1. Recent attacks on religious minorities in Egypt and in Malaysia
The next item is the debate on the motion for a resolution on the recent attacks against religious minorities in Egypt and Malaysia.
author. - Mr President, in the week of Egyptian Orthodox Christmas, an attack took place killing and wounding 20 Coptic Egyptians. Although the attack can be seen as a criminal act of individuals, various other troubling incidents require our ongoing focus on respect for all minorities in Egypt.
Violence and hatred cannot be accepted in the name of religion. People have a universal right to freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Ethnic and religious diversity asks for a vigilant society that is able to reconcile differences in open debate, a society where people of any background or conviction know that their freedoms are guaranteed.
An open society can only be realised when the separation of religion and state is implemented in the constitution and throughout the system of government. Security measures cannot be the only means to manage a pluralist society. Yet state emergency laws have been in place in Egypt for the past 28 years. A free debate is perhaps the most powerful medicine against extremism and violence. Therefore, freedom of expression, both online and offline, can be seen as the Egyptian Government's best tool to resolve tensions in society.
It is therefore very difficult to understand or accept that around 30 activists, politicians and bloggers were arrested by government forces while travelling to the southern Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi to express their condolences to the families of those killed during the sectarian violence. The arrests are a particularly striking example of what has become a pattern of the Egyptian Government's interference in citizens' rights to freedom of expression.
Something is desperately wrong when people are treated like criminals merely for attempting to show sympathy and solidarity with fellow countrymen. In too many cases, the argument of maintaining public order is abused. Since 2008, Egyptians have been unable to get an unregistered phone line, but the control is not total. New rules are now in force, under which users of Wi-Fi have to pay for a connection, for which they need to provide an e-mail address to have a password and a username sent. This allows for active control of users by the government. Moreover, a draft law is under debate in the parliament about net regulation, providing for prison sentences for 'publication of multimedia content without government permission'.
Yet the Egyptian Constitution says, 'freedom of expression or freedom of opinion is guaranteed. Every individual has the right to express his opinion and to publicise it verbally or in writing or by photography or by other means within the limits of the law'. Self-criticism and constructive criticism are the guarantee for the safety of the national structure.
I urge the Egyptian Government to refrain from introducing emergency laws limiting fundamental freedoms in light of the sectarian tensions present. An adequate response to crimes committed in the name of religion is only appropriate. However, this should not be used as a reason to repress the population as a whole, with laws limiting free speech and expression. Only when fundamental freedoms are safeguarded by the Constitution and all layers of legislation are free will an open society in Egypt be possible. The Egyptian Government should lead its citizens on this road to freedom, and Europe should be its strongest partner in this.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution that I have tabled is in response to some tragic events which have recently taken place in Egypt and in other countries of the world - just yesterday in Nigeria - and is intended to bring to this House's attention an increasingly serious and intolerable situation whereby members of the Christian community are being persecuted and killed.
This is not a resolution against the Egyptian Government, which has acted to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice; rather, it is a time to reflect on a vast and concerning issue. Every year, thousands of Christians are killed around the world, in Vietnam, North Korea, China, Nigeria, Malaysia, and millions of others are persecuted in the most diverse ways for their faith on a daily basis. These attacks are increasing in number and in virulence, amid silence or indifference, and they warrant urgent action.
First of all, everyone must make a commitment to change the climate of religious hatred which is spreading and to encourage tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Europe is well acquainted with the tragedy of wars in which, for centuries, Catholics and Protestants have fought against one another, not to mention the Jewish Holocaust. Precisely because of its history, Europe must commit itself on this front.
Another initiative could be to examine national laws within the context of which we find rules which persecute Christians or other religious minorities. The cooperation of non-governmental organisations could be very useful in this project, but vigilance is also required to ensure that, where a right to religious freedom exists, it is actually implemented.
This debate could be an opportunity to launch the proposal to draft a European Parliament report on religious freedom in the world.
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, religious freedom is, in fact, the subject of this resolution. It is therefore not an identity crusade or an attempt to cause problems for this or that government, but a denunciation of the fact that, in today's world, people are dying because they believe in Christ or are being discriminated against because their faith is different from someone else's.
All the political groups therefore agree that there is a problem concerning religious freedom and that it needs to be addressed seriously and firmly within the international community.
We therefore ask the Council and the Commission and, above all, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, to pay particular attention to the situation of minorities, including the Christian minority, so that initiatives aimed at promoting dialogue and respect between communities are supported and undertaken, urging all the religious authorities to encourage tolerance and to prevent episodes of hatred and violence from occurring.
Mr President, the incident that took place in Egypt could undoubtedly have happened elsewhere. A car passes by the doorway of a Coptic church, shots are fired into the crowd. The outcome: seven deaths (six Copts and one police officer). The Egyptian authorities react quickly. The public prosecutor decides - and I quote - that the three accused of the events in Nag Hammadi will be tried before the State Emergency Security Court on a charge of premeditated murder.
In Malaysia, it is the name Allah that the Christian and Muslim communities argue about, a dispute that results in the ransacking and pillaging of churches.
These news stories, which could be described as commonplace, have impacts elsewhere, throughout the world, including in Europe. The rise in religious intolerance and fanaticism jeopardises a fundamental freedom, freedom of belief for all, whether they are religious or agnostic. All over the world, crimes are being perpetrated against minorities, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim. All over the world, too, non-religious men and women are being killed or imprisoned because they do not respect the rites, dogmas or religious practices from which they have freed themselves.
As a non-religious person, I firmly support this resolution, which is an appeal for tolerance and not a stigmatisation of Egypt or Malaysia. However, leaving aside the cases that have been mentioned, I would like to point out the responsibility of a state that is mindful of its citizens' right to freedom of expression. I believe that a secular state, by virtue of its structure, is the greatest guarantee of the space required for a diversity of beliefs. This is the form in which a state can best protect its citizens and promote a dialogue between its communities.
author. - Mr President, the information about violence against Christians in Egypt and Malaysia is just the tip of the iceberg. There are three points I want to raise.
First, Christians have become the victims of brutal violence in many countries of the world, not just two. Second, Christians have become the single most persecuted religious group in the world. The numbers are astounding - in the millions, not thousands or hundreds of thousands. Third, the reaction of European societies, European governments and the EU has, so far, been unsatisfactory: timid, faint-hearted, pusillanimous, politically correct, or no reaction at all.
We must act resolutely, or else those who persecute Christians will think they have our tacit blessing. Do we really want this?
author. - (FI) Mr President, it is regrettable that there are so many different conflicts in the world dressed up in the guise of religion. In this connection, it has to be said that there are very many different fundamentalist trends in the world in connection with the Christian, Islamic and other religions. Personally, I have encountered fewer of these fundamentalist aspirations with Buddhism. In any case, it is important that the European Parliament adopts a position when these kinds of violent episodes between religious groups occur.
I would like to say, however, that yesterday it was brought to Parliament's attention that 33 human rights defenders were arbitrarily arrested when they tried to support the Coptic Christians referred to in this resolution and who were suffering violence against them. I would now like to say to the Egyptian authorities that we need to ensure that people are not prevented in this way from coming to the defence of others. We must insist that human rights defenders in other situations are not imprisoned or treated unjustly. In this case, it is an undeniable fact that these 33 defenders of the Copts were treated inhumanely in prison. They were kept in inhumane conditions.
I hope that in future, Parliament will always give its attention to cases whenever there is violence against any religious group, and not just concentrate on the persecution of Christians.
(Applause)
Mr President, Tunisia, Egypt and Malaysia have a great tradition of tolerance. Evidence of this is provided by names like Tunku Abdul Rahman, the founder of the independent state of Malaysia, or President Sadat, whose speech here in the European Parliament was like a Magna Carta for Christian-Islamic coexistence.
This is precisely why we must support the governments of these countries in their fight against Islamic extremism and anti-Christian attacks. Of course, we in Europe, as a mainly Christian continent, have a special obligation to stand up for Christians throughout the world, because if we do not do so, who will?
However, this is clearly about the freedom of religion itself and I would like, for example, to thank the Malaysian Government for the fact that His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and the Prime Minister, made their position on this matter clear on 9 January. We wish them success in their fight for religious tolerance, for which this country was and still is a shining example, and it is something that, as partners who can speak openly on matters to do with human rights, we must preserve in Egypt, Tunisia and Malaysia.
Mr President, freedom of religion is an essential element of human rights. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is that Christians have a particularly hard time in many countries where the faith of Islam dominates. That is the case, amongst other places, in Egypt. Coptic Orthodox Christians, but also Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians and Jews are placed at a disadvantage in an institutionalised way in Egypt. Muslims who convert to Christianity, for example, are oppressed. This can be seen from their identity papers, which continue to state that they are Muslims, as religious disaffiliation is legally prohibited.
Over the last 10 to 20 years, specifically, violence against Copts has grown enormously. More than 100 attacks, with thousands of victims, have already been reported. The Egyptian Government's attitude, in my view, is spineless. Three men have been taken into custody, but, generally speaking, the violence against Christians is tolerated. I call on the Council and the Commission to engage Egypt directly in dialogue in order to ensure that the government there takes a different approach. If Cairo refuses to do so, I think that needs to have consequences for our bilateral relations with Egypt.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Mr President, all who are committed to democratic rights and freedom of religious expression will condemn outright the murder of Christians in Egypt and also the firebomb attacks on Christian churches in Malaysia. We should also note the growing numbers of attacks on religious minorities in Europe itself and equally condemn that.
In Malaysia, the tactic of divide and rule on racial and religious lines has long been used by various elements of the economic and ruling elites. The present National Front government is guilty of hypocrisy in this regard: while publicly proclaiming a 'One Malaysia' policy claiming to embrace all religions and minorities, it manoeuvres behind the scenes, using religious and racial divisions to try and bolster its own position among the majority Muslim Malay population, as it did in relation to the 'Allah' ruling.
There are also huge divisions economically in Malaysia. It is the most unequal society in South-East Asia. The current government rules on the basis of crony capitalism. This is the result, with exploitation rife in the workplace and trade union rights severely limited. The best background for religious freedom and democracy in Egypt and Malaysia and elsewhere is, indeed, economic justice and democracy, where wealth and power are in the hands of the big majority of working people and the poor and removed from major corporations and crony capitalists.
(NL) Mr President, yesterday, a terrible political trial began in the Netherlands against the leader of our party, Geert Wilders. Mr Wilders, as a Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom in the Dutch Parliament, is being prosecuted for expressing his opinion. Mr Wilders is being persecuted by the leftist elite because he warns the Netherlands, Europe and the world about a fascist ideology that goes by the name of Islam. This is an outrageous disgrace!
Mr President, the Islamification of the Netherlands and of Europe threatens Europe's Judeo-Christian and humanistic culture, and where many, including in this House, bend over backwards and allow the tsunami of Islamification to wash over them, the Party for Freedom fights for European culture. Mr President, the barbaric acts that have taken place in Malaysia, Egypt and in many other places around the world, as just this week in Nigeria, are the result of the intolerant and fascist ideology known as Islam. In Islamic countries, non-Muslims are systematically humiliated and murdered. The events in Malaysia and Egypt cannot be regarded as isolated incidents, but have their origin in the ideology that demands respect but does not give it. This Parliament can ensure that these terrible events never take place in Europe by taking up the fight, alongside the Party for Freedom, against the Islamification of Europe. We ask all of you to do so.
(PL) Mr President, quite often in Parliament, we talk about different phobias and their detrimental social effects. I am thinking of xenophobia and homophobia. Unfortunately, these two cases do not exhaust the list of phobias. There is also a phenomenon called 'Christianophobia' - a phobia of Christianity. Just as in the case of other phobias, the social effects here are also detrimental and sometimes tragic, and it is precisely for this reason that we should take up cases of violations of the rights of Christians in different places around the world.
We take up cases involving followers of different religions, and even of people who do not profess any religion. Christians, too, must not be deprived of our care. We do this because religious freedom is one of the European Union's fundamental values. It is precisely for this reason that we condemn and will condemn every form of violence, discrimination and intolerance towards the leaders or adherents of any religion. Violence perpetrated because of the beliefs of the victim is abominable and there is no doubt that it deserves our criticism.
(PL) Mr President, religious freedom is a right which has been acknowledged in international and European conventions on human rights for over 50 years. At the same time, we have, for many years, been facing a rising wave of religious hatred, which has most often affected Christians all over the world. The place of anti-Christian Communism has today been taken principally by militant Islam. Egypt and Malaysia have constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, but under pressure from radical Islamic circles, the religious freedom of Christians is not being sufficiently protected by the governments there.
The European Union, which has new instruments of foreign policy at its disposal, must become involved, to a greater degree, in opposing Christophobia, which is the source of beatings, looting and murders. It is only ideological prejudice which causes the European Union to do this, today, with hesitation. At stake is our credibility.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to support the idea of my fellow Member, Mr Provera, who said that a report should be drawn up on religious freedom. I would like to remind everyone that in the previous parliamentary term, Mr Mauro and I submitted a proposal to draft a report on the situation of Christians in countries where they are a minority, in countries where Islam is the dominant religion. Unfortunately, the Bureau did not adopt the proposal, but perhaps such a report would be worth writing. Here, I make the same proposal again.
