25 Amendments of Annika BRUNA related to 2023/2068(INI)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas hate speech must be defined precisely and impartially and must not be susceptible to political manipulation; whereas the Council of Europe is the only international intergovernmental organisation to have adopted an official definition of hate speech;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas European Court of Human Rights case-law on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to hate speech is sufficient;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas the lack of an objective definition of ‘hate speech’ could lead to restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression, which are fundamental freedoms;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
Bd. whereas promoting the idea of a ‘traditional’ family cannot be equated to hate speech, nor can making the assertion that men and women are defined by their biological sex;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas people – including many feminists – who campaign against transactivist ideology and assert that men and women are defined by their biological sex face intimidation, death threats and even verbal and physical attacks;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the suffering and limitation of fundamental rights that may result from hate speech must be assessed by an apolitical and impartial committee of experts;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas not all hate speech constitutes a crime but it does contribute to normalising manifestations of hatred and intolerance;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that the lack of an objective definition of ‘hate speech’ could lead to restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression, which are fundamental freedoms;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas in the last few decades there has been a sharp rise in discrimination, hate crime and hate speech across the EU4, an increase in various forms of racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance and an alarming spike in online and offline hate speech and incitement; whereas this is being exacerbated in many Member States by extremist and populist movements and the multiplier effect of the online environment and social media, which favours revictimisation; _________________ 4 See, for instance, the Annual Report on ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019 and the Annual Report on ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2020, and the study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs entitled ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, July 2020.
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas minors are particularly vulnerable victims of hate speech and hate crime and whereas such attacks endanger their physical and mental integrity and affect their development and mental health;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Member States do not address hate speech and hate crime in the same way in their respective criminal laws, which makes it difficult to define a common European strategy to combat it;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. Questions the appropriateness of an additional legal framework for criminalising hate speech and hate crime at EU level as the EU already has a framework to address racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate crime, namely the Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to actively research, analyse and repoStresses that promoting the idea of a so-called ‘traditional’ family cannot be equated to hate speech, nor can making the assert ion anti-gender movements, including their strategies and funding.that men and women are defined by their biological sex;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the current EU framework only covers hate speech and hate crimes on the grounds of race, skin colour, religion and national or ethnic origin, which seems sufficient as a legal framework; whereas there is a clear need to effectively address hate speech and hate crimes based on other grounds, such as sex, sexual orientation, age and disability;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas people – including many feminists – who campaign against transactivist ideology and assert that men and women are defined by their biological sex face intimidation, death threats and even verbal and physical attacks;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas Article 83(1) TFEU requires unanimity in the Council to identify ‘other areas of crime’; whereas this requirement proved detrimental to achieving necessary common progress in an area where the common European interest should prevailpasserelle clauses are not to be used given the nature of the text;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Strongly regretNotes that almost two years have passed since the publication of the Commission communication and that no progress has been made;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deplores the fact thatCalls for Article 83 TFEU, which requires unanimity in the Council, and calls for the passerelle clause to be activato be respected;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that fFreedom of expression should not be exploited as a shield for hate speech and hate crimes, but neither should it be unjustifiably restricted;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Asks the Commission to consider an open-end closed approach whereby the list of grounds of discrimination will not be limited in order to effectively combat hate speech and hate crimes motivated by new and changing social dynamicsis limited;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to take additional measures inexplore ways to countering the dissemination of illegal hate speech in online content on account of the impact of the multiplier effect of the online environment and social media on revictimisation;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to give particular consideration to minors so as to give them special protection from hate speech and hate crimes, to prevent these incidents from occurring and to minimise their impact on minors’ development and mental health;