Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-05-Speech-3-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060705.17.3-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Fava, for his excellent work and his cooperation with us. I would also like to thank Mr Coelho for his assiduous and steady chairmanship.
The area of justice and human rights in the EU is not working effectively. On the one hand, some Member States have not implemented EU anti-terrorism laws passed five years ago, so we are not equipped throughout the EU to investigate and prosecute terrorist offences. In some Member States there is not even a definition of terrorism, so terrorists can escape conviction and imprisonment. Mr Fava recalled the London bombings, which we will sadly remember on Friday; we also remember the Madrid bombings. If the same thing happened in some of our national capitals, there would be no prospect of terrorists being convicted.
I hope Mr Gawronski and his friends are knocking on the doors of those national capitals which have not implemented the framework decision on terrorism.
At the same time it is apparent on the basis of credible indications that gross human rights abuses have taken place in the name of fighting terrorism – the so-called war on terror. The EU has allowed a situation to develop where we cannot prosecute terrorists, but we can persecute terrorist suspects and deprive them of their rights.
What credibility does this give the EU at home or abroad, either for effectively combating terrorism or for upholding human rights? Let us be clear: what we are saying in this report is that we have heard testimony and seen corroborating facts, such as flight logs, which attest to extraordinary renditions having taken place in Europe, and it is highly implausible that governments or their agencies had no idea what was going on. We have not implied we are a court or we have the powers of an investigating police officer or prosecutor, but we have done enough in cooperation and in complementarity with Dick Marty in the Council of Europe, with national MPs and judicial inquiries, to shift the burden of proof.
Once allegations are no longer speculative but are shown to be credible, as is the case, then under European and international human rights instruments Member States have a positive obligation to investigate and to punish anyone responsible for human rights abuses.
I hope that in private the Presidency is saying something different to its 24 EU government colleagues than it is saying here. I hope it is saying this conspiracy of silence must stop. To say, as the Minister did, that the Treaties do not give the EU any powers is untrue. If that is the case, then why did governments unanimously insert the human rights clause into the EU Treaty and a clause, Article 7, which provides for sanctions for breach?
It is true that we lack the monitoring mechanisms to connect the obligation to the powers and that needs to be filled in. It is pathetic that Javier Solana and Gijs de Vries are obliged to come to us and say, ‘we do not believe there have been any violations, but we do not have the competence to ask Member States the relevant questions’.
I am quite happy to accept Mr Gawronski’s amendment in this connection, since it shows up the ludicrous nature of the gap in competence. I am not reproaching them, but I am accusing the Council and Member States of being guilty of creating a lot of hot air and rhetoric about the EU as a beacon of human rights without delivering the results. If you want our citizens to relate to the EU, I give you a cause worth championing."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples