Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-08-Speech-1-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020408.4.1-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, speaking quite frankly, I can summon up but little enthusiasm for couch potatoes
who sit in front of the telly or in a football stadium for ninety minutes watching a small round leather thing and about two dozen men in jerseys, leaving their seats in the meantime only to roar with enthusiasm, or wring their hands in shock.
It is not that, though, with which we are dealing here, for the protection of fundamental rights –which I believe to be threatened by this proposal – only makes sense if it applies to all the people in a State, and not only to those whose thoughts and actions enjoy the State's approval.
Within the so-called area of freedom, security and justice, the Deprez report aims at the actual gathering of more information on football hooligans. Over and over again during discussions on the proposal, the rapporteur disputed that this would, in the long term, entail travel bans, preventive custody and the infringement of fundamental rights, as no measures are envisaged over and above the collection of data.
I will take an example from the country in which I was elected in order to make clear how, in my view, it will certainly not, in the long term, remain just a matter of gathering data. In the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, there has already been a legal document, according to which hooligans who are allegedly equipped for violence may have their right to leave the country restricted. A year ago, though, that was used, not against hooligans, but against people who were equipped to demonstrate and wanted to travel to Genoa. Some of those who had originally voted for this law have since said in the media that this was far from being what they wanted. They had, they said, voted for the law at that time only on the presupposition that it really only applied to football hooligans, and not to people who wanted to express their political views.
I think this shows very well what can happen to documents of this sort. I would be surprised if this really were only about the gathering of data, for what is a database for if nothing is done with it afterwards? It is very easy to see through the political manoeuvre that lies behind it. A new target group – the hooligans – has been found, which is well suited to legitimising police measures in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, and thus measures are justified which very definitely restrict the protection of fundamental rights and which are then extended to other people. This, then, means in the long term that this will not just be a matter of gathering data, but that travel restrictions, preventive detention and so on will very definitely find their way into this ‘fortress Europe’ policy, which will then be applied to other groups.
If you want to give your approval to that, if that is your understanding of the area of freedom, security and justice, then you should indeed vote in favour of the Deprez report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples