Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-04-Speech-4-071"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011004.3.4-071"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-04-Speech-4-0722
lpv:speaker	lp:Alima Boumediene-thiery2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". First of all, I must admit that this explanation of vote is difficult. Moreover, what about certain general legal principles such as: Presumption of innocence? Benefit of the doubt? And who has the burden of proof? Like everybody else we are appalled by the attacks that took place on 11 September. It is frustrating to decide not to use additional means to fight those who committed them. We are, however, convinced that it is a choice governed by reason, and not by an instinctive reaction, which is legitimate but dangerous, motivated by anger and pain. Apart from the fact that we refuse to set a precedent on urgent procedures, which could then dramatically increase, we have questions regarding the list proposed in the annex, which reveals genuine and fundamental problems. Of course, we are in total agreement with the principle of implementing specific measures against people and goods linked to terrorism, in order to fight it more effectively. There are too many areas of doubt in this well-known list: How can we support it when we do not even know how it was put together? On what criteria were these people selected? We know that there is no definition of terrorism in international law, and that it is therefore impossible to set out objective criteria for what constitutes belonging to a terrorist movement. All that is needed is to observe how easily some people call any behaviour that goes against prevailing thought ‘terrorism’, such as is the case with the anti-globalisation activists or those who are against NGOs, in order to be worried about possible confusions."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Speech cut short pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph