Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes


5. Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States (vote)


Composition of Parliament: see Minutes


External dimension of the fight against terrorism (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the external dimension of the fight against terrorism
.
rapporteur. - (ES) Madam President, international terrorism is the most dangerous threat to peace, security, human dignity and integrity.
Being an invisible enemy, which is geographically diffuse, and which can be found inside and outside of our borders, it needs to be fought in a way that is different to the way the European Union has had to fight its enemies in the past.
The European Union's anti-terrorist strategy must be global, multilateral and based on the United Nations system. Any unilateral and exclusively military response is doomed to failure. The fight against terrorism will be won in the field of values. It is therefore crucial, in order to defeat terrorism morally, to increase the awareness of it and mobilise our public opinion. We must at no point lower our guard. We must not just react following a massive attack, but rather we should act in a permanent and proactive manner.
A strengthened CFSP is vital to our success. This means making improvements, providing better resources and better coordination amongst European intelligence and information services and more work on uncovering terrorism's funding channels.
In its external actions, the Union must focus on stopping certain States providing support for terrorist groups, through coercive measures and sanctions, and it must help weak States to strengthen their institutions and their democracy in order to prevent them from harbouring terrorists.
Madam President, preserving the rule of law and human rights in the fight against terrorism is not just absolutely crucial for moral reasons. It is the raison d'etre of our strategy, because that is precisely what the terrorists want to destroy: the values on which our co-existence is based. If we give ground in this area, as in the case of the Iraq War, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib or the illegal CIA flights, we will be providing the terrorists with excuses, which they will try to use as justification, and we will be fuelling their activities.
Restricting fundamental rights does not create more security, but rather more fear. We need free societies that feel secure in themselves. Fearful societies have already lost the fight against terrorism. The security/freedom dilemma is a false one. We will be safer if we are freer, more open and more inclusive.
Prevention, which is so important and which failed both on 11 September in New York and on 11 March in Madrid, is crucial, as is greater efficiency in police and judicial action. Our CFSP must contribute to eradicating the fertile ground upon which international terrorism thrives.
Terrorism is never justifiable. We must never talk about causes, but rather the circumstances that feed it, the first of which is the humiliation and disdain suffered by millions of Muslims, which they perceive as arrogance on the part of the West, and the exacerbation of endemic conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Another is the disrespectful treatment of a religion that is followed peacefully by more than 1 300 million people throughout the world.
We are dealing with fundamentalist fanatics, who are dogmatic, but not a particular religion or belief. We sometimes forget that there have been more Muslim victims of Islamist terrorism than Western victims. This explains the international success of initiatives such as the Alliance of Civilisations, adopted by the United Nations, in opposition to the clash of civilisations advocated by fundamentalists from one side or another.
As well as better resources, international terrorism must be beaten by means of intelligence and tenacity, not by means of inflammatory speeches that only demonstrate fundamental weakness. Fascism, firstly, and then Stalinism, decades later, were defeated in the ideological field, without surrendering the principles that lie at the heart of our societies, including freedom of expression exercised in a responsible manner.
My report places particular emphasis on recognising the victims as principal actors, to whom the public powers must listen. We therefore have four direct victims of the massive attack of 11 March in Madrid in the gallery. Jesús Ramírez Castanedo, Jesús Abril Escusa, Isabel Casanova Ortega and Euclides Antonio Río Grajales. I would like to thank them very much for being here.
Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I would like to thank your House's Committee on Foreign Affairs, and your rapporteur Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García, for the report on the external dimension of the fight against terrorism, which has been presented today. It is a comprehensive report and discusses a number of extremely important issues on which we are largely of one mind. The terrorist threat is now, more than ever, international in character, and the measures taken by the European Union to overcome it can, in fact, be successful only if they form part of a coordinated global effort at combating terrorism.
At its meeting in December 2005, the European Council adopted an anti-terrorism strategy for the European Union in which the general outline of the European Union's anti-terrorist measures is marked out, and, at the same meeting, adopted the European Union's strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment for terrorist purposes, in both of which documents the external dimension of anti-terrorist activity is exhaustively discussed.
There are three important points that I would like to highlight as regards terrorism's external aspects, namely radicalisation and recruitment, cooperation with external partners and the international legal framework.
Firstly, the principal object of the anti-terrorist strategy consists in preventing people from resorting to terrorism, and action must also be taken to deal with the factors that can help to radicalise people and make them susceptible to recruitment by terrorist organisations. In its foreign policy measures directed against terrorism, the EU has continued to endeavour to consider every possible issue connected with radicalisation and recruitment, and has shared with its external partners its experience and best practices in dealing with the problem.
The European Union has also broken new ground in including anti-radicalisation measures in a special technical aid programme for combating terrorism. Meetings featuring dialogue between religions and cultures have been held as part of the ASEM process and the Barcelona process, and under the auspices of the Anna Lindh Foundation; the EU has also set up working parties to discuss in depth how it might improve its public diplomacy and its contacts with Islam both within the EU and outside it, and we want to continue to move this forward in a determined manner. Radicalisation and recruitment will also continue to be addressed in future programmes of technical support in combating terrorism and will remain an important feature of the dialogue with third countries.
Secondly, there is cooperation with external partners, and, in pursuing its objectives in the field of anti-terrorism, we have continued to collaborate closely with partners outside the European Union. The political dialogue with partners is an essential component in the European Union's foreign policy action against terrorism, and the status of respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while at the same time combating terrorism as key issues in it reminds me of the debate we had this morning, in which there was a high degree of unanimity.
A considerable amount of work has been done with a number of countries in order to improve cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The European Union and the Member States have agreed to provide technical anti-terrorist support to certain countries that are to be regarded as high-priority cases, and progress has been made in political consultations with others of their kind. The European Union has also helped to build up capacity at regional level, for example, at the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC) in Indonesia and the African Union's anti-terrorism centre in Algiers.
We continue to attach high priority to anti-terrorist cooperation with the United States. Politicians and experts from the European Union and the USA have worked together on intensifying their dialogue, and the EU has extended its dialogue on anti-terrorism issues to include other partner countries such as Israel, Australia, Canada and Russia, as well as those that participate with it in the Europe-Mediterranean Partnership, in considering areas of common interest and options for cooperation, notably the provision of technical assistance to other countries.
Thirdly, in the international legal framework, the European Union has continued to press for a key role to be given to the United Nations in the combating of terrorism. Since the adoption of a comprehensive agreement on international terrorism, including a clear and unambiguous definition of it in all its forms and manifestations, would indeed send an important signal and would show the international community taking determined action to counter the terrorist threat, the European Union will continue to make every effort to reach international consensus on one.
The recent adoption of a United Nations strategy, with the aim of stepping up international cooperation with third countries in combating terrorism also represents an important advance, and the European Union is prepared to join with all other states belonging to the United Nations in implementing it; this is one of its priorities for the future, and it intends to make use of its dialogue with external partners to press for the implementation of this strategy across the board, as also for an exchange of ideas as to how this goal might best be achieved. I believe that your House would, by bringing this issue to the attention of your partners in dialogue in third countries, be making a supremely valuable contribution to achieving that goal.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the institutions of the European Union are largely agreed on the priorities for combating international terrorism. I can tell your rapporteur that his report and a long-term exchange of views such as that in which we are currently engaged help to deepen our shared understanding and help us to devise suitable measures to combat international terrorism. It would also send a message to those who have been the victims of terrorist atrocities.
Member of the Commission. Madam President, firstly I would like to commend the rapporteur, Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García, for his report. Let there be no doubt: terrorism is a threat to all states and to all peoples. It is criminal and it is unjustifiable under any circumstances. The Commission therefore fully shares the view of the report that terrorism constitutes an important threat to security, to peace, stability and the democratic values on which the European Union is founded.
The Commission also shares the objective of combating terrorism globally while respecting human rights. All anti-terrorist measures must be consistent with both international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
While largely agreeing with the report, I would like to comment on two points. Firstly, the report is calling for the adoption of a definition of terrorism. Since the UN has not yet agreed on a definition and since such an agreement still seems distant, although we are working towards that, I would like to recall that relevant universal conventions and protocols already provide a common legal understanding of what constitutes an act of terrorism. The Union also has a definition of terrorist acts in its framework decision on terrorism. These are solid legal foundations.
Secondly, the report calls for the extension of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to include acts of terrorism as crimes against humanity. I think we should be cautious, before altering the definition of crimes against humanity included in the ICC Statute. Such an endeavour might be counter-productive in the efforts to broaden support for the Court. The complex relationship between international humanitarian law and the definition of terrorism may lead to further complications.
The Commission welcomes the interest of the Parliament on the external aspects of the fight against terrorism. In the current environment of open borders, efforts to fight against terrorism, internally and externally, are aspects that are closely linked. It goes without saying that Vice-President Frattini and I are working closely together in order to make these efforts mutually reinforcing. We strongly agree on the need to support the United Nations consistently with our policy of effective multilateralism.
Equally, the emphasis put on prevention is very important for the Commission. Conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism need to be tackled. Tackling the root causes of terrorism lies at the heart of our external policies, and the report's recommendations for a more coherent and effective EU policy also largely go in the right direction.
Let me highlight the important contribution that the Commission makes to the fight against terrorism. Firstly, with Member States, the Commission is implementing the 2005 EU counter-terrorism strategy, of which our colleague and President has talked. Terrorism also features regularly during meetings with our partners and in international organisations. For example, as I speak, a major meeting is under way with Commission participation in Berlin in order to prepare the Heiligendamm Summit of the G8 in the areas of terrorism and organised crime.
Secondly, the Commission is an important provider of capacity-building assistance to some 80 third countries aimed at improving governance and administrative capacities in related areas. A number of priority fields mentioned in the report, such as border management and terrorist financing, are priorities for Community assistance.
Thirdly, the Commission is working in new areas which should improve EU action in the fight against terrorism, such as the protection of critical infrastructure, the fight against violent radicalisation and terrorist recruitment, bioterrorism, radiological threats, explosive detection technologies, terrorist use of the internet, as well as terrorism in the context of crisis management, and there are obvious links to our efforts in fighting organised crime and drug trafficking. Afghanistan is, for instance, a serious case in point.
Finally, and in reply to one of the requests of this report, the Commission wishes to confirm that it intends to produce a communication in the course of 2007 focusing on global and trans-regional security challenges. The focus will include key aspects relevant to human security and focus on counter-terrorism. You may be aware of my personal commitment to support the human security discourse. What better way could there be to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism than to promote both freedom from fear and freedom from want.
Despite what is being done, I think we can all agree that we must work together and enhance our collective performance in fighting against terrorism. We will try to play our part, but we are certain that the collective effort with Parliament will be a more important one.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, Mr Gloser, ladies and gentlemen, I have been given the task, on behalf of the Committee on Development, of drafting an opinion on this report on the external dimension of the fight against terrorism, which was drafted by my colleague, Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
We can only talk about this issue by adopting an approach that encompasses our development policies, for the benefit of the countries of the South, in particular. As uncompromising as it certainly is, this opinion highlights a series of crucial points, which have already been addressed in this House, concerning the very definition of terrorism, respect for human rights and relations with the various migrant populations of Europe, in particular. This opinion also deals with the issue of the difficult coexistence between the fight against terrorism and the need to safeguard respect for human rights in all circumstances, so that no one can justify the denial of the one for the sake of the other.
Our report then goes on to raise the issue of the fight against terrorism from the perspective of the repercussions that its funding methods may have on the quality and effectiveness of European development cooperation. Thus, we highlight, for example, the fact that, currently, a large number of measures adopted by the Member States that do not come directly under a policy for reducing poverty in the countries of the South have sadly been included in official development aid. These include, for example, the funding of military investments, the repatriation of illegal immigrants, some immigration policy-related expenditure, and I could go on.
The Committee on Development also wishes to draw our Parliament's attention to the fact that, by including in official development aid financial support for a range of activities connected with the fight against terrorism, we will merely be further compromising its main objective, which is to eradicate poverty.
This opinion was adopted by nearly all of the members of the Committee on Development, on 6 November. However, the majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs sadly did not think it worthwhile to adopt any of the paragraphs in this opinion. That is why we have decided to re-introduce the main thrusts of this text, in the form of amendments to the report, and I therefore call on all of the democratic groups to endorse them so that, alongside the necessary fight against terrorism, we can carry out effective development policies aimed at achieving the Millennium Development Goals, which represent the real long-term - even very long-term - solution to terrorism and to all the suffering that it leaves in its disastrous wake.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. - (ES) The fight against terrorism is a priority that requires solidarity from all of the Member States and commitment from the democratic countries. Security is a genuine fundamental right that cannot be exercised at any expense, but in strict accordance with the law and respect for human rights. International terrorism threatens human rights and freedoms.
The sinister distinction between murdering terrorists and political terrorists, between armed wings and political wings, only makes the whole thing even more criminal to the detriment of the law. To hold dialogue of any kind with terrorists is unfair, pointless and offensive to the victims.
The Member States must pay particular attention to promoting intercultural relations and enhancing inter-religious dialogue amongst the members of civil society, with a view to improving co-existence, tolerance and mutual understanding.
The Union must rationalise, coordinate and facilitate the actions of its instruments, Europol, Eurojust, Cepol and the Situation Centre, and others pursuing the same aims, in order to detect and prevent links between terrorism and other forms of crime.
I would ask, Madam President, when drawing up prevention strategies, that the horrendous experiences of the victims be respected and taken into account in particular, as I say in my report. The victims must be acknowledged and protected. Terrorists begin to lose when the victims make the truth of their experiences known and society listens to them.
With regard to prevention, Madam President, prevention cannot and must not be used as a missile amongst democratic countries and States. The last time prevention failed was on 30 December 2006 in Madrid. We do not criticise failures in prevention. We work hard to ensure that they never happen again.
I shall draw to a close, Madam President. We will only be able to tackle terrorism with determination when all of the democratic countries, together, and the Union in the singular, have a clear view of the threat, and the threat is lethal, permanent and destined to remain with us.
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating you, Madam President, on your office as Vice-President, in which capacity you represent the region of Eastern Westphalia-Lippe, from which we both come, and that is cause for pride.
I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report and point out that terrorism is a cross-border phenomenon. We will succeed in countering it only if cross-border cooperation is in place within the European Union and with the states and organisations outside it. Putting this in place is often a slow business, particularly if we consider the internal policy aspect of our shared security problem, which is still arranged between the states, and that is why implementing the positions of the individual Member States can sometimes be very laborious. That is evidence of the fact that, if we want to be more secure against terrorism and organised crime, we need the European Constitution as a more effective means of making obligations in the common sphere more binding and improving the decision-making process.
Along with close cooperation between the security bodies, it is also urgently necessary that the causes of terrorism be addressed. There may be no justification for terrorism, but it does have its causes, to which we have to give our attention, and I see political, economic and social issues as being of great significance here. There must also be no more token gestures of a certain kind. If it were to be possible, for a joint effort, for example by way of the Quartet, to resolve the Middle East issue, that would take much of the wind out of terrorism's sails. I cite that as only one example of the interconnections that exist in this area. Something that is apparent from the report, and that I find most especially important, is the need for us to make use of inter-cultural dialogue. We have to make it clear to people in the other regions of the world, too, that we value their culture, their religion, and their development as equal to our own, if such causes of dissension are not to arise from feelings of cultural inferiority. That is a particular duty. All these things have to be done in accordance with the rule of law and with respect for our values, for, if we surrender the latter, the other side will have won, and that is why we have to take our values and the rule of law as our shield.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, terrorist acts are always criminal, but terrorism is also always a political project. I think its current manifestation aims to subvert the humanitarian values of equality, whether it be between gender, religion or nationality. It also seeks to undermine civil rights - the civil rights of a plural democracy.
But we have to be very careful in expressing those values. If we choose to call them 'our' values rather than treating them as universal values, I think we will fall into the trap of the 'clash of civilisations'. Our best defence of those values, therefore, has to be primarily political. We must demonstrate the strength of those values by ensuring freedom and quality of life for all in Europe and globally.
Security measures certainly have to be applied: the collection of intelligence, the prosecution of lawbreakers and, indeed, the prevention and prosecution of incitement to hatred and violence. But the Fava report, which we spent a long time discussing this morning, indicates what can go badly wrong if we are not extremely careful. We have to avoid simplistic analysis. We have to avoid the assumption that every political or religious fundamentalist is a terrorist - that is simply not true, and I think it is important that we bear that in mind. I know lots of fundamentalist Catholics who would be appalled at the idea that anybody would commit a terrorist act in their name.
I would appeal for deeper analysis than we are currently getting, and caution about the language we are using. I would argue that, if we are going to be successful, we have to deal with inequalities on our continent, but also inequalities globally as well.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against global manifestations of terrorism is a decisive test of democratic Europe's capacity to act. In order to pre-empt and prevent brutal acts of terrorism, the special services must be able to make use of the most effective preventive and repressive methods, and this is unthinkable without international cooperation. The report by Mr Fava contains a lot of criticism of the United States, but we must realise that we need even closer cooperation between the European Union and the USA as compared with that to date, that it is necessary for the USA and Europe to take united common action against the ideological causes of terrorism, and that we need a closer exchange of information, based on mutual trust. The European Parliament and the members of the national parliaments of the Member States also need to be involved in a more focused and professional way in the drafting and implementation of the general strategy on terrorism, and active cooperation between the Member States' services must be fostered. In carrying out parliamentary supervision, we must ensure greater professionalism and political responsibility, especially when monitoring the lawfulness of the methods used in counter-terrorism measures.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Firstly, I would like to welcome Mr Yañez-Barnuevo's efforts to tackle an issue which is complex and which is often subject to debates that have more to do with party politics than the fundamental issues. But above all I would like to thank him for showing great sensitivity towards at least three of the issues that our group considers to be important.
The first has also been mentioned by the Commissioner, and relates to the problem of the definition. The first significant problem facing us is the fact that it will be difficult for the European Union to combat terrorism in a consistent and credible fashion unless we have a definition. Although it is true that there are many, shall we say, differing opinions on this matter, we would like to make a concrete proposal, and that is to work on the basis of the proposal which was presented and approved within the United Nations on the proposal of the then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in turn on the proposal of the High-Level Group. We therefore already have certain significant proposals on the table on which to base our work.
The second element of concern to us, of course, relates to the fact that the supposed fight against terrorism is often used to justify wars, massacres and torture. We saw that this morning when we discussed the Fava report, and elsewhere. That is what cannot be allowed to happen. We therefore also applaud, welcome and support the proposal to include acts of terrorism as crimes against humanity within the context of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, so that that Court can deal with them as well.
Finally, another issue that we believe to be important is that, with regard to the existence of anti-terrorist lists, which have often proven to be counterproductive for certain peace processes in the world, it is also necessary to bear in mind that the current situation, on the one hand, sometimes leads to arbitrary detentions, and on the other, it hinders the efforts being made by the European Union in situations such as the Middle East, Sri Lanka, etc. Therefore, the issue of anti-terrorist lists should also at least be revised and studied, on the basis of what has been approved by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, I have to say, Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García, that your speech was markedly better than your report, a certain amount of material in which was, I am aware, whispered in your ear, and it is regrettable that the Committee on Development's opinion was not also adopted.
Terrorism, of any kind, is utterly unacceptable, but it is unfortunate that the report provides us with no concrete definition of what terrorism is, although it always talks in terms of 'international terrorism'. There exists the widest possible variety of groups, which, for the most diverse reasons, believe that they have to commit terrorist acts. We have to consider each of them individually and establish just why they come to the erroneous conclusion that terrorist acts are necessary.
It also appears to me that whole subjects have been left out completely - state-sponsored terrorism, for example. What about France's past attack on the Greenpeace ship? As a number of Members have already said, we have to address the causes of terrorism. At the moment, the Western states are engaged in a war on terror - in Afghanistan and Iraq - that is proving to be completely counter-productive, for while this war is being waged, terrorism is on the increase rather than declining.
We read in the report that measures are to be made more stringent in all manner of ways, and that fundamental rights are to be more and more eroded, and it is for that reason that we cannot endorse it. We have therefore submitted a minority report on the subject.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, the rapporteur is absolutely right to mention the medium of the high-speed and global Internet as being part of the phenomenon of international terrorism, but he does so in a paradoxical fashion. While paragraph 12 appeals to the European Union to fight the misuse of the Internet for terrorist purposes, in paragraph 17, the rapporteur highlights the scope the Internet offers to trace, and thus resist, this self-same evil. At the moment, the growing number of Islamic terror websites are already demanding our urgent attention, for these form the virtual recruitment and training grounds of young Jihadists in Europe. Allow me to quote the European intelligence service: 'these days, it is possible to become a terrorist simply by the information on the Internet'. Indeed, no more than a simple mouse-click is enough. This terrifying reality demands an intensive and cohesive European approach, and, mark my words, both internally and externally. Hence my request to the Commission and Council to provide this House with more factual information, given the intense threat emanating from terrorist websites, of which it is estimated that there are already some 4 500 Internet pages, in an attempt to trace them and indeed, to fight them in an effective manner and at European level.
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (NL) Madam President, when this House discusses the fight against terrorism, there is the risk of us promptly falling back on politically correct commonplaces which hamper effective policy, or even make it impossible. As the report rightly suggests, international terrorism currently represents the biggest threat to peace and stability in open societies, and the most direct threat to freedom, security and human dignity. International terrorism has declared war on the whole of the western world, and that includes Europe.
It is therefore of the utmost importance for us to clearly identify this threat. When I read in recital A of the report words such as 'international terrorism and the associated ideology', then I fear that we are going the wrong way. Terrorism is not an ideology in itself, and neither is it a goal in itself. As the chairman of the Arab television station al-Arabiya asserted a few years ago, it is a painful reality that these days, although not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim. It is a witticism which, like all witticisms, contains a grain of truth. It is fashionable in Europe to say that we do not want a Clash of Civilisations, but whether we like it or not, this Clash of Civilisations is in full swing. We must continue to fight poverty, and, of course, give our support, but we should not be naïve in thinking that this will also fully address terrorism. The perpetrators of the attacks in New York, London and Madrid were not poor; quite on the contrary, they were middle-class and highly educated. It would therefore be in the EU's interest to introduce democratic ideas, including the free expression of opinion, into the Islamic world. What should really be established over there on a big scale is a kind of Radio Freedom.
Is this a plea to stigmatise all Muslims? Not at all. What is important, though, is that within Islam, such things as self-criticism and introspection should be promoted. A few weeks ago, it turned out that the chairman of the Muslim Executive in Belgium - this is the official government body, funded and recognised by the government - had given money to a convicted terrorist who is held in a Belgian jail. This is bad enough as it is. What I find worse, though, is that there was no reaction whatsoever to this incident from the Muslim quarters in Belgium. Quite the reverse; the resulting silence gave the impression that, at the least, people in those quarters were not at all shocked that the Chairman of the Muslim Executive, who claims to speak on behalf of all Muslims in Belgium, should give indirect support to terrorism. This is disquieting and we should challenge it.
Madam President, terrorism is irredeemably evil. Its wicked persona is not to be excused or ameliorated. Sadly, the GUE/NGL minority report tries to do exactly that, with its focus on the economic and social causes of terrorism, its attack on the war on terror and its diversionary reference to what it calls 'state terrorism'. I am not surprised, because embedded in GUE/NGL is Sinn Féin, the long-term friend and political affiliate of terrorists.
We have heard much talk of human rights, as if fighting terrorism and a belief in human rights were incompatible. Remember that terrorists are those who set out to destroy all tenets of liberal democracy, who refuse to live by our civilised laws, but who are adept at exploiting them when it suits their nefarious purposes. Coming from Northern Ireland, I have seen that at first hand.
Sometimes, if society is to survive, it must fight back. Some, I fear, would so cloak themselves in an exaggerated human rights mantra that they would see society perish sooner than terror.
This is a world of harsh choices. Rabid Islamic terrorism is a particular threat to every liberty that the Western world holds dear. It plays not by the rules, but embraces a perverted death culture that rejoices in mass murder. With such people we cannot be soft. If we are, they will win. Yes, there must be a winner between good and evil, between terror and order, and it is the duty of all of us to see that good triumphs and terror is vanquished.
Madam President, This is a very important report with different emphases.
One of the big problems seems to be that numerous states have not been willing to counter the terrorist threat efficiently. As you mentioned, Madam Commissioner, even several UN member states have not been able to agree on an international definition of terrorism.
Against this background I think the main challenge for us is to strengthen and enhance the efficiency of transatlantic cooperation and coordination. That also means fully implementing the EU-US cooperation declarations. I wonder whether concentrating on suspicions and accusations might give the misleading impression that US intelligence is not our ally but the main adversary.
At the same time, I would like to pay tribute to our own anti-terrorist efforts. They have succeeded in preventing many new terrorist attacks in the UK, Germany and the United States. But the urgent need is obviously for closer cooperation between the EU Member States and special agencies. I can only support the idea that the EU anti-terrorist coordinator be given a stronger mandate and more resources.
I think paragraph 9 is especially relevant. It states that one of the EU's external actions should be aimed at preventing extremist groups and states from resorting to terrorism. I think this is a key to practical solutions. Without the support of such states as Iran, terrorist initiatives will be dramatically reduced.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like, if I may, to begin my speech by congratulating Mr Yañez-Barnuevo García on his outstanding report. The positive aspect of this report is, to my mind, the balance it achieves between the need, on the one hand, for a firm, uncompromising approach coupled with more effective international coordination in the fight against terrorism, and on the other hand, the need to maintain human and civil rights and the principle of the rule of law.
The report also takes account of factors contributing to the radicalisation and recruitment of terrorists, be they outside or actually within Europe. Among these factors are extreme poverty, lack of access to education, social, economic, ethnic and religious discrimination and collective disenchantment. I firmly believe that the gradual elimination of these factors and causes is a vitally important prerequisite for successfully combating terrorism.
I should also like, in conclusion, to urge, through the Council, those EU Member States that have not yet done so, to sign or ratify at the earliest opportunity the 16 United Nations universal instruments on combating terrorism. Thank you.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, when debating the violated rights of our esteemed terrorists this morning, Parliament was packed full, with the Commission Presidency and all the European institutions' authorities. Now, however, when it is time to debate and take stock of the strategy for combating terrorism and, above all, for protecting Europe's citizens against the looming threat of terrorism, few of the people involved are present. One day, somebody will write the story of Europe's fight against terrorism and they will pick on this, together with the serious mistake we made this morning in adopting the Fava report, which is a huge gift to al-Qa'ida.
The report rightly states that we need to examine the factors contributing to radicalisation. We know what these factors are: they are the mosques and Islamic centres. It is the absolute freedom granted to thousands of Islamic centres and mosques to carry out propaganda and recruitment and to collaborate actively with Islamic terrorist organisations. It is time we started to say that quite plainly here in Parliament.
Madam President, this report starts from the false premise that international terrorism constitutes the greatest threat to the democratic international community. Likewise, President Bush's concept of a war on terror is mistaken.
Violence and terrorism are only means to an end. The greatest threat to the free democratic world comes from an ideology. The ideology in question is that of the fundamentalist and extremist Islam, which by means of terror seeks first to impose its psychological, and then ultimately its physical dominion on the world. They believe that time and demography are on their side and they have declared war on us.
Sun Tzu remarked that the first place to win a war is in the mind of the enemy. Islamic fundamentalists might conclude that they are well on the road to winning that war when its victims do not confront the fundamental cause of the problem. The solution is not for the European Union to concentrate more power in its hands, as is predictably recommended in this report. The solution is to recognise that fundamentalist, extremist and literal Islam is incompatible with Western liberal democracy and indeed any kind of civilisation. From that starting point we can begin to adopt concrete measures to combat its manifestations through the actions of nation states and international cooperation. Had I longer than 90 seconds to speak, I could have told you what some of those measures might be.
Madam President, I wish to begin by extending my own solidarity to the victims of the Madrid bombings with us today.
In debating international action to combat terrorism, let us recognise that such solidarity extends internationally and that the countries of the Middle East, Africa and Asia have suffered far more from terrorism over the past decade than we have in Europe or the West.
It is right to seek international cooperation, as terrorists themselves exploit globalisation through the internet, mobile communications, the media and the covert movement of people and of funds. Europe should consistently use its foreign policies to encourage all third countries to sign, ratify and implement the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.
However, we must be consistent too in insisting that we cannot protect the rights and liberties of our own citizens by denying those of others beyond our borders. Our commitment must be to address the underlying conditions that draw people into terrorism, by working to improve respect for human rights, to promote democracy and good governance, to resolve conflict and to tackle world poverty and to roundly reject those, like the last speaker, who falsely seek to equate terrorism with religion by upholding our commitment to promote mutual understanding and cultural awareness in Europe and throughout the world.
Madam President, the reason why I omitted to congratulate you is that I was not in fact thinking of the great region of Westphalia-Lippe, which Mr Brok, too, calls home.
Thank you, Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, for this exchange of views. In any debate of this kind, there will of course - how could it be otherwise? - be differences and divergent views, but there is also agreement, and many of you made reference to this morning's debate, in which, too, there were of course considerable differences of opinion, yet unanimity prevailed when it came to the question of how to combat international terrorism while also maintaining our common values.
A society such as our own is pluralistic and open. The public's right to security is, of course, one of the fundamental freedoms, but how can that security be guaranteed? Although this is an area that can, perhaps, be regulated only by the Member States, it is becoming more and more apparent - as a number of your Members have indicated - that there is a need for coordination, that is to say, for cooperation across borders, which also includes cross-border cooperation between Europe and the United States.
If we are to talk today about the causes of terrorism, it might be said that there is a holistic and long-term approach to it. One of your Members warned that perhaps the wrong measures might be taken under the heading of 'prevention', which I see as a very important consideration.
I would like to go back to the example of last November's Tripoli conference between the African Union and the European Union on the subject of migration. How we handle 'good governance' in these countries and give their peoples the prospect of education and work, are major issues. Do they actually have any prospects at all? Or are they the potential victims of those whose promises to them ultimately result in their deaths? This I see as something from which the European Union cannot avert its gaze. As in many other areas, there was vigorous debate among us a number of years ago concerning the European security strategy, when we came to agree that the fight against international terrorism is essential, but also that it called for a highly graduated range of instruments, one of which is prevention.
None of these measures, however, can be activated at the press of a button, and they cannot be put into effect overnight. Doing so will demand staying power and proper coordination.
I would now like to follow up a number of things that both the Commission and I - in my introductory remarks - mentioned, one of which has to do with the importance of establishing what role the United Nations is to play in this. What else can we do? I think it is important that Members of your House - not alone, but with others - should continue a dialogue on this subject with your counterparts in other regions that may perhaps also be suffering from terrorism. In saying this, I am thinking back to the establishment of the Europe-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, where one important approach might be to discuss these issues and arrive at an agreement on how to institute coordination and cooperation.
Let me, once more, sound a note of warning against simplistic answers and quick fixes. What is needed within the European Union is preparation for the long haul and a coordinated approach.
Member of the Commission. Madam President, I think this report and the debate on its adoption confirm the importance of the fight against terrorism not only for the Member States, but also for the European Union as a whole. It also demonstrates that respect for human rights has to remain the core of our counter-terrorism policies. I think our colleague is right: it has to be with patience, but also with persistence, that we fight against terrorism.
I would like to make just a few comments. First, on the question of security and development, I said that I personally have always clung to the system of human security. Why? Because I think there is no development without security and no security without development. Therefore, freedom from fear - i.e. security for citizens - and freedom from want - i.e. prosperity rather than poverty - have to be our goal and, therefore, this is as much as a development issue as it is a foreign policy issue.
Second, I would also like to speak about the victims of terrorism.
(ES) I welcome the victims of terrorism who are here with us.
Victims of terrorism require our full attention, and the ways to assist them are under discussion in a number of international fora. The Commission will also follow these discussions with the greatest interest. Furthermore, assistance to victims of terrorism is provided through a number of financial programmes run by the services of Vice-President Frattini, and also by ourselves: for instance, in Colombia, where we are working hard on the reinsertion of former soldiers of the different terrorist organisations.
Dialogue between cultures and civilisations is also highly important, and I cannot agree that this should be restricted to extremist and fundamentalist Islamists. They exist, but there are also other terrorists. Therefore, please let us not restrict the debate to this group alone: it is much broader, and it is very important that we not only respect different religions and civilisations, but also that we work with each other, talk to each other and have an ongoing dialogue.
I should also like to say a word on the issue of the Internet, which is one of the important areas under discussion in the G8, in the Rome/Lyons Group. There are a lot of complexities, since important aspects - for instance, freedom of the press - are involved, not least in the United States. What is involved? Sharing knowledge, helping to understand terrorists, the use of the Internet for radicalisation and recruitment, for propaganda and fund-raising, sharing best practices, how we can work against it on a voluntary basis, fine methodologies, etc. I just wanted to say to Mr Belder that there is quite a lot going on.
Finally, it is in this spirit that the Commission will also examine the very important remarks and recommendations that have been made and are included in this report. The overall objective remains to improve the efficiency and coherence of our collective efforts, and I think cooperation between the three institutions will be key to success in the long run.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - International terrorism is like a deadly disease. We often see it as someone else's misfortune until it strikes home.
Ultimately, however, in a direct or indirect way all countries, and even institutions, are drawn into the cauldron.
Terrorism knows no borders and is indiscriminate. One has only to review the names of those who died in 9/11 to realise that the victims derived from so many different countries and adhered to all the major religions.
Can we talk, however, of a war on terror? In war your enemies are known. In terrorist scenarios these are unknown. A main topic of public international law is the Laws of War. This is completely alien when dealing with terrorists.
However we have managed to produce some form of legal approach in combating terrorism. One of the more meaningful documents was adopted in Barcelona having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Code of Conduct on Countering Terrorism. The participating countries made no less than 21 obligations to fight terrorism. Perhaps this should act as a blueprint and if these obligations are adhered to at least one region will be earnestly addressing this calamity.


Voting time
The next item is voting time.
(For results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)


Situation in Lithuania following the adoption of the law on protection of minors (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Council by Sophia in 't Veld, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Leonidas Donskis, Gianni Vattimo, Sarah Ludford, Ulrike Lunacek, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Jean Lambert and Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0201/2009),
the oral question to the Commission by Sophia in 't Veld, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Leonidas Donskis, Gianni Vattimo, Sarah Ludford, Ulrike Lunacek, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Jean Lambert and Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0202/2009),
the oral question to the Council by Rui Tavares, Cornelia Ernst, Cornelis de Jong, Marie-Christine Vergiat, Willy Meyer and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0204/2009),
the oral question to the Commission by Rui Tavares, Cornelia Ernst, Cornelis de Jong, Marie-Christine Vergiat, Willy Meyer and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0205/2009),
the oral question to the Council by Michael Cashman, Claude Moraes and Emine Bozkurt, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0206/2009), and
the oral question to the Commission by Michael Cashman, Claude Moraes and Emine Bozkurt, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0207/2009).
author. - Madam President, I think this is a very important subject that we are discussing here today. It is about European values. We put in the oral question and we have also drafted a joint resolution about the Lithuanian law, which is allegedly about the protection of minors. But it actually does the contrary, because this law may well foster ignorance, taboo and stigma. It will expose young and vulnerable gay, lesbian and transgender people to bullying and exclusion. It will therefore lead to immeasurable distress and suffering by young people, the very people that this law is designed to protect. Instead of protection, it inflicts harm on young people.
Therefore we have addressed this question, and I am very happy that in the summer, we received a letter from Commissioner Barrot expressing the European Commission's concern about this law, saying that the European Commission will keep a very close eye on it and make sure that any national legislation is in line with European legislation and principles. I think that is very important, because the European Commission should not only intervene when market rules are being violated but also, and in particular, when European values are being violated. We cannot tolerate discrimination. Europe is a community of values - values which I know are shared by the majority of our Lithuanian fellow citizens. We are all Europeans.
With reference to the resolution, colleagues, I would ask for your explicit support for the resolution and, in particular, for the amendment that seeks to insert a reference to the existing anti-discrimination directives, because I think that is the very minimum. I also ask for your support for the request in the resolution to ask the Fundamental Rights Agency for a legal opinion on this law.
Finally, I think we can be proud, as a European Parliament - if we adopt the resolution tomorrow - to be the voice of the shared values of Europe.
Madam President, as the previous speaker said, this law passed in Lithuania endangers European values, European law and also the freedom of people, namely the freedom of young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or perhaps transgender, to live their life without fear. According to this law, factual information on this is supposedly damaging to these young people. I can tell you what that means: it means that these young people must live in fear and possibly suffer depression. We know that there is an increased rate of attempted suicide among young people who are lesbian or gay or who are confused in their coming-out phase about how they will live their lives.
This law flies in the face of European values, which is why I was delighted that Commissioner Barrot responded on this back in July. You also told the European region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) that the Commission would analyse this text and explain what its next steps would be. What I am interested in today is what you intend to do. What have you - and the Council - already promised the Lithuanian Parliament? We know that the former Lithuanian President and the new president, who used to be a commissioner, do not approve of this law, but the parliament is insisting on it. I am delighted that a proposal is on the table today, including a motion for a resolution.
I truly hope that we shall all accept the resolution tomorrow and can petition the European Union Agency on Fundamental Rights to take a position on this law, as that is what it is there for. In the meantime, it should be quite clear in our common Europe that lesbians and gays will not disappear from families and schools merely because a law prohibits information on them. Being different is normal, including in this, our common Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen, this law begins by claiming to protect children against the promotion of homosexuality in public information. What does that actually mean? Does it mean that if I have a cinema in Vilnius and want to put up a poster for the film Brokeback Mountain, I cannot do so? Does it mean that if I give a lecture on homosexuality in a public place, theatre or university in Lithuania, I cannot do so? Does it mean - as has already been discussed in the Lithuanian Parliament - that I will have to pay a fine of up to EUR 1 500 or do a month's community service under the changes to the criminal code that are currently being debated in Lithuania? Can a television programme, for example, show a homosexual couple that is happy, or must it only show one that is unhappy?
Ladies and gentlemen, there was a date that surprised me when these amendments to the law on the protection of minors in Lithuania were passed: it was 14 July 2009. 14 July is, of course, the day when we gathered here for the first time in this seventh parliamentary term, and also the day marking the 220th anniversary of our European principles, including the right to seek happiness, the principle of freedom of expression and even the principle of freedom of assembly. Now the freedom of assembly is also at risk, because the Lithuanian Parliament, again, has more recently been discussing the possibility of banning events such as 'gay pride' marches.
Well, when we gathered here for the first time on 14 July 2009, it was because we had a duty - I would say a sacred duty - to defend these values, and these are the values that are at stake. We know how those things begin, and we also know where they always lead. What are we going to do next? Appoint a committee to see what is and what is not promotion of homosexuality? Where - in books, theatres, cinemas, advertising?
Vilnius is one of this year's European capitals of culture, deservedly so, and certainly much to the delight of all Europeans. Being a European capital of culture also entails responsibilities, however: the responsibility of promoting European culture for the best reasons and not to put it under the spotlight this year for the wrong reasons.
I therefore appeal for a vote in favour of our resolution and call on the Agency for Fundamental Rights to issue an opinion on this very serious topic. That is certainly the least that the Members of this House can ask.
author. - Madam President, can I say, as a gay man, I am proud that this House and others are speaking out against this proposed law. This proposed law will clearly breach EU treaties on human rights, particularly Article 6, as well as the Employment Framework Directive and general policies on non-discrimination. It also, interestingly, breaches the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in that it encourages discrimination against young lesbians and gay people. So, whom does it protect, and from what?
The British Conservatives introduced in Great Britain a similar law in 1988. It was recognised then, and recognised now, that these laws lead to censorship and the promotion of discrimination and homophobia: discrimination and homophobia which destroys people's lives and blights the souls of those who practise it. The proposed law has been condemned by NGOs, including the International Lesbian and Gay Association, the Council of Europe and Amnesty International, as well as others. It affects young lesbians and gay men - teachers, public officials - and could be used to prevent young people having access to any material - films, books, plays, works of art - created by a gay man or a lesbian. Are they going to try and stop young people studying the works of Plato, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams, Tchaikovsky and others, the music of Elton John, or idolising tennis greats such as Martina Navratilova? It will affect the very way young people and others speak, think and act. And why? Young people need education, not isolation; they need to understand the world in all its diversity and be taught respect for those who are different. The love of one human being for another is never lessened by gender or sexuality: it is love.
Lesbians and gay men are ordinary men and women made extraordinary by extremists' preoccupation with our sex lives and the defamation that lesbians and gay men are a threat to society. That is a vile misrepresentation. Any civilised society is judged not by how it treats its majority but how it treats its minorities. So I say to Lithuanians and people across Europe: reject this dangerous step back to the past.
(Applause)
Madam President, allow me to start by underlining that freedom of expression and non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are cornerstones of our democratic societies. Our Union is based on various principles and values that all the Member States are expected to support. We cannot insist on and stand up for respect for human rights in other countries if we cannot uphold these fundamental principles ourselves within the EU.
These fundamental rights and, in particular, freedom of expression and the right not to suffer discrimination, are recognised in Article 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Union and are also contained in Articles 10 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. These principles are further stated in the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. There is legislation at Community level to safeguard this area. Directive 2000/78/EC prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion or creed, disability, age or sexual orientation. Last year, the Commission tabled a proposal to extend this protection to other areas.
This proposal is currently under discussion in the Council and Parliament has submitted a positive opinion. We welcome this initiative and hope it will be adopted before long.
This is about legislation at European level. At national level, Member States can adopt national legislation in the area of fundamental freedoms and rights provided - and I repeat: provided - that this legislation fully respects the Union's and the Community's primary and secondary legislation, falls within an area in which the Community does not exclusively have competence, and is justified by the fact that there is no legislation at Union or Community level.
The law in question that was adopted by the Lithuanian Parliament in July and the proposed amendment of the Criminal Code and administrative law that is being discussed are a cause of great concern for the Swedish Presidency. However, we must not forget that the law has not yet entered into force.
From our perspective, a law that aims to ban the promotion of a certain sexual orientation violates fundamental values such as freedom of expression and the fact that all people are equal. The Presidency has made this position clear in contacts with the Lithuanian Government on repeated occasions.
As regards the more legal issues raised by Members in their speeches, it is important to point out that the Council does not have a formal role here. Compatibility between national legislation and the treaties is not a matter for the Council, nor is it a matter for the Agency for Fundamental Rights. It is up to the Commission to judge whether a Member State is meeting its obligations under the treaties. That involves not only monitoring whether Union and Community legislation is correctly transposed and implemented nationally, but also ensuring that primary law at European level is fully respected. As I am sure Mr Barrot will say, the Commission can initiate appropriate proceedings if it considers that a Member State is not complying with primary or secondary legislation.
Where Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community is concerned, the Council would be deeply concerned if it were to find cases of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. However, a proposal from the Commission is required if the Council is to initiate a discussion of whether discrimination is taking place and the measures to be taken if so. In the same way, under Article 7 of the Treaty, the Council can only take action if a third of the Member States or the Commission put forward such a proposal with due justification. Since the law has not yet entered into force, no such proposal has been tabled.
I can assure Members that the matter of discrimination against LGBT people is on the Swedish Presidency's agenda. We will be discussing it at an equality summit in Stockholm on 16-17 November.
Naturally we take the European Parliament's concern very seriously. It is about respect for fundamental rights and human rights. In formal terms, however, this must be dealt with within the legal and institutional frameworks. As the Council's representative, I have tried to answer the questions as correctly as possible and explain the limitations. I look forward to hearing the viewpoints of the representatives of the Commission on this matter.
Madam President, the Minister has explained very well the legal elements of this problem.
I would like to say here that the Commission has repeatedly expressed its firm condemnation of all forms of homophobia. The phenomenon represents a flagrant violation of human dignity. The Commission notably repeated this position before the European Parliament on 23 April 2007, during the plenary session in which the Resolution on homophobia in Europe was adopted.
In areas that fall under the umbrella of Community competences, the European Union, as well as the Member States when they implement Union law, are required to respect fundamental rights. These are binding principles of Community law.
The Lithuanian law for the protection of minors against the detrimental effects of public information largely falls within the scope of Community competences, as its contents concern implementation of the Directives on audiovisual services and on electronic commerce.
Therefore, the Commission informed the Lithuanian authorities, even before the adoption of the draft law, that some measures of this law would raise serious concerns in relation to their compatibility with fundamental rights and Community law. In spite of this warning, it would seem that the current version of the law adopted on 14 July last does not dispel the concerns expressed by the Commission beforehand.
In this context, the Commission can only express reservations, and serious reservations, on the compatibility of this law with the principles of freedom of expression, the principle of non-discrimination, and with children's rights, including their right to access information necessary for their development.
The Commission will not hesitate to take every measure necessary to ensure respect for Community law, including, of course, fundamental rights.
According to information made available to the Commission, a working group has been established in Lithuania on the initiative of the President, Mrs Grybauskaitė, in order to introduce additional amendments to this law. These amendments should be proposed at the end of October. The Commission will, of course, await the outcome of the work of this committee and the contents of the amendments before giving a definitive opinion on the law such as it will enter into force. Indeed, I can only support Mrs Malmström's very clear point that it is up to the Commission to monitor the situation and ultimately to propose sanctions and to punish breaches of European Union regulations and of fundamental rights, a fortiori.
That is the information that I wanted to give you, showing you that our position on this matter is extremely clear.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, the law that is being criticised and debated, despite the fact that it will not enter into force until March, contains only one single line prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality to minors; that is the greatly troublesome part.
The President of the Republic of Lithuania took the initiative by tabling clarifying amendments immediately. Thus, our resolution is practically knocking on an open door. What we should be doing is concentrating on Parliament's intention.
The key words in the troublesome line about the promotion of homosexuality to minors are 'promotion' and 'minors' - not 'homosexuality', as some would have it. The possibility of direct promotion to minors has been dealt with by the adoption of a law. 'Promotion' is a deliberate action going beyond the simple and necessary information currently provided by sexual education, which should include a clause of tolerance to homosexual appeal and love.
The promotion of homosexuality to minors, if we open our eyes, may quite often mean significantly more - from encouraging them to try it, to the seduction of minors, even for homosexual prostitution. The media might benefit from such business, probably by disseminating such promotion to minors.
Dear colleagues, parents and grandparents, please now listen to your hearts. Would you be in favour of opening up this whole area of challenges to your own offspring?
(Interjection from the floor)
OK, that is the case for you.
What if they are exposed to such special 'promotion' regularly and without restriction? It seems as though we are stumbling between two trees: the first, if someone likes tricky doctrine, is the right of children to be mentally abused, while the second is the right of children to be protected from abuse. Let their self-determination come with maturity.
My proposal is to support the positions recalling both the Convention on, and the Declaration of, the Rights of the Child, and to delete paragraph 1, which is irrelevant at the present time and therefore inappropriate for Europe's highest House.
Madam President, Mr Landsbergis has given a deeply unconvincing justification of this law. I was surprised; I thought he would justify it more. The Council and the Commission have expressed their deep concern, and that is the correct line. Anti-discrimination and freedom of expression are absolutely fundamental principles in European law.
In my own Member State, as Mr Cashman said previously, we had such a law in 1988, but it is now history and this law will become history because, as a Community of values, one of the EU's greatest strengths lies in our common endeavour to raise the bar on human rights and the protection of our fundamental freedoms. It is also difficult when one Member State is under the spotlight for a potential breach of this law but it is because of our Community of values that we can analyse those laws and we can say, as the Commission and Council have said, they cause deep concern for us.
The Fundamental Rights Agency should do its job and give its opinion and, as the Commission and Council have said, there are problems within existing law, anti-discrimination laws in this European Union; let us defend what we have and let us ensure that the Socialist Group, along with our sister party in Lithuania, condemn this law, and let us hope that that is what will happen - that it will be consigned to history.
(Applause)
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors from the Detrimental Effects of Public Information struck human rights defenders and media people in Lithuania and beyond as overly homophobic and profoundly undemocratic.
Please let me draw your attention to the fact that this law was vetoed by the former President of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus, but he was overruled by the Lithuanian Parliament. In addition, this law has been severely criticised by the current President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaitė. The law was assessed in vigorous terms by the Lithuanian media, commentators, and civil liberties and human rights defenders, who stressed its homophobic substance along with its extremely dangerous political implications, such as censorship and self-censorship.
This law has little, if anything, to do with the protection of children. Instead, it is against gay and lesbian citizens of the country. Whatever the case, the equation of homosexuality with physical violence and necrophilia is morally repugnant and deeply disgraceful. Still, it is difficult to believe that the adoption of such a law is possible in an EU country at the beginning of the 21st century. Personally I take this law as an unfortunate move and as a profound misunderstanding, to say the very least.
Changes to Article 310 of the penal code and Article 214 of the administrative code are being debated in Lithuania's Parliament that will criminalise, with the threat of a fine, community work or imprisonment, anyone involved in the promotion of homosexuality in any public space. If this is not our slide to state-sponsored homophobia and criminalisation of public expression of our gay and lesbian citizens, what is it then?
Last but not least, this law is a disgrace, but even more so would be an attempt to obfuscate, trivialise and, in effect, justify it. This is to say that I strongly support the resolution.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a crucial moment in the process of European integration because, until a short while ago, we would surely not have had this type of debate. This is simply because no parliament would ever have considered adopting a law of this nature.
This means that this is not an internal issue of Lithuanian policy. Put simply, we must conclude that we are facing an issue that directly affects the survival of European credibility. No part of the European Union - and here we have the three institutions - can remain silent while a Member State adopts laws which persecute and criminalise something as universal as the right to choose the person with whom you have emotional or sexual relations, regardless of gender or age.
Mr Landsbergis, talking normally about homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality is the best guarantee of a child being able to live with his or her own sexuality, with respect for himself or herself and for the rest of the community.
This is important because what we are specifically calling for at this time is a guarantee of healthy growth, without coercion or negative stereotypes or criminalisation of childhood. We can do this precisely by holding a normal debate on this situation, as we are doing, and not by prohibiting or criminalising it.
The law on the protection of minors in Lithuania was drafted out of concern for the emotional and psychological development of the youngest consumers of media which have an increasing presence in children's lives. Another concern of the Lithuanian legislators was that children should be brought up according to their parents' convictions. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who would not agree that these are important and burning issues. These intentions deserve appreciation, and not criticism, although that is not the main point here.
There is no article of this law that infringes European law, and in most cases the law does not even touch upon European law. The issues raised in the written question are firmly within the remit of the national laws of Member States. Nobody has given the European Union authority to act in these areas. That is the fundamental reason why we are opposed to the issue being raised at European level, and why we will never agree to any particular ideology justifying European law in exceeding its authority.
That is also the reason why we cannot support any of the resolutions tabled in this matter.
Madam President, this is not about ideology. I would say it is about the equal value of all people. I would also like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their unusually clear position. I feel convinced that Parliament, the Commission and the Council are now acting in consort where this violation of fundamental values is concerned.
We are talking about the EU and the EU's respect for fundamental human rights. That must also apply to all the individual Member States. In practice, this proposed legislation risks making any information about LGBT issues illegal. Just imagine if people were suddenly banned from fighting for the equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation.
It is beyond doubt that the proposed legislation is an attack on human rights. I will not even count how many human rights it violates. I will simply say in brief: I fully support this resolution. I hope that Parliament will be as unified as possible in voting in favour of this resolution tomorrow.
(FR) Madam President, above all, I would like to point out how important the fight against all forms of discrimination, particularly discrimination based on sexual orientation, is to the European Union, to Parliament and to all our colleagues.
What are we talking about today? We are talking about a draft law in Lithuania which is causing a problem, which is causing such a problem that Mrs Grybauskaithas become involved. She has exercised her veto; she has even set up a working group, which will propose amendments to us. I therefore have complete confidence in her, and I am sure that this problem will be resolved and that the Member State concerned will find a solution to this serious problem that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. We have consulted each other, some groups have proposed a resolution and we have fortunately come to a joint resolution. I am therefore convinced, ladies and gentlemen, that this joint resolution will be adopted tomorrow and that this problem will be resolved.
It is, of course, important that the intellectual and mental health of our children is protected, but I would still like to remind you that the fight against all forms of sexual discrimination is important. We have worked for this for many years. We have the Agency for Fundamental Rights. It does have a purpose. We have battled for it to be established and there is no question today of it being abandoned or being thrown out.
I would therefore like to thank you for your willingness to adopt this joint resolution. I thank all of my fellow Members who have put so much into these negotiations. It is a great pleasure to see that we have succeeded in putting together this joint resolution and I hope that it will be adopted in this House tomorrow.
(LT) I welcome the European Parliament's initiative to begin a debate on the question of the Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information, passed due to the efforts of the Lithuanian right wing parties. It is regrettable that the law was passed without its compliance with international and European Union law being sufficiently debated and assessed. The voice of non-governmental organisations also fell on deaf ears. Under the guise of the noble goal to protect children's rights, in actual fact, a legal basis has been created to divide society, limit information and discriminate against individual groups of society. The former President of Lithuania vetoed the draft law, while the new President has set up a working group, which will submit a new draft of the law to Parliament in its session this autumn.
I hope that there will be sufficient political will in Lithuania to improve the law, all the more so because we have experience adopting and implementing progressive laws in this area. Six years ago, the Law on equal opportunities was adopted thanks to the efforts of the Lithuanian social democrats and this prohibited any direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of age, sexual orientation, disability, race or ethnic origin in all areas of life. At the moment, a similar draft directive is being debated in the Council of Ministers. This European Parliament resolution should encourage the Lithuanian Parliament to adopt such a law, which respects human rights and freedoms, and in which there is no place for any form of discrimination, including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, like all of you, I, too, am shocked by the fact that there is a parliament in Europe that is capable not only of proposing regulations of this kind, but also of actually adopting them. This law is not only an unacceptable violation of the rights of gay men and lesbians in Lithuania, it also does serious harm to the position of homosexuals throughout Europe. The parliament of Lithuania is telling them that their sexual orientation is something that they should be ashamed of and from which children need to be protected.
I expect the Commission and the Swedish Presidency to make it absolutely clear to the Lithuanian parliament that fundamental values such as equality of treatment and non-discrimination are non-negotiable in Europe - not now, not ever, not by anyone! For that reason, I would like the Commissioner to pledge specifically, here and now, that the Commission will not hesitate for a moment to take Lithuania to the European Court of Justice if this law enters into force.
(SK) Lithuania has passed a law which provides important protection for children and young people against the external effects of information which might seriously harm their further development. It is clear that social and family policy fall under the competence of the individual Member States of the EU and therefore no European initiatives can condemn Lithuania for this.
The law in question does not contravene any international standards in the area of human rights. I have studied the issue and that is the case. I firmly believe that, on the contrary, the law strengthens processes for protecting children from exposure to information or images which - and I stress this - their own parents want to protect them from.
I would like to call for a consistent application of the subsidiarity principle which Ireland has secured in the protocol to the Lisbon Treaty. For all that, such 'warnings to member countries and states' are setting a serious precedent in clearly sensitive areas such as the family.
(LT) For the first time in the history of the European Parliament, in this honourable House, the actions of the Lithuanian Parliament are being debated in a negative context. No matter how innocent or good-willed the authors and supporters of the laws under debate are, they definitely did not lead us into the 21st century Europe. I think the fact that the Seimas majority's overconfidence in its sense of justice had a role to play - above us only sky, we do what we want and we do not care about international commitments. This debate is a very serious reaction by the Council and the Commission; it is a warning sign to Lithuania's legislators that we must not step backwards, almost to the Middle Ages, but act by looking forwards, taking advantage of the experience and traditions of the countries of the European Union. Therefore, these discussions are needed as is the resolution.
(SV) Madam President, all people are born equal and have the same inviolable value. Consequently, Parliament must make it very clear today that we are talking about the citizens of Europe, irrespective of the Member State concerned. Since the EU's fundamental values are tolerance, openness and freedom, I am pleased that the newly elected President of the Commission has made it clear today that he is going to appoint a commissioner whose portfolio will encompass precisely these issues of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It is particularly regrettable that a country such as Lithuania - which once experienced repression and dictatorship - has now, as a free and independent state, instigated a law so despicable and which represents censorship, lack of freedom and intolerance. All of us who support democratic principles and have any common sense must now emphatically denounce this Lithuanian law, and we must vote tomorrow. Let the Members of this House remind each other that the greatest of all is love.
(SK) In 2006, Slovakia was condemned for asking for freedom of conscience. Today Lithuania finds itself in front of this community because it wants to protect children from the sexualisation of society. I consider this discussion to be a manipulation of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, a document which is legally binding.
This House is ignoring the legitimacy of a national parliament which has twice voted through the law without criticism. This House is requesting an opinion from the Human Rights Agency. The Agency, however, does not have the authority to examine the effect of national laws. I have a question: what must the Irish be thinking ahead of the forthcoming referendum? They must be thinking that the time will soon come when they will be criticised here in this House over their laws protecting the family and protecting life.
I am sorry that here in this esteemed Parliament, we fail to respect European values, we fail to respect diversity and national culture and we fail to respect child protection and the right of parents to educate their children.
Madam President, I think the three institutions have made their viewpoint in this debate very clear. Respect for human rights, tolerance, the inviolability of the individual and the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of - among other things - sexual orientation are fundamental values of the European project and must remain so. The Member States have a duty to respect both these values and the actual laws that apply in these areas within the EU.
The Presidency is greatly concerned about the law in question, but we know that it is also subject to debate and criticism in Lithuania. As has been mentioned, President Grybauskait- who was formerly a Commissioner and is well-informed concerning the values and laws of the EU - has herself initiated a process in which this law will be reviewed and made compatible with EU legislation. I am extremely pleased that the Commission has been so clear about what will happen if, contrary to expectation, the law enters into force in its original form.
Madam President, I fully agree with the Minister's conclusions. I would also just hope that the working group that Mrs Grybauskaithas put in place will be able to prevent the introduction of a law which, in some respects, would be at odds with European law.
I would like to stress one point: we feared that some of the provisions of the law would go against certain directives, on audiovisual services and on electronic commerce. It is not actually our job to determine family law, which is one of the competences of the Member States. This being so, everything that has been said previously and in the course of the debate shows that matters need to be assessed better at national level, in this case in Lithuania.
At the conclusion of this debate I have received five motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 17 September 2009.
Written statements (Rule 149)
My judgment on the motion for a resolution on the protection of minors in Lithuania is intended to demonstrate a very serious institutional concern. Often, individual MEPs or political groups claim to address issues that relate to the domestic policy of individual States: that does not seem right. In the case in point, the plan is seemingly to make the European Parliament express an essentially negative opinion on a Lithuanian law - the full content of which is unknown - with the laudable aim of protecting minors, while surreptitiously imposing a position that the individual Member States have been left to establish at their own discretion. This, I might add, is something which the European Court of Human Rights has stipulated on many occasions. The principle of equality is beyond doubt, and no one is trying to call into question the dignity of persons with particular sexual orientations. My reservation is of an institutional nature because it concerns the relations between the European Union and individual Member States.
Discrimination is prohibited under European and international law. There are provisions to this effect in the treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. No Member State may enact laws that contradict these documents.
The Lithuanian law is inadmissible, as it is absurd and homophobic in nature. Homophobia is a disease. People who are afflicted by hatred for homosexuals deserve no sympathy. They are not so much homophobes, as sexual orientation chauvinists. And like all other chauvinists, they must be challenged and appropriate laws enacted against them.
In 1990, the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Problems. It also confirmed that no type of sexual orientation is a disorder.
In any societies, including Lithuanian society, there are lesbians, gays and bisexual. They make up about 4 to 7% of the population. They are a minority who are entitled to full rights. The Equality Marches, which cause such concern to some people, are organised, amongst other reasons, to remind people of this basic, fundamental principle of equality.
For this reason, I appeal to the Council and the Presidency to take appropriate steps to prevent Member States from enacting discriminatory legislation. We must show that the European Union says a firm NO to all discrimination and intolerance.


8. Delegation to EUROLAT (vote)
- Decision:


Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes


9. Promoting healthy diets and physical activity (vote)
- Before the vote:
Mr President, I have a small point concerning Amendment 1, which I tabled as shadow rapporteur on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. That was correct, but I should have also said that the original author was Professor Trakatellis. I apologise to him for not including his name. I would hope that the inclusion of his authorship will encourage wider-spread approval across this House for a good amendment.


Written declarations for entry in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes