Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.5.3-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I regret that I found myself unable to support the request for Parliamentary unanimity on this report. As a Green, my preferred route is always non-violence and I believe there is absolutely no justification for violence as a means to change in a democratic state. Where the ballot box is an option, violence is not. I welcome the distinctions made in paragraph T in relation to third countries. My “no” vote should not be interpreted as support for terrorism but is based on one key factor.
This is the issue of mutual recognition of decisions on criminal matters. Unless there are agreed common minimum standards for procedural law, this should not go ahead. We cannot use the fight against terrorism to undermine the legal procedures and democratic safeguards which differ between Member States. Parliament chose not to adopt Amendment 1 which would have demanded these minimum standards.
I must also admit to an underlying unease about supporting a report which omits certain issues such as state terrorism, the proscription of certain organisations active in non-EU countries and the basis for such decisions and, indeed, the lack of a definition of “environmental terrorism”.
However, the lack of a commitment to minimum legal safeguards is the deciding factor in my voting “no”."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Lambert (Verts/ALE )"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples