Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-21-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100421.6.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to make three comments by way of a conclusion on our part in this important debate.
The first concerns the point raised by Mr Weber as to whether Europe can or should have its own passenger name record data system, and what scope it might have. We are in favour of there actually being a general regulation on the transfer of passenger – essentially air passenger – data. We have therefore asked the Commission to carry out a study and, if appropriate, to prepare a draft directive laying down a general regulation in that respect including – as Mrs in ’t Veld’s motion for a resolution states – a privacy impact assessment. That is to say, to what extent do effectiveness and proportionality, two principles that we have to take into account, impact on privacy and, therefore, how far should a European regulation go in this respect and what measures ought to be adopted in any case to protect fundamental rights?
That is what Mrs Fayot mentioned: what measures ought to be adopted?
I think the debate we had on SWIFT may clarify matters. I believe the principles we discussed then and agreed upon should be present here. We are talking about the right to privacy, the right to a private life, the right to one’s person and one’s own image, which must always be preserved. Fundamental rights are indivisible, and in this case we are dealing with something that could jeopardise fundamental rights, so I believe we have to act with the same care that we talked about in the previous debate.
Lastly, my third comment is connected with the previous one. As a general thought, it does not seem to me that security and freedom are two opposed principles or, in other words, that it is a kind of zero-sum game and that as we provide greater security, we will have less freedom, or as we give greater protection to fundamental rights and freedoms and are fundamentalist in protecting our fundamental rights, we will have less security.
I think that is a false dilemma. On the contrary, I believe that security and freedom are two principles that enhance each other. Both principles are therefore expressed and recognised in constitutions and in European legislation, and they are both present in the Treaty of Lisbon. We must always bear in mind that there is a Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty of Lisbon, a charter requiring respect for fundamental rights, which is absolutely sacred and must not be violated. I believe, therefore, that, when we think beyond the short term – because sometimes our thinking is very constrained by the short term – and think about the long term, the measures designed to protect our security, if prudent and well thought out, always prove to be effective. Protecting rights and freedoms is always something that improves citizens’ well-being and, in the end, their security as well."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples