2 results
Gender Wars in Bulgaria
- Edited by Jens Scherpe, Aalborg University, Denmark, Stephen Gilmore, King's College London
-
- Book:
- Family Matters
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 20 April 2023
- Print publication:
- 22 September 2022, pp 245-262
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
1. INTRODUCTION
The anti-gender ‘debate’ in Bulgaria was almost a complete repetition of what happened in Poland and Hungary, in terms of topics, arguments and agents. What distinguishes it was the relatively late arrival of the anti-gender rhetoric (approximately in 2017), which evolved with a focus on the term ‘gender ideology’. The gender wars in Bulgaria absorbed the attack against children’s rights, which was the first one to occur, and further prepared the attack against the civil society and its agents, civil society organisations (CSOs). It took a very short time, though – within the framework of one political cycle – for this discourse to become part of the public agenda.Before 2017 the term ‘gender’, used in strategic documents and laws, did not arouse political tension and arguments. Gender policies were understood to mean policies for ensuring gender equality and, given this interpretation, they did not cause any concern either in the public opinion or among political elites.
The legal equality between men and women is a legacy of the Communist regime. It was proclaimed in the 1944 – 1945 laws, and in the 1947 Constitution, which seems to deprive the feminist debate in Bulgaria of any justification. The modernising effect on women’s roles in the public sphere, however, exists in parallel with the reproduction of the established and inherited gender order. It follows the biologically and socially constructed family roles. These reflect the division of labour (in the private and public sphere), and the everyday and political culture and stereotypes based thereon. Motherhood is what the public expects from women. This expectation, incorporated in the law, is the basis of the active pronatalist policy which has been consistently implemented since the 1960s. While the law acknowledges the existing gender-based stereotypes, and requires them to be addressed in the education system, the effectiveness of the policies is not high. It is due to stereotypes, as well as gender inequalities, that gender-based violence has continued to be a topic that neither the institutions nor society understands, except for domestic violence and the Protection against Domestic Violence Act (2005). These gaps in the Bulgarian gender policy and practices have been used effectively in the Bulgarian anti-gender wars.
Juvenile Justice in Bulgaria: Reforms and Resistance
- from Part II - International Family Law
-
- By Velina Todorova, Law Faculty, Plovdiv University, Bulgaria
- Edited by Gillian Douglas, Mervyn Murch, Victoria Stephens
-
- Book:
- International and National Perspectives on Child and Family Law
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 12 October 2018
- Print publication:
- 14 June 2018, pp 283-296
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
There have been several attempts to reform the juvenile justice system in Bulgaria during the last 20 years. The debates produced some legal amendments in 2004 but the overall structure and the ideology of the system remained untouched. Bulgaria regularly receives recommendations to change the system from the UN human rights treaty bodies and mechanisms and also from the Council of Europe. But these have not yet been transformed into the political will to take action.
This chapter aims to briefly present the latest attempt to reform the juvenile justice system in Bulgaria. The chapter outlines the Draft on Diversion of Underage Offenders from Criminal Proceedings and Implementation of Educational Measures Act (‘the Draft Act, 2016’), including the context, the driving forces behind it and the resistance against it.
THE CONTEXT IN BRIEF
The main ‘pillar’ of the Bulgarian juvenile justice system is the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) (in force from 1958, last amended in 2016). This Act was a positive step at the time of its adoption and for some time later, mainly due to its aim to handle juvenile offending within a separate system (based on divergence from the penal justice system enshrined as an option in the Penal Code (1968)). The system created under the JDA cannot be featured under any of the three models currently being conceptualised in the literature – the ‘welfare model’ (that considers the delinquent behaviour as strongly linked to unfavourable social, economic or family situations), the ‘justice model’ (the child in conflict with the law is responsible for his/her offence and should be punished, but can always receive treatment) and a ‘third path’ – restorative justice (it helps to bring the previous two closer to each other but also has its limits). It resembles the ‘welfare model’ with its declared aim to support the child's social reintegration but it lacks important elements such as interaction with child protection policies and practices. Most importantly, the law does not refer to the best interests of the child as requiring to be assessed and determined within the JDA procedures. The system differs from the ‘justice model’ mostly on a formal basis. It uses commissions, as an alternative to a court, which can impose so-called ‘educational measures’ and so act as quasi courts.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)