve made enough progress on the divorce bill and the rights of EU nationals. And the clock’s ticking.

This is just remoaning. Brexit will set us free.

A little bit, maybe. CAA’s Haines has also said he believes “talk of significant retrenchment is very much over-stated, and Brexit offers potential opportunities in other areas”. Falling out of Europe means falling out of European ownership rules, so itcould bring foreign capital into the UK aviation industry (assuming anyone still wants to invest, of course). It would also mean more flexibility on “slot rules”, by which airports have to hand out landing times, and which are I gather a source of some contention at the moment.

But Haines also pointed out that the UK has been one of the most influential contributors to European aviation regulations: leaving the European system will mean we lose that influence. And let’s not forget that it was European law that gave passengers the right to redress when things go wrong: if you’ve ever had a refund after long delays, you’ve got the EU to thank.

So: the planes may not stop flying. But the UK will have less influence over the future of aviation; passengers might have fewer consumer rights; and while it’s not clear that Brexit will mean vastly fewer flights, it’s hard to see how it will mean more, so between that and the slide in sterling, prices are likely to rise, too.

It’s not that Brexit is inevitably going to mean disaster. It’s just that it’ll take a lot of effort for very little obvious reward. Which is becoming something of a theme.

Still, we’ll be free of those bureaucrats at the ECJ, won’t be?

This’ll be a great comfort when we’re all holidaying in Grimsby.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.