Illegal Sterilisation in the Czech Republic

Abstract

Forced sterilisation, a serious violation of human rights, occurred across the former communist bloc, both during and after the socialist period. This study examines the case of the Czech Republic, where legislation regarding compensation to the victims of forced sterilisation was only passed in 2021, despite a 2005 finding by the Ombudsman that at least 50 women had been subject to the procedure. My research shows that long-standing discrimination against Roma people and public lack of interest in the issue were largely to blame for this delay.

Forced sterilisation is criminalised by both national and international legislation. Most countries require the consent of the subject for the process to be legal, and involuntary sterilisation is regarded as a serious crime under several international agreements (Sifris 2016; Taylor 2020). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Art. 7, Crimes against Humanity) declares forced sterilisation to be a crime against humanity. Forced sterilisation falls under the definition of torture provided by Article I of the Convention Against Torture.

A very specific regional example of forced sterilisation is the former communist area. This practice persisted for several decades and continued even years after these countries had become democracies. For this reason, in formerly communist Central Europe, several NGOs are working to highlight these injustices, to offer advice, and to call for these acts to be dealt with and, where appropriate, for compensation. This will be illustrated here by the case of the Czech Republic, which in July 2021, after two years of deliberations, passed a bill granting financial compensation to women unlawfully sterilised between 1966 and 2012. Both political and legal debates on this topic had been ongoing for several years and had some interesting political and human rights ramifications, which we will analyse here. The topic of forced sterilisation exists in the broader context of coming to terms with the communist past (see Novotný 2016, 2017) and is also related to the long-standing problematic relations between the Czech majority population and the Roma national minority.

The article, ultimately, seeks to answer three research questions. First, what social and political obstacles prevented the adoption of compensation schemes for victims of forced sterilisation? Second, what arguments for and against the adoption of the act were heard in debates in and beyond Parliament? Third, what role does compensation for victims of forced sterilisation play in the context of coming to terms with the communist past?

This study is guided by an intersectional approach (Krekula 2007; Keresztely et al. 2017; Durfee 2020). The theory refers to a ‘matrix of domination’, which in turn refers to different areas of power distribution (structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, interpersonal) and to overlapping categories of discrimination (Anthias 2012; Novotný & Sekerák 2021). In this context, attention is drawn to the ‘intersectional invisibility’ of certain women, particularly those subjected to racial discrimination (Varjú & Plaut 2017; Huub van & Kóczé 2020). This also applies to victims of forced sterilisation. Methodologically, this article is based on a content analysis of the parliamentary debates, that is, the speeches made by politicians during the discussion of the compensation bill itself, other related outputs (media and others), and also the public speeches made by representatives of the victims themselves. The study showcases the findings of the very first content analysis of parliamentary debates during the passage of this bill, which can be regarded as its main contribution.

There is a dual focus underpinning this article. On the one hand, it centres its attention on the lengthy debate preceding the approval of the law, in light of the 2005 findings by the Ombudsman. On the other, this is a study of the overall strategy of compensating unlawfully sterilised persons within the postcommunist space, with an analysis of the arguments for and against this compensation, in the case of the Czech Republic. This study also addresses questions of historical legacies and that of victim compensation. Specifically, I approach this topic from an interdisciplinary perspective, primarily political sociology and law, but also from an intersectional approach in the study of inequalities, in this case social and ethnic.

The study will start with a literature review, which provides a definition of forced sterilisation, and an overview of current research on the topic of forced sterilisations and, more broadly, the rights of women, especially Romani women, who have undergone these procedures. It is important to mention that I will not be interested here in a medical or ethical view of these events, but mainly in the political and legal context of forced sterilisations. The aim here is, primarily, to analyse the legal situation, especially the political debate in parliament. The existing literature, while extensive and global, still lacks a political and legal critical and analytical assessment of the situation in Central and Eastern Europe, both during and after the communist period. The Czech Republic was selected as a case study in view of the recent passage of compensation legislation. This is where this study sees a research gap, and where it wants to enrich the existing knowledge about the sterilisation practices of communist and postcommunist regimes. The next section provides an overview of the situation in the Czech Republic, bearing in mind that, ultimately, there are no statistics on the number of women affected by this procedure in the Czech Republic. The non-profit organisation Odškodni mě (Indemnify Me) has estimated that, between 1966 and 2012, up to 7,000 women underwent forced sterilisation.¹

Forced sterilisations: apology, reparations and moral rehabilitation

Sterilisation is a medical procedure, performed on both men and women, that prevents fertilisation without removing or damaging the gonads (Kóczé 2021). The aim of sterilisation is to permanently deprive the subject of fertility. With regard to forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilisations, this study defines these as fertility-preventing medical procedures for which the person concerned has not given consent, or has given consent in violation of the laws governing the performance of fertility-preventing medical procedures during the relevant period, or in circumstances that precluded or seriously impaired freedom and do not guarantee that the consent given will be error-free.² This may include various forms of coercion, compulsion or persuasion to undergo a fertility-preventing medical procedure, as well as the fact that the person concerned has not been informed in a comprehensible manner and to a sufficient extent about their medical condition and about the purpose, possible consequences and risks of the proposed medical procedure and about other options for dealing with the medical condition.³ The Czech courts defined sterilisation carried out without proper, that is free and informed, consent, as an unjustified, profound and almost irreparable interference with a human being, which can bring about serious changes in the development of the overall personality of an individual.⁴

