kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
but with ai it became obvious that intellectual property protection strategies of the past cannot work. we must develop flexible copyright patent trademark design protection and even trade secret rules that will accommodate all these new aspects.
europe needs these legal instruments fast.
there is no time to waste so i am urging the commission to act as fast as possible.
in parallel scientists need access to quality data that are collected faster but with clear consent.
so we need to make sure citizens have options when data is collected when they are recorded on their mics and cameras and their locations recorded and we definitely need immediately to set standards clear standards to remove regulatory obstacles for a real harmonised digital single market.
at the same time we need to make sure in order to protect our european quality of life that the design of algorithms and the metrics that we request will be bound by legislation in order to translate ethical principles and human rights to the digital era by law
to ensure that we will not compromise safety or privacy with extra security criteria and will make sure that automation remains under human control.
in this case we can avoid exclusion or manipulation of perception predicting the policing or ranking of citizens and the profiling of citizens. in that case we can collaborate more with democracies to protect our democracies.
madam president the digital age we live in today permeates our daily lives and even more so our children's lives. can we accept that algorithms created by international corporations decide on what we can say and read online
what human rights defenders can say what dissidents and whistleblowers can publish? do you know that youtube's filters suppressed a parliamentary debate on torture because they confused it with violence online?
it is high time we take back control and do the same with censorship machines used by digital platforms.
secondly let's tackle the predominant business model of surveillance capitalism.
major platforms are tracking our every click everything we read and write online to analyse our personalities our likes our weaknesses our illnesses.
we cannot accept this permanent surveillance of users online and therefore we need to make sure that we are not subject to pervasive tracking.
likewise the right to anonymity is essential to safeguard our identity online and prevent abuses and data losses and sales.
finally let's address the gated communities on the internet.
let's make sure consumers can choose which platform to use to ensure competition and to ensure interaction across platforms to break the dependency and the user lockin that is predominant on the internet.
let's make sure we take back control of our digital lives.
let me add one aspect regarding the ai reports.
there is some mention here of biometrics surveillance that has nothing to do with the report on ai and ipr protection.
let's make sure that we do not confuse artificial intelligence with surveillance.
mr president in this joint debate we have covered a broad range of subjects but i will emphasise how much artificial intelligence has an impact on structural inequalities in our societies.
we ask for legislation guided by strong ethical principles with the protection of citizens and the environment as a priority.
such systems need to be subject to constant review and analysis.
when content is considered problematic or dangerous who decides how it's removed from platforms?
we are particularly concerned that introducing a separate category of legal but harmful context will lead to online censorship.
this is a huge issue. most of all we must reiterate the importance of digital education.
only by equipping citizens with facts and enabling them to identify disinformation and misinformation can we make sure that we have an inclusive digital transformation.
even the discussions are delayed and focus primarily on the potential risks of ai and the need for regulation as opposed to the enormous opportunities it provides. meanwhile the development of ai as well as public and private investment in it is lagging behind
other regions in the world. to catch up the eu should turn to soft law solutions for ai and incentivise developers who promote trustworthy ai as stated in a recent non paper signed by a group of member states.
madam president we are in the midst of a global tech race. technology should empower us all but we see everyday how it can be deployed for malign purposes from deep fake videos undermining democracy to the challenge of fully autonomous weapon systems.
the eu is a regulatory power but we must also be a tech superpower not only for regulation but also for promoting technology and supporting it.
that means developing metadata skills and partnerships with like minded allies.
the only way to ensure ethical development of ai is for the world's democracies to win the global tech race and set the global standards.
if china comes first our ethical frameworks will be nothing more than well intentioned empty words and that cannot be.
the reasons why their content was removed and contest removals in an outofcourt dispute settlement mechanism. at the same time parliament calls for interoperability rules that can help smes startups or volunteer projects to provide alternatives to dominant platforms. however transparency on removals the possibility to contest removals and the possibility to choose alternative services is not enough because if at the same time we encourage online platforms to use automated filters we cannot ensure that completely legal speech doesn't get systematically removed.
the internet needs to remain a place where people can share timesensitive information have an open public debate or promote their products at the time of their choice and this cannot be guaranteed with automated filters in place.
we ask the commission to take these points into account in the upcoming legislation.
what did the european commission have to say about this scandal?
they feel they have the right to preach about fundamental rights all over the world in russia in belarus and even in the us but when the abuse happens inside the eu they selectively use the internal matter mantra and when it applies to spain violating laws the commission is embarrassingly blind. the digital services act must prevent companies and governments that collude to store
it will go down in history as the day when the european union truly stood up against violence against women and for the protection of women against violence.
and i say to you today stop these disgusting political campaigns.
and fighting against violence should actually not even be a debate here because despite our political differences shouldn't we all agree that all women in the european union should be able to live a life free from violence?
there are politicians who are spreading lies in order to block the ratification of this very important convention and these politicians only have one pre condition under which they actually care about violence against women and that is when the perpetrator is a muslim when the perpetrator is a refugee when the perpetrator is a stranger when the perpetrator is somebody who they can politically instrumentalise.
start doing something for the protection of women against violence start campaigning for the istanbul convention because this is the real political tool that you should use in order to prevent violence from happening.
these crimes have no place in the union and the council is clear on zero tolerance of violence against women.
i would like to use the opportunity to reiterate the points which i have made previously.
this includes reaching agreement on internal rules in the form of a code of conduct for the implementation of the convention.
' the council has repeatedly expressed its commitment to preventing and eliminating all forms of gender based violence.
as president tajani strongly affirmed the struggle for the elimination of violence against women is a fight that each and every one of us must take part in.
last but not least gender based violence also has a significant impact on economies and societies as a whole for example in terms of health legal and social services.
according to the eu wide survey on violence against women conducted by the fundamental rights agency in two thousand and fourteen oneinthree women which means thirty three has experienced physical and or sexual violence since the age of.
we all know that only our joint efforts and a message of unity will help to improve the situation of all women and girls in europe.
finally it contributes to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and promotes equality between women and men.
indeed this is not the first time i had the opportunity to discuss with you this very important topic.
the council has on several occasions encouraged those member states who have not done so yet to ratify the istanbul convention.
combating all forms of violence against women and young girls is a core element of the respect for fundamental rights.
the convention is not against family mr president i'm finishing it is against violence that is against families.
since then estonia cyprus germany and now croatia have ratified the convention but ten member states are missing including the presidency. i am asking them how many women have to be harassed beaten up and killed?
so together today let's call on the presidency to put the istanbul convention on the agenda of the european council for as long as it takes and call on all countries bulgaria hungary slovakia and ukraine to engage with civil society with religious leaders across political parties based on facts. thank you vice president for what you said.
all women and girls should feel free and safe in europe and no tradition or culture can justify men's violence against women.
it is about building a culture of respect for women and girls involving men and boys.
how many girls have to be married away mutilated or trafficked for prostitution before they ratify and enforce?
the eu accession to the convention strengthens accountability for member states and external action of the eu in promoting women's rights globally.
mr president the signature of the eu on the istanbul convention was a historic step to strengthen our tools to prevent violence combat impunity and protect victims.
the convention not only provides for sanctions training support for victims but also measures to combat stereotypes and sexism.
the convention is the first legally binding international instrument with enforceable provisions to prevent and combat violence against women.
since the signature we have been working intensively with the member states and the council to reach an agreement on a code of conduct that sets out the practical arrangements for implementing the convention.
we have been discussing legal competence issues as well as issues such as reporting and sharing information.
it is not about imposing new social standards.
the misconceptions and misleading arguments voiced in the public debates about the convention need to be confronted.
despite the fact that all eu member states have signed the convention and that nineteen member states have so far ratified it we see strong opposition against the convention in a few countries.
i would like to be very clear this convention is about protecting women against violence.
for example the convention requires that staff are protected through the internal rules of the institutions to prohibit violence and harassment in the workplace and provide for procedures and services to support victims and to sanction offenders.
oneinthree women in europe has experienced violence at least once in their life simply because she is a woman and oneinthree women in europe has experienced either physical and or sexual violence.
i would really like to know in which universe social conventions or religious norms would allow for violence against women.
the istanbul convention is the first binding and comprehensive international instrument in europe that addresses violence against women.
a lot has been said about this convention some of which is frankly untrue.
however the advantage is that if the eu becomes a contracting party in its own name alongside the member states certain obligations set out in the convention will be legally binding for the eu's institutions bodies and agencies and will therefore protect their staff.
i find it completely unacceptable that my mother my wife or my kids my girls would not be better protected against violence.
the commission is currently in the process of analysing the relevant obligations in the convention screening the existing internal rules regulations and practices of all eu institutions agencies and bodies and determining whether there are any gaps in the current system.
but unless we take concrete steps and move ahead together on this we won't achieve the behavioural and cultural shifts that allow change.
the commission is working on a communication strategy to rebut fears that the convention would challenge conventional family or religious norms or introduce an obligation to allow same sex marriage or a new refugee status for transgender or intersex persons.
we know that this violence is part of an effort to keep women in their place as lesser citizens and this is unacceptable.
the code should accompany the council's conclusion decision and describe the division of roles between the eu and the member states in implementing the convention.
the fact that the convention law was included as a priority in the programme of our presidency is a clear demonstration that the bulgarian government is convinced of its importance. the process of ratification of the convention by the member states requires respect of the procedures according to the specific national public debates and constitutional arrangements.
we will assess the situation in the light of the court's ruling once it is available.
i would like to conclude by stressing that we share the view that violence against women and young girls and the protection of its victims is an issue of common concern that touches upon the core values of the european union.
as the presidency i would like to underline that we are fulfilling our duties and investing our utmost efforts to achieve progress and we will continue to work in closer cooperation with our austrian colleagues to finalise the discussions on the code of conduct towards conclusion by the european union.
we are currently still waiting for clarifications from the constitutional court concerning certain aspects of the convention in relation to the bulgarian constitution and i am convinced that this will contribute to a better informed public debate on the topic.
there is still a long way to go until real practices follow ratification acts and the different forms of gender based violence diminish in our societies.
in romania there have been more than twenty zero reported cases in two thousand and seventeen but we know that the majority of incidents do not even come to the attention of the police.
the istanbul convention is not only about numbers but also about changing current attitudes in our households as well as shaping the future behaviour of the next generation.
violence against women and girls is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of the deep imbalances empowering our societies and the vulnerabilities and limitations that follow them especially for the most marginalised groups when vulnerabilities are at their peak and protections at their lowest point.
this year marks the first anniversary of the signing by the european union of the istanbul convention and it is an opportunity for us to reflect on the steps that have been taken so far.
but it is also a possibility for a wake up call.
only robust action can ensure women a life free from violence. i welcome the steps that have been taken in the negotiations of the code of conduct which lays down the rights and obligations of the eu and the member states under the convention.
this gives me the opportunity to call on the next eu council presidency austria my country to conclude the code of conduct and to find a political agreement with the remaining problematic member states who keep blocking the ratification by the european union of the istanbul convention.
for those member states i have a crystal clear message i urge you to stop spreading outrageous misinformation about the convention and its content.
gender is not a threat;
violence against women is an instrument of submission of women and those who belittle violence against women believe in a society where women are under submission.
what i find mind boggling of the extreme right is that they would attack the istanbul convention and at the same time say that we should be doing more in attacking violence against women in the islamic community.
if you are serious about that then the istanbul convention will give you additional instruments to do that.
i believe that if you oppose the istanbul convention with such force it is based on an ideology that says that submission of women is part of our traditional values and i refute that vision of our society.
the istanbul convention at the end of the day is about equality between men and women.
it is about making it clear that using violence simply because you are stronger and because you can to create the submission of women is unacceptable in a european society based on our common values which demand equality of men and women.
i just want to say very clearly that if you ever have listened to a victim of domestic violence recalling their experience you would have no doubt of the importance of this issue.
and the tragedy is that in our so called developed world domestic violence is everywhere.
and this is a frightening reality for women and indeed their children.
that needs to be done.
i support the call made here in this debate on this very sensitive issue.
i listened very recently to a woman describe the circumstances of her experience and how difficult it was for her to extract herself from that.
penalised under cross compliance rules.
