Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-23-Speech-2-014"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-09-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Combating terrorism - Protection of personal data (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080923.4.2-014"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-09-23-Speech-2-0152
lpv:speaker	lp:Panayiotis Demetriou2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with India (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 member; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AFCO (2007-06-19--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Dimokratikos Synagermos (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2007-07-23--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, we have before us today two very important reports. They are unusual for their balanced approach and because they are the outcome of broader collaboration on issues which have generally been agreed on combating terrorism, and the protection of human rights, along with personal data, of course. Terrorism is the scourge of our age. It is hydra-headed, inhuman, barbarous and unrelenting. We therefore need to combat it by all lawful means, while always bearing in mind that human rights must not be violated. That is exactly what Mrs Lefrançois’s report achieves. What has been said is that the proposal to combat terrorism is based on the Council of Europe Convention. However, we have chosen to alter the definition of ‘public provocation’ so that it is legally more comprehensible in all countries. We talk about ‘public incitement’, which is much more in keeping with the spirit of the Convention and the aim we wish to pursue. Our concern when discussing this report was centred on the issue of human rights. We conducted extensive discussions, settled on a form of wording and included provisions to ensure the balance that I have mentioned. Anything extra will probably upset this balance and any attempt to further define terrorism is asking for trouble: it was no easy task for Europe to arrive at a definition. I was in the Council of Europe for three years. We tried to find a definition of terrorism and did not succeed. Now that we have arrived at this definition, there is no need to go against it. In any case, on the issue of human rights, there is paragraph 10 of the introductory part of the proposal; it deals extensively and thoroughly with the specific rights being protected: the right of assembly and of trade unions, and all related rights. There is therefore no need for any further efforts in this direction. To conclude, let me add that all this is in good hands. However, there is another area we should look at: we should turn our attention to the societies that nurture terrorism. We should talk to reasonable people, to the moderate elements, so that the moral support given to terrorists in these societies can be removed. We should direct our efforts, thinking, programmes and campaigns towards this."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph