Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-346"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.20.3-346"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is a saying that you can never have too many security measures. In fact, this has become a commonly used truism.
Is this really the case, however? Is it true that the more security measures one has, the smaller the risks of exposing oneself to danger? Of course, I ask these questions in the context of one issue, which even today is hotly debated, namely the possibility of special civil aviation security services that are authorised to carry weapons. I have no doubts that there should be a categorical and unequivocal ban in this particular case. This is not only because the use of these weapons, though obviously only in defence of passengers and crew, in itself poses a danger in the rather fragile environment of an airplane, but also for another reason, namely that weapons may provoke passengers who might otherwise have boarded the plane without any aggressive intentions. This is particularly the case if they are psychologically unstable. These kinds of passengers can after all also be found on board aircraft.
It also seems unfortunate that neither Chapter 10(4) of the Annex or Amendment 79 addresses this matter. I repeat that I am in favour of a total ban on weapons on board aircraft. Someone may well ask ‘what about extraordinary situations where there is a suspected threat of danger’? To this I would say that this flight should not be allowed to take off at all, and must be cancelled. I, for one, would certainly not want to be on that flight."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples