Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.2.3-011"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, no civilised person could excuse the indiscriminate barbarity which claimed the lives of 52 innocent civilians in London on the morning of 7 July, a city which had only the previous day celebrated the plurality, diversity and tolerance which had won the admiration of the International Olympic Committee and helped award it the 2012 Olympic Games.
The nub of our dilemma is that the State is the main protector of both our security and our liberty. If the European Union is to provide security against supranational threats, it must guarantee liberty supranationally too.
President-in-Office, Commissioner, if you are prepared to work with Parliament in that kind of dialogue, you will have the full support of Liberals and Democrats in this serious issue of tackling terror.
Following the terror attacks in Istanbul and Madrid, nobody can deny that terrorism today is a serious challenge for Europe. My Group welcomes the commitment of the UK Presidency and of the Commission to improve policies to strengthen security across the European Union. We are concerned, however, that these policies should be measured, proportionate and value-driven. We do not agree with the President-in-Office when he said in London that the human rights of the victims were more important than the human rights of the terrorists. Human rights are indivisible; freedom and security are not alternatives: they go hand in hand, one enabling the other. As Thomas Paine warned: 'He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself'.
Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights. They have the right to a fair trial. They have the right to be interrogated, not tortured, by the police. They have the right to legal counsel and to representation in a court of law. And, if convicted, they have the right to be imprisoned in a European jail.
There should be no exception for third-country nationals. There is a worrying tendency in Member States to deport people considered to be threatening public order, national security or the rule of law, to countries where they may face torture or worse. It is deeply troubling when the tools of justice and public order themselves violate the European Charter of Human Rights and well-defined international standards. To suspend those values and invoke a form of summary justice would, in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth 'cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society'.
The language of the war on terror leads too easily to the justice of Wyatt Earp and 'High Noon', a point illustrated by the tragic death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the UK authorities on 22 July.
Governments have been all too eager to exploit the fear factor in this matter. In Italy, stop-and-search powers have been given to the armed forces. In Germany, police surveillance in public places has been stepped up. In France, CCTV cameras cover the public transport system. Any of these measures in themselves may be justifiable but, in a climate of fear without proper democratic oversight and control, they foster insecurity. No wonder that faith-hate crime has risen across the European Union and many Muslims feel they are being criminalised.
It would be particularly ill fitting for those of us who were teenagers in democracies in the 1960s – sometimes called the 'freedom generation' – to deny our children the standards of justice for which our colleagues from central, eastern and parts of southern Europe fought so bravely.
Liberals and Democrats agree with the UK Presidency that anti-terrorism measures need to be implemented fully and rapidly. Why are 7 of 24 instruments considered by Justice and Home Affairs ministers on 24 May still not implemented in all Member States? Why are six unratified EU conventions still occupying ministerial time, when framework decisions could be more easily implemented and enforced? Why have Europol and Eurojust not been given the capacity to operate? Why has the EU's antiterrorism coordinator not been allowed the cooperation he deserves from national capitals?
The Council sometimes laments Parliament's objections to security measures that it wants to introduce. But the European Parliament would feel far more comfortable in agreeing to urgent measures if it was satisfied that the Council was operating in the normal framework of democracy. A framework decision on data protection to accompany data retention measures, for example, would overcome the understandable fears of many colleagues that rights are being eroded. A commitment to legislation in the first pillar, with transparent policy-making and guaranteed rights, would enhance the moral standing of Europe's response to terror. A serious commitment to sharing criminal intelligence information – perhaps the biggest challenge – would be welcomed and supported by this House."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, no civilised person could excuse the indiscriminate barbarity which claimed the lives of 52 innocent civilians in London on the morning of 7 July, a city which had only the previous day celebrated the plurality, diversity and tolerance which had won the admiration of the International Olympic Committee and helped award it the 2012 Olympic Games.
The nub of our dilemma is that the State is the main protector of both our security and our liberty. If the European Union is to provide security against supranational threats, it must guarantee liberty supranationally too.
President-in-Office, Commissioner, if you are prepared to work with Parliament in that kind of dialogue, you will have the full support of Liberals and Democrats in this serious issue of tackling terror.
Following the terror attacks in Istanbul and Madrid, nobody can deny that terrorism today is a serious challenge for Europe. My Group welcomes the commitment of the UK Presidency and of the Commission to improve policies to strengthen security across the European Union. We are concerned, however, that these policies should be measured, proportionate and value-driven. We do not agree with the President-in-Office when he said in London that the human rights of the victims were more important than the human rights of the terrorists. Human rights are indivisible; freedom and security are not alternatives: they go hand in hand, one enabling the other. As Thomas Paine warned: 'He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself'.
Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights. They have the right to a fair trial. They have the right to be interrogated, not tortured, by the police. They have the right to legal counsel and to representation in a court of law. And, if convicted, they have the right to be imprisoned in a European jail.
There should be no exception for third-country nationals. There is a worrying tendency in Member States to deport people considered to be threatening public order, national security or the rule of law, to countries where they may face torture or worse. It is deeply troubling when the tools of justice and public order themselves violate the European Charter of Human Rights and well-defined international standards. To suspend those values and invoke a form of summary justice would, in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth 'cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society'.
The language of the war on terror leads too easily to the justice of Wyatt Earp and 'High Noon', a point illustrated by the tragic death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the UK authorities on 22 July.
Governments have been all too eager to exploit the fear factor in this matter. In Italy, stop-and-search powers have been given to the armed forces. In Germany, police surveillance in public places has been stepped up. In France, CCTV cameras cover the public transport system. Any of these measures in themselves may be justifiable but, in a climate of fear without proper democratic oversight and control, they foster insecurity. No wonder that faith-hate crime has risen across the European Union and many Muslims feel they are being criminalised.
It would be particularly ill fitting for those of us who were teenagers in democracies in the 1960s – sometimes called the 'freedom generation' – to deny our children the standards of justice for which our colleagues from central, eastern and parts of southern Europe fought so bravely.
Liberals and Democrats agree with the UK Presidency that anti-terrorism measures need to be implemented fully and rapidly. Why are 7 of 24 instruments considered by Justice and Home Affairs ministers on 24 May still not implemented in all Member States? Why are six unratified EU conventions still occupying ministerial time, when framework decisions could be more easily implemented and enforced? Why have Europol and Eurojust not been given the capacity to operate? Why has the EU's antiterrorism coordinator not been allowed the cooperation he deserves from national capitals?
The Council sometimes laments Parliament's objections to security measures that it wants to introduce. But the European Parliament would feel far more comfortable in agreeing to urgent measures if it was satisfied that the Council was operating in the normal framework of democracy. A framework decision on data protection to accompany data retention measures, for example, would overcome the understandable fears of many colleagues that rights are being eroded. A commitment to legislation in the first pillar, with transparent policy-making and guaranteed rights, would enhance the moral standing of Europe's response to terror. A serious commitment to sharing criminal intelligence information – perhaps the biggest challenge – would be welcomed and supported by this House."@cs1
"Hr. formand, ingen civiliserede mennesker kan undskylde den barbariske handling, der krævede 52 uskyldige dødsofre om morgenen den 7. juli i London, en by, som blot dagen forinden havde fejret den pluralisme, diversitet og tolerance, som havde vundet Den Internationale Olympiske Komités anerkendelse og bidraget til, at De Olympiske Lege 2012 skal afholdes i London.
Det store dilemma er, at staten skal yde den overordnede beskyttelse af både vores sikkerhed og frihed. Hvis EU skal yde sikkerhed over for supranationale trusler, skal den også garantere frihed supranationalt.
Hr. formand, hr. kommissær, hvis De er villig til at samarbejde med Parlamentet i denne form for dialog, vil De modtage Den Liberale Gruppes støtte i dette alvorlige spørgsmål om at bekæmpe terror.
Efter terrorangrebene i Istanbul og Madrid er alle klar over, at terrorisme i dag er en alvorlig udfordring for Europa. Min gruppe bifalder engagementet hos det britiske formandskab og Kommissionen med henblik på at fremme politikker til styrkelse af sikkerheden i hele EU. Det er imidlertid vigtigt for os, at disse politikker er velovervejede, afpassede og baseret på EU's værdier. Vi kan ikke tilslutte os rådsformandens udtalelse i London om, at ofrenes menneskerettigheder var vigtigere end terroristernes menneskerettigheder. Menneskerettigheder er udelelige størrelser. Frihed og sikkerhed er ikke alternativer, de går hånd i hånd og baner vejen for hinanden. Thomas Paine påpegede, at den, der vil sikre sig sin egen frihed, må beskytte selv fjenden mod undertrykkelse, for hvis han krænker denne pligt, skaber han en præcedens, som vil ramme ham selv.
Selv om man ikke bryder sig om det, har terrorister rettigheder som alle andre. De har ret til en retfærdig rettergang. De har ret til at blive afhørt af politiet, ikke tortureret. De har ret til juridisk bistand og repræsentation for en domstol. Og hvis de dømmes, har de ret til at afsone deres straf i et europæisk fængsel.
Der bør ikke være nogen undtagelse for statsborgere fra tredjelande. Der er en bekymrende tendens i medlemsstaterne til at deportere personer, der betragtes som en trussel imod lov og orden, national sikkerhed eller retsstatsprincippet, til lande, hvor de risikerer at blive udsat for tortur eller det, der er værre. Det er dybt bekymrende, når værktøjerne for retfærdighed og offentlig ro og orden i sig selv medfører en overtrædelse af EU's charter om grundlæggende rettigheder og veldefinerede internationale standarder. Tilsidesættelsen af disse værdier og påkaldelsen af en form for summarisk retfærdighed vil med advokat Cherie Booths ord fratage os retten til at kalde os selv et civiliseret samfund.
De stærke ord i forbindelse med bekæmpelsen af terrorisme fører alt for let til den form for retfærdighed, der herskede i film som "Wyatt Earp" og "High Noon"', og som blev illustreret af brasilianske Jean Charles de Menezes' tragiske død efter de britiske myndigheders nedskydning af de Menezes den 22. juli.
Regeringerne har været for optaget af at udnytte skræk-faktoren i denne sammenhæng. I Italien har de væbnede styrker fået beføjelse til at stoppe og kropsvisitere personer. I Tyskland er politiovervågningen i offentlige områder trappet op. I Frankrig dækker tv-kameraer det offentlige transportsystem. Alle disse foranstaltninger kan isoleret set være berettiget, men i et klima med frygt uden tilstrækkelig demokratisk overblik og kontrol kan de skabe usikkerhed. Det er ikke underligt, at der er stigende kriminalitet i EU på grundlag af religiøst had, og at mange muslimer føler, at de kriminaliseres.
De af os, der var teeangere i demokratier i 1960'erne - sommetider kaldet frihedsgenerationen - bør i hvert fald ikke nægte vores børn de standarder for retfærdighed, som vores kolleger fra Central- og Østeuropa samt dele af Sydeuropa kæmpede så bravt for.
Den Liberale Gruppe er enig med det britiske formandskab i, at antiterrorforanstaltninger skal gennemføres fuldt ud og hurtigst muligt. Hvorfor er syv ud af 24 instrumenter, der blev drøftet af justits- og indenrigsministrene på mødet den 24. maj, endnu ikke gennemført i alle medlemsstater? Hvorfor har ministrene stadig seks uratificerede EU-konventioner under overvejelse, når det ville være meget lettere at gennemføre og håndhæve rammeaftaler? Hvorfor har Europol og Eurojust ikke fået kapacitet til at handle? Hvorfor er EU's antiterrorkoordinator ikke inddraget i samarbejdet med storbyerne i medlemsstaterne i det omfang, han fortjener?
Rådet beklager sommetider Parlamentets indvendinger imod de sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, som det ønsker at gennemføre. Men Europa-Parlamentet ville være mere tilbøjelig til at godkende hasteforanstaltninger, hvis man var overbevist om, at Rådet opererer inden for de almindelige rammer for demokrati. En rammeafgørelse om databeskyttelse til ledsagelse af foranstaltninger om opbevaring af data vil f.eks. afhjælpe de forståelige betænkeligheder, som mange af mine kolleger nærer med henblik på, om rettighederne undermineres. En forpligtelse over for lovgivningen i den første søjle med en gennemsigtig politik og garanterede rettigheder vil styrke det moralske grundlag for Europas reaktion på terror. En seriøs forpligtelse til at udveksle efterretningsoplysninger - måske den største udfordring - vil være velkommen og opnå Parlamentets støtte."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Kein zivilisierter Mensch kann Verständnis für die willkürliche Gräueltat aufbringen, die 52 unschuldigen Zivilisten am Vormittag des 7. Juli in London das Leben kostete, einer Stadt, die erst am Vortag ihre Pluralität, Vielfalt und Toleranz gefeiert hatte, was auch die Anerkennung des Internationalen Olympischen Komitees fand und ihr dazu verhalf, zum Austragungsort der Olympischen Spiele im Jahre 2012 benannt zu werden.
Unser Dilemma besteht vor allem darin, dass es in erster Linie dem Staat obliegt, sowohl unsere Sicherheit als auch unsere Freiheit zu schützen. Wenn die Europäische Union Schutz vor supranationalen Bedrohungen bieten soll, dann muss sie auch Freiheit auf supranationaler Ebene gewährleisten.
Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Wenn Sie bereit sind, im Rahmen eines solchen Dialogs mit dem Parlament zusammenzuarbeiten, dann können sie bei der schwierigen Aufgabe der Bekämpfung des Terrors auf die uneingeschränkte Unterstützung der Liberalen und Demokraten zählen.
Nach den Terroranschlägen in Istanbul und Madrid kann niemand leugnen, dass der Terrorismus heutzutage eine ernsthafte Bedrohung für Europa darstellt. Meine Fraktion unterstützt die Anstrengungen der britischen Präsidentschaft und der Kommission, Maßnahmen zur Erhöhung der Sicherheit in der gesamten Europäischen Union auszubauen. Uns geht es jedoch darum, dass diese Maßnahmen angemessen, verhältnismäßig und nutzbringend sind. Wir teilen nicht die Ansicht des amtierenden Ratspräsidenten, der in London erklärte, dass die Menschenrechte der Opfer wichtiger seien als die Menschenrechte der Terroristen. Die Menschenrechte sind unteilbar; Freiheit und Sicherheit sind keine Alternativen: Sie gehen Hand in Hand und bedingen sich gegenseitig. So warnte auch schon Thomas Paine: „Wer seine eigene Freiheit sichern will, muss selbst seinen Feind vor Unterdrückung schützen, denn wenn er diese Pflicht verletzt, schafft er einen Präzedenzfall, der auch für ihn selbst gelten wird.“
So wenig es der Öffentlichkeit auch gefallen mag, mutmaßliche Terroristen haben Rechte. Sie haben das Recht auf ein faires Verfahren. Sie haben das Recht, von der Polizei verhört und nicht gefoltert zu werden. Sie haben das Recht auf Rechtsbeistand und Vertretung vor Gericht. Und wenn sie verurteilt werden, haben sie das Recht, ihre Strafe in einem europäischen Gefängnis zu verbüßen.
Es sollte keine Ausnahmen für Drittstaatsangehörige geben. In den Mitgliedstaaten zeigt sich die beunruhigende Tendenz, dass Menschen, die als Gefahr für die öffentliche Ordnung, die nationale Sicherheit oder die Rechtsstaatlichkeit angesehen werden, in Länder abgeschoben werden, in denen ihnen Folter oder gar Schlimmeres droht. Es ist äußerst beunruhigend, wenn die Instrumente der Justiz und der öffentlichen Ordnung selber die Europäische Menschenrechtscharta und genau definierte internationale Normen verletzen. Die Aussetzung dieser Werte und die Anwendung einer Art Schnelljustiz würde – wie die Juristin Cherie Booth sagte – unser Recht schmälern, uns eine zivilisierte Gesellschaft zu nennen.
Die Sprache des Kampfes gegen den Terror führt nur zu leicht zu einer Justiz a la Wyatt Earp und wie sie im Western „Zwölf Uhr mittags“ zu sehen war, was der tragische Tod des Brasilianers Jean Charles de Menezes belegt, der am 22. Juli aufgrund eines Fehlers der britischen Behörden ums Leben kam.
In diesem Fall haben die Regierungen die allgemeine Angst nur allzu bereitwillig ausgenutzt. So wurde den bewaffneten Streitkräften in Italien das Recht eingeräumt, Personen anzuhalten und zu durchsuchen. In Deutschland wurde die polizeiliche Überwachung an öffentlichen Plätzen verschärft. In Frankreich werden die öffentlichen Verkehrsmittel mit Videokameras überwacht. All diese Maßnahmen mögen ja für sich genommen gerechtfertigt sein, aber in einem Klima der Angst und ohne eine ordnungsgemäße demokratische Aufsicht und Kontrolle schüren sie das Gefühl der Unsicherheit. Daher ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass in der gesamten Europäischen Union die Übergriffe auf Gläubige zugenommen haben und viele Moslems das Gefühl haben, dass sie kriminalisiert werden.
Es stünde vor allem denjenigen unter uns, die in den 60er-Jahren als Teenager in demokratischen Staaten lebten – wobei diese zuweilen auch als „Freiheitsgeneration“ bezeichnet werden –, schlecht zu Gesicht, unseren Kindern die Rechtsnormen zu verweigern, für die unsere Kollegen aus Mittel- und Osteuropa sowie einigen Teilen Südeuropas so tapfer gekämpft haben.
Die Liberalen und Demokraten teilen die Auffassung der britischen Präsidentschaft, dass Antiterrormaßnahmen vollständig und schnell umgesetzt werden müssen. Warum wurden 7 der 24 Instrumente, die vom Rat „Justiz und Inneres“ am 24. Mai behandelt wurden, noch immer nicht in allen Mitgliedstaaten umgesetzt? Weshalb rauben sechs noch nicht ratifizierte EU-Konventionen den Ministern nach wie vor Zeit, wo doch Rahmenbeschlüsse wesentlich leichter durchgesetzt werden könnten? Warum wurden Europol und Eurojust noch immer keine Handlungsbefugnisse eingeräumt? Weshalb erhält der Antiterrorkoordinator der EU nicht die Unterstützung durch die nationalen Regierungen, die er eigentlich verdient?
Der Rat beklagt sich zuweilen, dass das Parlament Sicherheitsmaßnahmen, die er einführen möchte, ablehnend gegenübersteht. Doch das Europäische Parlament würde sich viel wohler dabei fühlen, dringenden Maßnahmen zuzustimmen, wenn es davon überzeugt wäre, dass der Rat im üblichen demokratischen Rahmen handelt. So würden beispielsweise mit einem Rahmenbeschluss zum Datenschutz, der für Maßnahmen zur Datenspeicherung gelten würde, die verständlichen Ängste vieler Kolleginnen und Kollegen ausgeräumt werden, dass bestimmte Rechte ausgehöhlt werden. Wenn wir das Gesetzgebungsverfahren im Rahmen der ersten Säule durchführen würden, so dass bei der politischen Entscheidungsfindung Transparenz vorherrschen würde und bestimmte Rechte garantiert wären, dann würde Europa bei seiner Antwort auf den Terror in moralischer Hinsicht an Ansehen gewinnen. Darüber hinaus würde dieses Parlament eine ernsthafte Verpflichtung zum Austausch kriminalpolizeilicher Informationen – was sich als größte Herausforderung erweisen könnte – begrüßen und unterstützen."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κανένας πολιτισμένος άνθρωπος δεν θα μπορούσε να δικαιολογήσει τη χωρίς διακρίσεις βαρβαρότητα που στοίχισε τη ζωή σε 52 αθώους πολίτες στο Λονδίνο το πρωινό της 7ης Ιουλίου, σε μια πόλη που μόλις την προηγούμενη ημέρα είχε γιορτάσει τον πλουραλισμό, τη διαφορετικότητα και την ανοχή που είχε κερδίσει το θαυμασμό της Διεθνούς Ολυμπιακής Επιτροπής ώστε να της αναθέσει τη διοργάνωση των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων του 2012.
Η ουσία του διλήμματός μας είναι ότι το κράτος είναι ο βασικός προστάτης τόσο της ασφάλειας όσο και της ελευθερίας μας. Εάν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρόκειται να παρέχει ασφάλεια ενάντια σε υπερεθνικές απειλές, πρέπει να εξασφαλίσει επίσης υπερεθνική ελευθερία.
Κύριε Προεδρεύων, κύριε Επίτροπε, εάν είστε διατεθειμένοι να συνεργαστείτε με το Κοινοβούλιο σε αυτού του είδους τον διάλογο, θα έχετε την πλήρη στήριξη των Φιλελεύθερων και Δημοκρατών
σε αυτό το σοβαρό θέμα της αντιμετώπισης της τρομοκρατίας.
Μετά τις τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις στην Κωνσταντινούπολη και τη Μαδρίτη, κανείς δεν μπορεί να αρνηθεί ότι η τρομοκρατία σήμερα είναι μια σοβαρή πρόκληση για την Ευρώπη. Η Ομάδα μου καλωσορίζει την υπόσχεση της βρετανικής Προεδρίας και της Επιτροπής να βελτιώσουν τις πολιτικές ώστε να ισχυροποιηθεί η ασφάλεια σε ολόκληρη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Μας απασχολεί, ωστόσο, το γεγονός ότι αυτές οι πολιτικές πρέπει να είναι μετρημένες, ανάλογες και να βασίζονται στις αξίες. Δεν συμφωνούμε με τον προεδρεύοντα ότι στο Λονδίνο τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα των θυμάτων είναι πιο σημαντικά από τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα των τρομοκρατών. Τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα είναι αδιαίρετα, η ελευθερία και η ασφάλεια δεν είναι εναλλακτικές: πηγαίνουν χέρι-χέρι, με τη μια να καθιστά δυνατή την άλλη. Όπως προειδοποίησε ο Thomas Paine: «Εκείνος που έχει κατοχυρώσει την ελευθερία του πρέπει να διαφυλάξει ακόμα και τον εχθρό του από την καταπίεση, γιατί εάν παραβιάσει αυτό του το καθήκον, δημιουργεί προηγούμενο που θα φτάσει και σε αυτόν».
Όσο και να μην αρέσει στο κοινό, οι ύποπτοι για τρομοκρατία έχουν δικαιώματα. Έχουν δικαίωμα σε μια δίκαιη δίκη. Έχουν το δικαίωμα να ανακριθούν, όχι να βασανιστούν, από την αστυνομία. Έχουν το δικαίωμα σε συνήγορο και σε εκπροσώπηση στο δικαστήριο. Και, εάν καταδικαστούν, έχουν το δικαίωμα να φυλακιστούν σε μια ευρωπαϊκή φυλακή.
Δεν θα πρέπει να υπάρχουν εξαιρέσεις για τους υπηκόους τρίτων χωρών. Υπάρχει μια ανησυχητική τάση από τα κράτη μέλη να απελαύνουν άτομα που θεωρείται ότι απειλούν τη δημόσια τάξη, την εθνική ασφάλεια ή την έννομη τάξη, σε χώρες όπου μπορεί να αντιμετωπίσουν βασανισμούς ή χειρότερα. Είναι βαθύτατα ανησυχητικό όταν τα ίδια τα όργανα της δικαιοσύνης και της δημόσιας τάξης παραβιάζουν την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα και τους αυστηρά καθορισμένους διεθνείς κανόνες. Το να αναστείλεις αυτές τις αξίες και να προκαλέσεις ένα είδος συνολικής δικαιοσύνης σημαίνει, για να χρησιμοποιήσω τα λόγια της δικηγόρου Cherie Booth, ότι «ευτελίζεις το δικαίωμά μας να αποκαλούμαστε πολιτισμένη κοινωνία».
Η γλώσσα του πολέμου κατά της τρομοκρατίας οδηγεί πολύ εύκολα στη δικαιοσύνη του Wyatt Earp και του 'High Noon', όπως αποδεικνύει ο τραγικός θάνατος του Βραζιλιάνου Jean Charles de Menezes στα χέρια των αρχών του ΗΒ στις 22 Ιουλίου.
Οι κυβερνήσεις έχουν αποδειχθεί υπερβολικά πρόθυμες να εκμεταλλευθούν τον παράγοντα φόβο σε αυτή την περίπτωση. Στην Ιταλία, έχει δοθεί η δυνατότητα στις ένοπλες δυνάμεις να σταματούν και να ελέγχουν. Στη Γερμανία, έχει αυξηθεί η αστυνομική παρακολούθηση στους δημόσιους χώρους. Στη Γαλλία, οι κάμερες CCTV καλύπτουν το δημόσιο σύστημα μεταφορών. Οποιοδήποτε από αυτά τα μέτρα είναι από μόνο του δικαιολογημένο αλλά, σε ένα κλίμα φόβου, χωρίς την κατάλληλη δημοκρατική επίβλεψη και έλεγχο, καλλιεργούν ανασφάλεια. Δεν αποτελεί έκπληξη ότι τα θρησκευτικά εγκλήματα και τα εγκλήματα μίσους έχουν αυξηθεί σε όλη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και πολλοί μουσουλμάνοι αισθάνονται ότι γίνονται θύματα εγκληματικότητας.
Δεν θα άρμοζε καθόλου σε εκείνους από εμάς που ήμασταν έφηβοι τη δεκαετία του 1960 –που μερικές φορές αποκαλούμεθα «η γενιά της ελευθερίας»– να αρνηθούμε στα παιδιά μας το επίπεδο της δικαιοσύνης για το οποίο οι συνάδελφοί μας από την κεντρική, την ανατολική και μέρη της βορείου Ευρώπης πάλεψαν τόσο γενναία.
Οι Φιλελεύθεροι και Δημοκράτες
συμφωνούν με τη βρετανική Προεδρία ότι τα αντιτρομοκρατικά μέτρα πρέπει να εφαρμοστούν πλήρως και τάχιστα. Γιατί 7 από τα 24 όργανα που εξετάστηκαν από τους Υπουργούς Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων στις 24 Μαΐου δεν έχουν ακόμα εφαρμοστεί σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη; Γιατί έξι μη επικυρωμένες συμβάσεις της ΕΕ απασχολούν ακόμα τους υπουργούς, όταν οι αποφάσεις πλαίσιο θα μπορούσαν πολύ πιο εύκολα να εφαρμοστούν και να τεθούν σε ισχύ; Γιατί δεν έχει δοθεί στην Ευρωπόλ και την Eurojust η δυνατότητα να ενεργούν; Γιατί δεν προσφέρεται στο συντονιστή της ΕΕ για την τρομοκρατία η συνεργασία που χρειάζεται από τις πρωτεύουσες των κρατών μελών;
Το Συμβούλιο μερικές φορές παραπονείται για τις αντιρρήσεις του Κοινοβουλίου προς τα μέτρα ασφαλείας που επιθυμεί να εισαγάγει. Αλλά το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο θα ένοιωθε πολύ πιο άνετα στο να συμφωνεί με τα επείγοντα μέτρα εάν ήταν πεπεισμένο ότι το Συμβούλιο ενεργεί εντός ενός φυσιολογικού πλαισίου δημοκρατίας. Μια απόφαση πλαίσιο για την προστασία των δεδομένων που θα συνοδεύει τα μέτρα για τη διατήρηση δεδομένων, για παράδειγμα, θα διέλυε τους δικαιολογημένους φόβους πολλών συναδέλφων ότι καταπατώνται δικαιώματα. Η αφοσίωση στη νομοθεσία του πρώτου πυλώνα, με διάφανο καθορισμό πολιτικής και εγγυημένα δικαιώματα, θα ενίσχυε την ηθική στάση της απάντησης της Ευρώπης στην τρομοκρατία. Η σοβαρή αφοσίωση στην ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών για την εγκληματικότητα –ίσως η μεγαλύτερη πρόκληση– θα ήταν ευπρόσδεκτη και θα στηριζόταν από το Κοινοβούλιο."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, ninguna persona civilizada puede justificar la barbaridad indiscriminada que se cobró la vida de 52 civiles inocentes la mañana del 7 de julio en Londres, una ciudad que el día anterior celebraba la pluralidad, la diversidad y la tolerancia que le granjearon la admiración del Comité Olímpico Internacional y contribuyeron a que se le concedieran los Juegos Olímpicos de 2012.
La clave de nuestro dilema es que el Estado es el principal protector tanto de nuestra seguridad como de nuestra libertad. Para que la Unión Europea pueda proteger la seguridad contra amenazas supranacionales, debe garantizar la libertad también en ese ámbito supranacional.
Señor Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, señor Comisario, si están dispuestos a trabajar con el Parlamento en este tipo de diálogo, tendrán todo el apoyo de los Liberales y Demócratas en esta complicada tarea de la lucha contra el terror.
Tras los atentados terroristas de Estambul y Madrid, nadie puede negar que el terrorismo es un grave reto para Europa. Mi Grupo acoge con agrado el compromiso de la Presidencia del Reino Unido y de la Comisión para mejorar las políticas a fin de reforzar la seguridad en toda la Unión Europea. Sin embargo, creemos que esas políticas deben ser proporcionadas y estar basadas en valores. No estamos de acuerdo con el Presidente en ejercicio, que dijo en Londres que los derechos humanos de las víctimas son más importantes que los derechos humanos de los terroristas. Los derechos humanos son indivisibles; la libertad y la seguridad no son conceptos contrapuestos: son dos caras de la misma moneda, sin una no es posible la otra. Como advirtió Thomas Paine: «Quien quiera asegurar la libertad, que proteja de la opresión incluso a su enemigo, pues si infringe esta obligación, sienta un precedente que le alcanzará también a él».
Aunque al público no le guste, los sospechosos de terrorismo tienen derechos. Tienen derecho a un juicio justo. Tienen derecho a ser interrogados, y no torturados, por la policía. Tienen derecho a un abogado y a ser representados ante un tribunal. Y, si se les condena, tienen derecho a cumplir su pena en una cárcel europea.
No debería haber excepciones para nacionales de terceros países. Existe una preocupante tendencia en los Estados miembros a deportar a personas que se considera que ponen en peligro el orden público, la seguridad nacional o el Estado de derecho, a países en los que pueden sufrir torturas o incluso una suerte peor. Es muy preocupante que los propios instrumentos de la justicia y el orden público infrinjan la Carta Europea de los Derechos Humanos y normas internacionales bien definidas. Dejar en suspenso esos valores e invocar una especie de justicia sumaria sería, en palabras de la abogada Cherie Booth, «abaratar nuestro derecho a considerarnos una sociedad civilizada».
El lenguaje de la guerra contra el terror lleva con demasiada facilidad a la justicia de Wyatt Earp y «Solo ante el peligro», como demuestra la trágica muerte del ciudadano brasileño Jean Charles de Menezes a manos de las autoridades británicas el 22 de julio.
Todos los Gobiernos se han mostrado más que dispuestos a aprovechar el factor miedo. En Italia se ha autorizado a las fuerzas armadas a parar y registrar a sospechosos. En Alemania se ha incrementado la vigilancia policial en lugares públicos. En Francia el sistema de transporte público está vigilado por cámaras de circuito cerrado de televisión. Cualquiera de estas medidas puede ser justificable en sí misma, pero, en un clima de miedo sin una supervisión y un control democráticos adecuados, provocan inseguridad. No es extraño que los delitos de odio religioso hayan aumentado en toda la Unión Europea y que muchos musulmanes sientan que se les está criminalizando.
Estaría especialmente mal que aquellos de nosotros que éramos adolescentes en las democracias de los años 60 –en ocasiones nos denominaron la «generación de la libertad»– negáramos a nuestros hijos los niveles de justicia por los que lucharon con tanta valentía nuestros colegas del centro, el este y partes del sur de Europa.
Los Liberales y Demócratas estamos de acuerdo con la Presidencia del Reino Unido en que es preciso implantar rápida y plenamente medidas antiterroristas. ¿Por qué todavía no se han puesto en marcha en todos los Estados miembros siete de las 24 medidas estudiadas por los ministros de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior el 24 de mayo? ¿Por qué seis convenios comunitarios no ratificados siguen ocupando el tiempo de los ministros, cuando sería más fácil implantar y ejecutar decisiones marco? ¿Por qué no se ha capacitado para funcionar a Europol y Eurojust? ¿Por qué los Estados miembros no han colaborado como deben con el coordinador antiterrorista de la Unión Europea?
En ocasiones, el Consejo lamenta las objeciones que el Parlamento pone a las medidas de seguridad que quiere introducir. Sin embargo, el Parlamento Europeo se sentiría mucho más cómodo dando su aprobación a medidas urgentes si estuviera seguro de que el Consejo está operando en el marco normal de la democracia. Si las medidas de conservación de datos, por ejemplo, estuvieran acompañadas por una decisión marco en materia de protección de datos, se suavizaría el comprensible temor de muchos colegas a que se socaven derechos. Un compromiso para legislar en el primer pilar, con medidas legislativas transparentes y derechos garantizados, mejoraría la posición moral de la respuesta europea ante el terror. Esta Cámara acogería con agrado y apoyaría un compromiso serio para compartir información de inteligencia criminal –quizás el mayor reto."@es20
"Mr President, no civilised person could excuse the indiscriminate barbarity which claimed the lives of 52 innocent civilians in London on the morning of 7 July, a city which had only the previous day celebrated the plurality, diversity and tolerance which had won the admiration of the International Olympic Committee and helped award it the 2012 Olympic Games.
The nub of our dilemma is that the State is the main protector of both our security and our liberty. If the European Union is to provide security against supranational threats, it must guarantee liberty supranationally too.
President-in-Office, Commissioner, if you are prepared to work with Parliament in that kind of dialogue, you will have the full support of Liberals and Democrats in this serious issue of tackling terror.
Following the terror attacks in Istanbul and Madrid, nobody can deny that terrorism today is a serious challenge for Europe. My Group welcomes the commitment of the UK Presidency and of the Commission to improve policies to strengthen security across the European Union. We are concerned, however, that these policies should be measured, proportionate and value-driven. We do not agree with the President-in-Office when he said in London that the human rights of the victims were more important than the human rights of the terrorists. Human rights are indivisible; freedom and security are not alternatives: they go hand in hand, one enabling the other. As Thomas Paine warned: 'He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself'.
Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights. They have the right to a fair trial. They have the right to be interrogated, not tortured, by the police. They have the right to legal counsel and to representation in a court of law. And, if convicted, they have the right to be imprisoned in a European jail.
There should be no exception for third-country nationals. There is a worrying tendency in Member States to deport people considered to be threatening public order, national security or the rule of law, to countries where they may face torture or worse. It is deeply troubling when the tools of justice and public order themselves violate the European Charter of Human Rights and well-defined international standards. To suspend those values and invoke a form of summary justice would, in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth 'cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society'.
The language of the war on terror leads too easily to the justice of Wyatt Earp and 'High Noon', a point illustrated by the tragic death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the UK authorities on 22 July.
Governments have been all too eager to exploit the fear factor in this matter. In Italy, stop-and-search powers have been given to the armed forces. In Germany, police surveillance in public places has been stepped up. In France, CCTV cameras cover the public transport system. Any of these measures in themselves may be justifiable but, in a climate of fear without proper democratic oversight and control, they foster insecurity. No wonder that faith-hate crime has risen across the European Union and many Muslims feel they are being criminalised.
It would be particularly ill fitting for those of us who were teenagers in democracies in the 1960s – sometimes called the 'freedom generation' – to deny our children the standards of justice for which our colleagues from central, eastern and parts of southern Europe fought so bravely.
Liberals and Democrats agree with the UK Presidency that anti-terrorism measures need to be implemented fully and rapidly. Why are 7 of 24 instruments considered by Justice and Home Affairs ministers on 24 May still not implemented in all Member States? Why are six unratified EU conventions still occupying ministerial time, when framework decisions could be more easily implemented and enforced? Why have Europol and Eurojust not been given the capacity to operate? Why has the EU's antiterrorism coordinator not been allowed the cooperation he deserves from national capitals?
The Council sometimes laments Parliament's objections to security measures that it wants to introduce. But the European Parliament would feel far more comfortable in agreeing to urgent measures if it was satisfied that the Council was operating in the normal framework of democracy. A framework decision on data protection to accompany data retention measures, for example, would overcome the understandable fears of many colleagues that rights are being eroded. A commitment to legislation in the first pillar, with transparent policy-making and guaranteed rights, would enhance the moral standing of Europe's response to terror. A serious commitment to sharing criminal intelligence information – perhaps the biggest challenge – would be welcomed and supported by this House."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, kukaan sivistynyt ihminen ei voi puolustella sitä summittaista julmuutta, joka vaati 52 viattoman siviilin hengen aamulla 7. heinäkuuta Lontoossa. Juuri tämä kaupunki oli edellisenä päivänä juhlinut moninaisuutta, erilaisuutta ja suvaitsevaisuutta, joiden avulla oli voitettu Kansainvälisen olympiakomitean suosio ja saatu vuoden 2012 olympialaisten isännyys.
Ongelmamme ydin on se, että valtio on sekä turvallisuutemme että vapautemme pääasiallinen suojelija. Mikäli Euroopan unioni haluaa tarjota turvallisuutta ylikansallisia uhkia vastaan, sen on taattava myös vapaus ylikansallisella tasolla.
Arvoisa neuvoston puheenjohtaja, arvoisa komission jäsen, jos olette valmiit tässä Euroopan parlamentin kanssa osallistumaan vuoropuheluun, saatte Euroopan liberaalidemokraattien liiton ryhmän täyden tuen tässä vakavassa taistelussa terrorin tukahduttamiseksi.
Istanbulin ja Madridin terrori-iskujen jälkeen kukaan ei voi kieltää, etteikö terrorismi olisi tänä päivänä vakava haaste Euroopalle. Ryhmäni suhtautuu myönteisesti siihen, että puheenjohtajavaltio Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan ja komission ovat sitoutuneet menettelytapojen parantamiseen ja turvallisuuden vahvistamiseen koko Euroopan unionissa. Nämä menettelytavat on kuitenkin määritettävä, suhteutettava ja arvotettava. Emme ole samaa mieltä neuvoston puheenjohtajan kanssa siitä, mitä hän sanoi Lontoossa siitä, että uhrien ihmisoikeudet olisivat tärkeämpiä kuin terroristien ihmisoikeudet. Ihmisoikeudet ovat jakamattomia; vapaus ja turvallisuus eivät ole vaihtoehtoisia, vaan ne kulkevat käsi kädessä toisen mahdollistaessa toisen. Kuten Thomas Paine varoitti: " Hänen, joka varmistaa oman vapautensa, on suojeltava myös vihollistaan sorrolta, sillä jos hän laiminlyö tämän velvollisuutensa, hän löytää sen vielä edestään".
Terroristiepäillyillä on oikeuksia, vaikka yleisö ei ajatuksesta pitäisikään. Heillä on oikeus saada oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti. Heillä on oikeus tulla poliisin kuulustelemiksi, ei kiduttamiksi. Heillä on oikeus oikeudelliseen neuvontaan ja oikeusedustajaan. Jos heidät tuomitaan, heillä on oikeus kärsiä tuomionsa eurooppalaisessa vankilassa.
Kolmannen maan kansalaisten suhteen ei pitäisi olla poikkeuksia. Jäsenvaltioissa on huolestuttava suuntaus karkottaa maasta ihmisiä, joita pidetään uhkana yleiselle järjestykselle, kansalliselle turvallisuudelle tai laillisuusperiaatteelle, sellaisiin maihin, joissa heitä voidaan kiduttaa tai pahempaakin. On erittäin huolestuttavaa, että keinot oikeusjärjestyksen ja yleisen järjestyksen ylläpitämiseksi ovat ristiriidassa Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen ja tarkkaan määriteltyjen kansainvälisten standardien kanssa. Näiden arvojen lakkauttaminen ja summittainen oikeudenkäyttö "halventaisi oikeuttamme kutsua itseämme sivistyneeksi yhteiskunnaksi", on asianajaja Cherie Boothin todennut.
Puheet terrorin vastaisesta sodasta johtavat liian helposti Wyatt Earpin ja
elokuvan tyyliseen oikeuden käyttöön. Traaginen esimerkki tästä on Jean Charles de Menezesin kuolema Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan viranomaisten käsissä 22. heinäkuuta.
Hallitukset ovat aivan liian innokkaasti käyttämään hyväkseen pelkotekijää tässä asiassa. Italiassa sotilaat on oikeutettu tekemään henkilötarkastuksia. Saksassa poliisivalvonta julkisilla paikoilla on lisääntynyt. Ranskassa valvontakamerat valvovat koko julkisen liikenteen järjestelmää. Mikä tahansa näistä toimenpiteistä saattaa olla itsessään perusteltu, mutta pelon ilmapiirissä ilman kunnon demokraattista valvontaa ja tarkkailua, ne vain lisäävät epävarmuutta. Ei ihme, että uskontoon kohdistuvat viharikokset ovat lisääntyneet koko Euroopan unionin alueella, ja monet muslimit tuntevat, että heidät leimataan rikollisiksi.
Niille meistä, jotka olivat teini-ikäisiä 1960-luvun demokratioissa ja joita joskus kutsuttiin "vapauden sukupolveksi", sopisi kieltää lapsiltamme ne oikeusnormit, joiden puolesta kollegamme Keski-, Itä- ja joissain Etelä-Euroopan maissa niin urheasti taistelivat.
Euroopan liberaalidemokraattien liiton ryhmä on samaa mieltä puheenjohtajavaltio Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan kanssa siitä, että terrorismin vastaiset toimenpiteet on pantava täytäntöön täysimääräisesti ja nopeasti. Miksi seitsemää yhteensä 24:stä toimenpiteestä, joita oikeus- ja sisäasiainministerien neuvosto pohti 24. toukokuuta, ei ole vieläkään pantu täytäntöön kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa? Miksi kuusi ratifioimatonta unionin sopimusta vieläkin vievät ministerien aikaa, kun puitepäätökset voitaisiin panna täytäntöön paljon helpommin? Miksi Europolille ja Eurojustille ei ole annettu toimintakapasiteettia? Miksi jäsenvaltiot eivät ole antaneet EU:n terrorisminvastaisen toiminnan koordinoijalle mahdollisuutta sen ansaitsemaan yhteistyöhön?
Neuvosto pahoittelee joskus sitä, että Euroopan parlamentti vastustaa sen esittämiä turvallisuustoimenpiteitä. Euroopan parlamentti yhtyisi varmaan paljon helpommin kiireellisiin toimenpiteisiin, jos se olisi vakuuttunut siitä, että neuvosto toimii demokratian normaaleissa puitteissa. Esimerkiksi tietojen tallentamistoimenpiteitä täydentävä puitepäätös tietoturvasta nujertaisi monien kollegoiden ymmärrettävän pelon siitä, että oikeuksia horjutetaan. Sitoutuminen ensimmäisen pilarin lainsäädäntöön, johon kuuluvat avoin päätöksenteko ja taatut oikeudet, parantaisi Euroopan terrorisminvastaisten toimien moraalista asemaa. Sitoutuminen vakavasti rikostiedustelutietojen jakamiseen, joka on ehkä suurin haaste, olisi myönteistä, ja se saisi kannatusta Euroopan parlamentin puolelta."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, aucune personne civilisée ne peut excuser la barbarie aveugle qui a coûté la vie à 52 civils innocents à Londres le matin du 7 juillet, une ville qui, la veille, venait de célébrer la pluralité, la diversité et la tolérance qui avaient gagné l’admiration du Comité olympique international et ont contribué à l’attribution des Jeux olympiques de 2012 à Londres.
Le fait que l’État est le principal protecteur à la fois de notre sécurité et de notre liberté est au cœur de notre dilemme. Si l’Union européenne doit pourvoir à la sécurité contre des menaces supranationales, elle doit également garantir la liberté à l’échelon supranational.
Monsieur le président en exercice du Conseil, Monsieur le Commissaire, si vous êtes disposés à travailler avec le Parlement dans ce genre de dialogue, vous bénéficierez du plein soutien des libéraux et des démocrates pour cette grave question de la lutte contre la terreur.
À la suite des attentats terroristes d’Istanbul et de Madrid, personne ne peut contester que le terrorisme constitue aujourd’hui un énorme défi pour l’Europe. Mon groupe se félicite de l’engagement de la présidence britannique et de la Commission en faveur de l’amélioration des politiques visant à renforcer la sécurité partout dans l’Union européenne. Il nous semble toutefois primordial que ces politiques soient modérées, proportionnées et guidées par des valeurs. Nous ne sommes pas d’accord avec le président en exercice lorsqu’il a déclaré à Londres que les droits de l’homme des victimes étaient plus importants que les droits de l’homme des terroristes. Les droits de l’homme sont indivisibles. La liberté et la sécurité ne sont pas des alternatives: elles vont de pair, l’une permettant l’autre. Comme nous a prévenu Thomas Paine: «Celui qui veut conserver sa liberté doit protéger même ses ennemis de l’oppression, car s’il ne s’y astreint pas, il crée un précédent qui l’atteindra un jour.»
Cela a beau déplaire à l’opinion publique, les personnes soupçonnées de terrorisme ont des droits. Ils ont le droit à un procès équitable. Ils ont le droit d’être interrogés, pas torturés, par la police. Ils ont le droit à un avocat et d’être représentés devant un tribunal. Et, s’ils sont condamnés, ils ont le droit d’être emprisonnés dans un pénitencier européen.
Il ne devrait pas y avoir d’exceptions pour les citoyens de pays tiers. Il existe une tendance préoccupante dans les États membres à expulser les personnes considérées comme une menace pour l’ordre public, la sécurité nationale ou l’État de droit, dans des pays où ils peuvent être confrontés à la torture ou pire. Il est profondément troublant que les outils de la justice et de l’ordre public eux-mêmes violent la Charte européenne des droits de l’homme et les normes internationales bien définies. Suspendre ces droits et invoquer une forme de justice sommaire entraînerait, comme l’a déclaré la juriste Cherie Booth «déprécie notre droit à nous appeler une société civilisée».
Le langage de la guerre contre la terreur mène trop facilement à la justice de Wyatt Earp et du «
», un aspect illustré par la mort tragique du Brésilien Jean Charles de Menezes des mains des autorités britanniques le 22 juillet.
Les gouvernements se sont montrés bien trop empressés d’exploiter la peur dans cette affaire. En Italie, les pouvoirs d’arrêter et de fouiller un individu ont été conférés aux forces armées. En Allemagne, la surveillance policière des espaces publics s’est accrue. En France, des caméras en circuit fermé couvrent le système de transport public. Chacune de ces mesures peut en soi être défendable, pourtant, dans un climat de peur sans véritable surveillance ni contrôle démocratique, elles favorisent l’insécurité. Rien d’étonnant à ce que les crimes religieux aient augmenté dans l’Union européenne tout entière et que de nombreux musulmans estiment qu’ils sont criminalisés.
Il serait particulièrement malvenu que ceux d’entre nous qui étaient des adolescents dans les démocraties des années 1960 - parfois appelés la «génération de la liberté» - refusent à nos enfants les normes de justice pour lesquels nos collègues de l’Europe centrale, orientale et de certaines parties de l’Europe méridionale ont lutté avec tant de bravoure.
Les libéraux et les démocrates sont d’accord avec la présidence britannique pour dire que les mesures de lutte contre le terrorisme doivent pleinement et rapidement être mises en œuvre. Pour quelle raison 7 des 24 instruments examinés par les ministres de la justice et des affaires intérieures le 24 mai ne sont-ils toujours pas mis en œuvre dans tous les États membres? Pour quelle raison six conventions de l’UE qui n’ont pas été ratifiées occupent-elles toujours le temps des ministres, alors que des décisions-cadres pourraient être mises en œuvre et respectées plus aisément? Pour quelle raison Europol et Eurojust ne disposent-ils pas de la capacité d’agir? Pour quelle raison le coordinateur antiterroriste n’a-t-il pas reçu la coopération qu’il mérite des capitales nationales?
Le Conseil regrette parfois les objections du Parlement vis-à-vis de mesures de sécurité qu’il souhaite introduire. Pourtant, le Parlement européen se sentirait plus à l’aise en donnant son accord à des mesures urgentes s’il était convaincu que le Conseil opère dans le cadre normal de la démocratie. Une décision-cadre sur la protection des données pour accompagner les mesures de rétention des données viendrait à bout des peurs compréhensibles de nombreux collègues, qui craignent que les droits subissent une érosion, par exemple. Un engagement envers la législation du premier pilier, assorti d’un processus d’élaboration des politiques transparent et de droits garantis, améliorerait la réputation morale de la réponse de l’Europe à la terreur. Un engagement sérieux à partager les informations des services de renseignements sur la criminalité - peut-être le plus grand défi à relever - serait le bienvenu et aurait le soutien de cette Assemblée."@fr8
"Mr President, no civilised person could excuse the indiscriminate barbarity which claimed the lives of 52 innocent civilians in London on the morning of 7 July, a city which had only the previous day celebrated the plurality, diversity and tolerance which had won the admiration of the International Olympic Committee and helped award it the 2012 Olympic Games.
The nub of our dilemma is that the State is the main protector of both our security and our liberty. If the European Union is to provide security against supranational threats, it must guarantee liberty supranationally too.
President-in-Office, Commissioner, if you are prepared to work with Parliament in that kind of dialogue, you will have the full support of Liberals and Democrats in this serious issue of tackling terror.
Following the terror attacks in Istanbul and Madrid, nobody can deny that terrorism today is a serious challenge for Europe. My Group welcomes the commitment of the UK Presidency and of the Commission to improve policies to strengthen security across the European Union. We are concerned, however, that these policies should be measured, proportionate and value-driven. We do not agree with the President-in-Office when he said in London that the human rights of the victims were more important than the human rights of the terrorists. Human rights are indivisible; freedom and security are not alternatives: they go hand in hand, one enabling the other. As Thomas Paine warned: 'He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself'.
Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights. They have the right to a fair trial. They have the right to be interrogated, not tortured, by the police. They have the right to legal counsel and to representation in a court of law. And, if convicted, they have the right to be imprisoned in a European jail.
There should be no exception for third-country nationals. There is a worrying tendency in Member States to deport people considered to be threatening public order, national security or the rule of law, to countries where they may face torture or worse. It is deeply troubling when the tools of justice and public order themselves violate the European Charter of Human Rights and well-defined international standards. To suspend those values and invoke a form of summary justice would, in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth 'cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society'.
The language of the war on terror leads too easily to the justice of Wyatt Earp and 'High Noon', a point illustrated by the tragic death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the UK authorities on 22 July.
Governments have been all too eager to exploit the fear factor in this matter. In Italy, stop-and-search powers have been given to the armed forces. In Germany, police surveillance in public places has been stepped up. In France, CCTV cameras cover the public transport system. Any of these measures in themselves may be justifiable but, in a climate of fear without proper democratic oversight and control, they foster insecurity. No wonder that faith-hate crime has risen across the European Union and many Muslims feel they are being criminalised.
It would be particularly ill fitting for those of us who were teenagers in democracies in the 1960s – sometimes called the 'freedom generation' – to deny our children the standards of justice for which our colleagues from central, eastern and parts of southern Europe fought so bravely.
Liberals and Democrats agree with the UK Presidency that anti-terrorism measures need to be implemented fully and rapidly. Why are 7 of 24 instruments considered by Justice and Home Affairs ministers on 24 May still not implemented in all Member States? Why are six unratified EU conventions still occupying ministerial time, when framework decisions could be more easily implemented and enforced? Why have Europol and Eurojust not been given the capacity to operate? Why has the EU's antiterrorism coordinator not been allowed the cooperation he deserves from national capitals?
The Council sometimes laments Parliament's objections to security measures that it wants to introduce. But the European Parliament would feel far more comfortable in agreeing to urgent measures if it was satisfied that the Council was operating in the normal framework of democracy. A framework decision on data protection to accompany data retention measures, for example, would overcome the understandable fears of many colleagues that rights are being eroded. A commitment to legislation in the first pillar, with transparent policy-making and guaranteed rights, would enhance the moral standing of Europe's response to terror. A serious commitment to sharing criminal intelligence information – perhaps the biggest challenge – would be welcomed and supported by this House."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, nessuna persona civile può giustificare la barbarie indiscriminata che è costata la vita a 52 civili innocenti la mattina del 7 luglio a Londra, una città che solo il giorno prima aveva festeggiato la pluralità, la diversità e la tolleranza con cui si era conquistata l’ammirazione del Comitato olimpico internazionale ed era riuscita ad aggiudicarsi le Olimpiadi del 2012.
Il nodo del dilemma è che lo Stato è il principale difensore sia della nostra sicurezza sia della nostra libertà. Se l’Unione europea deve garantire la sicurezza contro le minacce soprannazionali, essa deve garantire anche la libertà a livello soprannazionale.
Signor Presidente in carica del Consiglio, signor Commissario, se siete disposti a impegnarvi con il Parlamento in questo tipo di dialogo, avrete il pieno sostegno dei democratici e dei liberali nel difficile compito di affrontare il terrorismo.
In seguito agli attentati terroristici a Istanbul e Madrid, nessuno può negare che oggigiorno il terrorismo costituisce una seria sfida per l’Europa. Il mio gruppo accoglie con favore l’impegno della Presidenza britannica e della Commissione per migliorare le politiche volte a rafforzare la sicurezza in tutta l’Unione europea. Ci preme tuttavia che tali politiche siano misurate, proporzionate e ispirate a valori. Non siamo d’accordo con il Presidente in carica del Consiglio, che ha affermato a Londra che i diritti umani delle vittime sono più importanti di quelli dei terroristi. I diritti umani sono indivisibili; libertà e sicurezza non sono alternative: vanno di pari passo, l’una permette l’altra. Come scrisse Thomas Paine: “Chi vuol essere sicuro della propria libertà deve proteggere anche il proprio nemico dall’oppressione, perché venendo meno a questo dovere, stabilisce un precedente che varrà anche per sé”.
Per quanto possa spiacere ai cittadini, i sospetti terroristi hanno dei diritti. Hanno diritto a un processo equo. Hanno diritto a essere interrogati, non torturati, dalle forze di polizia. Hanno diritto all’assistenza legale e a essere rappresentati in tribunale e, se condannati, hanno diritto a scontare la pena in un carcere europeo.
Non devono esistere eccezioni per i cittadini di paesi terzi. Vi è una tendenza allarmante negli Stati membri a deportare le persone considerate una minaccia per l’ordine pubblico, la sicurezza nazionale o lo Stato di diritto verso paesi in cui possono subire torture o peggio. Disturba profondamente che gli stessi strumenti della giustizia e dell’ordine pubblico violino la Carta europea dei diritti umani e norme internazionali ben definite. Sospendere questi valori e invocare una forma di giustizia sommaria, per usare le parole dell’avvocato Cherie Booth, “svilisce il nostro diritto di definirci una società civile”.
Il linguaggio della guerra al terrorismo conduce troppo facilmente alla giustizia di Wyatt Earp e
come dimostra la tragica morte del brasiliano Jean Charles de Menezes per mano delle autorità britanniche il 22 luglio.
I governi sono stati sin troppo pronti a sfruttare il fattore paura. In Italia sono stati conferiti poteri di fermo e perquisizione all’esercito. In Germania è stato rafforzato il controllo delle forze di polizia nei luoghi pubblici. In Francia telecamere a circuito chiuso coprono l’intero sistema di trasporti pubblici. Ciascuna di queste misure di per sé può essere giustificabile, ma in un clima di paura, senza vigilanza e controllo democratico adeguato, esse alimentano l’insicurezza. Non c’è da stupirsi se i reati legati all’odio religioso sono aumentati in tutta l’Unione europea e molti musulmani si sentono criminalizzati.
Sarebbe particolarmente fuori luogo per chi di noi era adolescente nelle democrazie degli anni Sessanta – la cosiddetta “generazione della libertà” – negare ai nostri figli gli
di giustizia per i quali i nostri colleghi dell’Europa centrale, orientale e in parte meridionale hanno lottato con grande coraggio.
I democratici e i liberali concordano con la Presidenza britannica sul fatto che le misure antiterrorismo devono essere attuate appieno e senza indugi. Perché 7 dei 24 strumenti esaminati dai ministri della Giustizia e degli Interni il 24 maggio non sono ancora stati attuati in tutti gli Stati membri? Perché si dedica ancora tempo ministeriale a sei convenzioni dell’Unione europea non ratificate, quando sarebbe più facile adottare e applicare decisioni quadro? Perché non si è conferita capacità operativa all’Europol e all’Eurojust? Perché le capitali nazionali non offrono al coordinatore antiterrorismo dell’Unione la cooperazione che merita?
Il Consiglio talvolta deplora l’opposizione del Parlamento alle misure di sicurezza che intende adottare. Tuttavia, il Parlamento europeo preferirebbe di gran lunga approvare misure urgenti, con la certezza che il Consiglio opera nel normale quadro della democrazia. Una decisione quadro sulla protezione dei dati che accompagni le misure di conservazione dei dati, per esempio, dissiperebbe il comprensibile timore di molti colleghi che i diritti siano erosi. Un impegno a favore della legislazione nel primo pilastro, con un processo decisionale trasparente e diritti garantiti, migliorerebbe la statura morale della risposta europea al terrorismo. Un serio impegno a condividere informazioni e
in materia penale – forse la sfida maggiore – sarebbe accolto con favore e sostenuto dall’Assemblea."@it12
"Mr President, no civilised person could excuse the indiscriminate barbarity which claimed the lives of 52 innocent civilians in London on the morning of 7 July, a city which had only the previous day celebrated the plurality, diversity and tolerance which had won the admiration of the International Olympic Committee and helped award it the 2012 Olympic Games.
The nub of our dilemma is that the State is the main protector of both our security and our liberty. If the European Union is to provide security against supranational threats, it must guarantee liberty supranationally too.
President-in-Office, Commissioner, if you are prepared to work with Parliament in that kind of dialogue, you will have the full support of Liberals and Democrats in this serious issue of tackling terror.
Following the terror attacks in Istanbul and Madrid, nobody can deny that terrorism today is a serious challenge for Europe. My Group welcomes the commitment of the UK Presidency and of the Commission to improve policies to strengthen security across the European Union. We are concerned, however, that these policies should be measured, proportionate and value-driven. We do not agree with the President-in-Office when he said in London that the human rights of the victims were more important than the human rights of the terrorists. Human rights are indivisible; freedom and security are not alternatives: they go hand in hand, one enabling the other. As Thomas Paine warned: 'He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself'.
Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights. They have the right to a fair trial. They have the right to be interrogated, not tortured, by the police. They have the right to legal counsel and to representation in a court of law. And, if convicted, they have the right to be imprisoned in a European jail.
There should be no exception for third-country nationals. There is a worrying tendency in Member States to deport people considered to be threatening public order, national security or the rule of law, to countries where they may face torture or worse. It is deeply troubling when the tools of justice and public order themselves violate the European Charter of Human Rights and well-defined international standards. To suspend those values and invoke a form of summary justice would, in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth 'cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society'.
The language of the war on terror leads too easily to the justice of Wyatt Earp and 'High Noon', a point illustrated by the tragic death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the UK authorities on 22 July.
Governments have been all too eager to exploit the fear factor in this matter. In Italy, stop-and-search powers have been given to the armed forces. In Germany, police surveillance in public places has been stepped up. In France, CCTV cameras cover the public transport system. Any of these measures in themselves may be justifiable but, in a climate of fear without proper democratic oversight and control, they foster insecurity. No wonder that faith-hate crime has risen across the European Union and many Muslims feel they are being criminalised.
It would be particularly ill fitting for those of us who were teenagers in democracies in the 1960s – sometimes called the 'freedom generation' – to deny our children the standards of justice for which our colleagues from central, eastern and parts of southern Europe fought so bravely.
Liberals and Democrats agree with the UK Presidency that anti-terrorism measures need to be implemented fully and rapidly. Why are 7 of 24 instruments considered by Justice and Home Affairs ministers on 24 May still not implemented in all Member States? Why are six unratified EU conventions still occupying ministerial time, when framework decisions could be more easily implemented and enforced? Why have Europol and Eurojust not been given the capacity to operate? Why has the EU's antiterrorism coordinator not been allowed the cooperation he deserves from national capitals?
The Council sometimes laments Parliament's objections to security measures that it wants to introduce. But the European Parliament would feel far more comfortable in agreeing to urgent measures if it was satisfied that the Council was operating in the normal framework of democracy. A framework decision on data protection to accompany data retention measures, for example, would overcome the understandable fears of many colleagues that rights are being eroded. A commitment to legislation in the first pillar, with transparent policy-making and guaranteed rights, would enhance the moral standing of Europe's response to terror. A serious commitment to sharing criminal intelligence information – perhaps the biggest challenge – would be welcomed and supported by this House."@lv13
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, geen enkel beschaafd persoon kan de nietsontziende barbaarse aanslag goedpraten die op de ochtend van 7 juli in Londen het leven van 52 onschuldige burgers kostte, in een stad die de dag daarvoor nog een ode had gebracht aan de pluraliteit, diversiteit en tolerantie, waarvan het Internationaal Olympisch Comité diep onder de indruk was en waardoor er mede voor werd gezorgd dat Londen de Olympische Spelen in 2012 toegewezen kreeg.
De kern van ons dilemma is dat de staat de grootste beschermer is van zowel onze veiligheid als onze vrijheid. Indien de Europese Unie bescherming tegen supranationale dreigingen wil bieden, zal zij ook de vrijheid op supranationaal niveau moeten waarborgen.
Mijnheer de fungerend voorzitter, mijnheer de commissaris, als u bereid bent om samen met het Parlement aan een dergelijke dialoog deel te nemen, kunt u bij dit grote probleem van de terrorismebestrijding op de volledige steun van de ALDE-Fractie rekenen.
Na de terroristische aanslagen in Istanbul en Madrid kan niemand meer ontkennen dat terreurbestrijding voor het hedendaagse Europa een grote uitdaging vormt. Mijn fractie verwelkomt de vastberadenheid waarmee het Britse voorzitterschap en de Commissie het beleid voor meer veiligheid in de Europese Unie willen verbeteren. Wij hechten er echter groot belang aan dat er een weloverwogen en proportioneel beleid wordt ontwikkeld en daarbij de waarden worden geëerbiedigd. Wij zijn het niet eens met de uitspraak van het fungerend voorzitterschap in Londen dat de mensenrechten van slachtoffers belangrijker zijn dan de mensenrechten van terroristen. Mensenrechten zijn ondeelbaar; vrijheid en veiligheid zijn geen alternatieven, maar gaan hand in hand met de mensenrechten. Het ene vormt een voorwaarde voor het andere. Om de waarschuwing van Thomas Paine te citeren:
Het publiek zal dit niet graag horen, maar mensen die van terrorisme worden verdacht, hebben ook rechten. Zij hebben recht op een eerlijk proces. Zij hebben het recht om verhoord te worden door de politie in plaats van gemarteld. Zij hebben recht op rechtsbijstand en op een advocaat tijdens het proces. En indien zij veroordeeld worden, hebben zij het recht om hun straf in een Europese gevangenis uit te zitten.
Er zou ook geen uitzondering gemaakt mogen worden voor burgers van buiten de EU. Er is sprake van een zorgwekkende tendens in de lidstaten om mensen die als een bedreiging van de openbare orde, de nationale veiligheid of de rechtsstaat worden gezien, te deporteren naar landen waar zij aan martelingen of nog erger blootgesteld kunnen worden. Het is zeer zorgwekkend wanneer de instrumenten die rechtvaardigheid en openbare orde moeten waarborgen, zelf eigenlijk inbreuk maken op het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en op duidelijk gedefinieerde internationale normen. Het buitenspel zetten van deze waarden en de overstap naar een soort snelrecht doet in de woorden van advocate Cherrie Booth afbreuk aan ons recht om onszelf een beschaafde samenleving te noemen.
Taalgebruik als “oorlog aan het terrorisme” leidt te gemakkelijk naar gerechtheid à la Wyatt Earp en “High Noon”, zoals geïllustreerd wordt door de tragische dood van de Braziliaan Jean Charles de Menezes als gevolg van het optreden van de Britse autoriteiten op 22 juli.
Regeringen maken maar al te gretig gebruik van de mogelijkheden die de angstfactor hen biedt. In Italië hebben de strijdkrachten de bevoegdheid gekregen om mensen aan te houden en te fouilleren. In Duitsland zijn de politiesurveillances op openbare plekken opgevoerd. In Frankrijk wordt het openbaar vervoer met videocamera’s bewaakt. Deze maatregelen zijn ieder op zich wellicht nog te rechtvaardigen, maar in een klimaat vol angst en zonder democratisch toezicht en democratische controle vormen zij een voedingsbodem voor een gevoel van onveiligheid. Geen wonder dat de criminaliteit als gevolg van de haat ten opzichte van bepaalde geloofsovertuigingen in de hele Europese Unie is toegenomen en veel moslims het gevoel hebben dat zij gecriminaliseerd worden.
Het zou degenen onder ons die in de jaren zestig van de vorige eeuw in een van de Europese landen teenagers waren - een generatie waarnaar soms ook wel eens wordt verwezen als “de generatie van de vrijheid” - bijzonder slecht staan als zij hun kinderen de rechtvaardigheidsnormen ontzeggen waar onze collega’s uit Midden-, Oost- en delen van Zuid-Europa zo moedig voor hebben gestreden.
De ALDE-Fractie is het met het Britse voorzitterschap eens dat er snel en op zo groot mogelijke schaal maatregelen ter bestrijding van het terrorisme moeten worden genomen. Waarom zijn bijvoorbeeld zeven van de vierentwintig instrumenten die de Raad Justitie en Binnenlandse Zaken op 24 mei in overweging heeft genomen, nog niet in alle lidstaten ten uitvoer gelegd? Waarom wordt er nog steeds tijd door de ministers verspild aan zes ongeratificeerde EU-Verdragen, terwijl kaderbesluiten veel eenvoudiger ten uitvoer gelegd en gehandhaafd kunnen worden? Waarom hebben Europol en Eurojust nog niet de capaciteit gekregen om op dit vlak actie te ondernemen? Waarom krijgt de coördinator voor terrorismebestrijding van de EU niet de benodigde medewerking van de nationale regeringen?
De Raad klaagt soms over de bezwaren die het Parlement maakt tegen de veiligheidsmaatregelen die de Raad wil invoeren. Het Europees Parlement zou echter veel eerder geneigd zijn om met urgente maatregelen in te stemmen als het het gevoel had dat de voorstellen van de Raad ook binnen het gebruikelijke democratische kader passen. Indien maatregelen voor het bewaren van gegevens bijvoorbeeld vergezeld zouden gaan van een kaderbesluit over gegevensbescherming, zou dat de begrijpelijke angst van veel collega’s, dat bepaalde rechten worden uitgehold, wegnemen. Daarnaast zou een grote nadruk op wetgeving in de eerste pijler, gekoppeld aan transparante beleidsvorming en gegarandeerde rechten, de morele onderbouwing van de Europese reactie op het terrorisme verbeteren. Een serieuze poging om inlichtingen op het gebied van criminaliteit uit te wisselen - en dat is misschien wel de grootste uitdaging - zou in dat geval ook op instemming en steun van dit Parlement kunnen rekenen."@nl3
"Senhor Presidente, nenhuma pessoa decente poderia desculpar os actos de barbaridade indiscriminada que ceifaram a vida a cinquenta e dois civis inocentes na manhã de 7 de Julho, em Londres, cidade que ainda na véspera celebrara a pluralidade, a diversidade e a tolerância que lhe haviam granjeado a admiração do Comité Olímpico Internacional e contribuído para que este lhe atribuísse a realização dos Jogos Olímpicos de 2012.
O nosso dilema está em que o Estado é o principal protector tanto da nossa segurança como da nossa liberdade. Se a União Europeia é chamada a oferecer segurança contra ameaças supranacionais, também deve garantir a liberdade à escala supranacional.
Senhor Presidente em exercício do Conselho, Senhor Comissário, se estiverem dispostos a trabalhar com o Parlamento com base num diálogo desta natureza, poderão contar com o pleno apoio dos Liberais e Democratas nesta séria problemática do combate ao terrorismo.
Na sequência dos ataques terroristas em Istambul e Madrid, ninguém pode negar a gravidade do desafio que o terrorismo representa hoje para a Europa. O meu grupo saúda o compromisso assumido pela Presidência britânica e pela Comissão no sentido de melhorar as políticas que visam reforçar a segurança em todo o território da União Europeia. Entendemos, porém, que estas políticas devem forçosamente ser quantificadas, equilibradas e assentes em valores fundamentais. Discordamos das palavras proferidas pelo Presidente em exercício do Conselho, em Londres, quando declarou que os direitos humanos das vítimas são mais importantes que os direitos humanos dos terroristas. Os direitos do Homem são indivisíveis. A liberdade e a segurança não constituem alternativas entre si: bem pelo contrário, andam a par, e uma propicia a outra. Conforme alertou Thomas Paine: "Aquele que quiser assegurar a própria liberdade deve defender até o seu inimigo da opressão, porque, se viola este dever, estabelece um precedente que virá a atingi-lo".
Por muito que isto desagrade à opinião pública, a verdade é que os terroristas suspeitos têm direitos. Têm direito a um julgamento imparcial. Assiste-lhes o direito de ser interrogados, não torturados, pela polícia. Têm direito a aconselhamento jurídico e a serem representados perante um tribunal judicial. E, se forem condenados a pena de prisão, assiste-lhes o direito de a cumprir num estabelecimento prisional europeu.
Não deve haver excepções para nacionais de países terceiros. Verifica-se nos Estados-Membros uma preocupante tendência para deportar pessoas consideradas uma ameaça para a ordem pública, a segurança nacional ou o Estado de direito para países onde poderão enfrentar a tortura, ou pior. É profundamente inquietante quando os próprios instrumentos de justiça e ordem pública violam a Carta Europeia dos Direitos Fundamentais e as normas internacionais já consagradas. Suspender esses valores e invocar uma forma de justiça sumária contribuiria para, nas palavras da advogada Cherie Booth “desvalorizar o nosso direito de nos considerarmos uma sociedade civilizada”.
A linguagem da guerra contra o terrorismo conduz com demasiada facilidade à justiça de Wyatt Earp e 'High Noon', como o ilustrou a trágica morte do brasileiro Jean Charles de Menezes às mãos das autoridades britânicas, no passado dia 22 de Julho.
Os governos têm tratado afincadamente de explorar o factor “medo” neste contexto. Em Itália, foram conferidos às forças armadas poderes para mandar parar e revistar as pessoas. Na Alemanha, foi intensificada a vigilância policial nos locais públicos. Em França, câmaras CCTV controlam o sistema de transpores públicos. Estas medidas, ainda que possam ser justificáveis em si mesmas, tendem, num clima de medo, sem uma vigilância e um controlo democráticos adequados, a alimentar a insegurança. Não admira que os crimes fundados no ódio religioso tenham aumentado na União Europeia e que inúmeros muçulmanos sintam que estão a ser criminalizados.
Seria particularmente inadequado que aqueles de entre nós que, na adolescência, conhecemos as democracias da década de 1960 – geração por vezes apelidada de “geração da liberdade” – negássemos aos nossos filhos os padrões de justiça pelos quais os nossos colegas da Europa Central e Oriental, e de algumas partes da Europa Meridional, lutaram com tanta coragem.
O Grupo ALDE concorda com a Presidência britânica no que respeita à necessidade de pôr de pé rapidamente medidas abrangentes de combate ao terrorismo. Por que razão sete dos vinte e quatro instrumentos decretados pelo Conselho “Justiça e Assuntos Internos” de 24 de Maio ainda não foram postos em execução por todos os Estados-Membros? Por que razão os ministros continuam a perder tempo em torno de seis convenções da UE não ratificadas, quando a aplicação e a imposição de decisões-quadro seria bem mais fácil? Por que é que a Europol e o Eurojust não foram dotados de capacidades operacionais? Por que razão foi vedada ao coordenador da luta anti-terrorismo a nível da UE a cooperação a que tem direito por parte das capitais nacionais?
O Conselho, por vezes, lamenta as objecções do Parlamento às medidas de segurança que pretende introduzir. Só que o Parlamento Europeu se sentiria muito mais à vontade a votar favoravelmente a adopção de medidas urgentes se tivesse a certeza de que o Conselho estava a actuar dentro do normal enquadramento democrático. Uma decisão-quadro sobre a protecção de dados a acompanhar as medidas de retenção de dados, por exemplo, permitiria superar os receios fundados, expressos por inúmeros colegas, de que se está perante uma situação de erosão dos direitos. Um compromisso com a legislação adoptada no âmbito do primeiro pilar, com políticas transparentes e a garantia do respeito dos direitos, reforçaria a autoridade moral da Europa na sua reposta ao terrorismo. Um compromisso sério com a troca de informações ao nível dos serviços criminais – porventura o maior de todos os desafios – seria bem acolhido e apoiado por esta Assembleia."@pt17
"Mr President, no civilised person could excuse the indiscriminate barbarity which claimed the lives of 52 innocent civilians in London on the morning of 7 July, a city which had only the previous day celebrated the plurality, diversity and tolerance which had won the admiration of the International Olympic Committee and helped award it the 2012 Olympic Games.
The nub of our dilemma is that the State is the main protector of both our security and our liberty. If the European Union is to provide security against supranational threats, it must guarantee liberty supranationally too.
President-in-Office, Commissioner, if you are prepared to work with Parliament in that kind of dialogue, you will have the full support of Liberals and Democrats in this serious issue of tackling terror.
Following the terror attacks in Istanbul and Madrid, nobody can deny that terrorism today is a serious challenge for Europe. My Group welcomes the commitment of the UK Presidency and of the Commission to improve policies to strengthen security across the European Union. We are concerned, however, that these policies should be measured, proportionate and value-driven. We do not agree with the President-in-Office when he said in London that the human rights of the victims were more important than the human rights of the terrorists. Human rights are indivisible; freedom and security are not alternatives: they go hand in hand, one enabling the other. As Thomas Paine warned: 'He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself'.
Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights. They have the right to a fair trial. They have the right to be interrogated, not tortured, by the police. They have the right to legal counsel and to representation in a court of law. And, if convicted, they have the right to be imprisoned in a European jail.
There should be no exception for third-country nationals. There is a worrying tendency in Member States to deport people considered to be threatening public order, national security or the rule of law, to countries where they may face torture or worse. It is deeply troubling when the tools of justice and public order themselves violate the European Charter of Human Rights and well-defined international standards. To suspend those values and invoke a form of summary justice would, in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth 'cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society'.
The language of the war on terror leads too easily to the justice of Wyatt Earp and 'High Noon', a point illustrated by the tragic death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the UK authorities on 22 July.
Governments have been all too eager to exploit the fear factor in this matter. In Italy, stop-and-search powers have been given to the armed forces. In Germany, police surveillance in public places has been stepped up. In France, CCTV cameras cover the public transport system. Any of these measures in themselves may be justifiable but, in a climate of fear without proper democratic oversight and control, they foster insecurity. No wonder that faith-hate crime has risen across the European Union and many Muslims feel they are being criminalised.
It would be particularly ill fitting for those of us who were teenagers in democracies in the 1960s – sometimes called the 'freedom generation' – to deny our children the standards of justice for which our colleagues from central, eastern and parts of southern Europe fought so bravely.
Liberals and Democrats agree with the UK Presidency that anti-terrorism measures need to be implemented fully and rapidly. Why are 7 of 24 instruments considered by Justice and Home Affairs ministers on 24 May still not implemented in all Member States? Why are six unratified EU conventions still occupying ministerial time, when framework decisions could be more easily implemented and enforced? Why have Europol and Eurojust not been given the capacity to operate? Why has the EU's antiterrorism coordinator not been allowed the cooperation he deserves from national capitals?
The Council sometimes laments Parliament's objections to security measures that it wants to introduce. But the European Parliament would feel far more comfortable in agreeing to urgent measures if it was satisfied that the Council was operating in the normal framework of democracy. A framework decision on data protection to accompany data retention measures, for example, would overcome the understandable fears of many colleagues that rights are being eroded. A commitment to legislation in the first pillar, with transparent policy-making and guaranteed rights, would enhance the moral standing of Europe's response to terror. A serious commitment to sharing criminal intelligence information – perhaps the biggest challenge – would be welcomed and supported by this House."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Ingen civiliserad person kan ursäkta den urskillningslösa barbariska handling som tog 52 oskyldiga civilas liv i London morgonen den 7 juli, en stad som dagen före hade firat den mångfald och tolerans som vunnit Internationella olympiska kommitténs gillande och gjort att staden tilldelats de olympiska spelen år 2012.
Kärnan i vårt dilemma är att staten är ytterst ansvarig för att skydda både vår säkerhet och vår frihet. Om EU ska erbjuda skydd mot överstatliga hot måste det också garantera överstatlig frihet.
Herr rådsordförande, herr kommissionsledamot! Om ni är beredda att arbeta med parlamentet i denna typ av dialog kommer ni att få Alliansen liberaler och demokrater för Europas fulla stöd i den viktiga frågan om terrorismbekämpning.
Efter terroristattackerna i Istanbul och Madrid kan ingen förneka att terrorismen är en svår utmaning för Europa. Min grupp välkomnar att Förenade kungarikets ordförandeskap åtar sig att stärka politiken för ökad säkerhet i hela EU. Vi är dock angelägna om att dessa politiska strategier är genomtänkta, väl avvägda och bygger på värderingar. Vi håller inte med rådets ordförande som i London sa att offrens mänskliga rättigheter är viktigare än terroristernas mänskliga rättigheter. De mänskliga rättigheterna är odelbara; frihet och säkerhet är inte ett ”antingen-eller”, utan de går hand i hand och den ena möjliggör den andra. Som Thomas Paine varnade: ”Den som vill säkra sin egen frihet måste även skydda sin fiende från förtryck; för om man bryter mot de skyldigheterna skapar man ett mönster som slår tillbaka mot en själv”.
Hur mycket allmänheten än ogillar det har misstänkta terrorister rättigheter. De har rätt till en rättvis rättegång. De har rätt att bli förhörda, inte torterade, av polisen. De har rätt till juridiskt ombud och att bli företrädda i domstol. Och om de fälls för brott har de rätt att få sitta i ett europeiskt fängelse.
Det bör inte finnas några undantag för medborgare från tredjeland. Det finns en oroväckande tendens i medlemsstaterna att deportera människor som anses utgöra ett hot mot den allmänna ordningen, den nationella säkerheten eller rättssamhället till länder där de kan utsättas för tortyr eller värre saker. Det är djupt oroväckande när verktygen för rättvisa och allmän ordning själva bryter mot Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och väldefinierade internationella normer. Att avskaffa dessa värderingar och åberopa ett slags förenklat rättsförfarande skulle med advokat Cherie Booths ord ”klassa ner vår rätt att kalla oss för ett civiliserat samhälle”.
Terrorkrigets språk leder alltför lätt till Wyatt Earps rättvisa och ”High Noon”, något som åskådliggörs av den brasilianske Jean Charles Menezes tragiska död i händerna på Förenade kungarikets myndigheter den 22 juli.
Regeringarna har varit alltför ivriga att utnyttja rädslan i denna fråga. I Italien har försvaret fått befogenheter att stoppa och kroppsvisitera människor. I Tyskland har polisövervakningen på offentliga platser trappats upp. I Frankrike täcks det allmänna transportsystemet av övervakningskameror. Alla dessa åtgärder kan eventuellt rättfärdigas som sådana men i ett klimat där det råder rädsla och där det saknas ordentlig demokratisk tillsyn och kontroll främjar de osäkerhet. Inte undra på att de religiösa hatbrotten har ökat i hela EU och att många muslimer känner sig kriminaliserade.
Det skulle se särskilt illa ut för dem av oss som var tonåringar i demokratier på 60-talet – ibland kallade ”frihetsgenerationen” – om våra barn förvägrades de rättvisenormer som våra kolleger från Central- och Östeuropa och delar av södra Europa så tappert kämpade för.
Alliansen liberaler och demokrater för Europa håller med Förenade kungarikets ordförandeskap om att åtgärder mot terrorismen bör vidtas till fullo och snabbt. Varför har 7 av de 24 instrument som ministrarna för rättsliga och inrikes frågor diskuterade den 24 maj fortfarande inte genomförts i alla medlemsstater? Varför tar sex oratificerade EU-konventioner fortfarande upp ministrarnas tid när rambeslut skulle kunna genomföras och verkställas på ett enklare sätt? Varför har Europol och Eurojust inte fått möjligheten att verka? Varför har EU:s antiterroristsamordnare inte tillåtits det samarbete han förtjänar från de nationella huvudstäderna?
Rådet beklagar ibland parlamentets invändningar mot de säkerhetsåtgärder som det vill införa. Men Europaparlamentet skulle känna sig mycket tryggare att gå med på brådskande åtgärder om det var helt säkert på att rådet agerade inom demokratins normala ramar. Ett rambeslut om dataskydd tillsammans med åtgärder för bevarande av uppgifter skulle exempelvis övervinna många kollegers begripliga oro för att rättigheterna urholkas. Ett åtagande om lagstiftning inom den första pelaren, med öppenhet och insyn i beslutsfattandet och garanterade rättigheter, skulle förbättra EU:s moraliska ställning i dess agerande mot terrorn. Ett seriöst åtagande att utbyta kriminalunderrättelseinformation – kanske den största utmaningen – skulle välkomnas och stödjas av parlamentet."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Aplausos)"20,17
"(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"Graham Watson,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"Mezzogiorno di fuoco"12
"Seriffi"7
"Train sifflera trois fois"8
"on behalf of the ALDE Group"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4
"“Hij die zijn eigen vrijheid wil waarborgen, dient zelfs zijn vijand van onderdrukking te vrijwaren. As hij deze plicht verzaakt, schept hij een precedent dat zich uiteindelijk ook tegen hemzelf zal keren”."3
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples