Extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime

Wording as published by the EP, in English.

1. Amendment 4Rejected

   Paragraph 1 a (new)

   Tabled by Patricia Chagnon, Harald Vilimsky, Nicolaus Fest · ID

   Added: 1a. Notes that the classification of hate speech and hate crimes falls within the national competence of the Member States and recalls that freedom of expression can only be restricted by national legislative bodies; stresses that the lack of a precise and objective definition of ‘hate speech’ could lead to disproportionate and unjustified restrictions; stresses that so-called hate speech is a highly subjective notion and could be exploited to limit freedom of expression, which is a fundamental principle of our democracies;

2. Amendment 6Rejected

   Recital M a (new)

   Tabled by Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner, Charlie Weimers, Patryk Jaki +3 · ECR

   Added: Ma. whereas the proposal to add hate speech and hate crimes to the EU list of crimes would change the scope of the provisions of the EU Treaties by expanding the EU’s criminal jurisdiction; whereas there is no precise definition of what constitutes hate speech and hate crime; whereas this approach deviates from the EU’s jurisdiction regarding criminal justice cooperation, which is narrowly defined and implemented through official cooperation in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition;

3. Amendment 7Rejected

   Paragraph 1 a (new)

   Tabled by Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner, Charlie Weimers, Patryk Jaki +3 · ECR

   Added: 1a. Notes that there is no precise definition of ‘hate speech’; deplores the fact that in today’s society, all expressions that are not in accordance with the recipient’s own values or goals are labelled ‘hate speech’; is concerned that this approach is likely to weaken freedom of speech even more; regrets the fact that the Commission’s communication does not recognise the risk that restrictions on freedom of speech pose in terms of self-censorship; considers freedom of speech to be one of the key foundations of democracy and western civilisation;

4. Amendment 8Rejected

   Paragraph 1 b (new)

   Tabled by Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner, Charlie Weimers, Patryk Jaki +2 · ECR

   Added: 1b. Notes that hate crimes are considered exclusively to be crimes against various minority groups; deplores the failure of the Commission’s communication to account for members of majority groups becoming victims of hate crimes committed by those belonging to the minority; considers such a one-sided perspective on hate crimes to be against the principle of equality and freedom of speech enshrined in many Member States’ constitutions;

5. Amendment 9Rejected

   Paragraph 9 a (new)

   Tabled by Bert-Jan Ruissen, Alexandr Vondra, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión +1 · ECR

   Added: 9a. Recalls that freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a fundamental value of democratic societies, enshrined in Article 10 of the Charter, and should not be restricted unjustifiably; further recalls that any legislation on hate speech and hate crime should be grounded in the principles of necessity and proportionality;

6. Amendment 10Rejected

   Paragraph 7

   Tabled by Patricia Chagnon, Harald Vilimsky, Nicolaus Fest +1 · ID

   7. Removed: Recommends that Added: Recalls that amending Article 83 TFEU Removed: be amended to make it subject to reinforced qualified majority rather than the current required unanimity; calls for the ‘passerelle clause’ to be activated in this regard; Added: requires unanimity in the Council; calls, therefore, for a balanced and thorough discussion to consider all the possible ramifications of criminalising hate speech, including its impact on freedom of expression;

7. Amendment 11Rejected

   Paragraph 10

   Tabled by Patricia Chagnon, Harald Vilimsky, Nicolaus Fest +1 · ID

   10. Recalls that freedom of Removed: expression, Added: expression is a foundational value of democratic societies and should not be Removed: unjustifiably restricted; further recalls that any legislation on hate speech and hate crime should be grounded in the principles of necessity and proportionality; underlines that freedom of expression must be exercised within the law and in line with Article 11 of the Charter and should not be exploited as a shield for Added: exploited to commit hate speech and hate crimes; Added: stresses, however, that the lack of a precise and objective definition of ‘hate speech’ could lead to disproportionate and unjustified restrictions; stresses that hate speech is a highly subjective notion and could therefore be exploited to limit freedom of expression, which is fundamental to our democracies;