The intersectional targeting of Roma women as subjects of sterilisation and of more general discrimination has been the subject of several studies focused on several European countries in postcommunist times (Csepeli & Simon 2004; Drydakis 2012; Cahn 2017; Patel 2017). This can then be seen more broadly in the context of gender discrimination in the Central European region (Einhorn & Sever 2003; Sloat 2005; Koldinska 2009; Ignăţoiu-Sora 2011). These studies do not, however, cover the situation in the Czech Republic. The article largely builds on the findings of Braun et al. (2014), who examined policy debates about coming to terms with historical sterilisation policies in the Czech Republic. What makes this article novel is that it analyses legislation enacted from 2014 onwards.

The topic of illegal sterilisation is now quite well covered in the context of international research. The literature on efforts to redress the wrongs of illegal sterilisation is extensive (Kendall & Albert 2015). Practices of forced sterilisation were introduced and systematically performed in the first half of the twentieth century in many modern states, including Portugal or Hungary (Llach & Riera 2023), which certainly saw themselves as being democratic. Similar practices have been reported also in postcommunist countries and have been documented, especially by various NGOs, for example in Hungary⁵ or Slovakia, where some victims of forced sterilisation have won compensation (Berry 2021). Similarly, we also have evidence from Romania, including personal testimony from the communist era and after (Gamella 2018).

Del Aguila (2022) estimates that more than 200,000 women were sterilised without giving free, prior and informed consent in Peru between 1996 and 2000. Del Aguila places forced sterilisation within the frameworks of precarity and reproductive justice to understand policies that legitimised the violation of women’s rights irrespective of the type of political regime. In Canada, more than 100 Indigenous women from six provinces and two territories reported being forced or coerced to undergo sterilisation procedures between 2015 and 2019 (Shawana et al. 2021). Gaussens (2020) explores the issue of forced sterilisation of indigenous populations as a bioethical problem, from an interdisciplinary point of view based on historical sociology and in dialogue with medical anthropology, gender studies and human rights. This study presented the results of ethnographic fieldwork in a municipality in the state of Guerrero in southern Mexico. Research on compensation for victims of illegal sterilisation has focused on other geographical contexts, including California (Stern 2005) and Namibia (Bakare & Gentz 2020).

In the communist space, forced sterilisation affected broader groups of women, including those who opposed the regime; Roma women, however, were particularly targeted as forced sterilisation was considered a way to prevent an increase in their numbers.⁶ Cases of forced sterilisation programmes targeting Roma women are documented in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Norway, Germany and Uzbekistan.⁷

On forced sterilisation in Czechoslovakia

In the mid-1960s, communist Czechoslovakia passed a law aimed to prevent any increase in the Roma population, widely regarded as recalcitrant to social integration. Hundreds of women were thus forced to consent to sterilisation, although they often had no idea what the word sterilisation meant (Holt 2005). In Czechoslovakia, sterilisation as a medical procedure was regulated by the Act on the Care of the Health of the People (Act No. 20/1966 Sb.). Under the Act, sterilisation could be carried out only with the consent or at the request of the person concerned, under the conditions laid down by the Ministry of Health.⁸ The Act also provided that any medical procedure not in the immediate interest of the person on whom it was to be performed could be performed only with the prior written consent of this person. Before giving consent, the person was to be fully informed of the nature of the procedure and its risks. The legislation therefore prescribed, from the outset, the consent of the person to be sterilised as an essential condition for the sterilisation to be carried out.⁹

However, especially from the 1970s onwards, the Czechoslovak government de facto ordered the gynaecological and obstetric community to perform involuntary sterilisations, targeting especially Romani women.¹⁰ In doing so, the rules for obtaining free and informed consent were violated, infringing on the rights of physical integrity, privacy and family life. This practice did not end when communism fell in 1989: it was only before the breakup of Czechoslovakia in December 1992 that decrees on sterilisation enacted in the 1970s were formally abolished.

The sterilisation of a woman without her free and informed consent is one of the most serious forms of obstetric violence. No one has ever been punished in the Czech Republic for carrying out such violence against women. One of the first initiatives in post-1989 Czechoslovakia to draw attention to the issue of illegal sterilisations under communism was initiated by the Czechoslovak opposition movement Charta 77 (Lehký et al. 2007). In 1990, the issue was taken up by the General Prosecutor’s Office of Czechoslovakia; no further action was taken. The health authorities were not held liable and no steps were taken to adopt legislation that would compensate the victims. With regard to violations of legal regulations, the General Prosecutor’s Office found in particular the following: incomplete minutes of sterilisation committee meetings; absence of consent in the patient’s medical documentation. However, in all cases, according to the General Prosecutor’s Office, these were administrative errors and there was no indication that the women were pressured or otherwise persuaded to undergo the procedure. The investigation by the General Prosecutor’s Office was followed up in 1997 by the Office of the Documentation and the Investigation of the Crimes of Communism, but it did not produce any new findings. In 2000, the case was dropped because there was no suspicion of a crime and the matter could not be dealt with otherwise.¹¹

While academic research on the situation in Czech Republic is lacking, the shortfall has been made up by journalists and non-profit organisations, primarily the European Roma Rights Centre or the League of Human Rights. Their findings are mainly drawn from interviews with illegally sterilised persons, or with representatives of Czech minority or human rights organisations (Houdek 2019; Balážová & Cirok 2021; Ježková 2022).

A key moment that brought the topic of forced sterilisations into the public arena was a 2004 investigation by the Ombudsman of the Czech Republic on sterilisations performed in violation of the law.¹² Between 1966 and 2021, the Ombudsman received 50 complaints that indicated sterilisations had been performed in violation of applicable health regulations (Hutt 2021). The main problem establishing a legal case of forced sterilisation was that the women had formally given consent, but only under duress or without being given full information. They were either pressured by social workers, who threatened to take away their children, or by health workers during childbirth, when they were pressured to have sterilisations. While consent was often given, women rarely received information about the procedure’s implication and its irreversibility. Furthermore, the formalities required by the laws of the time established that sterilisation was to be carried out only with the consent of the patient or at her request; the approval of the sterilisation commissions was not taken into account. Consent was sometimes obtained retrospectively.¹³

Internal, and later even legal, regulations granted financial or in-kind social benefits to women who underwent sterilisation in the interest of a ‘healthy population’.¹⁴ The aim of this state policy was apparently to improve the situation of socially disadvantaged families by limiting the number of children. However, another aim was to ensure a ‘better quality population’, as is evident from the reports of the district national committees that provided the benefit.¹⁵ This is difficult to interpret, but it was an attempt to sterilise socially weak persons, considered as inadaptable. With regard to pre-1991 sterilisations, the Ombudsman acknowledged that the authorities tacitly recognised and even indirectly contributed to involuntary sterilisations (Motejl 2005). In such cases, the state was considered responsible and was required to consider appropriate compensation arrangements, following the practice in force in Sweden.¹⁶ Legal titles for the payment of sterilisation benefits were limited to the period between 1973 and 1991.¹⁷

These ‘measures’ had a completely unacceptable eugenic character, as they were aimed at limiting the number of children born to those population groups that were perceived by the regime as problematic, including Romani people, people with disabilities or people with a larger number of children. In addition to the legal argumentation, the Office also collected quite extensive case histories documenting the situations in which these forced sterilisations had occurred. The intention, according to experts, was to reduce further reproduction of certain unwelcome groups of people by sterilisations. Victims could sign for sterilisation, for example, in the tense moment of a complicated birth (Balvín 2021; Palata 2021). Here are key excerpts from the case studies cited in the Ombudsman’s report.

In her letter, Mrs Č. stated that a social worker had visited her in 1980 before she gave birth, telling her that she should be sterilised because she already had four children. Mrs Č. did not know what the procedure was, and the social worker constantly convinced her that she had to be sterilised. At the time, Mrs Č. was 32 years old. The social worker finally forced her to undergo the procedure. Mrs Č. also sent a copy of the report to the attending physician, which stated that the sterilisation was authorised by the committee. Mrs Č. points out that she did not attend any meeting of the committee.¹⁸

In 1979, nine months after the birth of her sixth child, her son Jaroslav, Mrs K. [she believes she worked at the regional national committee] came to see her several times with another lady whose name she does not remember. Mrs Č. knows that they also visited other Roma women from Ostrava. The two women talked her into getting sterilised, saying that she had enough children. Mrs K. said that she would get money or furniture in return. She went to see Mrs Č. several times and persuaded her for so long that she finally agreed to undergo the procedure. Mrs K. assured her that it was not dangerous. After the operation, she received CZK2,000, half of it in a postal order, and the other half of the money could be used to buy groceries at the store.¹⁹

In her statement, Mrs T. said that the social worker offered to sterilise her (in her words, not only her) with the understanding that she [the social worker] would pay for it. She had signed some paperwork before the operation. She found out that she had been sterilised the next day from the doctor. She received an invoice for clothing for the children.²⁰

Compensation and the court settlement process

The process of righting these wrongs is both legally and politically very complex. From a legal point of view, it was only after the Velvet Revolution in November 1989 that this hitherto taboo subject gradually began to be talked about publicly. While the Czech Ombudsman stated in his opinion in 2004 that victims should address the courts with individual claims,²¹ the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic concluded in a 2008 judgment that the right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage was time-barred within a general limitation period of three years from the date of the injury.²² After 1989 women did indeed turn to the courts, which qualified the forced sterilisations as an interference with the patients’ personal rights and awarded them an apology from the hospital.²³

At the time, the Ombudsman pointed to the liability of the state because the legislation did not define sufficient conditions for informed consent to the medical procedure. This situation was corrected only in 2011, when newly adopted legislation established the necessary time limit from the submission of information to the provision of consent to the procedure or the obligation to provide information about alternatives, namely other options for preventing conception in each case.²⁴

Several cases of forced sterilisation, from both the communist and the postcommunist period, have been tried before Czech courts. However, a 2015 study submitted by the European Roma Rights Centre to a UN committee stated that the last reported case of forced sterilisation of a Romani woman in the Czech Republic was prosecuted in 2007.²⁵ In 2005, one of the first lawsuits took place when a Roma plaintiff said she had unknowingly been sterilised only four years earlier. The local court agreed but ruled that the hospital would only have to apologise, not compensate her financially. She appealed in 2010 and the European Court of Human Rights ruled she had a case. Months later, the Czech authorities settled out of court and awarded her around €10,000 in damages (Hutt 2021).