in the united kingdom the majority of farmers do not use electronic management systems and it would be unfair to make eid compulsory given the impact on farmers but also the lack of tangible benefits for the consumer and taxpayer.
sheep eid has proved to be nothing short of more unnecessary bureaucracy from the commission. a one hundred accuracy rate has not been possible given the failings in technology and unless the commission takes a more pragmatic view here farmers in northern ireland the united kingdom and throughout europe will be unduly
member states should have the flexibility to decide the system which best suits their own farmers livestock markets and processors.
it is important therefore that the commission tackle the problems within the sheep sector before imposing other unnecessary rules on beef and dairy. as we move forward we must have an approach that allows for flexibity does not prove bureaucratic for farmers and processors improves competitiveness in the market and gives consumers valuable information to make informed choices. this is a huge task indeed for negotiation with council.
madam president in relation to bovine eid i am supportive of the need for a voluntary led approach which means that duplication of management systems will be removed.
this would be particularly welcome because the proposed new rules amount to an opportunity to enhance growth and competitiveness for many stakeholders. we all recognise that the current system of traceability is effective in terms of consumer protection. electronic identification will however
make the system more accurate and faster.
it will improve the tracing of animals and food products for enhanced food safety and better management of disease outbreaks.
it will also reduce administrative burdens by simplifying the current procedures.
modern technology is literally just a click away for european farmers and our duty is to adopt legislation to allow them to embrace and profit from this progress.
operators respecting the existing horizontal provisions would of course be free to provide additional information on their labels. any such information should not mislead consumers and should be verifiable by the competent authorities.
we must also keep in mind that current rules on bovine identification and voluntary beef labelling were described as burdens' imposed on business in the communication from the commission on the action programme for reducing administrative burdens in the
madam president i have serious concerns with regard to the bovine eid proposal.
i hope the commission has learned from their incompetent handling of electronic id tags in the past with which there are still many problems.
it is essential that if the scheme is introduced it must be on a voluntary basis and is not as some members of this parliament urge subject to a report in five years to consider compulsory eid of bovine animals.
the uk cattle id system works perfectly well so the choice to upgrade should be an individual decision based on working preferences. it should be made without fear of penalty under cross compliance if equipment is subject to error.
sheep tagging brought a host of problems that persecuted british farmers whose equipment was especially vulnerable to the elements.
cattle in the uk are often out to grass for at least six months so tag loss is inevitable.
there is a crisis in the dairy industry in the uk while the beef market is only just seeing a small recovery after years of being in the red.
if the commission makes a shambles of bovine tagging the industry will be brought to its knees.
concerning the specific problems there is no need to maintain a specific authorisation procedure for voluntary beef labelling as horizontal provisions on labelling of meat would apply. it is also important to note that voluntary beef labelling
contains information related to quality and not necessarily to health.
on the question of labelling the great concern of everyone concerned with animal welfare is that all meat originating from animals suffering ritual slaughter should be labelled consumers have the right to know and to reject it.
i want to make a contribution to this debate because of my recent experience with eid on sheep and i am going to confine my remarks to how that system works technically.
this system has been imposed on farmers in my constituency despite strong opposition and has now been around long enough for us to know that it does not work efficiently.
they do particularly for internal flock management but it is not sufficiently reliable to be used as a primary system for stock movements.
the unreliability of the technology has been acknowledged by the commission through their granting of more time for example to the uk to bed the system in.
why would we want to embark on an extension of this system to bovines before we get these things sorted?
our job is to make regulations that help both farmers and the authorities to work smarter.
madam president as i said as british pro eu meps the brexit resolution meant this has been a difficult week but the unwavering solidarity we have received from this chamber in the face of the nerve agent attack has been deeply appreciated.
we will seek to redeploy eur twenty two billion of european social fund money to improve job opportunities in europe.
two thousand and twelve as agreed in december we will reassess in march the adequacy of resources under the efsf and the esm.
we are making progress probably not as fast as most of us wanted but we are making progress towards a fiscal union in our european union.
the contracting member states agreed to respect the commission's central role in delivering the agreement's objectives in line with the lisbon treaty and the community method.
i stressed the need for us to continue with the comprehensive approach to resolving the crisis that the commission set out in its road map to stability and growth in october last year.