Archives Prawa człowieka | The Polish Forum of Young Diplomats /en/category/prawa-czlowieka-en/ We create future leaders Thu, 19 Mar 2026 12:03:56 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 /wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FMD-logo-2-100x100.png Archives Prawa człowieka | The Polish Forum of Young Diplomats /en/category/prawa-czlowieka-en/ 32 32 Chat Control hits the wall – what’s next? /en/chat-control-hits-the-wall-whats-next/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chat-control-hits-the-wall-whats-next Thu, 19 Mar 2026 11:59:57 +0000 /?p=9056 Chat Control hits the wall – what’s next?The European Union has proposed the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR), also known as “Chat Control,” to combat the sexual abuse of children. This controversial regulation, which involves scanning private messages, is intended to protect children from exploitation. As opposition mounts from several member states and the public, […]

Article Chat Control hits the wall – what’s next? from The Polish Forum of Young Diplomats.

]]>

Chat Control hits the wall – what’s next?

The European Union has proposed the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR), also known as “Chat Control,” to combat the sexual abuse of children. This controversial regulation, which involves scanning private messages, is intended to protect children from exploitation. As opposition mounts from several member states and the public, the EU is refining the proposal, with a final decision expected in 2026.

Author: Amelia Ochlanek

The mass-surveillance under the disguise of protecting children and unlimited access to the messages, photos, videos, and even private files, borders on a paradigm shift in digital privacy, challenging the very essence of confidential communication. No matter how extreme it may sound, this is a project proposed by the European Union, commonly known as Chat Control. On the 11th of March the European Parliament supported extending the “voluntary” Chat Control regulation. Digital rights advocacy groups and privacy-conscious citizens have voiced significant opposition. What does this mean for the users of telecommunication services? And what does the regulation imply according to European law?

The Chat Control 1.0 – where it all began

In 2021 the European Union accepted the first draft of the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR). It allowed telecommunication service providers to scan messages and e-mails to search for illegal Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). The EU Commission justified its decision arguing that the end-to-end encryption makes it impossible for police to find predators. The critics of this project called it Chat Control 1.0. due to its impact on private messaging. Initially, the procedure conducted by telecommunication service providers was not mandatory and excluded encrypted messages. However, it allowed tech giants such as Meta, Google, Microsoft to scan private messages, which created serious concerns regarding users privacy. 

Chat control 2.0

Nevertheless, in 2022 a full, permanent version of the regulation was proposed. It suggested a shift from voluntary to mandatory scanning of all messages (included the encrypted ones). What is more, it included mandatory age verification (proven by providing an ID or a face scan), scanning of private storage, and network blocking. This met with an enormous disapproval from public opinion, both citizens as well as the LIBE committee, which opted for protecting encryption and limit scanning. 

After such this significant backlash, further changes were made in 2024. This time, only files, URL addresses and multimedia were supposed to be scanned, nonetheless the project got rejected once more. Even though the measures were less drastic, they still violated privacy. These concerns led Poland to propose another draft, which excluded scanning encrypted messages. In 2025 a compromise was reached – the mandatory part of the scanning was removed but the project used vague language, such as “risk mitigation”, which provided a backdoor for tech companies. 

The legal basis for these acts are expiring on April 3, 2026. The EU Commission requested an extension of the Chat Control 1.0 but the LIBE Committee rejected the demand. Currently there are four countries, which are opposing Chat Control: the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland.

Has Chat Control ever been a lawful project?

Considering project’s enormous impact on privacy, questions concerning its lawfulness are inevitable. Currently, the practice of voluntary scanning (Chat Control 1.0) is technically lawful because the EU enacted a temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive. This exemption allows online platforms to use specific tools to search for CSAM without violating any law. 

However ePrivacy Directive is not the only regulation concerning online data protection. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), advocates for data protection as well as the European Data Protection Supervisor argue that current voluntary scanning, without necessary safeguards, violates fundamental rights. According to the EDPS EU regulations should guarantee that scanning is not used as a mass-surveillance tool and that data processing has a legal foundation. 

It comes as no surprise that if the „lighter” version of the projects caused such arguments, the Chat Control 2.0 turned out to be even more controversial. The European Court of Justice has set a precedent, often cited by critics of CSAR as an analogy: permanent, general, and indiscriminate automated analysis of private communications violates fundamental rights and is prohibited. 

The right to privacy and the rights of children at stake

The „fundamental rights” usually cited by critics include the right to privacy and protection of personal data that can be found in e.g. Charter of Fundamental Right of the EU. However, the opponents argue that article 17 of the European Social Charter states „The right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection”. 

Groups such as Eurochild and IWF believe that Chat Control will help protect children more effectively. As one of the examples they point that in 2020, when companies were unsure whether scanning was lawful, the number of CSAM reports drooped by 58% over 18 weeks. Moreover, they see scanning as a necessary response to the AI revolution, with an increasing number of CSAM generated by AI. 

Nevertheless, it is important to note that scanning user’s devices completely destroys end-to-end encryption. In order to be able to scan encrypted messages companies must create „backdoors”, which creates safety gaps. Furthermore, according to German and Swiss law enforcement agencies, up to 80% of reports are false positives, including teenagers sexting or family vacation picture. Automated AI algorithms used to scan messages fail to understand jokes, right context and nuance, leading to frequent mistakes. 

What’s next?

On 11th of March a decisive plenary vote was held in the European Parliament. MEP’s supported the extension of Chat Control 1.0 but they also implemented the LIBE’s committee recommendations, from now on scanning should concern only suspected individuals. Furthermore, the current mandate explicitly excludes the breaking of end-to-end encryption. However, it is not the end of the battle, the negotiations for the permanent law (Chat Control 2.0) are ongoing. Two more rounds of negotiations are scheduled to be held in 2026, if the political agreement is reached, the formal adoption of the Chat Control 2.0 regulation is expected in July 2026. There is no doubt that in the era defined by the ubiquity of AI, the early digital immersion of children and where data has become a primary global currency, establishing clear regulations is a crucial step for democratic societies. However, this legislative process should not compromise the right to privacy, it should include a balance between public opinion and experts testimony. Reconciling privacy with child safeguarding constitutes a formidable challenge, which requires consensus-driven solutions. That is the only way to ensure the effectiveness and resilience of such regulations.

Bibliography:

[1] Breyer, Patrick. “Historic Chat Control Vote in the EU Parliament: MEPs Vote to End Untargeted Mass Scanning of Private Chats.” Patrick Breyer (blog), March 11, 2026. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/historic-chat-control-vote-in-the-eu-parliament-meps-vote-to-end-untargeted-mass-scanning-of-private-chats/

[2] Fight Chat Control. “Fight Chat Control.” Accessed March 8, 2026. https://fightchatcontrol.eu/.

[3] Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Chat Control Is Back on the Menu in the EU—and It Still Must Be Stopped.” September 29, 2025. Accessed March 9, 2026. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/09/chat-control-back-menu-eu-it-still-must-be-stopped-0.

[4] European Data Protection Supervisor. “Extension of Interim Rules to Combat Child Sexual Abuse Online Must Address Shortcomings and Prevent Indiscriminate Scanning.” Press release, February 8, 2024. Accessed March 10, 2026. https://www.edps.europa.eu/press-publications/press-news/press-releases/2026/extension-interim-rules-combat-child-sexual-abuse-online-must-address-shortcomings-and-prevent-indiscriminate-scanning_en

[5] Heise Online. “Setback for the Commission: EU MEPs Let Chat Control Fail.” March 3, 2026. Accessed March 11, 2026. https://www.heise.de/en/news/Setback-for-the-Commission-EU-MEPs-let-chat-control-fail-11197237.html.

[6] Internet Watch Foundation. “Why the EU’s Temporary Law Allowing Companies to Detect Child Sexual Abuse Online Must Be Extended.” IWF Blog, February 22, 2024. Accessed March 8, 2026. https://www.iwf.org.uk/news-media/blogs/why-the-eu-s-temporary-law-allowing-companies-to-detect-child-sexual-abuse-online-must-be-extended/

Chcesz dowiedzieć się więcej o Forum?

Polub nas na Facebooku, Instagramie, X oraz Linkedinie, aby być na bieżąco!

Article Chat Control hits the wall – what’s next? from The Polish Forum of Young Diplomats.

]]>
The Unique intersectionality of Lesbophobia and the lack of International Protection /en/the-unique-intersectionality-of-lesbophobia-and-the-lack-of-international-protection/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-unique-intersectionality-of-lesbophobia-and-the-lack-of-international-protection Fri, 06 Mar 2026 20:19:10 +0000 /?p=8586 As we approach the International Women’s Day, we focus on the challenges and overcoming thereof by women. Rich history of feminist movement, dating back as far as to the 1800s, consequently paints the image of the devoted to “freeing themselves” of oppression, and hero-like women. With the introduction of the fight for LGBTQ rights, alongside […]

Article The Unique intersectionality of Lesbophobia and the lack of International Protection from The Polish Forum of Young Diplomats.

]]>

As we approach the International Women’s Day, we focus on the challenges and overcoming thereof by women. Rich history of feminist movement, dating back as far as to the 1800s, consequently paints the image of the devoted to “freeing themselves” of oppression, and hero-like women. With the introduction of the fight for LGBTQ rights, alongside the perpetual process of ridding women of their patriarchal oppression, we come across the fundamental problem of this article – is violence against lesbians (and other women loving women persons) a violation of women’s rights or gay rights? 

The answer to our query is simple and complicated at the same time. Kimberlee Crenshaw comes to our aid with “intersectionality”, a term she coined in 1989 in her article “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics”. Intersectionality describes the phenomena of two or more characteristic that constitute to one’s oppression coexist and intertwine, consequently making a completely new and unique form of discrimination. Crenshaw’s article originally concentrates on the intermingling of black women’s problems and the uniqueness of their discrimination, which is important to highlight to not lose the importance of the original article. But the framework produced by Crenshaw can and is used to interpret other planes of oppression that coexist. 

This article will engage in the intersectionality of lesbophobia, consequently answering the question – women’s rights violations and gay right’s violations intermingle to create the uniqueness of lesbophobia.

Author: Maria Studzińska


Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Istanbul Convention are essential milestones accomplished by the international community to protect the rights of women and to combat woman-focused violence. They are the backbone of international efforts to fight discrimination against women. The United Nations convention was established in 1979 and highlights a key definition of this specific discrimination. First Article of the Convention define “discrimination against women” as any exclusion made on the basis of sex that constrict women, no matter their marital status. It focuses more on the equality of men and women, without mentioning either race or sexual orientation. 

The Convention was and still is rather monumental in the history of protection of women’s rights, but due to its age, it can seem slightly outdated. This was a predicted phenomenon, as the Article 17 of the Convention establishes a Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The Committee issues recommendations and suggestions to the General Assembly of the United Nations to ensure the applicability of the Convention in the ever progressing world. In General recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 2010 the Committee recognizes the intersectionality of discrimination of women based on sex, gender and other vulnerabilities such as race or sexual orientation, urging states to legally recognize such intersection of discrimination and its impact on women. The recommendations, although important interpretations of quality data, are not strictly biding like the Convention or other international laws, leaving lesbians vulnerable to the actions or inactions of the states in which they live.

The Istanbul Convention challenges the topic by encompassing sexual orientation (among other things like race) in its official text, thus it does not have to rely on soft unbinding recommendations to protect women who also happen to be gay. As stated in Article 4 of the IC “The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties,(…) shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, gender, race(…), sexual orientation (…)”. The specific wording and inclusion of sexual orientation as one of the grounds for discrimination against women to be prohibited is a significant milestone. The IC forces the Parties to develop legal frameworks to prohibit or punish the instances of several discriminations and violence against women, for example stalking, sexual violence, physical violence, forced marriage, forced sterilization, domestic violence etc. What the Convention fails to address is the uniqueness of lesbophobia and other discriminatory actions against women loving women as consequence of the intersectionality of womanhood and queerness. The main body of the Convention focuses on the general female-targeted violence and discrimination. 

The real violence is more complicated than that described in the Conventions mentioned before. Lesbians fall victim to patriarchy in a very specific way, as they are systematically oppressed by the sexist and heteronormative systems put in place by the society as a whole. According to the EuroCentraAsian Lesbian Community, lesbophobia is a unique form of bias that incorporate misogyny, sexism and stigmatization around non-conforming sexual orientation. Prejudice is fueled by the few things, namely the rebellion against societal expectation and stereotypes of the gender binary by simply existing, the refusal to be at the men’s disposal and the challenge lesbians sexuality poses to the image of female sexuality. Lesbians pose a threat to at least two prior existing status quo of our society, making them not only a target because of men’s will, but also because of their fear. Crimes committed against lesbians impact both women and gay people, already vulnerable in patriarchal society. In contrast with gay men, lesbians or bisexual women experience harassment in relation to their gender almost 15 times more often than gay (29% lesbians, 46% bisexual women, 2% gay men declared their gender as additional motive for their harassment). 

Corrective rape is a form of rape with the motive and intention for lesbians to be “cured” of their queerness by the hand of straight men. It was originally coined after the brutal gang rape and murder of Eudy Simelane, a South African football player. The motive of the corrective rape is usually well known by the verbal abuse during the act. Lesbians are the community that is affected by corrective rape the most, with the intention to either punish or correct the nonconforming to the patriarchal status quo behaviors of lesbians. As said by Sarah Doan-Minh, “corrective rape is a punishment for the gay woman’s perceived violation of both heteronormative masculinity and femininity in an institutionally heterosexual society”. Istanbul Convention fails to recognize the uniqueness of the motive behind this horrendous act of sexual violence in Article 36 and simply generalizes it along other criminal or offensive acts listed in  Chapter V. Consequently it creates an environment for the legal system to fail to appropriately address the unique issues of corrective rape on lesbians and misses the potential to develop prevention strategies. 

Similarly, when examining another article of the Convention, Article 37, we may conclude that forced marriage is prohibited in any and all instances. However this omits the motive behind forced marriages for gay women, which are a way for the families of these women to “correct” the lesbian behavior or enforce the conformist idea of the heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman. Forced heterosexual marariage is a form of domestic abuse perpetuated by the closest family of the victim, with the intent to make her act and be “normal”. The generalization of violence against lesbians under the umbrella term of women’s rights done by the IC proves Kimberle Crenshaws point – being at the intersection makes you vulnerable to fall through the cracks and become legally invisible. Lesbians are protected as any other woman is, but they are in need of protection specific to their kind of homophobia-and-misogyny-driven abuse. 

Violence against lesbians isn’t solely an issue of either women’s rights or gay rights; rather, it is a unique and compounded form of oppression situated at the intersection of both, making lesbians particularly vulnerable. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and Istanbul Convention give crucial groundwork for the efforts of fighting discrimination and violence against women by their clauses about non-discrimination, but the generalized language and the lack of recognition of the uniqueness of lesbophobia fails to prosecute this violence and protect gay women. In the upcoming celebrations of International Women’s Day, this article urges for a moment of reflection about this issue, as we as a society should be better prepared to truly protect all women. Establishing sexual orientation as a non-discriminatory trait is a first step, the next is to recognize and dismantle the unique, intersectional motives behind lesbophobic violence.


Bibliography:

[1] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/28. December 16, 2010.

[2] Council of Europe. Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. Council of Europe Treaty Series no. 210. Istanbul, May 11, 2011.

[3] Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991): 1241–99.

[4] Doan-Minh, Sarah. “Corrective Rape: An Extreme Manifestation of Discrimination and the State’s Complicity in Sexual Violence.” Hastings Women’s Law Journal 30, no. 1 (2019): 167–200.

[5] European Lesbian* Conference (ELC). Lesbophobia: An Intersectional Form of Violence. Brussels: European Lesbian* Conference, 2019.

[6] UN General Assembly. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1249. December 18, 1979.

Chcesz dowiedzieć się więcej o Forum?

Polub nas na Facebooku, Instagramie, X oraz Linkedinie, aby być na bieżąco!

Article The Unique intersectionality of Lesbophobia and the lack of International Protection from The Polish Forum of Young Diplomats.

]]>