Third of murders linked to family violence

Photo: Liis Treimann / Postimees

Andres Anvelt admits world can’t be fixed in a year. Even so, he vows to take a decent step towards fighting violence in families.

The fresh justice minister Andres Anvelt (44) explains why Estonians need to forsake the notion that whatever happens in neighbouring family is no-one else’s business.  

How happy were you when it turned out you’d be minister of justice, not of the interior – as was speculated? Less trouble, now?

«Happy» isn’t the right word. Maybe I’d really feel a little more confident in the interior ministry, but looking at that organisation from the outside, today, this choice was better.

In the interior ministry, the people with whom I basically grew up, would have had too high expectations for just one year in government. Because I know what ought to be done there, but one year isn’t enough. Therefore, I didn’t want to deceive myself or anyone else.

But what can a minister of justice do, in a year? What would be a domain that has become obsolete, first in line to be upgraded?

I have had a very clear picture ever since the coalition talks started: to take one main topic – reducing violence in the society, more precisely: family violence. It is my aim in the autumn to sign the Istanbul Convention against family violence – Estonia being among the few European countries that haven’t signed it yet. By that, we will assume a circle of certain obligations: social and legal counselling of victims, child protection. A whole list of items. True, next to Estonia, Armenia, Albania and the Czech Republic haven’t signed either.

Why have we not done it yet?

It has not been a priority! Only in these past years, family violence has become a priority. Estonia is a conservative society, we think that whatever happens in the family of a neighbour is none of our business. We forget that, sooner or later, it will come out and will, either directly or indirectly, affect the lives of us all.

Third of all murders are linked to family violence. The numbers keep growing, but it is probably not the violence that has grown – rather, people’s awareness has grown, and the boldness to speak up.

In the penal power revision, currently at the Legal Affairs Committee of the Riigikogu, family violence has for the first time been explicitly mentioned. By my initiative, it will also be added that if such violence happens in the presence of a child, it will be an aggravating circumstance. 

Right now, we have it upside down: with violence suspected, police will take the victim to a place of security. Elsewhere, the victim is left in her secure environment – the home – and the violent one is taken away. 

This is a very important topic, indirectly also linked to school bullying i.e. the distorted domestic social behaviour reaches everyday life. When a child sees people enforcing themselves by violence, at home, it may become the norm for him as well.

Largely, this is a social problem.

Yes. But therefore it is the more important to prioritise the issue in the coalition agreement, and in everyday life. People will understand that this needs to be talked about. That it’s no taboo what happens at the neighbour’s.

As this is talked about on governmental and parliament levels, in the streets, in TV, then the violent one will at a certain point feel embarrassed. He pulls back, realising this isn’t something to boast about. In a year, a decent step can be taken; even so, I realise one won’t fix the world in a year.

Conservativeness has also entangled the cohabitation act, the final version to be completed this week. Will it now be done, ratified in the parliament?

I hope so. Riigikogu has taken the initiative and in almost all factions there are active people desiring to deal with the issue. We have people who live together in reality, who have proprietary and social relations where sooner or later a weaker party will emerge. For whatever reason.

The state is for the people. The state must create preconditions for people in partnership relations not to have to lie to themselves and to others. The fear that with the Act we would be uplifting non-traditional family forms is bigotry. This is updating the legal environment.

Good to have the parliament acting as engine now; otherwise, with a bill presented by executive power, they often say it is enforced. Our parliament is the mirror of the society, in the fullest sense of the word, and I believe a consensus will be reached in the matter.

A former colleague in Riigikogu said that at the vote, quite a multicoloured carpet will appear on the screen. In this vote, party discipline will mean nothing, rather the world view.

As a state, are we strict or too mild?

With criminalisation, we have clearly gone overboard. Even by former ministers, this has been attempted to reverse. This is no indicator to have half the nation in punishment registers. We will be seeing more and more decriminalisation, in Estonia.

Debate has erupted around lifting the criminalisation rate from €64 to €200. What do you say?

I am totally for it. Populists say this will undermine discovery of thefts. Not true. Pursuant to the current bill, thefts under €200 are misdemeanours, the rest are crimes.

For both misdemeanours and crimes, punishments are prescribed, but with one it’s arrest, with the other imprisonment. With one, it’s a fine, with the other, pecuniary punishment.

Opponents fear that police will not deal with these cases. Hogwash, again. Rather the opposite! The under-€200 ones are usually shoplifting, and there all the police does is take the thief caught by shop security, and take him to court.

By raising the rate, we will enable prosecutors to deal more with finding out the serious offences. Also, with misdemeanours the punishment comes much faster. We will save money for the complicated proceedings. I definitely favour this solution, especially considering that we are lacking about 30 prosecutors and that has an effect on quality of public prosecution.

Your forerunner Hanno Pevkur did indeed raise the wages of judges, but rejected such plea by prosecutors. As a precondition to the rise, Mr Pevkur demanded doing away with special pensions for the prosecutors. You agree with that?

Well, all the negotiations are still ahead of us. I wouldn’t be super-optimistic as yet. Special pensions cannot be viewed narrowly in one domain or another. The special pensions system is scattered all over, and differs with each state office. Prison officers, meanwhile, do have a well- «employer pension» where the state makes 3^rd pillar payments i.e. gives the people the chance to collect money into the third pillar and, should something happen, the pillar can also be passed on.

To sharply change the system in one place... That may lead to imbalance in some other domain.

Basically, special pensions need to have a clear alternative, such as making the third pillar payments or something like that. In a year, such a vast reform will surely not get done; even so, in a future coalition agreement, this needs to be clearly specified.

The eternal question: who would inspect the inspectors? In other words: while, generally, it is the Security Police (Kapo), Prosecutor’s Office is almost totally helpless in inspecting Kapo. What to do?

Yes, the problem exists, but I would not rush to start a revolution here. For me, things would be bad if we have special service for 20 years and they haven’t caught a single spy, a traitor. But as these have been caught, I conclude that Kapo internal control works.

A large part of Kapo work is counterintelligence, and the only one that can perform essential inspection is select committee at Riigikogu. In our coalition treaty, we have written that the committee should be strengthened with officials. To have essential control.

And what will the Kapo be like, in the future? Right now, they have the terrorism topic, corruption cases; but, in my opinion, we must slowly move towards reducing the criminal procedure part with more emphasis on counterintelligence. Like in many countries around us.

That cannot come by swinging a sword. Even so, further developments ought to come from the interior ministry domain, where Kapo is situated.

Corruption is also a topic in the so-called democracy package which the soc dems managed to stick into the coalition treaty. One clause says you promise to enforce effective limits to election ads from public budget. How do you intend to bridle Tallinn, and Edgar Savisaar?

Not only Tallinn! While I was chairman of corruption committee, at Riigikogu, our investigations lead to money being used with conscience quite seared, and also elsewhere in Estonia. In Tallinn, however, it was massive, and the desire to make use of public money was maximal. As the mayor is advertised, before elections, is that an ethical issue, or a political one?

To lay down legal limits to public money use in political campaigns is not easy. This will be a complicated process, which will look like this: a version will be developed, and then it will be seen how it survives the elections; and it will be constantly updated. That’s the issue of political culture, you see!

We can’t cast normal human behaviour into concrete. One can’t invent a law which would exclude crime or unethical. Limits can indeed be set, but the rest is up to political culture. But for some, this is water off a duck’s back. Voters need to understand that the Ülemiste Oldies [a towering doll hoisted in Tallinn, at opening of an intersection just before local elections – edit] come from their very pockets.

How’s the new government running? What is Prime Minister Taavi Rõivas like? Able to tame the old foxes?

Going great! At cabinet meetings where the essential debate is a bit freer, there is discipline. There is no all out shouting and heckling. And should the discussion get, how do we say it, more spontaneous, the prime minister will get is back on track. And for that, I’m glad.