Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.9.3-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes Mr Ceyhun’s report, which is in line with the proposal that we submitted for a framework decision to combat racism and xenophobia. As the rapporteur points out, freedom of expression under the democratic Rule of Law has limits and, therefore, cannot be used as a justification for breaching the rights of third parties or for committing criminal acts. Unfortunately, in various areas of Europe, we are still seeing expressions of racism and xenophobia, which are unacceptable in our democratic societies. An integrated approach that includes both preventive measures and measures involving criminal proceedings is crucial in order effectively to combat this phenomenon. Measures in the field of criminal law such as those laid down in the Commission proposal constitute one element of this approach. On the other hand, however, the Commission has always stressed that this must be a fight of a cultural nature and has for this reason already adopted various awareness-raising measures to combat racism and xenophobia in fields such as employment, immigration, asylum policy and the education system.
With regard to the amendments to the Commission proposal for a framework decision, the rapporteur argues that the fact that an offence concerning racism and xenophobia is committed
by means of mass communication should be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The Commission is flexible with regard to other aggravating circumstances. It might be more appropriate, however, in this House, to talk about material targeted at a large number of people, given that racist material distributed by one individual, for example, the manual distribution of racist propaganda, could also be intended for a large number of people.
Amendments Nos 6 and 12(b) refer to the directive on electronic commerce concerning the responsibility of Internet service providers. Indeed, the provisions of the framework decision do not prejudice any instrument of the first pillar, specifically the "electronic commerce" directive. In this regard, it should be emphasised that, according to this directive, the Member States cannot impose the general obligation on service providers to monitor content, but can establish the obligation to inform the competent authorities about alleged illegal activities or information communicated by users. Consequently, providers’ responsibility can be established provided that Internet service providers are genuinely aware that they are harbouring racist material. In other words, that their attention has been drawn to this fact by a judicial authority by means of criminal proceedings, if these providers have not, in the meantime, adopted measures to remove this material. The Commission takes a slightly different view to that of the rapporteur on making the public condoning of crimes of genocide and of other extremely serious crimes illegal. The conditions imposed by Amendment No 12 on this section are more rigorous than those recommended in the joint action of 1996 because they require the words or behaviour in question to be threatening, abusive or insulting and motivated by racism or xenophobia. The joint action approved six years ago only required the public condoning to be undertaken with a racist or xenophobic objective. Consequently, the conditions imposed by Amendment No 12 would establish a higher threshold for criminal proceedings to be initiated, and so we requested that this issue be considered by Parliament.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that our proposal is clear on the matter of the definition and classification of the crime, because we always deal in practical actions and not in opinions. The proposal for a framework decision cannot be interpreted in a way that threatens fundamental rights, specifically the freedom of expression and the principles recognised in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In European law, however, as in the law of every Member State of the European Union, the appropriate balance must be guaranteed. As laid down in Article 10(2) of the European Convention, the exercise of these freedoms, specifically the freedom of expression, can and must be weighed up against protecting order, against crime prevention and against protecting the honour or the rights of third parties. In this context, we are not proposing to create some kind of thought police; we are simply calling for the Union as a whole to be faithful to the values of our common heritage as expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights. Hence the clear political message, in other words, that racists and xenophobic crimes are fought vigorously and in an equivalent way throughout the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples