Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.2.3-015"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@cs1
"Hr. formand, jeg ønsker at takke formanden, hr. Clarke, og kommissær Frattini for deres taler i dag. Jeg ønsker endvidere at understrege min totale afsky for og fordømmelse af alle terrorhandlinger. Jeg kommer fra Irland og forstår virkningerne og konsekvenserne af terror og den måde, hvorpå terror kan underminere - ikke blot meget grundlæggende menneskerettigheder og retten til livet - men også statens magt, institutionernes magt og rettænkende og frihedselskende menneskers ret til at yde modstand over for politiske bevægelser og leve deres liv i fred og sameksistens.
Vi kan alle nævne eksempler og forskellige tidspunkter, hvor terrorhandlinger har forfærdet os i en sådan grad, at vi har ønsket at reagere efter den gamle bibelske regel om "øje for øje, tand for tand". Vi har på mange måder været meget heldige, fordi mange af vores ledere i disse krisetider har besindet sig og afventet efterretningsoplysningerne inden handling som reaktion på truslen.
I dagens forhandling skal vi også besinde os og ikke give efter for snæversynet krigsgalskab, som nogle opfordrer til, men fokusere på at skabe et bedre EU, et EU, der består af nationer, som med deres egne demokratisk valgte regeringer kan vurdere og beslutte, hvad de vil samarbejde om, hvad de ønsker at gøre, og om de ønsker love, direktiver, rammeaftaler eller blot bilaterale aftaler. Det er præcis sådan, demokratisk kontrol skal fungere i et område med frihed og sikkerhed.
Når vi gennemgår historiebøgerne fra det tyvende og 21. århundrede, er terrorismen og konsekvenserne heraf - og den menneskelige ødelæggelse - lige så omfattende i dag som i begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede. Men samtidig forekommer de samme fejl i dag i starten af det 21. århundrede, som regeringerne begik i begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede.
Når vi taler om at udnytte retsvidenskaben i det arbejde, der udføres i forbindelse med den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention, og når vi bygger videre derpå, bør vi naturligvis være meget taknemmelige over at høre, at vores love og politikker vil blive vejledt af disse principper. Men samtidig synes de handlinger, som vi oplever efter sådanne udtalelser, sommetider at underminere de meget grundlæggende principper i den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention. Når vi fastsætter særlige love og nye love som reaktion på disse nødsituationer, opretholdes de alt for ofte efter, at nødsituationen er overstået.
Vi skal naturligvis samarbejde. Vi skal naturligvis udarbejde værktøjer til vores sikkerhedstjenester for at sikre, at de ikke blot kan forhindre terrorisme, men også pågribe terroristerne, de økonomiske bagmænd og de personer, der er involveret i andre former for kriminalitet, uanset om det er narkotikahandel, hvidvaskning af penge eller menneskehandel. Vi har oplevet den frygtelige situation, at mennesker har mistet livet i lastbiler i europæiske havne. Vi har oplevet den frygtelige situation, at mennesker har mistet livet i små både i forsøget på at komme til Europa på grund af menneskehandlernes misbrug af deres menneskerettigheder. Jeg vil skynde mig at tilføje, at jeg ikke mener, at alle regeringer er dårlige, og at alle oppositionsgrupper eller ikke-statslige grupper har ret. Der skal være balance mellem rettighederne for den enkelte og rettighederne for alle.
Vi skal være fortalere for den nye verden, en verden som anerkender de grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, retten til livet, retten til frihed, retten til sikkerhed. Med alle disse rettigheder følger et ansvar. Vi indgår i en social kontrakt med vores regeringer. Vi giver afkald på nogle af vores egne personlige rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder i samfundets interesse for at sikre, at vores verden, vores lande, vores byer er bedre og mere sikre. Men når vi giver afkald på disse personlige rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder, forventer vi til gengæld også det samme ansvar fra magthaverne. Vi forventer samme ansvar fra de personer, der leder vores sikkerhedsstyrker, og som ikke må misbruge denne rettighed eller misbruge de opgaver, som vi har givet dem. Samfundets interesse, som staten tjener, er kun så stærk som borgernes vished om, at deres rettigheder beskyttes, og at deres ansvarsområder er klare og tydelige."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Ich möchte dem amtierenden Ratspräsidenten, Herrn Clarke, und Kommissar Frattini für ihre heutigen Redebeiträge danken. Außerdem möchte ich zu Protokoll geben, dass ich sämtliche Terroranschläge zutiefst verabscheue und verurteile, denn ich äußere mich hier als Vertreter der irischen Insel und kenne die Auswirkungen und Folgen des Terrorismus. Ich weiß, wie der Terrorismus nicht nur das wichtigste Menschenrecht – das Recht auf Leben – unterwandern kann, sondern auch die Macht des Staates und der Institutionen sowie das Recht rechtschaffener und frei denkender Bürger aushöhlen kann, gegen politische Bewegungen zu opponieren und ihren Alltag zu gestalten.
Wir alle können uns an einzelne Beispiele und bestimmte Zeiten erinnern, als uns Terrorangriffe dermaßen in Angst und Schrecken versetzten, dass wir entsprechend der alten biblischen Regel „Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn“ reagieren wollten. Wir hatten jedoch in vielerlei Hinsicht das große Glück, dass viele unserer Staatschefs in solchen Krisenzeiten die Ruhe bewahrten und erst die nachrichtendienstlichen Informationen abwarteten, bevor sie auf die Bedrohung reagierten.
In der heutigen Aussprache müssen wir ebenso die Ruhe bewahren und dürfen nicht dem patriotischen Scheuklappendenken unterliegen, das von Einigen gefördert wird. Vielmehr sollten wir uns darauf konzentrieren, die Europäische Union besser auszugestalten; eine Europäische Union, die aus einem Europa der Nationalstaaten besteht, wo die Nationalstaaten mit ihren eigenen demokratisch gewählten Regierungen bestimmen und entscheiden, in welchen Bereichen sie zusammenarbeiten, welche Vorhaben sie in Angriff nehmen und ob es Gesetze, Richtlinien, Rahmenabkommen oder bloß bilaterale Abkommen geben wird. So sollte auch im Wesentlichen die demokratische Kontrolle in den Bereichen Freiheit und Sicherheit funktionieren.
Denn bei einem Blick die Geschichtsbücher des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts wird deutlich, dass der Terrorismus und seine Folgen – und das dadurch verursachte menschliche Leid – gegenwärtig noch genauso schlimm sind wie zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. Die gleichen Fehler, die von den Regierungen am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts gemacht wurden, scheinen sich jetzt zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts zu wiederholen.
Wenn davon die Rede ist, dass bei der Arbeit an der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention auf die Rechtslehre zurückgegriffen und diese als Grundlage herangezogen wird, sollten wir natürlich alle heilfroh sein, dass unsere Gesetze und Politiken auf diesen Grundsätzen beruhen werden. Doch gleichzeitig scheinen die Maßnahmen, die auf solche Worte folgen, bisweilen genau diese Grundprinzipien, die in der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention verankert sind, zu unterwandern. Bei der Einführung von Sondergesetzen und neuen Gesetzen als Reaktion auf Ausnahmesituationen bleiben diese – nachdem der Notfall schon längst nicht mehr besteht – allzu oft in unseren Gesetzesbüchern stehen und können dann immer wieder angewendet werden.
Natürlich müssen wir zusammenarbeiten. Natürlich müssen wir unseren Sicherheitsdiensten Instrumente in die Hand geben, mit denen sie nicht nur terroristische Anschläge verhindern, sondern auch Terroristen und solche Personen festnehmen können, die den Terrorismus finanzieren oder in andere Formen der Kriminalität wie Drogenhandel, Geldwäsche oder Menschenhandel verwickelt sind. Wir haben voller Entsetzen vernommen, dass in vielen europäischen Häfen Menschen in Schiffscontainern tot aufgefunden wurden. Wir wissen von den entsetzlichen Leiden, die Menschen erdulden mussten, die bei ihrem Versuch, nach Europa zu gelangen, in Booten ums Leben kamen, weil ihre Menschenrechte von Menschenhändlern verletzt wurden. Ich sollte allerdings hinzufügen, dass ich nicht zu denjenigen gehöre, die der Meinung sind, dass alle Regierungen im Unrecht und alle Oppositionsgruppen bzw. Nichtregierungsorganisationen im Recht seien. Vielmehr muss das richtige Gleichgewicht zwischen den Rechten des Einzelnen und den Rechten der Allgemeinheit gefunden werden.
Wir müssen zu Vorboten einer neuen Welt werden, einer Welt, in der solche Grundrechte und elementaren Rechte wie das Recht auf Freiheit, das Recht auf Leben und das Recht auf Sicherheit geachtet werden. All diese Rechte bringen jedoch auch Verpflichtungen mit sich. Wir gehen mit unseren Regierungen einen Sozialvertrag ein. Wir verzichten zugunsten des Gemeinwohls auf einige unserer individuellen Rechte und Freiheiten, damit unsere Welt, unsere Länder und unsere Städte besser und sicherer werden. Aber wir verzichten auf diese individuellen Rechte und Freiheiten nur in dem Vertrauen, dass unsere Entscheidungsträger damit verantwortungsbewusst umgehen. Wir erwarten, dass die Befehlshaber der Sicherheitskräfte Verantwortungsbewusstsein an den Tag legen und diese Rechte und die ihnen übertragenen Zuständigkeiten nicht ausnutzen. Das Gemeinwohl, dem die staatlichen Behörden dienen, stellt nur dann ein starkes Leitprinzip dar, wenn die Bürger sich sicher sein können, dass ihre Rechte geschützt und ihre Pflichten klar definiert sind."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τον Προεδρεύοντα του Συμβουλίου, κ. Clarke, καθώς και τον Επίτροπο Frattini για τις σημερινές ομιλίες τους. Θα ήθελα, επίσης, να καταχωρηθεί στα πρακτικά του Κοινοβουλίου η απόλυτη φρίκη που νιώθω και η καταδίκη των τρομοκρατικών πράξεων, μιλώντας από την πλευρά κάποιου που προέρχεται από το νησί της Ιρλανδίας και καταλαβαίνει τις συνέπειες και τον αντίκτυπο της τρομοκρατίας, τον τρόπο με τον οποίο μπορεί να υπονομεύσει όχι μόνο αυτό το βασικό ανθρώπινο δικαίωμα, το δικαίωμα στη ζωή, αλλά και τη δύναμη του κράτους, τη δύναμη των θεσμών και το δικαίωμα των καλών και ελεύθερων στη σκέψη ανθρώπων να αντιταχθούν σε πολιτικές κινήσεις και να ασχολούνται με την καθημερινή ζωή τους.
Όλοι μπορούμε να υποδείξουμε μεμονωμένα παραδείγματα και διαφορετικές στιγμές όπου οι τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις μας έχουν φοβίσει τόσο ώστε να θέλουμε να απαντήσουμε σύμφωνα με το «οφθαλμός αντί οφθαλμού και οδόντας αντί οδόντος» της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης. Ήμασταν πολύ τυχεροί σε πολλές περιπτώσεις καθώς σε πολλές από αυτές τις περιπτώσεις κρίσης πολλοί από τους ηγέτες μας έχουν καταφέρει να παραμείνουν ψύχραιμοι και να περιμένουν τις εκθέσεις των υπηρεσιών πληροφοριών πριν απαντήσουν στην απειλή.
Στη σημερινή συζήτηση, πρέπει ομοίως να παραμείνουμε ήρεμοι και να μην ενδώσουμε στη στενή υπερεθνικοφροσύνη που ενθαρρύνουν ορισμένοι, αλλά αντιθέτως να επικεντρωθούμε στη δημιουργία μιας καλύτερης Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, μίας Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης που απαρτίζεται από ευρωπαϊκά κράτη μέλη, όπου αυτά τα κράτη μέλη με τις δικές τους δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένες κυβερνήσεις καθορίζουν και αποφασίζουν σε τι θα συνεργαστούν, τι θα κάνουν και εάν θα έχουν νόμους, οδηγίες, συμφωνίες πλαίσιο ή απλώς διμερείς συμφωνίες. Αυτή είναι η ουσία του δημοκρατικού ελέγχου βάσει του οποίου πρέπει να λειτουργεί ένας χώρος ελευθερίας και ασφάλειας.
Επειδή, όταν κοιτάζουμε τα βιβλία ιστορίας του 20ού και του 21ου αιώνα, η τρομοκρατία και ο αντίκτυπός της –καθώς και ο ανθρώπινος όλεθρος που προκαλεί– αποτελούν τόσο σοβαρά θέματα σήμερα όσο ήταν και στις αρχές του 20ού αιώνα. Ομοίως, όμως, τα ίδια λάθη που έγιναν από κυβερνήσεις στις αρχές του 20ού αιώνα φαίνεται να επαναλαμβάνονται σήμερα στις αρχές του 21ου αιώνα.
Όταν ακούμε συζητήσεις για τη χρήση νομολογίας στην εργασία που γίνεται αναφορικά με την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα, και ότι αυτό εξελίσσεται, βεβαίως θα πρέπει να χαιρόμαστε όλοι να ακούμε ότι οι νόμοι μας και οι πολιτικές μας θα καθοδηγούνται από τις εν λόγω αρχές. Ταυτόχρονα, όμως, οι πράξεις που βλέπουμε μετά από αυτές τις συζητήσεις συχνά φαίνεται να υπονομεύουν αυτά τα πολύ βασικά δόγματα που περιλαμβάνονται στην Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα. Πολύ συχνά, όταν εισηγούμαστε ειδικούς νόμους και νέους νόμους σε απάντηση αυτών των επειγουσών αναγκών ή καταστάσεων, παραμένουν στα βιβλία μας αφού περάσει η επείγουσα κατάσταση και μπορούν να χρησιμεύσουν ξανά και ξανά.
Βεβαίως, πρέπει να έχουμε συνεργασία. Βεβαίως, πρέπει να προσφέρουμε τα εργαλεία στις υπηρεσίες ασφαλείας μας προκειμένου να εξασφαλίσουμε ότι είναι ικανές όχι μόνο να εμποδίσουν την τρομοκρατία, αλλά επίσης να συλλάβουν τους ενόχους της τρομοκρατίας, εκείνους που χρηματοδοτούν την τρομοκρατία και εκείνους που εμπλέκονται σε άλλες μορφές εγκληματικότητας, είτε πρόκειται για διακίνηση ναρκωτικών, ξέπλυμα χρήματος ή διακίνηση ανθρώπων. Έχουμε δει τη φρίκη ανθρώπων που πεθαίνουν μέσα σε φορτηγά που βρίσκονται σε λιμάνια ανά την Ευρώπη. Έχουμε δει τη φρίκη ανθρώπων να πεθαίνουν σε πλοία στην προσπάθειά τους να φτάσουν στην Ευρώπη εξαιτίας της καταπάτησης των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων τους από τους διακινητές ανθρώπων. Θα σπεύσω να προσθέσω ότι δεν είμαι από εκείνους που λένε ότι όλες οι κυβερνήσεις έχουν άδικο και ότι όλες οι ομάδες της αντιπολίτευσης και οι μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις έχουν δίκιο. Υπάρχει μία ισορροπία που μπορεί να επιτευχθεί μεταξύ των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων και των δικαιωμάτων του κοινού καλού.
Πρέπει να γίνουμε οι προάγγελοι του νέου κόσμου, ενός κόσμου που αναγνωρίζει αυτά τα θεμελιώδη και βασικά δικαιώματα της ελευθερίας, του δικαιώματος στη ζωή, του δικαιώματος στην ελευθερία και του δικαιώματος στην ασφάλεια. Με όλα αυτά τα δικαιώματα επέρχεται και η ευθύνη. Εισερχόμαστε σε ένα κοινωνικό συμβόλαιο με τις κυβερνήσεις μας. Παραιτούμαστε ορισμένων δικαιωμάτων και ελευθεριών μας προς όφελος του κοινού καλού ώστε να διαβεβαιώσουμε ότι ο κόσμος μας, οι χώρες μας, οι πόλεις μας είναι καλύτερα και πιο ασφαλή μέρη. Παραχωρώντας, όμως, αυτά τα μεμονωμένα δικαιώματα και ελευθερίες, αναμένουμε, επίσης, να επιδείξουν την ίδια υπευθυνότητα και εκείνοι που βρίσκονται στην εξουσία. Αναμένουμε να επιδείξουν την ίδια υπευθυνότητα και εκείνοι που διοικούν τις δυνάμεις ασφαλείας μας, να μην κάνουν κατάχρηση αυτού του δικαιώματος και να μην κάνουν κατάχρηση των καθηκόντων που τους έχουμε αναθέσει. Το κοινό καλό που εξυπηρετούν οι αρχές του κράτους είναι τόσο ισχυρό όσο η βεβαιότητα στο μυαλό των πολιτών ότι τα δικαιώματά τους προστατεύονται και οι ευθύνες τους είναι ξεκάθαρες."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, quiero dar las gracias al Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, el señor Clarke, y al Comisario Frattini, por sus discursos de hoy. También quiero dejar constancia en esta Cámara de mi absoluto horror y condena de todos los actos terroristas, hablando como alguien que procede de la isla de Irlanda y que entiende los efectos y el impacto del terrorismo, la forma en la que puede arruinar no solo ese derecho humano básico que es el derecho a la vida, sino también el poder del Estado, el poder de las instituciones y el derecho de las personas de buena voluntad y pensamiento libre a oponerse a los movimientos políticos y a atender a sus quehaceres cotidianos.
Todos podemos citar ejemplos individuales y hablar de diferentes momentos en los que los actos terroristas nos han horrorizado tanto que hemos querido responder de acuerdo con la vieja norma bíblica del ojo por ojo y diente por diente. Hemos tenido mucha suerte en muchos sentidos, porque, en esos momentos de crisis, muchos de nuestros líderes han sido capaces de mantener la calma y esperar la llegada de la información de los servicios de inteligencia antes de responder a la amenaza.
En este debate de hoy, debemos igualmente mantener la calma y no caer en el estrecho patrioterismo que algunas personas fomentan, sino más bien concentrarnos en crear una Unión Europea mejor, esa Unión Europea que se compone de Estados nacionales que tienen sus propios Gobiernos elegidos democráticamente y determinan y deciden en qué cooperarán, qué harán y si se dotarán de leyes, directivas, acuerdos marco o simplemente acuerdos bilaterales. Esa es la esencia de la forma en la que debería funcionar el control democrático en el espacio de libertad y seguridad.
Porque si miramos en los libros de historia de los siglos XX y XXI, el terrorismo y su impacto –así como la devastación humana que causa– son tan importantes hoy como a comienzos del siglo XX. Sin embargo, igualmente, los mismos errores que cometieron los Gobiernos a comienzos del siglo XX parecen estar repitiéndose hoy, a comienzos del siglo XXI.
Cuando oímos hablar acerca de utilizar la jurisprudencia en el trabajo que se está realizando con respecto al Convenio Europeo para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y basarnos en ella, por supuesto todos deberíamos sentirnos animados al escuchar que nuestras leyes y nuestras políticas se regirán por esos principios. Sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, las acciones que vemos seguir a estas palabras parecen, en ocasiones, socavar esos mismos principios básicos consagrados en el Convenio Europeo para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos. Con demasiada frecuencia, cuando introducimos leyes especiales y nuevas leyes en respuesta a estos tipos de emergencias o situaciones, permanecen en nuestros códigos después de que la emergencia haya pasado y pueden ser utilizadas una y otra vez.
Por supuesto, necesitamos la cooperación. Por supuesto, debemos dotar de las herramientas necesarias a nuestros servicios de seguridad para garantizar que sean capaces no solo de prevenir el terrorismo, sino también de capturar a sus autores, a quienes financian el terrorismo y a quienes están implicados en otras formas de criminalidad, sea el tráfico de drogas, el blanqueo de dinero o la trata de personas. Hemos visto los horrores de personas muriendo dentro de remolques de contenedores en los puertos de toda Europa. Hemos visto los horrores de personas muriendo en botes, intentando llegar a Europa, debido al abuso de sus derechos humanos por parte de los traficantes de personas. Permítanme apresurarme a añadir que no soy una de esas personas que dice que todos los Gobiernos están equivocados y todos los grupos de la oposición o grupos no gubernamentales tienen la razón. Debemos conseguir un equilibrio entre los derechos del individuo y los derechos del bien común.
Debemos convertirnos en los heraldos de un nuevo mundo, un mundo que reconozca los derechos básicos y fundamentales de la libertad, el derecho a la vida, el derecho a la libertad, el derecho a la seguridad. Todos esos derechos conllevan una responsabilidad. Celebramos un contrato social con nuestros Gobiernos. Renunciamos a algunos de nuestros propios derechos y libertades individuales a cambio del bien común, para asegurarnos de que nuestro mundo, nuestros países, nuestras ciudades sean lugares mejores y más seguros. Sin embargo, al renunciar a esos derechos y libertades individuales, también esperamos la misma responsabilidad por parte de quienes se encuentran en el poder. Esperamos la misma responsabilidad por parte de quienes dirigen nuestras fuerzas de seguridad, para que no abusen de ese derecho ni de las tareas que les hemos asignado. El bien común al que sirve la autoridad del Estado es simplemente tan fuerte como la certidumbre en las mentes de sus ciudadanos de que sus derechos están protegidos y sus responsabilidades están claras."@es20
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, haluan kiittää arvoisaa neuvoston puheenjohtajaa Clarkea ja arvoisaa komission jäsentä Frattinia heidän puheenvuoroistaan tänään. Haluan myös ilmaista tälle parlamentille, kuinka kauhistunut olen kaikista terrori-iskuista, jotka tuomitsen täysin. Irlannista kotoisin olevana tunnen terrorismin vaikutukset ja seuraukset sekä sen, kuinka terrorismi horjuttaa perusihmisoikeuden eli elämänoikeuden lisäksi myös valtion ja hallintoelinten valtaa sekä hyvien ja vapaasti ajattelevien ihmisten oikeutta ryhtyä vastarintaan poliittisia liikkeitä vastaan ja jatkaa jokapäiväistä elämäänsä.
Voimme kaikki osoittaa yksittäisiä esimerkkejä ja erinäisiä kertoja, jolloin terroristiteot ovat kauhistuttaneet meitä niin, että olemme halunneet vastata Raamatun vanhan silmä silmästä ja hammas hampaasta -säännön mukaan. Olemme olleet monin tavoin onnekkaita, sillä noina kriisiaikoina monet johtajamme ovat kyenneet pysymään rauhallisina ja odottamaan tiedustelupalvelun tietoja ennen uhkaan reagoimista.
Meidän on pysyttävä samalla tavalla rauhallisina tämänpäiväisessä keskustelussa, emmekä saa antaa valtaa ahdasmieliselle kansalliskiihkolle, johon jotkut kannustavat. Meidän on keskityttävä luomaan parempi Euroopan kansallisvaltioista koostuva Euroopan unioni, jossa nuo kansallisvaltiot omine demokraattisesti valittuine hallituksineen määräävät ja päättävät minkälaiseen yhteistyöhön he ryhtyvät, mitä ne tekevät ja onko niillä lakeja, direktiivejä, puitesopimuksia vai pelkästään kahdenkeskisiä sopimuksia. Tällä tavalla demokraattisen hallinnon olisi toimittava vapauden ja turvallisuuden alalla.
Jos nimittäin luemme 1900- ja 2000-luvun historiankirjoja, huomaamme, että terrorismi ja sen vaikutukset – sekä sen aiheuttama inhimillinen tuho – ovat yhtä merkittäviä tänään kuin 1900-luvun alussakin. Silti hallitusten 1900-luvun alussa tekemät virheet näyttävät toistuvan nyt 2000-luvun alussa.
Kuullessamme puhuttavan siitä, kuinka oikeusjärjestystä käytetään Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimukseen liittyvässä työssä ja kuinka sen perustalle rakennetaan, meitä kaikkia pitäisi tietysti rohkaista se, että nuo periaatteet ohjaavat lakejamme ja menettelytapojamme. Samalla kuitenkin toiminta, johon ryhdytään puheiden johdosta tuntuu joskus horjuttavan juuri Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen sisältämiä perusperiaatteita. Liian usein tällaisten hätätapausten ja tilanteiden johdosta laatimamme erityislait ja uudet lait jäävät voimaan myös hätätilanteen mentyä ohi, jolloin niihin voidaan vedota yhä uudelleen.
Meillä on totta kai oltava yhteistyötä. Meidän on tietenkin annettava turvallisuuspalvelullemme keinot varmistaa, että ne kykenevät terrorismin torjunnan lisäksi myös ottamaan kiinni terroristit, terrorismin rahoittajat ja ne, jotka ovat sekaantuneet muun tyyppiseen rikollisuuteen, oli se sitten huumekauppaa, rahanpesua tai ihmiskauppaa. Olemme joutuneet todistamaan hirvittäviä tapauksia, joissa ihmisiä on kuollut rekkojen kontteihin Euroopan satamissa ja tapauksia, joissa ihmisiä on kuollut veneisiin yrittäessään päästä Eurooppaan, koska ihmiskauppiaat eivät kunnioita heidän ihmisoikeuksiaan. Lisään heti, että en ole niitä ihmisiä, joiden mielestä kaikki hallitukset ovat väärässä ja kaikki oppositiopuolueet ja hallituksen ulkopuoliset ryhmittymät ovat oikeassa. Yksilön oikeuksien ja yhteisen hyvän välille on saatava tasapaino.
Meistä on tultava uuden maailman sanansaattajia. Maailman, joka tunnustaa nuo perusoikeudet vapauteen, elämään ja turvallisuuteen. Kaikki nämä oikeudet tuovat tullessaan vastuun. Meillä on sosiaalinen sopimus hallitustemme kanssa. Me luovumme joistain yksilön oikeuksistamme ja vapauksistamme yhteisen hyvän vuoksi varmistaaksemme, että maailmamme, maamme ja kaupunkimme ovat parempia ja turvallisempia paikkoja. Luovuttuamme näistä yksilön oikeuksista ja vapauksista odotamme kuitenkin myös samanlaista vastuullisuutta vallanpitäjien taholta. Odotamme niiden taholta, jotka johtavat turvallisuusjoukkojamme, samanlaista vastuullisuutta, etteivät ne käytä väärin tuota oikeutta tai tehtäviä, jotka me olemme heille antaneet. Yhteinen hyvä, jota valtion viranomaiset palvelevat, on vain niin vahva kuin kansalaisten tuntema varmuus siitä, että heidän oikeuksiaan suojellaan ja että heidän velvollisuutensa ovat selvät."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je tiens à remercier le président en exercice, M. Clarke, et le commissaire Frattini pour leur intervention aujourd’hui. Je voudrais également déclarer officiellement devant cette Assemblée mon horreur et ma condamnation absolue de tous les actes terroristes. Je parle en tant que personne provenant de l’île d’Irlande et qui comprend les effets et l’impact du terrorisme, la façon dont il peut saper non seulement ce droit de l’homme fondamental qu’est le droit à la vie, mais aussi le pouvoir de l’État, le pouvoir de ses institutions et le droit des honnêtes gens et des libres penseurs à s’opposer aux mouvements politiques et à poursuivre leur vie quotidienne.
Nous pouvons tous citer des exemples particuliers et différentes époques où les actes terroristes nous ont tant horrifiés que nous avons souhaité répondre selon l’ancienne règle biblique de l’œil pour œil, dent pour dent. Nous avons eu énormément de chance à de nombreux égards dans la mesure où, en ces temps de crises, un grand nombre de nos dirigeants ont été en mesure de garder leur calme et d’attendre les informations des services de renseignements avant de répondre à la menace.
Dans le débat d’aujourd’hui, nous devons aussi garder notre calme et ne pas tomber dans le chauvinisme étroit que certains encouragent, mais au contraire nous concentrer sur la création d’une Union européenne meilleure, cette Union qui est une Europe des États-nations, où ces États-nations, avec leurs propres gouvernements démocratiquement élus, déterminent et décident de la teneur de leur coopération, de ce qu’ils veulent et de s’ils souhaitent des lois, des directives, des accords-cadres ou simplement des accords bilatéraux. C’est là l’essence du travail de contrôle démocratique dans le domaine de la liberté et de la sécurité.
Parce que lorsque nous regardons dans nos livres d’histoire des XXe et XXIe siècles, le terrorisme et ses impacts - ainsi que les ravages humains qu’il provoque - sont aussi importants aujourd’hui qu’au début du XXe siècle. Pourtant, les erreurs qui avaient alors été commises par les gouvernements au début du XXe siècle semblent se répéter aujourd’hui, à l’aube du XXIe siècle.
Lorsqu’on entend parler d’utiliser la jurisprudence dans le travail accompli en rapport avec la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et de se baser là-dessus, nous devrions bien évidemment tous nous réjouir d’entendre que nos lois et nos politiques seront guidés par ces principes. Mais dans le même temps, les mesures prises après ces propos semblent parfois saper ces mêmes principes fondamentaux contenus dans la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Trop souvent, lorsque nous promulguons des lois spéciales et nouvelles en réponse aux urgences ou situations de ce type, elles restent dans nos législations après que l’urgence a passé et peuvent être utilisées maintes et maintes fois.
Nous devons bien évidemment coopérer. Nous devons bien évidemment donner les outils à nos services de sécurité pour nous assurer qu’ils sont en mesure non seulement de prévenir les actes terroristes, mais aussi d’en capturer les auteurs, les financiers, et ceux qui sont impliqués dans d’autres formes de criminalité, qu’il s’agisse du trafic de drogue, du blanchiment d’argent ou de la traite des êtres humains. Nous avons vu l’horreur que vivent les gens à l’article de la mort à l’intérieur de conteneurs dans tous les ports européens. Nous avons vu l’horreur que vivent les gens à l’article de la mort embarqués dans des bateaux pour essayer d’entrer en Europe à cause des violations des droits de l’homme commises par les trafiquants d’êtres humains. Permettez-moi de m’empresser d’ajouter que je ne suis pas de ceux qui affirment que tous les gouvernements sont mauvais et que tous les groupes d’opposition ou non gouvernementaux ont raison. Il convient de trouver un équilibre entre les droits des individus et les droits du bien commun.
Nous devons devenir les hérauts d’un monde nouveau, un monde qui reconnaît les droits fondamentaux de la liberté, de la vie, de la sécurité. Tous ces droits impliquent une responsabilité. Nous signons un contrat social avec nos gouvernements. Nous renonçons à certains de nos droits et de nos libertés individuels dans l’intérêt du bien commun pour garantir que notre monde, nos pays, nos villes soient des endroits meilleurs et plus surs. Pourtant, en abandonnant ces droits et ces libertés individuels, nous attendons de la part de nos gouvernants la même responsabilité. Nous attendons de la part des dirigeants de nos forces de sécurité la même responsabilité non pour violer ces droits ni pour abuser des tâches que nous leur avons confiées. Le bien commun que sert l’autorité de l’État n’est aussi fort que la certitude dans l’esprit des citoyens que lorsque leurs droits sont protégés et que leurs responsabilités sont claires."@fr8
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, vorrei ringraziare il Presidente in carica del Consiglio Clarke e il Commissario Frattini per le loro dichiarazioni di oggi. Vorrei anche esprimere il mio orrore e la mia condanna assoluta di tutti gli atti di terrorismo, come persona che proviene dall’Irlanda e comprende gli effetti e l’impatto del terrorismo, il modo in cui esso può erodere non solo il diritto umano più fondamentale, il diritto alla vita, ma anche il potere dello Stato, il potere delle istituzioni e il diritto dei cittadini onesti e dalla mentalità aperta di opporsi a movimenti politici e condurre la propria vita quotidiana.
Possiamo tutti citare singoli esempi e diverse occasioni in cui gli attentati terroristici ci hanno sconvolti al punto da voler rispondere secondo la vecchia regola biblica dell’occhio per occhio, dente per dente. Per tanti versi, siamo stati molto fortunati, in quanto, nei momenti di crisi, molti nostri
sono riusciti a mantenere la calma e attendere che i servizi di
raccogliessero informazioni prima di rispondere alla minaccia.
Nella discussione di oggi dobbiamo mantenere la stessa calma e non cedere allo sciovinismo gretto che alcuni incoraggiano, ma concentrarci sulla costruzione di un’Unione europea migliore, un’Unione europea costituita da un’Europa di Stati nazionali, in cui tali Stati nazionali con i propri governi democraticamente eletti stabiliscono e decidono in quali ambiti cooperare, che cosa fare e se adottare leggi, direttive, accordi quadro o semplici accordi bilaterali. Questo è in essenza il modo in cui dovrebbe funzionare il controllo democratico in materia di libertà e sicurezza.
Perché, se sfogliamo i libri di storia del XX e del XXI secolo, possiamo notare che il terrorismo e l’impatto che produce – e la desolazione umana che provoca – sono tanto presenti oggi quanto lo erano all’inizio del XX secolo. Tuttavia, è anche vero che gli stessi errori commessi dai governi all’inizio del XX secolo sembrano ripetersi oggi, all’inizio del XXI.
Quando si parla di applicare la giurisprudenza al lavoro che si sta facendo per la Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo, e di partire da tali basi, naturalmente dovremmo sentirci tutti rincuorati di sapere che questi principi informeranno le nostre leggi e le nostre politiche. Al tempo stesso, tuttavia, le azioni che fanno seguito a tali parole a volte sembrano intaccare proprio i principi fondamentali che sono al centro della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Troppo spesso, quando introduciamo leggi speciali e nuove norme in risposta a questo tipo di emergenze o situazioni, esse rimangono nei nostri codici anche dopo che l’emergenza è passata e possono essere utilizzate all’infinito.
E’ chiaro che dobbiamo cooperare. E’ chiaro che dobbiamo fornire ai nostri servizi di sicurezza strumenti che permettano loro non solo di prevenire il terrorismo, ma anche di catturare gli autori di attentati terroristici, le persone che finanziano il terrorismo e le persone implicate in altre forme di criminalità, che sia il traffico di droga, il riciclaggio di denaro o la tratta di esseri umani. Abbiamo visto l’orrore di persone morte all’interno di TIR nei porti d’Europa, abbiamo visto l’orrore di persone morte in mare nel tentativo di raggiungere l’Europa, a causa di abusi dei loro diritti umani da parte di trafficanti di persone. Mi affretto ad aggiungere che non sono tra coloro che sostengono che tutti i governi sbagliano e tutti i gruppi all’opposizione o i gruppi non governativi hanno ragione. Bisogna trovare un equilibrio tra i diritti degli individui e i diritti della collettività.
Dobbiamo essere forieri di un nuovo mondo, un mondo che riconosca i diritti e le libertà fondamentali, il diritto alla vita, il diritto alla libertà, il diritto alla sicurezza. Tutti questi diritti comportano una responsabilità. Sigliamo un contratto sociale con i nostri governi. Rinunciamo a parte dei nostri diritti e delle nostre libertà individuali nell’interesse del bene comune, per far sì che il nostro mondo, i nostri paesi, le nostre città siano luoghi migliori e più sicuri. Tuttavia, rinunciando a tali diritti e libertà individuali, ci attendiamo la stessa responsabilità da parte di chi esercita il potere. Ci attendiamo la stessa responsabilità da parte di chi dirige le forze di sicurezza, affinché non abusino di tale diritto e non commettano abusi nello svolgimento dei compiti loro assegnati. Il bene comune che l’autorità dello Stato deve garantire è forte solo quanto la certezza nella mente dei cittadini che i loro diritti sono tutelati e le loro responsabilità sono chiare."@it12
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@lt14
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@lv13
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, staat u mij toe om de fungerend voorzitter, de heer Clarke, en commissaris Frattini te bedanken voor hun speeches hier vandaag. Ik zou ook graag willen dat in dit Parlement nota werd genomen van mijn grote ontzetting over en mijn veroordeling van alle terroristische daden. Dat zeg ik als bewoner van het eiland Ierland, een eiland dat weet wat de gevolgen en de invloed van terrorisme kunnen zijn, en dat weet hoe terrorisme niet alleen de fundamentele grondrechten en het recht op leven ondermijnt, maar ook de daadkracht van de staat en van de instellingen vernietigt. Dat terrorisme tast ook het recht van goedwillende en vrijdenkende mensen aan om oppositie tegen politieke stromingen te voeren en om hun normale dagelijkse leven te kunnen leiden.
Wij kennen allemaal voorbeelden en perioden waarin terroristische aanslagen tot zoveel afschuw en ontzetting hebben geleid dat onze eerste impuls was om terug te vallen op het oude bijbelse beginsel van “oog om oog, tand om tand”. Wij mogen ons zeer gelukkig prijzen dat veel van onze leiders in die crisisperioden hun kalmte hebben weten te bewaren en gewacht hebben tot de noodzakelijke inlichtingen en informatie beschikbaar waren om op adequate wijze op die dreiging te reageren.
Ook in het debat van vandaag dienen wij die kalmte te bewaren en moeten wij niet toegeven aan het benauwende, agressieve patriottisme dat door sommige mensen wordt gepropageerd. Wij moeten ons juist richten op het tot stand brengen van een betere Europese Unie, een Europese Unie bestaande uit een Europa van nationale staten waar de democratisch gekozen regeringen hun eigen besluiten nemen over een eventuele samenwerking, over wat zij zullen doen en of zij behoefte hebben aan wetten, richtlijnen, kaderovereenkomsten of alleen maar aan bilaterale overeenkomsten. Dat is de essentie van de wijze waarop de democratische controle op het gebied van vrijheid en veiligheid zou moeten functioneren.
Als wij door de geschiedenisboeken van de twintigste en eenentwintigste eeuw bladeren, blijkt namelijk dat het terrorisme met al zijn gevolgen - en de vernietigende werking die het op mensen heeft - tegenwoordig nog net zo omvangrijk is als aan het begin van de twintigste eeuw. Een aantal van de fouten die de regeringen aan het begin van de twintigste eeuw hebben gemaakt, lijkt nu, aan het begin van de eenentwintigste eeuw, echter weer opnieuw te worden gemaakt.
Als er gezegd wordt dat wij de rechtsbeginselen moeten gebruiken bij onze evaluatie van het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mensen, en dat wij daarop voort moeten bouwen, doet het ons uiteraard deugd te horen dat onze wetten en ons beleid op deze beginselen gebaseerd zullen zijn. Tegelijkertijd lijkt het echter dat de maatregelen die na die toezegging zijn genomen, soms een inbreuk vormen op de fundamentele grondslag van dat Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens. Wanneer wij met speciale of nieuwe wetten komen, als reactie op dergelijke noodtoestanden of situaties, handhaven wij deze maar al te vaak, ook nadat die noodtoestanden voorbij zijn, zodat zij keer op keer opnieuw gebruikt kunnen worden.
Uiteraard moet er samengewerkt worden. Uiteraard moeten wij onze veiligheidsdiensten van de benodigde instrumenten voorzien opdat zij terroristische activiteiten kunnen voorkomen. Daarnaast moeten zij ook in staat worden gesteld om niet alleen de terroristische daders te arresteren, maar ook hun financiers en degenen die zich met andere vormen van criminaliteit bezighouden, of het nu om drugshandel, witwasactiviteiten of mensensmokkel gaat. Wij hebben de verschrikkelijke gevolgen gezien van mensen die in containertrucks sterven in Europese havens. Wij hebben ook de verschrikkelijke gevolgen gezien van mensen die in boten naar Europa willen oversteken, maar onderweg de dood vinden doordat mensensmokkelaars de mensenrechten aan hun laars lappen. Staat u mij toe om daar meteen aan toe te voegen dat ik niet een van degenen ben die vinden dat alle regeringen ongelijk en alle oppositiegroeperingen en non-gouvernementele organisaties gelijk hebben. Ik vind alleen dat er een goed evenwicht gecreëerd dient te worden tussen de rechten van de mens en het algemeen belang.
Wij moeten de grondleggers worden van een nieuwe wereld, van een wereld waarin de grondrechten van vrijheid, leven en veiligheid centraal staan en geaccepteerd worden. Aan die rechten zijn echter wel verantwoordelijkheden gebonden. Wij moeten een sociaal contract met onze regeringen sluiten, waarin wij afstand doen van een aantal individuele rechten en vrijheden ten gunste van het algemeen belang, om ervoor te zorgen dat onze wereld, onze landen en onze steden betere en veiligere verblijfplaatsen worden. Voorwaarde voor het afstand doen van die individuele rechten en vrijheden is echter dat onze machthebbers eenzelfde soort gebaar van verantwoordelijkheid maken. Wij verwachten dat degenen die leiding geven aan onze veiligheidstroepen geen misbruik maken van dat recht en de hun toevertrouwde taken. Het algemeen belang waaraan de staat zijn autoriteit kan ontlenen, is namelijk op zijn hoogst net zo sterk als de zekerheid en het vertrouwen van de burgers dat hun rechten beschermd worden en dat de betreffende verantwoordelijkheden duidelijk zijn geregeld."@nl3
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, gostaria de agradecer ao Senhor Charles Clarke, Presidente em exercício do Conselho, bem como ao senhor Comissário Frattini as suas declarações desta manhã. Gostaria também de aqui deixar registado o meu absoluto horror e repúdio por todo e qualquer acto terrorista, e faço-o como alguém que é oriundo da ilha da Irlanda e que está ciente dos efeitos e do impacto do terrorismo, e da forma como ele pode minar, não apenas aquele direito humano fundamental que é o direito à vida, mas também o poder do Estado e das instituições e bem assim o direito de pessoas decentes e de livre pensamento a assumir activamente a oposição a movimentos políticos sem por isso deixarem de poder levar uma vida normal.
Todos podemos apontar exemplos concretos e diferentes ocasiões em que actos de terrorismo nos causaram tamanha repugnância que a nossa vontade foi reagir segundo a velha regra bíblica de olho por olho e dente por dente. Fomos muito afortunados, sob diversos prismas, pelo facto de, nesses momentos de crise, um grande número dos nossos dirigentes ter sabido manter a calma e aguardar que os serviços de inteligência se pronunciassem, antes de reagir à ameaça.
Também no debate de hoje somos chamados a permanecer calmos e a não ceder ao jingoísmo mesquinho que alguns fomentam, antes nos centrando no objectivo de criar uma União Europeia melhor, aquela que é formada por uma Europa de Estados-nação, onde esses próprios Estados-nacão, com os seus governos democraticamente eleitos, determinam e decidem os domínios em que desejam cooperar, o que pretendem fazer, e se optarão por ter leis, directivas, acordos-quadro ou simplesmente acordos bilaterais. Quando se trata de liberdade e segurança, é essencialmente nestes moldes que o controlo democrático deve actuar.
O facto é que, ao percorrermos os manuais de História dos séculos XX e XXI, nos damos conta de que o terrorismo e o seu impacto – nomeadamente em termos da devastação humana que provoca – são hoje em tão larga escala como no início do século XX. E também que os erros cometidos pelos governantes no início do século XX parecem estar a ser repetidos hoje, no início do século XXI.
Quando ouvimos dizer que o trabalho em curso relativo à Convenção Europeia dos Direitos Humanos deve integrar e desenvolver-se com base na jurisprudência, ficamos naturalmente sensibilizados por saber que as nossas leis e as nossas políticas serão norteadas por tais princípios. Só que as acções que por vezes vemos serem tomadas na sequência de tais declarações parecem minar os próprios pressupostos básicos constantes na Convenção Europeia dos Direitos Humanos. Não raras vezes, quando introduzimos novas leis, visando responder especificamente a este tipo de emergências e outras situações afins, elas permanecem nos nossos livros uma vez ultrapassada a emergência, podendo ser utilizadas vezes sem conta.
Evidentemente que tem de haver cooperação. É óbvio que temos de dotar os nossos serviços de segurança dos instrumentos que lhes permitam, não apenas combater o terrorismo, mas também capturar os que perpetram actos de terror, os que financiam o terrorismo e os que estão implicados noutras formas de criminalidade, sejam elas o tráfico de estupefacientes, o branqueamento de capitais ou o tráfico de seres humanos. Assistimos à tragédia dos imigrantes que perderam a vida fechados em contentores, em portos europeus. Assistimos à tragédia dos que perderam a vida em embarcações, ao procurarem vir para a Europa para escapar às violações dos seus direitos humanos por parte dos traficantes de seres humanos. Permitam-me desde já esclarecer que não sou daqueles que consideram que todos os governos estão errados e que todos os grupos da oposição e todos os grupos não governamentais têm razão. Há um equilíbrio que deve ser estabelecido entre os direitos do indivíduo e os direitos do bem comum.
Temos de nos tornar os arautos de um novo mundo, um mundo que reconheça os princípios elementares e fundamentais da liberdade, do direito à vida, do direito à segurança. A todos estes direitos está associada uma responsabilidade. Estabelecemos um contrato social com os nossos governantes. Abdicamos de alguns dos nossos direitos e liberdades individuais no interesse do bem comum, por forma a assegurar que o nosso mundo, os nossos países, as nossas cidades sejam locais melhores e mais seguros. No entanto, ao cedermos esses direitos e liberdades individuais, também contamos com a mesma responsabilidade por parte dos que estão no poder. Contamos com essa responsabilidade por parte dos que lideram as nossas forças de segurança, que não devem abusar desse direito nem das atribuições que lhes foram confiadas. A força do bem comum que a autoridade do Estado serve mede-se em função da certeza, na mente dos cidadãos, de que os seus direitos são protegidos e as suas responsabilidades estão claramente definidas."@pt17
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@sk18
"Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Clarke, and Commissioner Frattini for their speeches today. I would also like to have put on the record of this House my absolute horror and condemnation of all terrorist acts, speaking as somebody who comes from the island of Ireland and who understands the effects and impact of terrorism, the way that it can undermine not only that very basic human right, the right to life, but can also undermine the power of the State, the power of the institutions and the right of good and free-thinking people to undertake opposition to political movements and go about their daily lives.
We can all point to individual examples and different times when terrorist acts have so horrified us that we have wanted to respond according to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. We have been very lucky in a lot of ways in that, at those times of crisis, many of our leaders have been able to stay calm and wait for the intelligence information to come through before responding to the threat.
In this debate today, we must likewise remain calm and not give in to the narrow jingoism that some people encourage, but rather focus on creating a better European Union, that European Union which is made up of a Europe of nation states, where those nation states with their own democratically-elected governments determine and decide what they will cooperate in, what they will do and whether they will have laws, directives, framework agreements or merely bilateral agreements. That is the essence of the way democratic control should work in the area of liberty and security.
Because, when we look through the history books of the 20th century and of the 21st century, terrorism and its impact – and the human devastation it causes – are as great today as at the start of the 20th century. But, likewise, the same mistakes that were made by governments at the start of the 20th century seem to be repeated today at the start of the 21st century.
When we hear talk about utilising jurisprudence in the work that is being done with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and building on that, of course we should all be heartened to hear that our laws and our policies will be guided by those principles. But at the same time, the actions that we see after those words sometimes appear to undermine those very basic core tenets contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Too often when we bring in special laws and new laws in response to these kinds of emergencies or situations, they stay on our books after the emergency has passed and can be utilised again and again.
Of course we must have cooperation. Of course we must give the tools to our security services to ensure that they are able not only to prevent terrorism, but also to capture the perpetrators of terrorism, those who finance terrorism and those who are involved in other forms of criminality, whether it be drug-trafficking, money-laundering or people-trafficking. We have seen the horrors of people dying inside container trucks in ports around Europe. We have seen the horrors of people dying in boats trying to come into Europe because of the abuse of their human rights by people-traffickers. Let me hasten to add that I am not one of those people who say that all governments are wrong and all opposition groups or all non-governmental groups are right. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the common good.
We must become the heralds of a new world, a world that recognises those fundamental and basic rights of freedom, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security. With all of those rights comes a responsibility. We enter into a social contract with our governments. We abdicate some of our own individual rights and freedoms in the interests of the common good to make sure that our world, our countries, our towns are better and safer places. But, in giving away those individual rights and freedoms, we also expect the same responsibility on the part of those in power. We expect the same responsibility on the part of those who run our security forces not to abuse that right and not to abuse the tasks that we have given them. The common good that the authority of the State serves is only as strong as the certainty in the minds of its citizens that their rights are protected and their responsibilities are clear."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Jag vill tacka rådets ordförande Charles Clarke och kommissionsledamot Franco Frattini för deras tal i dag. Jag vill också att kammaren noterar min absoluta avsky och mitt fördömande av alla terroristhandlingar, och jag talar i egenskap av en person som kommer från Irland och som förstår terrorismens följder, hur den kan underminera inte bara rätten till liv, som är en verkligen grundläggande mänsklig rättighet, utan även statens makt, institutionernas makt och goda, fritänkande människors rätt att gå i opposition mot politiska rörelser och leva sina dagliga liv.
Vi kan alla ge personliga exempel och nämna olika tidpunkter då terroristhandlingar har upprört oss så till den grad att vi har velat agera enligt den gamla bibelregeln ”öga för öga, tand för tand”. Vi har vid dessa kristillfällen på många sätt haft tur eftersom många av våra ledare har lyckats behålla lugnet och vänta på underrättelseinformationen innan de har reagerat på hotet.
Vi måste även i dagens debatt behålla lugnet och inte ge efter för den trångsynta chauvinism som vissa människor uppmuntrar utan i stället fokusera på att skapa ett bättre EU, ett EU som består av nationalstater och där dessa nationalstater med sina egna demokratiskt valda regeringar bestämmer vad de vill samarbeta om, vad de kommer att göra och om de ska ha lagar, direktiv, ramavtal eller enbart bilaterala avtal. Detta är själva kärnan i hur den demokratiska kontrollen bör fungera inom området med frihet och säkerhet.
För när vi bläddrar igenom historieböckerna från 1900-talet och 2000-talet är terrorismen och dess följder – och den mänskliga förödelse den orsakar – lika stora i dag som i början av 1900-talet. Och likaså verkar samma misstag som gjordes av regeringarna i början av 1900-talet upprepas nu i början av 2000-talet.
När vi hör talas om att vi ska använda rättspraxis i det arbete som görs med hänsyn till Europakonventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna och grunda oss på det bör vi alla naturligtvis bli uppmuntrade av att höra att våra lagar och vår politik kommer att vägledas av dessa principer. Men samtidigt verkar det praktiska resultatet av dessa ord ibland underminera de verkligt fundamentala grundsatserna i Europakonventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna. Det händer alltför ofta att de speciallagar och nya lagar som vi inför som en reaktion på denna typ av nödsituationer eller omständigheter blir kvar efter att nödsituationen har lösts och att de därför kan tillämpas om och om igen.
Naturligtvis måste vi samarbeta. Naturligtvis måste vi ge våra säkerhetstjänster de verktyg som krävs för att de ska kunna förebygga terrorism och gripa terrorismens gärningsmän, dem som finansierar terrorismen och dem som är inblandade i annan typ av brottslighet, vare sig det handlar om narkotikahandel, penningtvätt eller människohandel. Vi har sett det fasansfulla att människor dör inne i containerlastbilar i hamnar runt om i EU. Vi har sett det fasansfulla att människor dör ombord på båtar i ett försök att ta sig in i EU, därför att människosmugglarna har kränkt deras mänskliga rättigheter. Låt mig snabbt tillägga att jag inte tillhör dem som säger att alla regeringar har fel och att alla oppositionsgrupper eller alla icke-statliga grupper har rätt. Man måste göra en avvägning mellan individens rättigheter och det allmännas bästa.
Vi måste propagera för en ny värld, en värld som erkänner dessa grundläggande fri- och rättigheter: rätten till liv, rätten till frihet, rätten till säkerhet. Med alla dessa rättigheter följer ett ansvar. Vi ingår ett socialt avtal med våra regeringar. Vi avsäger oss vissa av våra egna individuella fri- och rättigheter till förmån för det allmännas bästa för att försäkra oss om att vår värld, våra länder och våra städer är bättre och säkrare platser. Men när vi ger bort dessa individuella fri- och rättigheter förväntar vi oss också samma ansvar från dem som sitter vid makten. Vi förväntar oss samma ansvar från dem som leder våra säkerhetsstyrkor att inte missbruka denna rättighet och det uppdrag vi har gett dem. Det allmännas bästa som statsmakten tjänar är bara så starkt som den övertygelse medborgarna har att deras rättigheter skyddas och att deras skyldigheter är tydliga."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Brian Crowley,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"leader"12
"on behalf of the UEN Group"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples