Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-05-Speech-3-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070905.2.3-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my most important question to the Council is actually whether it considers itself fallible. Is it conceivable that the Council makes mistakes from time to time, or is it all-knowing? Does the Council believe that all the measures taken in recent years in the fight against terrorism have been the right ones? Also, is it really beyond all doubt that no disproportionate infringement of civil rights has taken place? If the Council is infallible, it follows that there is no need for an evaluation, but if it believes in the possibility of improving its understanding, there is. I should also like the Council to inform us during the course of the debate whether there are any particular measures it believes are missing, particular measures it now considers necessary that have not yet been taken. Indeed, are any measures currently planned? Infringements of civil rights are permitted under European law, but are warranted only if they meet the criteria of necessity, proportionality and effectiveness and if people are able to arm themselves against abuses. I should like to see an evaluation by the Council of all the measures taken over recent years, and also an examination of their compliance with these criteria. Can the Council promise us this today?
Allow me to highlight a few aspects that are in need of comprehensive evaluation. First of all, the aspect of abuse: is it not conceivable that citizens could become unwitting victims? I should like to give as an example the creation of the lists of terror suspects. The question in this regard is not only how people and organisations get included in these lists, but also how they get removed from them. Supposing your name appears on these lists. All your assets and bank deposits would be frozen, but the authorities would not automatically prosecute. This means there would be no legal proceedings in which to present evidence. The principle of innocent until proven guilty is abandoned. Besides, I can quite imagine bank deposits being frozen before the fact is divulged, or the money would be on the other side of the world in a flash. Yet I cannot imagine our accepting the fact of people remaining on lists and thus continuing to be punished without their guilt having been established. This is an unacceptable inversion of the burden of proof in criminal law. The Court of First Instance has already stated a number of times that the procedure must be amended. On 11 July the Al-Aqsa Foundation and José María Sison were judged to have been listed wrongfully. I should like to hear what lessons the Council has learned from these court rulings, and whether it is prepared to amend or evaluate the decision process regarding the composition of such lists, and also to look at opportunities for individuals to obtain justice.
Moving on to effectiveness: are the measures effective? I should like to take the measures on liquids as an example. More than one million people in Europe are still having to fiddle about with plastic bags before boarding their flight, obediently filling them with 100 ml bottles – which often end up in the bin because passengers have forgotten the rule – and there is no excessive breach of civil rights and abuse can be monitored. Is the measure effective, though? Is the Council prepared to assess this on the basis of scientific evidence?
This brings me to the subject of proportionality. Are the measures proportionate? This is another important aspect for evaluation. Let me take passenger data and the agreement with the United States as an example. My group, too, can fully appreciate countries’ desire to know who is entering their territory. The main problem is not so much that excessive quantities of data are being requested, but that they can be requested for a great many different purposes. The Council always justifies such a measure by saying that all this is necessary for the fight against terrorism. However, the data can also be used for other purposes ‘according to US law’, as the agreement states. Thus it is theoretically possible that the purpose is not only to combat terrorism, but also to tackle bicycle theft or bank fraud. Is it proportionate to use the data for this? Is the Council prepared to review the agreement on these grounds, too?
Finally, necessity. I would take as an example the storage of traffic data for up to two years, which was opposed by my group but supported by the majority in this House. All the information I have seen to date, however, shows that data up to three months old are the most effective and necessary. Is the Council prepared to examine whether data stored for longer than three months are really being used? In short, is it prepared to carry out an evaluation based on the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and necessity, and also to examine the possibility of combating abuse?
The last aspect for evaluation is the Council’s position on breaches of human rights within the European Union, in connection with the CIA’s activities. The European Parliament has investigated these as fully as possible, and it is scandalous, in my opinion, that we have never heard any comment from the Council. This might consist of what it thinks about this, which aspects of the report it agrees with and which it does not, and what kind of measures it intends to take. Is the Council prepared to give its reaction to the Fava report, or is it to persist in its silence?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples