Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.2.3-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the balance between individual freedom and the security of society as a whole forms an essential element of our democratic fabric. This balance, however, should never be beyond reproach or discussion. I agree with Mr Clarke that, in this time of increased threat, this balance must be re-examined in a bid to protect our collective freedom. It is indeed crucial that in this context, a cross-border approach be adopted in preference to any other because, as Mr Brok said a moment ago, a lack of security and crime do not stop at the border. You made a comment on how the issues of asylum, human trafficking and drug smuggling should be tackled. These are the very cornerstones of the Constitutional Treaty and I am pleased to hear you attach importance to this. I hope that the British Presidency, at this time of – as you phrased it – a European wake-up call, will in any event commit fully to achieving those core elements of the Constitutional Treaty as yet.
I would now like to turn to the balance between freedom and responsibility. As Mr Poettering, our group chairman, said, most Muslims in Europe are very attached to our European values. If, however, you want to tackle the small individuals who cannot appreciate those values, we should have the courage to define the boundaries more clearly. I would make two points in this respect.
First of all, we will need to dare extradite radical Imams who come from abroad, from outside Europe, to brainwash people over here. Your government in England has tabled proposals to that effect at national level, as has my government in the Netherlands. Do you not think, given the fact that we have open internal borders, that this clear policy should be adopted across Europe? Would the Commission, in tandem with the presidency, like to promote this?
Secondly, canvassing for the Jihad is a problem, for we practise freedom of opinion. We will need to clamp down on those who canvass people for the Jihad. Is it not time we penalised the entire canvassing activity as such in our Member States? At present, doing so is a nigh impossible task.
All too often, undesirable organisations also slip through the net. Some countries ban organisations, others do not. Do you not think that overtly undesirable organisations should be dealt with in the same way across Europe and that we should obstruct terrorist organisations that are on the European list in the same emphatic manner across the Union?
You only need to look at today’s events. Let me single out just one example, that of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Muslim organisation that is opposed to democracy and in favour of radicalisation. This organisation, that is active in Europe, is strictly banned in Germany while neither the Netherlands nor Austria, where this organisation is also active, put the slightest obstacle in its way. Surely that cannot be the Europe of 2005? Can we expect you to tackle organisations such as those at a more European level? Can we also expect clearer policy to be adopted, and will you, with regard to terrorist organisations, such as Hezbollah, take a clear stand at long last?
My final point concerns the transfer of data. You as President-in-Office of the Council have the right to ask our Parliament to revisit data retention, but could we then call you to account about something that the terrorism coordinator, Mr De Vries, says time and again, namely that the ineffective cooperation between Member States means that he is unable to get secret services to exchange data? Let us lay our cards on the table here. The problem, according to him, is that information held by the English secret service is not being exchanged at European level. Can the President-in-Office at this point condemn this and state that the British Presidency will ensure that, in future, information between secret services will be automatically exchanged as a matter of priority when the security of us all is at stake, as agreed after the attacks in Madrid and New York?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples