Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-25-Speech-3-438"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090325.31.3-438"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission. To make the interpreters’ lives easier – as I am speaking off text – I will, as an exception, do this in English.
I respect the sensitivities of those who are concerned about the protection of intellectual property. But I have the impression that they are fighting a battle on the wrong report. My report is not a single-issue report; it is a report that talks generally about protecting fundamental rights and security on the Internet and, indeed, that is why it received unanimous support.
However, to the extent that it does refer to intellectual property rights, one would think by listening to some of the speeches that it ignores them. Let me read, in particular, how balanced we have attempted to be with this report. In paragraph 1(k), we urge the to Council to ‘proceed to the adoption of the directive on criminal measures aimed at the enforcement of intellectual property rights, following an assessment, in the light of contemporary innovation research, of the extent to which it is necessary and proportionate’. This is what the report states.
The amendments, however, are anything but balanced. Amendments that delete what the report calls for – which is a prohibition to the systematic surveillance of all users, whether or not suspect and whether or not guilty, to protect any security right – are anything but balanced. They call on us to totally abandon fundamental rights to protect something else.
Secondly, amendments that delete or water down a very precise and specific reference in the report – that controversial political speech should not be criminalised – are amendments that I oppose, and I am glad to hear that many others in this room do as well.
Political speech has to be protected, especially when it is controversial. If everyone in this room agreed with each other, we would not need freedom of speech legislation. It is when we do not – and especially to protect the speech that may particularly be angering to people like me or others – that we have those laws. This reference in the report does not talk about ‘criminal’ speech. It talks specifically about ‘controversial political’ speech. Therefore, I urge everyone to support this particular paragraph in the report and to support the report in general.
I am deeply grateful to everyone – even those who disagree with me – who was here tonight. I know it is not easy. Thank you for your support during all these months leading up to this report. I look forward to working with you on your reports in the future and showing you similar understanding and support."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples