kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the commission strongly believes that unjustified or unnecessary ethnic profiling is an unfair and prohibited practice even when this is done for law enforcement purposes or in connection with immigration customs and border control and is contrary to the fundamental values of the european union.
i want to underline that already existing data protection legislation ensures a high level of protection of personal data including sensitive data such as information on ethnicity or race and applies regardless of the technology used.
the commission will of course carefully study the results of the minorities and discrimination survey which will be published chapter by chapter through the year.
the commission is committed and i am personally committed to fighting racism and xenophobia to the full extent of the powers conferred by the treaties and this includes cases where racism comes from public authorities.
as regards the need for a legal framework to define profiling the commission believes that the relevant eu legislation on border management and data protection is adequate to protect fundamental rights.
indeed it requires that any processing activity has to be grounded on a specific recognised legal basis and respect particularly the principles of necessity proportionality purpose limitation and accuracy.
finally the commission welcomes the minorities and discrimination survey that was presented yesterday.
however this angle has to be properly assessed. therefore the commission is looking into the opportunity to ask the article twenty nine data protection working party to prepare an opinion on the processing of personal data for statistical purposes including ethnicity race or origin.
it is subject to supervision by independent public authorities.
all these principles also apply to profiling as one of the ways of performing processing of personal data.
the sections on law enforcement and border control provide us with further and recent data on experiences of ethnic profiling.
but already now we can conclude that racism and xenophobia are still persistent phenomena in the european union and that they affect the lives of members of ethnic minorities.
under important instruments proposed by the commission like the schengen border code eurodac sis vis the use of unjustified ethnic profiling techniques is not authorised.
the commission supports the inclusion in the two thousand and ten work programme of the agency of joint training with frontex where the said handbook could be used.
i would also like to mention the activities of the fundamental rights agency in this field.
the ludford report represents a very good platform that contributes further to this issue by launching a broad discussion and suggesting how to tackle this problem.
i would like to push the commission a little bit further though on focusing on the specific problems of profiling.
be extremely useful the fundamental rights agency guidance on ethnic profiling the commission working with the council of europe on its recommendation and the suggestion that the article twenty nine working party can be asked for guidance.
after all we do have a recommendation on the table for profiling in the context of pnr data so there are special problems.
i think two things came out strongly first of all the fact that so called security' measures can create insecurity and secondly that they can be a waste instead of a targeting of resources.
the report gives an excellent picture of the questions raised by the use of profiling techniques in particular when they are based on ethnicity race nationality or religion for law enforcement immigration or border control purposes.
the commission follows closely and will continue to follow the problems posed by the use of profiling in general and in particular in the sectors expressly referred to in the report.
the commission is currently launching a consultation on the challenges posed by new technologies to data protection.
its results should provide the commission with elements that will feed its reflection and guide it when dealing with the problems that profiling can pose in the areas of justice freedom and security.
the recent results published by the fundamental rights agency on minorities and discrimination in the eu which the commission welcomed yesterday show that racism and xenophobia are persistent phenomena in the european union and that they affect the lives of our minorities. the commission has to carefully study the results of this survey in order to decide the way forward.
we believe that predictive profiling and data mining are issues which have long been unexamined and i very much welcome the commission's positive approach to both recognising this issue and understanding the possible indirect discrimination that can be caused by ethnic profiling.
the socialists hope that if this report is adopted tomorrow and following the upcoming council of europe recommendation on profiling there will be sufficient political impetus to address this issue at the highest levels.
this kind of profiling is a waste of resources.
what it does is target indirectly or directly those who are vulnerable who have an ethnic background which is just the wrong background this can lead and i think people should understand this to strip searches and other abuses which we have seen.
this report is an important step forward in protecting people against something which so far has been unexamined but i am glad that sarah ludford had now raised it in parliament and we will fully support this report tomorrow.
we can see all of them actually as political hostages.
osce. we will continue to use our financial instruments to support civil society and we will attend the court trials of human rights' defenders and opposition figures. we will do all this because we are committed to supporting human rights and the development of civil society in russia and lastly but very importantly we will continue
we must stand behind those who protect human rights in russia.
it is yet another obstacle to the development of a free strong and well functioning civil society in russia.
some of those organisations have been forced to close down.
today's debate focuses on a number of individual cases all involving non russian citizens the estonian officer kohver who was abducted in september two thousand and fourteen at gunpoint from the estonian side of the border with russia.
we will continue to raise our concerns in international fora the united nations the council of europe and the
he was sentenced in august two thousand and fifteen to twenty years in prison.
we now need to ensure that the final definition is proportionate and based on the science.
but this cannot be realised if our farmers do not have access to an adequate range of crop protection products.
for example many plant based foods such as caffeine in coffee interact with the hormonal system without leading to disruption or harm.
mr president the commission was right to launch an impact assessment into the different options for definitions of endocrinedisrupting chemicals.
with over eight hundred and fifty million people in the world who do not have enough to eat europe with its favourable soils and climate surely has a moral obligation to optimise agricultural output.
edcs have been linked to a wide range of diseases and conditions such as as we have heard foetal abnormalities infertility autism diabetes and hormonal cancers.
there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the immediate suspension of the use of certain harmful substances and it is a view which is also held by certain influential member states.
it is disheartening to hear yet again another story of the commission bending to its corporate bedfellows instead of implementing rigorous regulation to protect consumers and the environment.
this frankenstein list of health causes is only compounded when we consider the staggering economic cost of edc exposure.
there is no excuse for any delay.
i would like to present the work that i have been doing since the beginning of my mandate which started four months ago as well as explain my intentions for the future.
the road map also makes provision for an impact assessment.
as of november two thousand and fourteen it was placed under my full responsibility.
this is yet another reason for us to undertake an impact assessment in such a sensitive and complex situation.
all these reasons objectively justify the need for the impact assessment.
this will always be the case. sometimes scientific consensus emerges but very rarely complete agreement.
i have been contacted by constituents in my region expressing concern about the potential socioeconomic effects and i do not think that those should be ignored.
the world health organization has acknowledged that existing data are not able to demonstrate a causal link between exposure to eds and adverse health effects.
the issue is further complicated by the different regulatory processes that exist in different pieces of sectoral legislation a hazardbased approach in plant protection products and a riskbased approach in biocides so we cannot even get that right.
this pananalysis has been challenged by many scientists.
the author of the question attested just tonight that if the criteria for edcs had been published the entire issue of endocrine disrupters would have been solved and this is clearly not the case.
i can only conclude that it is part of the ongoing campaign to oversimplify this issue by ignoring the safeguards that are already in place not least through legislation such as reach.
they quite clearly say that.
i think the commission is taking a sensible approach to this very difficult issue.
this is an ongoing discussion in the scientific community which is divided on how best to identify and regulate endocrinedisrupters.
they have been funded in many different ways and they all come up with the same conclusion bar one or two minor studies namely that there is no causal link.
the london bombings took place exactly five years ago.
it allows the commission to appoint a person who will monitor the day to day extraction of data from the tftp database and who will be empowered to query and even block searches.
for all these reasons i would ask you to give your consent to the agreement on thursday.
the review team will include data protection experts and an expert with a judicial background and they will be able to do random checks.
member states have confirmed the enormous value of this information derived from the tftp which the us authorities share with us.
i am delighted that the structures and the procedures have worked well not without difficulty but they have worked well and it has allowed us in record time to negotiate an agreement which ensures good high level protection of personal data whilst maintaining a counter terrorist programme that helps to save lives in europe and in the us and beyond. the agreement for which i ask your consent this week is considerably different from the interim agreement that you rejected in february.
moreover the agreement empowers the eu to undertake regular and detailed reviews of the tftp.
the agreement also includes significant data protection when it comes to transparency rights of access rectification erasure and redress.
it empowers a european public authority namely europol to verify that each and every request is tailored as narrowly as possible in order to minimise the amount of data requested.
this person will be on the premises where the us analysts are working and will have full access to the tftp searches to ensure permanent monitoring.
this sad anniversary makes us remember the victims and their families and we wish that this tragedy had never happened and that it will never happen again. we must do our best to prevent future attacks and this agreement is one important tool in the fight to prevent horrible attacks like this one.
this has been a serious situation and i am relieved that we are now closing this security gap.
in any negotiation there must be give and take but my group believes that eu citizens can feel that their parliament working with an effective presidency secured many of the safeguards they expect and an agreement which would infinitely outstrip the negative potential of twenty seven bilateral agreements.
it signals the parliament's ability post lisbon to represent the interests of all eu citizens in its dealings with the council commission and third countries.
better an eu deal with real safeguards than bilateral agreements with unknown consequences.
tomorrow in my constituency of london we celebrate the anniversary of the seven seven bombing.
on the central point the transfer of bulk data of eu citizens we have successfully brokered the so called twin track approach combining strict safeguards such as the eu appointment of eu staff in the us treasury with a concrete timetable leading the way to a european solution for the extraction of data on eu soil.
for all of these reasons our group will support this renegotiated deal and proudly stand by the safeguards we have helped to secure with the rapporteur and all of the other groups on behalf of eu citizens and their freedoms.
this agreement is about the serious balance between fighting terrorism and protecting the freedoms of our citizens.
we all know what this agreement is about but balance is critical.
mr president in the context of our group's rejection of the interim tftp agreement we welcome the decision by the spanish presidency and the us to reopen negotiations to take on board key data protection safeguards for all eu citizens. today our group can support the alvaro report not because it represents the perfect agreement but because it contains the key protections we would all expect to see in an international data sharing deal of this importance as mr strasser said in this milestone event.
that is simply not true.
you may not like it but i think it is unfair to say that this agreement is equivalent to the one you voted down in february.
all agreements that we make whether internally between the institutions or with a third country are the result of tough negotiations hard efforts and compromise. compromise is the very essence of the community method.
considerable improvements have been made concerning data protection fundamental rights and integrity.
they have listened they have understood our concerns and together we have come to an agreement that takes these into consideration but is also a tool to fight terrorism and hopefully save lives in the future.
it was not even on the agenda a few months ago and this has been done thanks to you your very constructive and responsible approach to this and through hard negotiations.
so let us vote on this new agreement and let us focus on the future and make sure that both the commission and the council live up to their respective promises as enshrined in the agreement or attached to the agreement because our ultimate goal remains a durable and legally sound european solution.
mr president this agreement is proposed under the lisbon treaty and therefore lacks all democratic legitimacy.
this is a problem that will come back to haunt us continually in the years to come.
you have created an illegal state and now you are making illegal laws!
those few meps who were given access to this secret report or secret agreement were only allowed to see it after signing a declaration of honour not to reveal its contents.
most importantly the people of europe to whom the information actually belongs are totally unaware of its contents.
more specifically the proposed legislation is illegal under existing uk data protection law governing the international transfer of private citizens' personal details.
under the act such information cannot be shared without the consent of the individuals concerned.
the us authorities have already shown that they simply help themselves to such data as and when they feel fit. the usa cannot be trusted to observe other nations' rights.
the confidential and private financial data in question belongs to the individual and not to the european union or the european parliament.
they have no right to share it with the usa or anybody else.
britain's representative on the council appears to have overridden existing national law in order to reach this agreement.
by what right?
however we all know that the totally undemocratic and illegitimate eu legislation takes precedence over national democratic law!
terrorism has to be opposed but it must not be used as a cloak to remove citizens' rights and protections.
this is just the latest example of how the eu is creating an undemocratic illegitimate political state.
even if this control were to be exercised in good faith i do not believe that the individuals would have the confidence to refuse requests from the united states for extraction if they were said quite untruthfully to combat terrorism.
however us foreign policy is much wider than opposition to terrorism and it is quite probable that the united states would seek to gain access to financial data that would be used against its wider political opponents and not just real terrorists.
this agreement has serious shortcomings which leave it open to legal challenge.
it puts the final verdict in the hands of the courts rather than the policy makers where it belongs.
concluding international agreements that are not legally watertight is a risky strategy. this agreement is therefore no reason for jubilation but it is the least bad option.
although i share many of the doubts and concerns of the no' voters rejection will not result in a better agreement and we all know that.
putting an end to the bulk data transfer in the longer term is major progress that we should recognise.
finally colleagues this house by voting no' has a heavy responsibility to ensure quick and full implementation of the council decision.
we should congratulate the us in their sustained belief that progress was possible here and for once again continuing down the route to an eu us international agreement.
i believe that this time we are all here with a lot more goodwill and cohesion following six months of mostly successful but testing negotiations.
what we are finally being presented with is an agreement which is not only new but improved; one which we can live with and one which we should be happy about especially with vital lessons having been learned within our parliament and within the eu institutions.
the deal is good compared with last time including as it does now a judicial review eu oversight review procedures and blocking mechanisms. it represents for us the future possibility of our own eu tftp system.
for those members who have remaining concerns it is not perfect but may i remind this house that we do not live in a perfect world.
that is exactly why this agreement is needed.
it is why we do not just have a duty to protect the data and the rights of our citizens but also to protect their ongoing security and their safety.
last night in committee this agreement was overwhelmingly adopted.
it was a victory for common sense and i hope the same result can be echoed within this house when we vote together.
now is the time to put aside our individual ideals and be practical for the sake of the people we represent.
now is the time for the reputation of the eu as a serious international body to be renewed.
now is the time for us to behave reasonably and responsibly.
mr president i am a law abiding citizen and i want my security to be protected without excessive intrusion into my privacy.
but equally i want my privacy to be respected without this having to be done at the expense of my security.
with this agreement we have done just this.
we have shown that privacy and security do not need to be played off against each other.
we have shown that we can have them both.
we have shown that we can strike a fair balance.
i believe that this is precisely the kind of balance that our law abiding citizens expect from us.
we also welcome initiatives of dialogue and reconciliation by all those who have contributed and stand ready to play any role that may help to overcome the current difficulties and help thailand onto a democratic track.
this deadlock must end by investigations into the violence and the prosecution of those responsible. all parties must show restraint and respect for the rule of law and abide by democratic principles.
the government is putting aside its senate as well as the constitutional court's rulings on the amnesty bill and on the date of the elections.
it should start by lifting emergency laws.
these very troubling steps have paralysed the country and the elections as voting did not happen in all areas of the country and the law forbids the opening of the legislature when it is not ninety five filled.
such actions have led to outcry and protest and responses have led to death and injury.
the prime minister has declared a state of emergency.
on top of that a non elected people's representation has been proposed.
this includes a government that ensures free assembly and free expression.
we welcome the fact that the military has remained neutral and we call on it to continue to do so.
last year was a particularly important year as we initialled the partnership and cooperation agreement with thailand began free trade agreement negotiations and received the prime minister in brussels. the european union is following with concern the recent tensions
and the political polarisation in thailand.
in her statements she has condemned the use of violence urged all sides to exert restraint and called for a real and inclusive dialogue and reconciliation. the recent tensions are a recurrence of what thailand has experienced earlier in this century.
thailand's democratic political system may now once more be at risk.
the elections last sunday where many thais were unable to vote and polls were boycotted show how challenging and complex the situation has become. the situation has in it the seeds both for a solution and for further deterioration.
the thai political leadership must come together and find a way forward.
as this parliament rightly stresses in its resolution it is essential to avoid escalation and to engage immediately in a constructive dialogue to seek a negotiated settlement.
the alternative is a growing rift in society.
we believe that only real dialogue between the authorities and the opposition aimed at finding a lasting political solution based on democratic principles within the constitutional framework offers a way forward.
counterfeit goods are coming in from third countries trying to stop them at the border makes sense.
we know about the mobile phone wars and we also know that original car part manufacturers have been fighting with spare part manufacturers for a good many years.
we tried to solve this with the unitary patent but the forum shopping risk is still inherent in that system.
member states which control harbours or large end consumer markets get a disproportionate amount of power over what happens to all european consumers.
it has been proven for instance in new zealand that this is beneficial to consumers particularly in the copyright field.
so now we will be passing new legislation on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights but the injunction issue remains unsolved.
finally the regulation addresses the specific problems we encountered in the past with regard to access to medicines. this has been a particularly sensitive matter but i am confident that it is now definitely settled.
this new regulation is not just good for customs it is good for our businesses and for our citizens.
the commission will support the process including by putting in place the necessary information infrastructure.
as we strongly felt that the safe passage of generic medicines in transit through the eu to the final destination was jeopardised we voted against the proposal.
so postal services are vital and they are protected by the uk's two thousand and eleven postal services act.
postal services providers have to be lean flexible organisations able to adapt to changing circumstances and changing and indeed falling demand.