While, as of 2009, Czech law defined sterilisation without proper consent as ‘an unjustified, profound and almost irreparable interference with the human personality’ and decreed that victims were due redress, in most cases between 1966 and 2012 compensation could not be awarded because of the plea of limitation. No one has yet been financially compensated.²⁶ The Czech Republic has long faced criticism from international organisations for its inaction in the area of compensation for victims of involuntary sterilisation in the socialist period. There is repeated pressure on successive Czech governments to take steps to provide redress. The issue was addressed, for example, by the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 2007, which drew the Czech Republic’s attention to the lack of legislation and recommended that measures be drawn up to compensate.²⁷ The Czech Republic failed to respond to the appeal, and the Committee repeated its appeal in 2010 and 2016. The Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council also called for remedies.²⁸

As mentioned above, in 2005 the Ombudsman drew attention to forced sterilisations and the responsibility of the state in their implementation. However, until 2012, the state did not adopt sufficient legislation on informed consent to sterilisations to guarantee respect for patients’ rights and minimise violations, thus allowing serious interference with fundamental rights. The government formally apologised in 2009; this proclamation, however, was not enough for the representatives of affected women and men.²⁹ In 2012, in a milestone move, the government formally began exploring options for compensation. The government has also addressed the apology, in particular the office of Human Rights Minister Michael Kocáb.³⁰ At the same time, the government backed away from both efforts to investigate the events of the past and to establish a compensation mechanism for the unlawfully sterilised women, drawing criticism from the NGO sector, including international organisations such as the League of Human Rights.³¹ In 2015, the Minister of Human Rights, Jiří Dienstbier, submitted a bill that provided for compensation, but the bill was not adopted (Balážová & Cirok 2021). This represented the first significant legal step to deal with forced sterilisations. Previous steps were based only on apologies and symbolic acts.

The 2021 law: an important milestone

The summer of 2021 witnessed the adoption of a legal act granting forcibly sterilised women a compensation of 300,000 crowns (see Table 1). The amount is symbolic in view of the substantial harm caused to these persons (Balážová & Cirok 2021). This initiative was intended to provide compensation for those unlawfully sterilised between 1966 and 2012. That is, from the time the Public Health Care Act of the former Czechoslovakia came into force.

TABLE 1 A Timeline of Parliamentary Debates on the Law on Compensation for Persons Sterilised in Violation of the Law

Debate	Reading	Date
Chamber of Deputies	1st reading	10 March 2021
	2nd reading	6 May 2021
	3rd reading	4 June 2021
Senate	Single reading	13 July 2021

Source: Data taken from Chamber of Deputies website, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o = 8&t = 603, accessed 7 May 2024.

In 2020, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, urged Czech politicians to approve the law on compensation for unlawfully sterilised persons (Votavová & Ryšavý 2020). Nearly 150 individuals wrote a letter to their MPs calling on politicians to discuss the bill on compensation (Votavová & Ryšavý 2020). The law established that persons who had been unlawfully sterilised during the aforementioned time period, will be entitled to compensation. At this time, it was estimated that the number of persons concerned would be no more than 500, mostly—albeit not exclusively—Romani men and women. This estimate predates the passage of the bill. Many of the victims had already died, others apparently did not want to revisit their trauma before the special commission in the Ministry of Health (Balážová & Cirok 2021).

The law has been in force since 1 January 2022, establishing that a special committee at the Ministry of Health is expected to draw up a methodological recommendation and will adjudicate on cases deserving of compensation. The victims have until 1 January 2025 to apply to the Ministry of Health for monetary compensation. Requests for lump sum compensation must include a description of the case in addition to documents and other evidence. Applications must name the facility where the procedure was carried out along with the date and a description of the circumstances. The burden of proof, ultimately, is placed entirely on the victims.

Obstacles to the adoption of the law

Discrimination against Roma

The obstacles that emerged in the relatively long road to the adoption of the law on compensation for unlawfully sterilised women can be divided into social and political, although the two groups overlap considerably. It is also clear, especially from the attitudes of the sterilised women themselves and the representatives of the non-profit sector, that the adoption of the compensation act was delayed in part because a significant number of the persons who were illegally sterilised were Romani women. This group has long been marginalised in Czech society, which is particularly evident in politics, where their interests are not being promoted and, above all, their problems are not being addressed (Bancroft 1999; Koupilova et al. 2001). One of these women, who had been illegally sterilised, put it quite clearly at a private event in the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (in 2020): ‘We are Romani women, so for many years nobody cared about us at all’.

First and foremost was the general unwillingness of the majority of society to address the possibility of discrimination against these women and men,³² the majority of whom were Romani women. The victims also spoke about racial prejudice in the audio documentary ‘Kukačka už dokukala/The Cuckoo Has Finished Cuckooing’, released in 2021 by students of Romani studies at Charles University in Prague. One interviewee, identified as ‘Mrs Gorolová’, said, ‘we women have experienced humiliation. When we started to fight, society told us that Romani women only wanted money and that’s why they were fighting. Many other criticisms have been made. We decided not to listen to it and to move on’.³³ Involuntary sterilisation occurred in the context of a health service that enjoyed high public trust, and yet the victims reported being lied to:

The gynaecologist started telling me I was stupid, young, had lots of kids. To take it easy for a while. And that he was offering me this birth control. He said he’d only do two stitches and if I wanted to have children again, it would work. (Mrs Šárka cited in Balvín 2021)

In a 2021 interview, Monika Šimůnková, the current deputy Ombudsman of the Czech Republic, stated that lack of understanding of the problem of the role of racism in involuntary sterilisation was a significant obstacle to developing legislation to compensate the victims of Romani women. She went on to say that the issue finally entered public consciousness through the activities of NGOs, in particular, Romani organisations: ‘If it weren’t for NGOs, the law would not exist today’ (Balážová & Cirok 2021). In 2021, the US Embassy in the Czech Republic awarded Šimůnková, along with activists Gwendolyn Albert and Elena Gorolová, the prestigious Alice Garrigue Masaryk Award for Human Rights. Gorolová is a Romani activist who was involuntarily sterilised in 1990 after giving birth to her second son and who subsequently became a spokesperson for forcibly sterilised women. In 2018, the BBC named her one of the 100 most inspiring women of the year.³⁴

A second obstacle to the passage of the bill was a resistance to dealing with the deeds of the former communist regime because it was an uncomfortable part of history. The League of Human Rights (LHR) has documented that, between 1970 and 1990, the Czechoslovak government sterilised primarily Romani women as part of a policy to reduce their ‘high, unhealthy’ birth rate.³⁵ These practices were condemned, for example, by the dissident organisation Charter 77 and extensively documented in the late 1980s by dissidents Zbyněk Andrš and Ruben Pellar. As early as 1992, Human Rights Watch addressed the issue in a detailed report on the situation of Roma in Czechoslovakia.³⁶ As of 2023, no Romani woman sterilised on the orders of the Czechoslovak authorities has ever received justice or at least a public acknowledgement of the injustice to which they were systematically subjected under communism.

In this context, and based on the Ombudsman’s investigation, the legal framework was adapted to comply with international standards in the field of reproductive rights and to provide all necessary guarantees that the patient’s right to full and informed consent to medical interventions is respected in all cases.

Low political and public interest

Focus on the political obstacles to the adoption of this law reveals that the Czech political landscape showed a long-standing lack of interest in dealing with forced sterilisation (Keating 2004). Suspicions of forced sterilisation, of Romani women in particular, were made public by the European Roma Rights Centre as early as 2004. However, this issue had a very limited outreach to the electorate, mirroring the latent hatred towards Roma amongst the Czech population (Motejl 2005). Various human rights institutions, particularly within the UN framework, repeatedly called on the Czech Republic to establish a reparation mechanism over a period of 14 years.³⁷

The bill caused divisions within the government and opposition and brought together deputies from both sides. Deputies from the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Komunistická strana Čech a Moravy—KSČM) and the right-wing radical Freedom and Direct Democracy (Strana přímé demokracie—SPD) voted against the bill. As for the SPD—a party with anti-Romani attitudes and little willingness to critically engage with the past (Maškarinec & Novotný 2024)—opposition to the law related to its long-standing position against the Roma minority and to the fact that the party, as a major critic of the work of non-profit organisations, saw with diffidence these organisations’ efforts to promoting the bill. There were repeated calls to ‘not give in to pressure from NGOs’ in passing this law.³⁸ SPD deputies brandished the official argument of the Czech Gynaecological and Obstetric Society that its workers ‘knew nothing’ about forced sterilisations, either historical or recent. One deputy, Monika Jarošová, stated ‘in those days [the communist period] it was not possible to sterilise anyone just like that after giving birth’.³⁹ This was not to deny the explicitly already documented testimonies, but there was an obvious effort to argue against the passage of this law with references to the defence of the medical professional community. The SPD did not deny the documented testimonies but couched its arguments in the defence of the medical profession.

The KSČM emphasised that the alleged sterilisations had taken place after, as well as before, 1989. KSČM deputy Leo Luzar went as far as to claim that such procedures post-dated the socialist regime entirely: ‘So, this is not some relic and relic of a bygone era, as you like to point out … it wasn’t us, we’re in the clear’.⁴⁰ Luzar also cited the Ombudsman’s argument from 2004, which implied that those who carried out sterilisation without consent during the communist era were doing so ‘in violation of the applicable health regulations’,⁴¹ making the point that the communist system had rules, and that sterilisation without consent was a violation of them. Luzar went on to criticise the postsocialist regime for its failure to address the issue: ‘The modern democratic regime since 1990 has been unable to decide on compensation in a timely manner, and later courts have refused to do so because of the statute of limitations’.⁴²

During the debates, various deputies emphasised that the bill should not be seen as an ‘attack on our healthcare system’⁴³ or as an ‘attack on doctors’.⁴⁴ Deputy Bohuslav Svoboda, who was also a doctor, pointed out that the law would address ‘the fault of the communist system and has nothing to do with what gynaecologists did at that time’.⁴⁵ The innocence of doctors was similarly defended by another medically qualified deputy, Helena Válková, who noted that ‘Part of the media then draws the really generalising conclusion that gynaecologists are considered to be the ones who performed mass forced sterilisations. That’s not true at all: those were exceptions’.⁴⁶ Deputy Pavel Žáček drew on the official investigation of the crimes of communism,⁴⁷ claiming that ‘no doctor has ever been indicted’ for carrying out forced sterilisations.⁴⁸ Arguments against the doctors do not actually appear here, unlike in the case of the testimonies of women who underwent this unlawful sterilisation, where the very arguments that convicted the doctors of lying at the time were documented (Ježková 2022).

The subsequent debate in the Senate was much more one-sided in favour of the adoption of the compensation law, given the absence of representatives of radical parties and movements. It was pointed out that forced sterilisations had affected many non-Romani mothers and that men were also amongst those affected. Senator Miluše Horská stated:

People who disagreed with the regime were forced to either emigrate or not reproduce so as not to threaten the regime. All this was done because some of the people were undesirable. It also concerns many non-Roma women, mothers with multiple children, but it also concerns men who were enemies of the regime.⁴⁹

Discussion and conclusion

The discussion of a law that would set rules for compensating persons who have been unlawfully sterilised has been halted primarily by the still clearly visible reluctance to bring the issue into public discourse and politics. Such reluctance and disinterest were evident within Czech politics and society. The whole issue, more in particular, is closely related both to prejudices against the Romani people, who were often the victims of these interventions, and to the broader concept of coming to terms with the communist past. This Czech example and the barriers to adoption also apply in various modifications to other postcommunist countries where these unlawful acts with serious health consequences occurred.

However, it is precisely in view of these social specifics and in some cases even the apparent opposition, that the adoption of this law ought to be seen as a success. This is because, until the time of writing, attempts to open this topic have met with resistance and the Czech Republic displayed a rather conservative orientation that did not attach much importance to forced sterilisation. In other postcommunist countries, including Slovakia and Romania, reparations had already been promoted earlier in the post-independence era. It has been very interesting to see the delays in the adoption of this law. The reasons were clearly related to widespread prejudice against the Romani population. The parliamentary debates revealed that Czech society perceived the law primarily as an act of compensation for Romani women.

The adoption of the law should also be seen as a good example of an active civil sector that is becoming established in the former communist bloc countries and that is opening up even these highly unpopular topics. It was the non-profit organisations, both internationally active (such as the League of Human Rights) and domestically active (such as the Advisory Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights and Mutual Coexistence Society), that contributed to the opening of this issue and the creation of the entire law by concentrated pressure on politicians. It is therefore a good example of the practice of using the non-profit sector to redress injustices dating back to the communist era and based on ethnic and ideological discrimination. We can say that it was the pressure of these NGOs that first and foremost helped Romani NGOs to make the topic of illegal sterilisation more visible and publicised, and then to create pressure on the government, MPs and senators to place the topic more centrally in the public space and to frame it more broadly as an issue of coming to terms with the past. The Czech case is, in this sense, a good example of the practice of using the non-profit sector to redress injustices dating back to the communist era and based on ethnic and ideological discrimination. It shows the essential role of a healthy civil society that persistently puts pressure on politics.

Forced sterilisations are no longer conceivable in today’s society, even in postcommunist countries. Legal systems have been rectified and set up so that informed consent is always taken into account. Using the Czech Republic as an example, it is astonishing that it took so long to enforce this fundamental instrument, which reflects the human rights of patients against the arbitrary decrees from ‘above’: these, in the Czech context, were motivated by ethnic and ideological considerations. At the same time, these were very traumatic interventions for the victims, with which they found it difficult to cope. One of the Roma victims wrote that after the intervention she ‘felt like a hollow body, like nothing’.⁵⁰

If we want to answer the question of what social and political obstacles stood in the way of the adoption of this Compensation Act, they were, first of all, the relatively widespread prejudice against the Romani population. In the minds of Czech society, the law was perceived primarily as an act of compensation against Romani women—which was also evident in the parliamentary debates. Apparently, the sponsors from amongst the deputies were aware of this, which is why they also emphasised that amongst the victims were women and men from the ranks of the anti-communist opposition, whose reproduction was considered undesirable by the regime. It was quite interesting that the debates were not so much dominated by indications of the relevance of international human rights obligations, or at least the feeling that international human rights play a role here. This played a role particularly at the level of the government’s human rights commissioners. However, the predominant factor that compelled the government to act was more likely to be internal political issues and pressure from relevant institutions on MPs and senators.

The political will to enforce the law was also long lacking. None of the governments were able to identify with the issue sufficiently for the bill to emerge as a government bill. This was the reason why the norm eventually emerged as a parliamentary legislative initiative, with the non-political element wiped out from the outset by the fact that the proponents included representatives of both the then government (Action of Dissatisfied Citizens, Akce nespokojených občanů—ANO; and the Czech Social Democratic Party, Česká strana sociálně demokratická—ČSSD) and the opposition. Nevertheless, the debate was prolonged, first by the discussion of amendments and later by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moreover, the norm had opponents from both the radical left (KSČM) and right (SPD). The most frequent arguments against the adoption were that there were no unlawful sterilisations, that there was no credible evidence of this, and that the adoption would be an attack on the health care system as a whole. Supporters of the bill, on the other hand, cited the need to right the wrongs of the communist era. The argument for passing the bill was that any financial compensation would be for only a few thousand affected people. The Ministry of Health currently has an expert group, which assesses individual testimonies and decides whether to grant financial compensation. It should be added that the sponsors of the bill were able to rely on the active participation of NGOs, including Roma organisations.

The norm was not originally intended to be associated in any way with the not entirely closed question of coming to terms with the communist past, although arguments about redressing injustices did appear, particularly from the Office of the Ombudsman and in parliamentary debates, and the issue of forced sterilisations was debated with reference to the wider context of the quality of communist health care. A compromise, including on the amount to be paid to the persons concerned, had already been reached during the negotiations with the persons concerned and their representatives. In fact, meetings were held with them on the floor of both chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, during which the legislators had the opportunity to learn about their plight in more detail. The outcome of the negotiations and the purpose of this law can be summarised with the words of Senator Miluše Horská: ‘This is the least we can do for them after all these years. The state bears responsibility for the involuntary sterilisation of unwanted women and men under the previous regime. The state must therefore correct this act against humanity’.⁵¹

The issue of illegal sterilisations is therefore of particular legal and political interest. It also appears in other contexts—including California, which adopted a law on compensation for forced sterilisations in 2021. It will be interesting to see whether there are any parallels to the arguments that have emerged in the Czech Republic in these or other legislative debates. The topic of illegal sterilisations in the Czech Republic deserves further research, for example, on the motivation of those involved in these illegal acts, the functioning of the Czechoslovak or Czech health care system, or the topic in the context of racism and the position of the Roma in society, past and present.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This article is published with the financial support of the Faculty of Arts, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem.

Notes on contributors

Lukáš Novotný

Lukáš Novotný, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, Pasteurova 13, Ústí nad Labem 40001, Czech Republic. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 ‘Od 60. let mohlo nedobrovolnou sterilizací projít až 7 tisíc romských žen’, Rozhlas, 27 February 2022, available at: https://plus.rozhlas.cz/od-60-let-mohlo-nedobrovolnou-sterilizaci-projit-az-7-tisic-romskych-zen-8689947, accessed 11 May 2023.

2 ‘Eliminating Forced, Coercive and Otherwise Involuntary Sterilisation’, World Health Organization, 2014, available at: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/201405_sterilization_en.pdf, accessed 11 May 2023.

3 ‘Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and its Explanatory Memorandum’, Council of Europe, 11 May 2011, available at: https://rm.coe.int/ic-and-explanatory-report/16808d24c6, accessed 11 May 2023.

4 Deputy of Parliament Pavla Golasowská, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

5 ‘Hungary: Reports of the Forced Sterilization of Women (2000–2011)’, HUN103861.E, 4 November 2011, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4f9695202.html, accessed 27 November 2023.

6 ‘Od 60. let mohlo nedobrovolnou sterilizací projít až 7 tisíc romských žen’, Rozhlas, 27 February 2022, available at: https://plus.rozhlas.cz/od-60-let-mohlo-nedobrovolnou-sterilizaci-projit-az-7-tisic-romskych-zen-8689947, accessed 11 May 2023.

7 ‘Nedobrovolná a nucená sterilizace romských žen: Spravedlnost a odškodnění obětem v České republice’, OSCE, 1 June 2016, available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/2/7/288621.pdf, accessed 11 May 2023.

8 Section 27, Act No. 20/1966 Sb., Zákon o péči o zdraví lidu, available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1966-20, accessed 9 May 2023.

9 Act No. 297/2021, Explanatory Memorandum, Sb., Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky osobám sterilizovaným v rozporu s právem a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů, available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2021-297, accessed 9 May 2023.

10 Act No. 297/2021 Sb., Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky osobám sterilizovaným v rozporu s právem a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů, available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2021-297, accessed 9 May 2023.

11 ‘Nedobrovolná a nucená sterilizace romských žen: Spravedlnost a odškodnění obětem v České republice’, OSCE, 1 June 2016, available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/2/7/288621.pdf, accessed 11 May 2023.

12 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

13 See, for example, the ECHR judgment against Slovakia, ‘Rozsudek ze dne 8. listopadu 2011 ve věci č. 18968/07’, ECHR, Case No. 18968/07, 8 November 2011, available at: http://eslp.justice.cz/justice/judikatura_eslp.nsf/0/0E03C18189E8B858C125829E00362764/$file/V.%20C.%20proti%20Slovensku_anotace.pdf?open&, accessed 11 May 2023.

14 Act No. 297/2021, Explanatory Memorandum, Sb., Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky osobám sterilizovaným v rozporu s právem a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů, available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2021-297, accessed 9 May 2023.

15 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

16 ‘Nucené sterilizace se týkaly tisíců žen, odškodnění nedosáhly’, avcr.cz, 28 June 2018, available at: https://www.avcr.cz/cs/o-nas/aktuality/Nucene-sterilizace-se-tykaly-tisicu-zen-odskodneni-nedosahly, accessed 29 May 2024.

17 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

18 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, Chapter 4.3.3, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

19 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, Chapter 4.3.3, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

20 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, Chapter 4.3.3, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

21 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, Chapter 4.3.3, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

22 Judgment of the Supreme Court of 12 November 2008, Case No 31 Cdo 3161/2008. See Explanatory Memorandum, Act No. 297/2021 Sb., Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky osobám sterilizovaným v rozporu s právem, p. 12, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/orig2.sqw?idd=167712, accessed 19 June 2023.

23 Deputy of Parliament Pavla Golasowská, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

24 Act No. 372/2011 Sb., on health services (Zákon o zdravotních službách), and Act No. 373/2011 Sb., on specific health services (Zákon o specifických zdravotních službách a podmínkách jejich poskytování), available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2011-372, accessed 9 May 2023.

25 ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, Chapter 4.3.3, 23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

26 Act No. 297/2021 Sb., Explanatory Memorandum, Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky osobám sterilizovaným v rozporu s právem a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů, available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2021-297, accessed 9 May 2023.

27 ‘Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence’, United Nations, 11 May 2007, available at: https://rm.coe.int/ic-and-explanatory-report/16808d24c6, accessed 11 May 2023.

28 Act No. 297/2021 Sb., Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky osobám sterilizovaným v rozporu s právem a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů, available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2021-297, accessed 9 May 2023.

29 They were seeking financial compensation. See, ‘Podnětu ministra pro lidská práva ke sterilizacím žen v České republice provedeným v rozporu s právem’, Resolution No. 1424, Government of the Czech Republic, 23 November 2009, available at: https://www.vlada.cz/assets/ppov/rlp/aktuality/USNESENI-VLADY.pdf, accessed 11 May 2023.

30 ‘Vláda vyjádřila politování nad nezákonnými sterilizacemi Romek’, Aktuálně.cz, 23 November 2009, available at: https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/domaci/vlada-vyjadrila-politovani-nad-nezakonnymi-sterilizacemi-rom/r~i:article:653843/, accessed 11 May 2023.

31 Act No. 297/2021 Sb., Zákon o poskytnutí jednorázové peněžní částky osobám sterilizovaným v rozporu s právem a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů, available at: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2021-297, accessed 9 May 2023.

32 Documented examples of male political prisoners being sterilised can be sighted in ‘Závěrečné stanovisko veřejného ochránce práv ve věci sterilizací prováděných v rozporu s právem a návrhy opatření k nápravě’, Ombudsman, Case No. 3099/2004/VOP, Chapter 4.3.3,23 December 2005, available at: https://eso.ochrance.cz/Nalezene/Edit/2596, accessed 11 May 2023.

33 ‘Romky chtějí jenom peníze, slýchaly sterilizované ženy žádající odškodnění. Teď dostaly cenu’, ČT24, 14 December 2021, available at: https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/domaci/3414088-rekly-jsme-si-ze-pojedeme-dal-gorolova-a-albertova-dostaly-cenu-za-boj-o-odskodneni, accessed 11 May 2023.

34 ‘Romky chtějí jenom peníze, slýchaly sterilizované ženy žádající odškodnění. Teď dostaly cenu’, ČT24, 14 December 2021, available at: https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/domaci/3414088-rekly-jsme-si-ze-pojedeme-dal-gorolova-a-albertova-dostaly-cenu-za-boj-o-odskodneni, accessed 11 May 2023.

35 ‘Nucené sterilizace v České republice’, LHR, 29 November 2004, available at: https://llp.cz/blog/nucene-sterilizace-v-ceske-republice/, accessed 11 May 2023.

36 ‘Nucené sterilizace v České republice’, LHR, 29 November 2004, available at: https://llp.cz/blog/nucene-sterilizace-v-ceske-republice/, accessed 11 May 2023.

37 For example, ‘Nucené sterilizace v České republice’, LHR, 29 November 2004, available at: https://llp.cz/blog/nucene-sterilizace-v-ceske-republice/, accessed 11 May 2023.

38 Deputy of Parliament Monika Jarošová, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

39 Deputy of Parliament Monika Jarošová, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

40 Deputy of Parliament Leo Luzar, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

41 Deputy of Parliament Leo Luzar, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

42 Deputy of Parliament Leo Luzar, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

43 Deputy of Parliament Pavel Plzák, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

44 Deputy of Parliament Jan Čižinský, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

45 Deputy of Parliament Bohuslav Svoboda, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

46 Deputy of Parliament Helena Válková, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

47 Deputy of Parliament Pavel Žáček, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

48 Deputy of Parliament Pavel Žáček, Chamber of Deputies, stenographic record, 6 May 2021, available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=8&t=603, accessed 11 May 2023.

49 Deputy of Parliament Miluše Horská, Senate, stenographic record, 13 July 2021, available at: https://www.senat.cz/xqw/xervlet/pssenat/hlasovani?action=steno&O=13&IS=6776&D=22.07.2021#b22300, accessed 11 May 2023.

50 ‘Od 60. let mohlo nedobrovolnou sterilizací projít až 7 tisíc romských žen’, Rozhlas, 27 February 2022, available at: https://plus.rozhlas.cz/od-60-let-mohlo-nedobrovolnou-sterilizaci-projit-az-7-tisic-romskych-zen-8689947, accessed 11 May 2023.

51 Deputy of Parliament Miluše Horská, Senate, stenographic record, 13 July 2021, available at: https://www.senat.cz/xqw/xervlet/pssenat/hlasovani?action=steno&O=13&IS=6776&D=22.07.2021#b22300, accessed 11 May 2023.