16 Amendments of Lívia JÁRÓKA related to 2023/2068(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas gender-based hate speech and hate crimes disproportionately affect women1 ; whereas young women, Roma women and women from ethnic backgrounds, women in poverty and women in the public sphere are targeted by hate speech in particular; whereas women facing intersectional discriminatbelonging to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities living in poverty and social exclusion experience exacerbated discrimination hate speech and hate crimes with hate and disparaging language being a daily occurrence for these women; _________________ 1 Council of Europe Gender Equality Strategy, ‘Combating Sexist Hate Speech’, 2016.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas multiple factors, such as patriarchal societal structures, misogyny, racism, antisemitism and anti-gypsism, unequal power relations and gendered stereotyping, fuel hate speech and hate crimes against women and lead to victim blaming of women and their revicitmisation;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas hate speech often starts as an act of bias, which can then lead to motivated violence and aggression; whereas hate speech and hate crimes have an enormous psychological and physical impact on individual women and a detrimental impact on society as a whole;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Council to conclude a Council decision including hate speech and hate crimes as an area of crime within the meaning of Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as soon as possible, with a definition of the criminal conduct that is proportional to the right of freedom of expression;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to include an explicit definition of gender-basedhate speech and hate crimes with and aggravating circumstance for hate speech and hate crimes based on discrimination when legislation is proposed, that establishes minimum standards for Member States’ legislation to follow with room to implement regulations into their own diverse legal systems;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the Commission proposal for a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, and the inclusion of minimum rules for the definition of the offence of hatred online and cyber-violence; calls on the Commission to ensure that this directive serves as a minimum standard when it comes to legislation tackling online hate speech and hate crimesinclusion of minimum rules for the definition of the offence of hatred online and cyber-violence and stresses the need for awareness raising campaigns about the dangers of an online presence, especially online activities of children;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the Council has yet to adopt a decision; whereas some Member States have been blocking concrete progress on this specific file in the Council due to the absence of unanimity as required under Article 83(1) TFEU;
Amendment 114 #
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, under Article 83(1) TFEU, the proposal for a directive defining the concept of hate crime can be submitted only after the Council decision has been adopted; whereas the drafting of a sufficiently clear and precise legal text is hampered by the fact that there is no single concept of hate crimes accepted either at European or at international level, and, moreover, the interpretation in this regard differs widely between the Commission and the Court of Justice on the one hand, and the Member States on the other; whereas the common European interest should prevailre were never any identifiable fundamental problems with the current content of Union crimes, until the planned extension – with regard to hate crimes and, in particular, to hate speech – the fundamental problem is that there is no consensus on its content, since that content is impacted in its foundations by the Member States’ cultural determination;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Urges the Council to adopt a decision to includecontinue the dialogue with the Member States about the inclusion of 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 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Draws the Commission’s attention to the excessively brief and generic formulation, which would give almost ‘carte blanche’ to the extension of the range of European crimes; emphasises that, as a result, it would be appropriate to make clear in the proposal exactly what kind of behaviour that spreads hatred or is motivated by hatred would be worth including under Article 83(1) TFEU;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Asks the Commission to submit a proposal which, taking into account Member States’ rules of criminal law and practice, makes clear its position on exactly what kind of behaviour that spreads hatred or is motivated by hatred it would include under Article 83(1) TFEU; asks the Commission to draw up a clear and precise normative text by means of dialogue and negotiations among Member States, thereby ensuring that the expansion of Union competences takes place exclusively in areas where a Union approach can undeniably be more effective than action at national level;