The Plenary of Congress rejected this Tuesday the admission for processing of a bill from the PSOE that proposed modifying the Law on the creation of the Women's Institute. The objective was to grant the body new powers to ensure that gender biases do not occur in algorithms and to allow it to become involved in judicial proceedings for discrimination based on sex, in addition to altering the system for electing its presidency so that it would no longer be a direct appointment.
The initiative did not pass the first parliamentary filter due to the negative votes of PP, Vox, and Junts, while the PNV abstained. The rest of the groups were in favor of the socialist proposal beginning its processing in the Lower House.
As detailed by socialist deputy Lidia Guinart, the reform intended to adapt the Institute to new EU directives on equality and strengthen its capacity to assist victims of discrimination, intervene in courts, and control the impact of artificial intelligence on women's rights.
"Strengthening the Women's Institute is strengthening the democratic rule of law, it is guaranteeing fundamental rights more and better. Even more so, in a context of growing questioning of equality advances, of speeches laden with misogyny, denialism, even hatred, and with the difficult challenge of establishing digital rights in the face of the risks of a digitized society that is no longer the future, ladies and gentlemen, it is already the present," she defended.
Changes in the Institute's functions and in justice
Among the main innovations included in the PSOE's text was the expansion of the Institute's powers to intervene in judicial cases. With the modification, the body could act in defense of collective or diffuse interests when situations of sex discrimination were detected.
"It is a European requirement, ladies and gentlemen, yes it is, but the modification of procedural laws does not only respond to that requirement, but with this reform the Institute expands its functions in response to a need that is political and also legal," Guinart stressed.
Algorithms, artificial intelligence, and digital violence
Guinart has also linked the reform to the challenges arising from digitalization and the advancement of artificial intelligence. The text enabled the Institute to supervise that algorithms do not incorporate gender biases and to act against new forms of digital violence against women, such as 'deepfakes', artificial intelligence-generated pornography, or cyberbullying.
The proposal also modified the system for appointing the presidency of the Institute of Women. The PSOE advocated for a more open and transparent procedure, in which the position would be held by individuals of recognized prestige and trajectory in the defense of women's rights.
PP's criticisms of the Institute's model
During the spokespersons' turn, Silvia Franco, from the PP, maintained that the Institute is a structure "hierarchically subjected to the Government" and described it as a "fiction" to present it as an independent body. Likewise, she reproached the Executive for having resorted to a bill proposal instead of a bill, considering that this way mandatory reports and channels for public participation are bypassed. "This path you have chosen is incomprehensible," she indicated.
PP calls to work to "restore authority" to the Institute
Franco warned the PSOE that, if it truly intends to strengthen the Institute of Women, "what it has to do is work to restore its authority, prestige, and influence, damaged by controversies and scandals such as that of the violet points." "Strengthening equality means building solid, independent, and respected institutions," she affirmed.
For her part, Júlia Boada, from Sumar, argued that the Institute of Women "must work for ethical and feminist artificial intelligence" and insisted that, in her opinion, "public authorities must ensure that this tool that is transforming the world does so justly."
"Real equality demands strong institutions, it demands resources, it demands the capacity to intervene, it demands that public bodies can accompany, assist, and when necessary litigate to defend our rights, in contrast to those who want women to fight alone, more institutions that accompany," she stressed.
Vox rejects the proposal and criticizes "interventionism"
María de los Reyes Romero, from Vox, voted against it, understanding that the initiative does not address the "real problems" of women in Spain and that, in reality, it seeks to expand "the ideological framework built over decades around gender political policies".
In her opinion, the reform deepened "administrative interventionism" around concepts such as the wage gap or glass ceilings, intended to "censor and control" artificial intelligence, and granted more power to the Institute to intervene in litigation related to sex discrimination.
Recriminations from ERC, Junts, PNV, and EH Bildu
Etna Estrems, from ERC, said she shared the need to strengthen the protection of women's rights, but recalled that feminism is not measured by the number of existing organizations, "but by the real capacity to protect women." Furthermore, she warned that her group would be attentive to any measure that could affect the competencies of the Generalitat of Catalonia.
From Junts, Josep Pagès assured that the proposal hid "a certain trap" and advocated for equality and the defense of women's rights "but with more concentration of power and more oversight over Catalonia's competencies." In the same vein, Maribel Vaquero, from the PNV, reproached that the text did not clarify how the Institute's actions would be coordinated with the competent regional administrations.
On behalf of EH Bildu, Isabel Pozueta defended that "equality policies must be built from proximity, from self-government, from the concrete reality in each territory" and expressed her reservations about further expanding structures that "may move even further away from citizens."
Podemos calls for "strong" institutions in the face of the "reactionary offensive"
Noemí Santana, from Podemos, advocated that institutions dedicated to women's rights should be "strong" and "up-to-date" and warned of the "reactionary offensive." At the same time, she criticized the Government for its "triumphalist speeches," considering that "it is difficult to identify what the Executive's great feminist project is."
"It is not enough with these organizations, which are indeed very necessary, but there must be political leadership and more ambition," she demanded, while asking for "courage."