1. Introduction:
One crisis, different impacts
1. In spring 2020, the Covid-19
pandemic brought the whole world to a halt. People were ordered
or invited to remain in their homes; businesses were required to
cease their activities; parliaments’ activities and their scrutiny
of the executive were reduced to a minimum.
2. The impact on human lives has been devastating. Over 10 million
Covid-19 cases had been recorded worldwide as of 1 July 2020; the
death toll had risen to over 500 000 persons,
and
over 3.8 million cases remained active.
3. The crisis has inflicted severe damage on the global economy,
and job losses are counted in the millions. It has laid bare and
exacerbated existing inequalities and revealed the weaknesses and
unpreparedness of our institutions. The fundamental question we
should now ask ourselves is whether we will rise to the challenge and
use the crisis to push forward with a progressive and transformative
agenda to renew efforts and focus in order to achieve equitable
and sustainable development.
4. This storm affects us all – but some of us have been caught
closer to its eye, and we have not all had the same means to shelter
from it. The existence of far higher death rates, and far higher
risks of serious illness, among men, elderly people and persons
with certain comorbidity factors – often including persons with disabilities
– is well documented. Moreover, as Covid-19 has spread, and despite
a paucity of ethnic data collection throughout most of Europe, it
has also emerged that racialised people have been disproportionately affected
by the epidemic. Far higher death rates have been recorded and the
proportion of patients requiring hospital care has been much higher
among persons belonging to ethnic minorities.
While health issues have already been the
subject of Assembly
Resolution
2329 (2020) “Lessons for the future from an effective and rights-based
response to the Covid-19 pandemic”, I wish to emphasise here that
it is crucial that medical and social research explore the underlying
causes of these different health outcomes, which may be multiple.
5. Women,
persons
with disabilities, racialised people (including Roma and Travellers,
people
of African descent, persons belonging to national or ethnic minorities,
migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers), LGBTI people,
young
people and elderly people have been especially hard-hit as governments
have sought to address the pandemic through “one size fits all”
measures, and have failed to take account of their specific needs
as regards safety during lockdown, access to information, the capacity
to implement preventive measures, and access to education, employment,
housing and health, including sexual and reproductive health.
6. Moreover, despite the many heart-warming manifestations of
solidarity that we have witnessed during this crisis, hate speech
and stigmatisation have also increased. Roma and Travellers, migrants,
people belonging to ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities
and LGBTI people have been blamed for causing Covid-19 itself or
hastening the spread of the pandemic.
7. This report is being written at a time when we are learning
to live with the coronavirus. We cannot know for sure if there will
be a second or third wave, and if so, what they may bring. Evaluation
while working on curbing a pandemic is not easy, but at the same
time, the interlude between different waves of this pandemic and
the likelihood of other pandemics in the future must prompt us to
take stock and learn, in order to be better prepared should there
be a second wave or a new crisis.
8. What is however already evident, even so soon after the outbreak
of the pandemic, is that not everyone has faced this crisis from
the same starting point. Assumptions that the same measures to fight
the pandemic can simply be applied equally to everyone, and be equally
effective in protecting them, are also clearly flawed. This is clear
not only from a health perspective, but also in every area of our
lives touched by the crisis.
9. My report is a call to action. We must act now, and we must
act sustainably, to transform our societies and overcome the inequalities
that are so deeply rooted in them. We must act to ensure that people’s
chances not only of surviving a crisis, but of maintaining their
livelihoods and well-being during the crisis and in its aftermath,
are not pre-determined by their gender, national or ethnic origin,
colour, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics,
disability, age, social origins or other characteristics making
up their identity.
2. Unequal impact of government measures
introduced in response to the pandemic
10. In the face of an exponentially
developing pandemic, governments have been forced to address the public
health issues it has raised as a matter of urgency, to slow the
spread of the virus and save lives.
11. Insofar as they concern individuals, such measures have frequently
been based on a “one size fits all” approach. Yet if the bodies
set up to design these measures are too homogeneous, and the target
of a measure is (consciously or unconsciously) assumed to resemble
those designing it, then the needs of (inter
alia) women, ethnic minorities, people whose first language
is a minority or foreign language, children, the elderly and persons
with disabilities – well over half the population of any given country
– will simply not be effectively accommodated.
12. As my analysis below makes clear, many citizens in Europe
have been negatively affected by blanket-style responses to the
pandemic. Measures have been taken with the legitimate purpose of
protecting public health, but with little or no consideration of
how they might affect different groups or how different situations might
need to be accommodated. As a result, many measures taken have aggravated
inequalities, cut some people off from vital services, and exposed
others to new dangers.
2.1. Access
to information
13. In the early stages of the
pandemic, governments’ main focus was generally on preventing the
spread of the virus through small but crucial changes in individual
behaviour. Awareness-raising campaigns were rapidly launched, emphasising
personal hygiene measures such as regular handwashing, coughing
into one’s elbow or a single-use tissue, refraining from touching
one’s face and (in some countries) wearing a mask, and physical
distancing measures such as avoiding physical contact when greeting
other people and maintaining a minimum distance between oneself
and others. These measures continue to be encouraged at the time
of writing.
14. As the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights emphasised
from the outset, in the context of the rapid spread of a little-known
but deadly virus, potentially life-saving information needs to be
made available rapidly and in formats accessible to everyone.
15. Often, however, the specific needs of persons with disabilities
were not properly taken into account.
In my
country, the Netherlands, no sign-language interpretation was provided
at press conferences given by the authorities in the early stage
of the pandemic. While many governments in due course made efforts
to provide information in easy-to-read versions or in sign language,
persons with disabilities
who lacked access to the necessary information have been exposed
to higher risks of illness, as well as to stigmatisation for their disability,
their behaviour, or their failure to respect social distancing rules
or guidelines that they have not understood.
16. Similar issues have arisen for persons belonging to national
minorities. Where information about the situation and the measures
adopted in the country where they live has not been available in
their first language, speakers of regional or minority languages
have been less able to protect themselves and their families, less likely
to be able to benefit from support measures set up to respond to
the crisis, and more likely to face financial or administrative
sanctions if they fail to comply with new requirements. Yet, as
the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities has pointed out,
States have a clear interest in ensuring that all members of society
understand what is required from them to help limit the spread of
the pandemic, and that they have equal access to public services,
regardless of their background. This is not only a question of public
health, but also one of social cohesion.
17. The measures taken to respond to the virus are constantly
changing to take into account new information about the virus itself
and to adapt to the situation as it evolves on the ground. To avoid
disproportionate negative impacts on all the above groups of people,
as well as migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, who may have difficulty
accessing information that is crucial for their safety and that
of others, governments must ensure that information about the virus,
about measures taken to address it and about individuals’ own obligations
in this context is transparent, up-to-date and accessible at all
times, and available in a language and format that correspond to
the needs of those seeking to access it.
2.2. Physical
and social distancing measures
18. Many of the preventive measures
outlined above rely on access to running water and the possibility
of maintaining a specified minimum distance from others. Yet for
many people in our societies, these possibilities simply do not
exist.
19. For the many Roma and Travellers who still live in inadequate
conditions – without access to running water, sanitation or other
public utilities, and often in a situation of severe overcrowding
– preventive measures such as staying indoors, social distancing
and regular handwashing can become impossible, while access to disinfectant
gels, face-masks and even basic information about preventive measures
is often illusory. In such conditions, when one person does become
ill, it is moreover often impossible for them to self-isolate. Coupled with
an often-poor state of health, which is itself in large part attributable
to poor living conditions as well as high levels of poverty, Roma
and Travellers living in such conditions are at particular risk
of contracting the Covid-19 virus, and of becoming gravely ill from
it. According to one survey, 80% of Roma live below their country’s
threshold for being at risk of poverty, 30% live without running
water, and one in three Roma children live in a household where
someone went to bed hungry at least once in the month prior to the
survey.
20. The notorious lack of halting sites in the United Kingdom
also left many Travellers living roadside during the pandemic, in
overcrowded conditions and with no sanitation, and at constant risk
of eviction. In Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic, some local authorities
placed Roma settlements in quarantine, installing checkpoint controls
and building temporary walls around Roma areas. Some authorities
alleged that a “lack of discipline” among residents made preventive
measures harder to enforce. Others argued that due to the lack of
running water and sanitation there, these settlements should be
quarantined in order to curb the spread of the virus – but they
did not take steps to mitigate the problems. Some officials argued
that high numbers of people returning to their country from other
severely affected countries in Europe such as Spain, Italy or the
United Kingdom represented a risk to the rest of the population,
but reportedly enforced 14-day self-quarantine measures far more
forcefully in Roma neighbourhoods than elsewhere.
21. Such measures do nothing to assist those who most need support.
Worse, they aggravate the situation, by racialising the idea of
who is responsible for the spread of disease and shifting blame
from the structural failings of States to individuals or groups
who are designated as “unclean”.
22. Many migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees as well as homeless
people have found themselves in similar situations during the pandemic
– living in inadequate conditions that make respecting preventive measures
impossible and that leave them vulnerable to infection, yet being
stigmatised in political discourse rather than supported. On a more
positive note, however, some authorities have seized the opportunity provided
by reduced tourism and business travel during the pandemic to requisition
hotels and use them to provide a safer and healthier living space
for people living on the streets. The experience has been positive: with
no need to worry about where they will sleep from one day to the
next, some of the persons housed in this way say they have been
able, for the first time in years, to start making plans for the
future.
23. Many persons with disabilities continue to be deprived of
their liberty in Europe. Whether in collective residential settings,
psychiatric hospitals or other institutions, physical distancing
measures may be impossible to implement. Moreover, many persons
with disabilities living in institutionalised settings already suffer
from poor physical health. These persons are extremely vulnerable
to the spread of a pandemic, and States have a particular duty to
protect them. Isolation has however often been the only solution
on offer – one that is clearly not sustainable in the long term
and that has a disproportionate impact on the people concerned.
24. Isolation has also been the only solution proposed for many
elderly people living in care homes, depriving them of the support
of their families at a time when they desperately needed it. The
psychosocial consequences of these measures are far-reaching. Heartbreaking
stories of elderly people dying alone, with their families unable
to accompany them, are legion, and the trauma for family members
remains deep. Even more tragically, strict quarantines were often
introduced far too late to prevent the spread of the virus within these
homes, with catastrophic death rates among the elderly being recorded
as a result.
2.3. Lockdowns
25. In many States, the measures
initially taken to contain the spread of the virus proved insufficient,
and full lockdowns were ordered, requiring people to remain inside
their homes at all times except for brief periods and for specific
purposes such as shopping for groceries, helping a vulnerable person
or exercising.
26. For many women and girls, home became a dangerous place. Lockdown
measures are believed to have contributed to a huge increase in
acts of domestic violence.
I will discuss in more detail the impact
of the crisis on violence against women below (see chapter 4.3).
27. Elderly people’s experience of lockdown measures has also
been extremely difficult, as they have been cut off from their families
(see above) and from their usual activities. Moreover, government
discourse on the isolation of the elderly has often been callous.
In Serbia, people aged over 65 were completely forbidden from receiving
visitors and from leaving their homes, except to go grocery shopping
between 4am and 7am on Sunday mornings, for several weeks. The President
of Serbia told retirees not to listen to suggestions that they should
be allowed to go outside for an hour per day: “If you do, there
will be no cemeteries able to accommodate us all.” While many measures
have been introduced precisely with a view to protecting a category
of the population that faces increased overall risks due to Covid-19
complications, across-the-board lockdown measures were not taken
for other groups having comorbidity factors: the latter were allowed
to take responsibility for their own health. This ageist approach
towards people over the age of 65 has often made them feel undervalued,
underestimated, and a burden on society.
28. Lockdown measures have also left many LGBTI people confined
in hostile home environments with family members who deny or reject
their identity, and with little or no access to support networks
in the outside world. Some young LGBTI people have been kicked out
of home and left to fend for themselves on the streets, at a time
when shelters are difficult to access or even closed altogether,
and when they may be subject to fines for breaking lockdown. Young
LGBTI people already have very high rates of suicide and mental
health issues. Lockdown measures that heighten the risks for them
and fail to offer access to adequate support risk causing them direct
harm.
29. Generally speaking, people’s living conditions have strongly
shaped their experience of lockdowns. Far greater hardships have
been imposed on those confined for long periods of time in a cramped
and/or overcrowded living space, with no access to an outdoor area.
The lack of a dedicated and peaceful space to telework or follow
schooling also heightened the difficulties and tensions involved
in a situation where employers, employees, teachers, students and
parents have already had to improvise constantly in order to try to
keep their ship afloat. Meanwhile, decisions to close public parks
and gardens in many cities, albeit based on public health grounds,
have especially impacted those already suffering from the material
conditions of the lockdown – often those in low-paid, insecure jobs,
in which migrant communities and ethnic minorities are over-represented.
2.4. Lockdown
enforcement measures
30. Police enforcement of lockdowns
has often targeted people belonging to ethnic minorities or living
in economically deprived areas. In France, more than double the
number of police checks were carried out in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis
– the poorest and one of the most multi-ethnic departments of mainland France
– and more than two-thirds of fines issued in Marseille for a failure
to respect the lockdown were issued in the city’s poorer districts.
The amount of the fines as fixed by law – €135 – represented a significant proportion
of some families’ budgets and challenging them was virtually impossible.
The concentration of police controls in the poorer areas of towns
moreover meant that those living in the worst conditions, and who
would be the hardest hit by the penalty of €3 750 and up to six
months’ imprisonment for repeat offences, were also the most likely
to be faced with it. Numerous cases of police brutality were also
reported. Also in Spain, a rise in complaints of racist policing
during the state of emergency was reported, coupled with greater
police impunity for such conduct.
31. The concentration of police controls in poorer areas of cities
forms part of an institutional practice of ethnic profiling, in
which often minor offences committed by persons with a lower socio-economic
status, rather than white-collar crimes such as fraud and tax evasion,
are targeted. The pandemic has not created this pattern of policing
– but it forces us to take new note of it, to look at the disproportionate
harm that it may cause to those least able to challenge such practices,
and to question why such practices persist.
32. Some countries (including my own) have used drones equipped
with thermal sensors to remind people to keep their distance or
to take people’s temperatures remotely. In Bulgaria, several towns
were however reported to have used such technology solely to target
Roma. At the same time, there appeared to be no clear plan of action
for dealing with persons who tested positive, nor for meeting the
needs of affected persons during the quarantine or protecting other
persons in affected areas against the spread of the virus.
33. Stereotypes about families have also exposed people who do
not fit gender paradigms to harsher lockdown enforcement measures.
In my country – although it is one of Europe’s most accepting places
for LGBTI people
– same-sex couples have reported
being targeted for controls in the streets during lockdown, as political
discourse focusing on being in contact only with members of one’s
household reinforced stereotypes about families being composed of
heterosexual parents with children. Single parents who have had
no alternative but to bring their children shopping with them have
sometimes faced difficulties, as some shops refused to let children
enter. Restrictions on sporting activities have also reflected male
stereotypes, with women out walking with their children being told,
for example, that this was not legitimate exercise. The question
of who makes the policies, and with what realities in mind, is critical
here.
2.5. Measures
affecting economic activity
34. The impact of the Covid-19
crisis on people’s income and socioeconomic situation has been marked
by strong differences. These depend, inter
alia, on the type of work that they carry out and on
decisions taken by governments to forbid or encourage certain types
of activities. While the crisis has raised awareness of the crucial
role played in our societies by “frontline” workers, whose work
generally tends to be largely undervalued – nursing and care workers,
cleaners, cashiers, delivery workers, garbage collectors, to name
a few – it has also exposed some people to far higher risks – to
their lives, to their livelihoods, or to both.
35. There is a very strong gender dimension to these issues, which
demands particular attention. I look at this more closely in a separate
section of the report (see chapter 4 below).
36. Racialised people are frequently over-represented in low-paid,
precarious jobs. Many people in these professions have been forced
to continue working as such jobs are also “frontline” jobs that
can only be carried out in person. There have been numerous reports
of workers ill from the coronavirus who continued to go to work
– placing their own and others’ lives in danger – because they did
not benefit from statutory sick-leave and could not let their families
go without food. Migrant workers have been especially vulnerable
in this respect.
This is not a choice that anyone
should have to make in modern societies – yet is a reality for many people,
even in ordinary times.
37. Government measures have forced other workers to stop work
altogether – notably workers in bars and restaurants, the retail
and tourism industries, but also many cleaners and care-workers,
who often have low-paid and precarious contracts. Their livelihoods
have been directly imperilled by these measures. Young people have
been very hard hit, with 18-to-24-year-olds twice as likely as 25-to-54-year-old
employees to have lost their job.
38. Some countries rapidly put in place furlough arrangements
in order to support employers and protect workers. Others did not
act so rapidly. It is still early days, but it is already clear
that the economic situation in Europe (as elsewhere in the world)
has taken a dramatic downturn as a result of the pandemic, and that
the impact on people with the most precarious and worst-paid jobs
– already among the least well-off in our societies – will be severe.
Moreover, furlough arrangements do not generally apply to freelance
workers, many of whom are women working from home, and whose income
has also dried up.
39. Lockdown measures, forcing people off the streets, have also
de facto halted the informal economy. Many
Roma, migrants and LGBTI people, who are forced to rely on the informal
economy due to discrimination in the labour market, as well as many
sex workers, have lost their livelihoods altogether. Many of these
people, who already faced social exclusion, are also not covered
by social welfare (for example because they lack identity documents)
and have been pushed into even deeper poverty as a result. One positive
initiative taken in response to such situations has come from UNAR,
the agency responsible for implementing Italy’s national strategy
for the inclusion of Roma. It reallocated €100 000 to cover the
basic needs of Roma living in Rome, Naples and Milan and who were
not covered by social protection.
2.6. School
closures
40. While all children who have
had to stay away from schools for long periods are likely to have
lost educational ground in this time, the barriers to education
during the pandemic have been far greater for some children. Those
hardest hit are likely to be those who lost contact the earliest,
whether for material reasons or because their parents do not yet
speak the language of the country where they live. They will also
find it hardest to recover this ground later.
41. Persons with disabilities experienced serious disruptions
in their education due to school closures, in particular because
remote education methods are frequently neither accessible nor adapted
to their needs. Students with disabilities were often left without
support or dependent on non-profit services for such support. Students
not lucky enough to live in a well serviced area were left even
further behind.
42. School closures have meant cramped or inadequate living conditions
became, in addition, a cramped or inadequate home-schooling environment.
Roma and other children living without access to electricity – who already
struggle to do homework, especially during dark winter months –
could not connect to remote education programmes,
and other support mechanisms
such as after-school community centres that they might usually attend
also had to close. Children of migrants and in some cases children
belonging to national minorities being schooled in a language that
their parents do not fully master, as well as children whose parents’
own level of education or literacy is low, already faced more obstacles
in the school system; the sudden reliance on home schooling aggravated
their difficulties.
43. Access to education also became dependent on pupils’ access
to internet and to suitable IT equipment. Those from poorer socio-economic
backgrounds whose families did not own and could not afford a computer or
tablet had, at best, a smartphone on which to receive educational
material. In many families, whatever equipment was available had
to be shared between several children, or between a child (or children)
and at least one teleworking adult. Amongst positive efforts to
counterbalance these issues, many schools set up systems to allow
parents to collect printed copies of schoolwork; some local or national
authorities also launched initiatives to distribute IT equipment
to families in need.
44. Poor or no internet connectivity in more remote areas – often
rural areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities
– also heightened the risk that these pupils would lose contact
with the educational system.
2.7. Reprioritisation
of healthcare and support services
45. Many healthcare and other support
services have been dramatically disrupted due to the re-allocation of
public funding to face the health crisis.
This has adversely impacted
women’s access to sexual and reproductive services, including access
to safe abortion care. Highly restrictive abortion laws and onerous administrative requirements
to access abortion services create barriers to this essential healthcare,
which have been even harder to overcome in the context of the pandemic.
46. While some governments have sought to remove barriers to safe
abortion care, others have unfortunately sought to make it more
difficult to access. This endangers the health of women and girls.
Access to other sexual and reproductive health care such as contraception,
testing for HIV and sexually transmitted infections (including anonymous
testing, often crucial for young people living with their parents),
hormone and gender affirming therapy, and reproductive cancer screenings,
has also been hindered, with a particular impact on women, girls
and LGBTI people. For people who have lost their income due to other
measures taken in response to the pandemic, access to medical treatments
not fully covered by public health insurance has also become much
more difficult or even impossible.
47. On a more positive note, countries that have put care for
people first have found solutions to guarantee such services throughout
the pandemic.
48. As regards support services that are essential to many persons
with disabilities and elderly people, these have often been severely
disrupted. Staff shortages due to illness or confinement measures,
as well as a general lack of personal protective equipment, have
been signalled.
This has placed both users
and providers of support services at increased risk, and has created
a terrain ripe for violations of the fundamental human dignity of
persons with disabilities and elderly people. We need to ask ourselves
why such situations were not anticipated, why they were tolerated,
and how we can change our systems from within in order to ensure
that they do not arise again. On the latter point, I wish to draw
attention to the inspiring, nurse-led, holistic care model developed
by the Buurtzorg organisation, established 13 years ago in the Netherlands
and now present in many more countries around the world.
2.8. Closures
and restrictions on public transport and other public facilities
49. Persons with disabilities are
highly dependent on public transport, which is often their sole
means of transportation. For hygienic reasons and to ensure physical
distancing, however, many countries have imposed restrictions on
public transport as a means of reducing the spread of the coronavirus.
Until 1 June 2020, Dutch Railways suspended their assistance to
persons with disabilities who are unable to enter or leave a train
independently.
Such measures have severely restricted
the opportunities that persons with disabilities have to participate
fully in society. Other people heavily reliant on public transport,
for instance many young people, lower income earners and Roma, have
also been affected by such closures, which have also at times made
it impossible for them to access necessary healthcare.
50. The closure of public toilets, again for hygienic reasons,
and the lack of alternatives has also given rise to anxiety and
problems, especially for those who depend on such facilities due
to pregnancy or continence problems.
3. Racism,
xenophobia and other forms of intolerance, discrimination and stigmatisation
51. The crisis has inspired many
heart-warming manifestations of solidarity, as neighbours and communities have
worked together to support their most vulnerable.
52. However, some politicians, instead of seeking additional ways
to protect members of society at higher risk from the virus, have
actively fuelled racism. A rise in verbal and physical abuse targeting
people of Chinese and Asian background was reported in a number
of Council of Europe member States after the first cases of Covid-19
were recorded in Europe.Chinese children
were abused and bullied in United Kingdom schools. In France, a
wave of on- and off-line abuse targeted people of Chinese and Asian
origin. Such abuse appears to have built on deeply rooted anti-Asian
racism in society, which predates the crisis. The latter appears
to have served as a catalyst for manifestations of a pre-existing,
widespread prejudice. In Italy, the coronavirus outbreak prompted
a string of incidents including attacks on people of Asian origin,
including schoolchildren and students of Asian origin and boycotts
of Chinese-owned businesses.
53. Other groups have also been portrayed as possible vectors
of contamination and targeted by racist acts. The cordoning off
of certain Roma districts in Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic directly
or indirectly sent the message that they were unclean and to be
feared. In the United Kingdom, Traveller communities received a slew
of threatening hate mail after a documentary broadcast on national
television suggested a link between their presence and increased
crime rates.
Religious
leaders in many countries, including Bulgaria, Georgia, Germany,
Italy, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland,
the Russian Federation and Ukraine, have blamed LGBTI people for
the pandemic. In Turkey, a high-ranking cleric insinuated that homosexuality
is responsible for illnesses (and therefore for Covid-19), with
the backing of government officials.
54. The killing of George Floyd by a police officer in the United
States on 25 May 2020 sparked massive street protests in European
cities, in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Despite
the continued circulation of the virus and many bans on public demonstrations,
the profound outrage provoked by this killing prompted tens of thousands
of people, of all colours and many of them young, to come out into
the streets to protest inequality and racism also within European
police forces.
These protests are a strong sign that young people
reject the persistence of structural racism in a post-Covid-19 world.
4. Gender
dimension of the pandemic
55. As the Covid-19 pandemic crisis
started to unfold and governments began putting in place measures
to contain the spread of the virus, women’s rights organisations,
parliamentarians, specialists, academics, experts and international
organisations warned, from the outset, that policies and public
health efforts were failing to address the gendered impacts of the
crisis.
56. Despite the fact that abundant evidence and research showed
that women were more exposed to the risk of contagion due to deep-rooted
inequalities, traditional gender roles, social norms and gender
segregation in the labour market, governments pressed ahead with
measures that would negatively impact women, in all their diversity.
57. Many workers providing services essential to our societies,
such as delivering goods and collecting rubbish, are men. The vast
majority – around 70% – of healthcare workers are however estimated
to be women.
Yet a gender-blind approach
to the provision of standard personal protective equipment (PPE)
in the United Kingdom meant that 77% of the NHS workforce had to
use badly fitting – i.e. uncomfortable and dangerous – PPE.
58. Women remain the principal care providers for children and
the elderly and do on average 2.6 times more unpaid care and domestic
work than men. The closure of schools and day-care centres has added
to the formidable daily challenges faced by women and adversely
impacted their well-being, mental health financial and economic
situation.
While legitimate and necessary,
lockdown measures also led to a steep increase in cases of domestic
violence, as women were confined with their abusers (see chapter
4.3 below).
59. Women were already over-represented in lower-skilled and lower-paid
jobs, for example in the hospitality and tourism industries, and
in the informal economy. Lockdown measures have amplified this structural
discrimination against women, in turn increasing the risk of female
poverty.
60. After years of progress towards gender equality, in many countries
women have shouldered even greater burdens during the crisis due
to the measures taken to combat the pandemic and the combination
of childcare, home schooling, unpaid care work and household tasks.
It is crucial to take a gendered approach to these issues. When
we ignore or neglect the gender dimension of the crisis, we do so
to the detriment of overall equality, gender equality, diversity
and inclusiveness.
4.1. Gender
clichés and gender stereotypes
61. While gender clichés and stereotypes
are not the primary focus of my report, failure to address them means
we disregard some of the most deeply rooted causes of discrimination.
They have been further exposed and aggravated by the crisis and
can be harmful to the discussions about overcoming the crisis and
putting in place workable solutions.
62. Gender clichés about women have abounded in all discussions
related to the pandemic. Women have been portrayed as our guardian
angels by hospital beds, nurturing and taking care of children and
the elderly and putting food on the table, thus totally ignoring
the multiple layers in women’s identities. Such clichés are an affront
to women’s indisputable, indispensable contribution to the social,
scientific, cultural, political and democratic facets of our societies.
Even when acknowledged, women’s contribution is often reduced to stereotypes
and essentialist clichés. Women have thus been portrayed as better
leaders because they are women, instead of focusing on the type
of leadership needed to tackle the crisis and drive forward recovery efforts,
based on inclusiveness, empathy, team spirit or lived experience.
As Rick Zedník has pointed out, “A shaken world demands balanced
leadership. [Successful] leaders have come across as self-confident,
not arrogant. They have been assertive without showing a desire
to dominate. They have taken the responsibilities of their position,
without emphasising their authority. They have conveyed strength
not despite their empathy, but because of it.”
63. At the other end of the spectrum, the predominant stereotypes
about male leaders portray them as strong, authoritative, firm and
influential, who cannot do anything wrong even when they are inconsiderate
and in breach of the rules and measures put in place by the very
administration and authorities they lead. Some of the world’s most
powerful male leaders have refused to abide by social distancing
measures, confinement, or other protective measures such as wearing
a mask. Such “gendered repudiation of protective measures” is a typical
example of harmful masculinity, which can have a devastating impact
on the safety of the population when displayed by persons in power.
64. Violent misogyny has also contributed to an increase in online
harassment of women activists, politicians and opinion-makers. It
is a targeted harassment which aims to silence the voices of women
who are asking for a gendered and inclusive approach in the measures
dealing with the Covid-19 and recovery measures.
65. Furthermore, gender stereotypes, gendered roles and clichés
threaten gender equality progress and women’s continued emancipation.
There is a worrying tendency for women to go back to so called “traditional roles”
to the detriment of their professional advancement. Women “remain
the chief operating officers of their households, even when they
have full-time jobs”.
Despite progress towards a more
balanced distribution of household responsibilities, care for children
and the elderly, care-taking “is still overwhelmingly understood
to be ‘women’s work’”.
Women
in academia have for example faced serious difficulties in trying
to keep up with their career, childcare and household chores in
times of crisis.
4.2. Crisis
and beyond: who decides?
66. Although women have been at
the forefront of efforts to contain the spread of the pandemics,
they have been either underrepresented, not represented or invisible
in decision-making processes. When it comes to the design of recovery
measures and putting in place contingency plans to handle future
crises, men’s voices are dominating. The lack of women in decision-making
reveals “just how deep macho stereotypes run through society”; crisis
responses have been described as “male-centric” and “dominated by
men”.
67. In a review of 30 countries, the majority of national-level
committees established to respond to Covid-19 were found not to
have equal representation of women and men. Of the countries surveyed
who had established such committees, 74% had fewer than one-third
female membership, and only one committee was fully equal. On average,
women made up 24% of the committees.
The images of crisis teams in the
media reflect this. The point is not to question the competencies
of entirely or mostly male teams, but to underscore that they are
detrimental to efforts to advance gender equality and promote diversity
and inclusiveness.
68. We need to ask: where are the women, the people of colour,
the young people, the persons with disabilities? We must keep asking
this until decision-making bodies embrace diversity and reflect
the composition and different the voices and concerns of today’s
societies throughout the 47 member States of the Council of Europe.
5. Violence
against women
69. It is estimated that one in
three women have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate
partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime.
An average of 137 women across the world are killed by a partner
or family member every day, and women account for 64% of the total
of intimate partner/family related homicides.
70. While vital to efforts to contain the spread of the corona
pandemics and avoid a collapse of the health care systems, compulsory
home confinement, isolation and other social distancing measures
enforced in several European countries and at global level, have
undoubtably contributed to an enabling environment that has exacerbated
and increased the risk of gender-based violence. The lockdown is
believed to have led to a huge explosion in violence with some countries
reporting that abuse has risen by a third.
71. As most of European countries adopted and implemented increasingly
drastic confinement measures, the negative consequences of such
measures started to unfold. Reports and statistics of authorities,
police, women’s rights organisations, service providers, parliaments
and international organisations pointed towards an alarming rise
in cases of violence against women
. With no possibility
to leave home and limited or no access to support services such
as shelters or emergency phone lines, women and children living
with violence and abuse were confined with the perpetrators and
exposed to more violence and life threatening, risks.
72. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has warned that
there will be as much as one-third reduction in progress towards
ending gender-based violence by 2030, and that Covid-19 will jeopardise
efforts to end female genital mutilation and child marriage.
73. Groups of women such as women with disabilities, migrant,
refugee or asylum-seeking women, face additional barriers and risks
of violence during crisis. Studies and research reveal that women
with disabilities are at higher risk of abuse and violence including
psychological, physical, sexual, financial and social violence. Vulnerabilities
heighten in times of crisis. Furthermore, diverting resources towards
dealing with the pandemic has negatively impacted access to sexual,
reproductive and health rights for women with disabilities.
74. Service providers have raised concerns about access to support
services by migrant and ethnic minority women. Lack of access to
information, language barriers, limited shelter spaces, fear of
detention, deportation or separation from their children increase
their exposure to violence.
75. Calls to ensure that shelters for women victims or those at
risk of violence remain accessible multiplied. National authorities
have an obligation to take adequate measures to prevent violence,
protect victims and prosecute perpetrators, in line with the principles
of international standards, notably the Council of Europe Convention
on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic
violence (“Istanbul Convention”, CETS No. 210). There has never
been a greater need to ensure support services are available and
that women and girls are informed of where to find help.
76. The Committee of the Parties to the Istanbul Convention has
underlined that confinement and isolation measures contribute to
the risk of women’s and girls’ exposure to the many different forms
of gender-based violence, including sexual, domestic and so-called
honour-related violence and drawn attention to the fact that such
risks are particularly high for women and girls belonging to disadvantaged
groups, such as women with disabilities, women in prostitution,
elderly women, migrant and asylum-seeking women. It has stressed
that the principles and the requirements of the Istanbul Convention
apply at all times and that “States parties to the Convention have
an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate,
punish and provide reparation for acts of violence covered therein,
in accordance with their obligations under the European Convention
on Human Rights”.
77. Public authorities were encouraged not to lose sight of the
need to guarantee equality and to protect fundamental human rights,
including the right of women to safety and stressed the need for
all policy and program responses and efforts to mitigate adverse
effects, to be based on a clear understanding of the mechanisms
underlying the dynamics of gender-based violence. To support member
States in their efforts to guarantee such rights, the Council of
Europe Gender Equality and Violence against Women Divisions compiled and
made available information
on
initiatives, practices, statements, and guidelines put in place
by the member States, notably in line with the obligations and requirements
of the Istanbul Convention, and other useful information by other
international organisations and by NGOs.
78. Innovative solutions, mitigation measures and good practices
started to emerge. A total of 41 member States and 30 civil society
organisations and service providers sent information to the Council
of Europe, which has been made available on a dedicated Council
of Europe web page.
It
ranges from alternative shelter provisions, to accelerated eviction
and protection orders, additional or alternative emergency phone
lines, the use of social media platforms to raise awareness about
risks and disseminate information about services and so much more.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel: we can learn so much from
what is already in place and working in member States.
6. Conclusions
79. The Covid-19 pandemic is more
than a health crisis. It has affected the functioning of our democracies, and
human rights across the spectrum. From an equality and non-discrimination
perspective, it has shone a light on the far-reaching, structural
inequalities existing in our societies, and it has exacerbated them.
80. Governments’ initial response when designing measures to contain
and combat the pandemic was often to adopt a “one size fits all”
approach. They rarely took sufficiently into account the different
situations and needs of women, young people, the elderly, persons
with disabilities, persons belonging to national and ethnic minorities,
LGBTI people or other minorities; nor did they consider adequately
the different impacts that blanket-style measures would have on
different groups.
81. Because of this exclusion, people who were already struggling
in our societies before the pandemic have been severely disadvantaged.
Women have been locked up with their abusers, with nowhere safe
to turn; persons with disabilities have been disempowered; people
in low-paid, insecure jobs – including many people belonging to
ethnic minorities, LGBTI people and young people – have either lost
their livelihoods, or been forced to keep working in conditions
that place their lives or health at risk; children already at a
disadvantage in schools were the first to lose contact when education
moved online, and will likely find it hardest to regain lost ground;
many minorities were stigmatised and targeted by hate speech designating
them as being responsible for the crisis.
82. Generally speaking, those who were most marginalised due to
pre-existing, structural discrimination in our societies will also
be hardest hit by the consequences of the crisis, across all fields
of daily life.
83. We are by no means certain that the pandemic is over. At the
time of drafting, some countries are still struggling with high
numbers of new cases, and clusters have reappeared in countries
where the situation appeared to be under control. The risk of a
second wave of the pandemic in Europe remains very real.
84. The crisis has already been devastating and its far-reaching
impacts will be felt for a long time to come. But it also provides
us with an opportunity to transform our societies for the better.
85. It is up to us to recognise the diversity and different realities
that co-exist within our societies and to ensure that the decisions
we make are inclusive. We must ensure that the decisions we make
are driven by accurate, disaggregated data. We must constantly ask
ourselves who may have been missed. And we must make room at the
decision-making table for all these voices to be represented.
86. These steps must be part and parcel of any crisis response,
but they should also be integral to decision-making processes in
ordinary times. There is no time to waste: our work begins now.