Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-07-Speech-4-015"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Use of passenger personal data Agreement with the USA on the use of Passenger Name Record data (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060907.4.4-015"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-07-Speech-4-0162
lpv:speaker	lp:Giusto Catania2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Partito della Rifondazione Comunista - Sinistra Europea (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Iran (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (2006-01-19--2007-02-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, talks are beginning tomorrow and the paradoxical thing is that we are not even aware of the basis for them. The European Parliament is excluded from these talks about a problem that involves all of Europe’s citizens. This is the first paradox in the affair. My group strongly endorses what Mrs in’t Veld is proposing, particularly the need to change to a ‘push’ system for an agreement in the short term, and the need to avoid the direct transfer of data to the judicial authorities for an agreement in the medium term. I understand the need to use the agreement rejected by the Court as a basis, partly because the United States is demanding even more from Europe. We need, however, to consider the absurdity of certain proposals contained in the agreement rejected by the Court. I am thinking of the 34 data items that have to be transferred to the United States, when we know perfectly well that most of these items are useless: the US authorities themselves say that they have only been using seven or eight of them. Then we ought also to consider the need to establish real, legally binding protection for passenger data, because it is a duty of the institutions to safeguard European citizens’ personal data. Systematically keeping a check on people in the name of the fight against terrorism is an authoritarian distortion of the rule of law and, paradoxically, by doing so we are helping to achieve precisely what the terrorists want. Systematically keeping a check on people is an outcome of the same authoritarian attitude as the CIA’s secret prisons, which President Bush at last decided to announce to the world yesterday rather than continue to hide the evidence. Let us hope that the countries of Europe will also stop trying to outdo the US. We must avoid taking the same stance on this subject and being more extremist than the US in keeping a check on people in the name of this phoney war on terrorism."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph