Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091215.15.2-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms are what the EU stands for. In the fight against terrorism, however, the EU is less principled. Take the UN blacklist, for example. People or entities suspected of having links with Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda network or the Taliban can be placed on this list, which results in a travel ban and the freezing of their financial assets. This measure is all well and good as far as terrorism is concerned, as this terrorism must be fought – that is beyond dispute – but the lawlessness with which terrorists operate must not be allowed to creep into the way we fight terrorism.
Unfortunately, the current system is characterised by abuses of fundamental rights. People are placed on the list, often without being fully informed of the fact, without intervention by any judicial power. The information that leads to them being placed on the blacklist regularly originates from secret services. This information is not transparent to suspects and, as a result, they do not know why they have been placed on the list. This deprives them of not only their right to information but also their right of defence.
Once a person’s name is on the list, it is very difficult to have it removed. There have already been enough cases of people listed wrongfully for many years who had to fight for due legal process. They are condemned to poverty, cannot key in their PIN to pay for shopping and are not allowed to leave their countries. I am arguing today not for more rights for terror suspects but only for them to be able to rely on their rights like anyone else. I advocate transparent procedures and due legal process for everyone.
The list also has far-reaching side effects. Since authorities can decide to place people or organisations on the list, this can also be used as a political tool. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) fighting for human rights, for example, who are a thorn in the government’s side, can be designated as terrorist organisations to paralyse their activities. The Commission was forced to revise the current procedures by a judgment of the European Court. The Commission gave this a decent impetus, but it failed at Council level.
A new situation has now arisen as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Is it to be Article 215 or Article 75 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? In other words, is the European Parliament to take no part in examining the proposals, or is it to be involved via the normal procedure, namely codecision? The Committee on Legal Affairs has indicated that Article 75 is the correct legal basis, as has Parliament’s Legal Service. I should like both the Council and the Commission to tell us today how they see the way ahead for these proposals for restrictive measures. What role is envisaged here for Parliament? It is time we had transparent, democratic procedures. The question is whether we can count on your cooperation."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples