Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-31-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080131.4.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Internet is the new battlefield. According to the Commission and the Council, it is a battlefield for combating terrorism, and we do not argue with this. For many of us, however, the Internet is also a battlefield for the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights. Of course, as we well know, the Internet is used by terrorists, but it is also used by millions of innocent citizens for discussion. What they discuss also happens to be terrorism which, without justifying it, they are trying to understand: something we do all too rarely here, unfortunately. So, notwithstanding the importance of a legislative initiative against the circulation of pro-terrorist propaganda on the Internet, this is also a highly sensitive issue.
Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I have to tell you that this legislative initiative in its present form is somewhat problematic. It does not require that a person spreading pro-terrorist propaganda do so intentionally and… ‘and’ that propaganda be likely to lead to a terrorist act. Instead of ‘and’, your text reads ‘or’. In other words, should a member of the public try to make sense of terrorism that is being committed somewhere in the world, they risk ending up in trouble simply because ‘somebody’ believes that their words have led to an act of terrorism: that member of the public is accused, even though they have no intention of causing such an act. This is something you must correct.
I should also ask you to explain whether the contents of our e-mails will be checked. Who will check them to enable the police to judge whether this new law that you are promoting has been violated? Let me remind you that in the case of data retention of telephone calls, you have repeatedly reassured us that the contents of our SMS messages and phone calls will not be monitored. Will the contents of our e-mails here be monitored as a result of the measure you are promoting?
Another point I wish to emphasise is the European PNR system initiative. My friends, we do not need it. At least, you have not explained to us why we should need it. We have the APIS; we have, as Mr Frattini has quite rightly pointed out, the VIS, a successful outcome of our agreement; and we have Schengen: so we know very well who is travelling where in the world today, and who is coming to Europe.
Furthermore, of the 27 countries in Europe, only 3 currently have measures in place for the possible implementation of PNR. Where is the pressure to harmonise PNR legislation now?
Why are you promoting this measure so fanatically, even though the European data protectors have disagreed with it? Why do you not sit down and discuss it with Parliament, with people who are set on fighting terrorism, but who might be just as concerned about protecting rights – if not more concerned, as we are sometimes accused of being?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples