Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-11-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010611.4.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the debate on this report, we can examine this phenomenon, examples of which seem to exist at the highest levels in some Member States, that is, at least, according to public fears.
The explosion of child pornography has its causes, and it is these that must be examined first of all. I can distinguish two causes, the first of which is the explosion of pornography itself and the second is the unfortunate trend of treating children and childhood with contempt. The explosion of pornography is in itself due to a loss of moral standards and the domination of the spirit of enjoyment, the fruits of which are bitter. We are now counting the cost of this ‘unrestrained pursuit of pleasure’, a rule by which even some of the Members of this Parliament lived during the 1960s. This reckless pursuit of pleasure inevitably leads to the quest for extreme sensations, and also to the pursuit of violence and sadism, and it is a result of the way these things have become increasingly commonplace in newspapers, films and television. This is the first factor.
The second factor is contempt towards children. This contempt certainly begins at a very early stage, since we are proud about presenting the fact, as if it is a right and as if it represents progress, that we are sending unborn children to their deaths in clinics, at the same time as we discuss the poor treatment to which some children are subjected. We should not be surprised that there is no rhyme or reason to this aspect of our civilisation. The ‘right to a child’ outside the family unit, outside normal sexual relations, the ‘right to adoption’ for example, by homosexuals, are claims which are also gaining ground, including in the conservative press, and all this cannot pass without having some impact.
However, these issues do not lead us to condemn the excellent provisions in the report that has been submitted. I would, nevertheless, like to speak briefly about the Council’s legal instruments. Why have a Framework Decision rather than a directive, when it is a question of amending several, very important points, several provisions of the penal code in each of the Member States? I would also like to bring up the method which has been used in the report. The Commission text was written in sufficiently general terms so that all types of criminality could be included. We added to them. In some areas, has the wording of the report not been made more cumbersome than is necessary?
On the other hand, we approve the definition of extreme circumstances such as the use of children under the age of 16 years or children with physical or mental disabilities. A particular point in the text is raised by Amendment No 26, which seeks to amend Article 8(3). Apparently, this amendment applies when a Member State maintains the requirement of double criminality against its nationals who are accused of child pornography. In such cases, the Member State must, nonetheless, take steps. What is meant exactly by the term ‘requirement of double criminality’? Does this refer to the principle that lawyers understand by its Latin name, the
principle? If so, it would, in that case, mean the principle of
double criminality, in other words, the refusal to convict nationals if they are involved in legal proceedings in another Member State. I believe that we should revise the wording of this point.
The definition of pornography is more extensive in the report than in the original text; as is the definition of the material used for child pornography or the responsibility of persons that have children in their care.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would, however, give you a warning as regards the Internet. It is difficult to ask for the impossible. The Internet itself is no more responsible than the postal services for this criminal material, which can be transmitted by post. If we ask Internet service providers to carry out checks, which can only be effective if they are comprehensive, would, in my view, bring about the same pernicious effects as if we asked the postal services to check the content of the mail that they deliver.
With these reservations, we support the majority of the report, as well as Interpol’s integration with Europol. We hope that, in this way, the report will contribute to eradicating this despicable phenomenon."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"non-"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples