Activities of Alexandr VONDRA related to 2023/2068(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime
Amendments (15)
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. Whereas there is no clear common definition of neither hate speech nor hate crime and the Cmmission did not present any such definition in its Communication;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the rights to freedom of expression, to information and to public participation, are among the cornerstones of democracy; whereas freedom of expression is indispensable for the realisation of the principles of transparency and accountability;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas hate speech and hate crime are not particularly serious crimes within the meaning of Article 83 (1) TFEU and affect not only the individual victims and their communities, causing them suffering and limiting their fundamental rights and freedoms, but also society as a whole, undermining the foundations of the EU;
Amendment 55 #
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 entitlparadigm shift, and as a result, statements of a critical or evaluative nature that functioned in public discourse are now considered ‘Hhate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, July 2020.in some communities;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the cross-border component of hate speech and hate crime is not clear; whereas the digital transformation highlights the need to address this phenomenon at a European level and it was not explained sufficiently by the Commission;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the response of EU criminal law to hate speech and hate crime should be strong and proportionate in orderleft for the Member States that are best equipped to duly protect the victim and give due weight to freedom of expression in particular circumstances and taking into account the traditions, customs, constitutional orders and national identities of the individual Member States;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas social dynamics change and can generate new motivations for hate speech and hate crime that have to be addressed by the common EU framework; this should not mean that any situation where someone feels offended by someone's religious, biological or factual comments is considered hate speech;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas this Council decision would be a first step in creating the necessary legal basis to adopt, as a second step, a common legal framework to combat hate speech and hate crime across the EU; whereas such a common legal framework is urgentlynot needed to combat hate speech and hate crime on a common European basis in order to ensure consistent protection of the potential victims of such acts across the Unionas it should remain in competence of every Member State;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Urges the Council not to adopt a decision to include hate speech and hate crime as a criminal offence within the list under Article 83(1) TFEU, so that the Commission can initiate the second stage of the procedure;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. stresses that there are significant differences between existing eurocrimes and the proposed new ones, in particular, there is no "tolerable level" of, for example, terrorism or human trafficking, but in the case of verbal speech, there would be a line separating freedom of speech from hate speech;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that Member States’ criminal laws deal with hate speech and hate crime in different ways, that minimum rules exist only when such crimes are based on race, skin colour, religion or national or ethnic origin, which makes it difficult to implement a successful common strategy to combat hatredaking into account their national identities, constitutional orders and traditions;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. DeplorPraises the fact that Article 83 TFEU requires unanimity in the Council, and calls for the passerelle clause to be activbecause changes in such key areas cannot be made against the will of even one of the Member Stateds;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that freedom of expression should not be exploited as a shield for hate speech and hate crimes, but neither should it be unjustifiably restricted; strongly emphasizes that it is the Member States that are best able to define such boundaries with respect to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, taking into account the specific circumstances of the constitutional order and national identity;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12