The resolution we are adopting today should give a clear message. The Coptic minority makes up 10% of Egypt's population, but even if it were only 0.5%, the role of the European Parliament is to react, especially in a situation in which human rights are being violated so drastically.
I read carefully the letter sent to Mr Buzek by the Marshal of the People's Assembly. In the letter, he gives his assurance that the events of which I have spoken were isolated incidents. I find this difficult to believe. The Copts have been persecuted in Egypt for many years. Let us try, this time, to ensure that our help for this oppressed minority does not end with empty declarations.
(PL) Mr President, it is not only Egypt, and it is not only Malaysia, but also Sudan, Nigeria and many other countries in Africa, many countries in Asia and many societies which treat Christians as a necessary evil, and sometimes as an enemy. Let us not hide these facts, let us not act like an ostrich, which buries its head in the sand. This is a real problem, and the Parliament of a Christian Europe, Christian traditions and a Christian heritage must speak about it.
However, we should also beat our own breast. A moment ago, the Member who spoke before me rightly spoke of Parliament's sins of omission in the previous term. I recall the debate we had a few weeks ago, when we rightly condemned the attacks and the oppression experienced by the Uighur Muslim minority in China. However, at that time, certain political groups rejected amendments which were intended to emphasise that Christians are suffering in China, too, and are the victims of discrimination. We cannot allow a situation in which we defend some religious minorities but defend others less or not at all.
(FI) Mr President, we have heard worrying news from a number of sources about crimes against Christians in Egypt and Malaysia. With regard to Malaysia, I would first of all like to say that we are deeply concerned about the attacks on churches in what has traditionally been a tolerant and moderate country.
Secondly, I wish to mention the exemplary work of Islamic NGOs on behalf of religious tolerance. The Malaysian Prime Minister's statements about using the name of Allah triggered a show of public discontent targeted at Christian communities. The exemplary attitude on the part of Islamic NGOs and an uncompromising public stance on the statements by the Prime Minister have nevertheless calmed the situation. It is unfortunate that we did not have it recorded in our final resolution, because in my view, we pay attention too rarely here to positive situations. Should not Muslims also be lauded when there is cause to do so?
Religious tolerance needs to be promoted both by those that hold political power and at grassroots level. It is equally important to realise that there have been failures as it is to acknowledge progress and offer support for it.
(FR) Mr President, the acts of fanatic criminals, who have killed some Christians in Egypt, cannot be ascribed to an entire population and its government. It would be unfair to hold Egypt and the Egyptians responsible for this appalling massacre, for which the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
We must not confuse the acts of one criminal with the policy of an entire country! Let us not tar fanatics and an entire population with the same brush. Finally, by seeking to intervene between the Coptic Christians and their fellow Muslim citizens, we are adding fuel to the fire of the extremists, who want to portray Eastern Christians as agents of the West.
(HU) There is very recent news that a few days ago, the Egyptian regime arrested several Coptic rights activists who were travelling to the site of the crimes that took place at the Nag Hammadi settlement in order to defend and support the Coptic Christian communities there who had seen several of their members murdered on Christmas Day. The Egyptian authorities, partial towards the Muslim majority, are trying to downplay the violent acts committed against the Coptic minority, and are now blocking the Christians' lawful self-defence with discriminatory bias towards one side of the issue. The United States administration has unequivocally spoken up against this. Knowing that the Coptic Christian community, who are considered native Egyptians, have, for over 1 500 years, often been subjected to cruel oppression, the European Union must step up in its defence even more forcefully and unambiguously than it is doing at present.
(SK) Thank you for bringing attention again to the breaches of religious freedom in certain countries, just like back in 2007 and 2008. I wonder whether it is the EU's weakness or indifference that prevents it from promoting the observance of human rights in this area more consistently. We keep hearing the same complaints and proposing the same measures.
Egypt and Malaysia are among those countries where Christians live in extremely dangerous conditions, face persecution, expulsion from their homes, abductions and murders, and their churches are being closed. This is happening from the Maghreb to Iran, in India, China, Pakistan, and many other countries. Christians are usually persecuted by extremist groups. However, this presents a danger to all Christians, Jews and Muslims. I request that representatives of the EU and delegations of the European Parliament make use of every opportunity to improve dialogue, religious tolerance and respect, and the coexistence of different cultures.
(FI) Mr President, I am especially worried about the situation in Egypt because of the historical, ethnic and political background connected with it. Actually, the Coptic Christians are still a considerable minority. In Egypt, around 10% of the population, eight million, are Coptic Christians, and it is for that precise reason that they are a former majority. They are proud of this and also of their oriental Christian tradition. This is why the provocation that occurred at the Christmas celebrations last January was particularly blatant and premeditated. Furthermore, many Copts have been pressurised through violence to change their beliefs and there have been cases of rape and other crimes.
The situation in Egypt is a very bad example for other countries where there is a chance of the same sort of spiral of revenge taking place, and that is precisely why the EU has to be vigilant, intervene immediately when there is trouble, and stress the importance of peaceful dialogue between religious groups.
(SL) When a murder takes place, in particular, a religiously motivated one, we naturally can do little but recoil in horror and condemn it.
However, this new incident and this new crime in the Middle East is, in fact, evidence of general developments and ongoing intolerance of religious freedom and lack of respect for those who are different. That is to say, there are many quarters where religious values are not respected.
The reason why the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has proposed that this debate be postponed, or rather, that debates on the respect of human rights and religious freedoms in Egypt and Malaysia be held separately, is that we need to deal with this issue with a great deal of sensitivity and address every country individually. Egypt is certainly not one of the worst examples of religious intolerance. Quite the contrary.
Mr President, sadly, there has been a general climate in the Islamic world of increasing jihadi militancy aimed at non-Muslim communities in their midst - in particular, and more often than not, this means the Christians.
The Copts, who represent one of the oldest Christian churches in the world, have a large diaspora in London, which I represent. Their leaders have come to me and complained of a worsening situation, regrettably, in Egypt, orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. In spite of the best efforts by President Mubarak's government to protect them, matters have deteriorated.
We witness a similar story with the Assyrian Christians in Iraq, the Christians of Palestine and Pakistan, and now, as we see for the first time, even in Malaysia.
This House has - for too long, in my view - ignored Christian minority rights in the rest of the world, but they look to the European Union and to the United States for protection. So I welcome this resolution.
Mr President, the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities is growing in Islamic countries. Christians who have lived in countries such as Egypt and in the Mediterranean area for almost 2 000 years are increasingly being persecuted and driven out of their ancestral homelands. This is because of the growing power of intolerant fundamentalist and extremist Islamist ideology - Islamo-fascism.
The persecution of Christian minorities and others across the Islamic world is vastly under-reported by the West's media. The media should not only report the persecution as it happens but they should explain to the general public the reasons why it is happening. They should explain who is doing this, namely Muslim fanatics, and why they are doing it - because of the intolerant and violent fault lines in Islamic ideology.
Democratic governments worldwide should put maximum diplomatic pressure on countries such as Egypt to suppress this intolerable persecution.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is deeply shocked and saddened by what happened on Coptic Christmas Eve in Nag Hammadi in southern Egypt, the tragic deaths of six Copts and a Muslim policeman in a drive-by shooting.
We are positive that the authorities took rapid action to find and arrest those suspected of committing this awful crime, and a thorough investigation and bringing those responsible to justice will send a clear signal that violence based on religious influence is not acceptable in Egyptian society.
Egypt's Constitution provides for freedom of belief and free practice of religion. However, we do hear complaints of discrimination against the Copts and against other religious minorities such as the Bahá'í in the workplace and by the judicial system. We are aware of difficulties encountered by several Christian converts, such as Maher El-Gohary and Mohammed Hegazy, in Egyptian courts. We raised those issues in our regular political dialogue with Egypt.
We understand that the government is seeking to address some of the grievances of the Copts, for instance, by removing the obstacles that delay and limit the building and refurbishment of churches. We welcome and encourage such moves and urge the government to identify and tackle the root causes of religious tensions in Egyptian society and to end all forms of discrimination against those belonging to other religions.
The acts of vandalism against churches in Malaysia following a High Court ruling on the use of the word 'Allah' give rise to serious concerns. The government, as well as the opposition, including the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party and 130 Muslim NGOs, have all strongly condemned those attacks. The government has increased security measures to safeguard all places of worship and has also reconfirmed its commitment to protect Malaysia's social and religious harmony and a culture of religious and ethnic diversity.
The Malaysian Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practised in peace and in harmony in any part of the Federation.
We encourage the authorities to initiate as soon as possible an all-encompassing inter-faith dialogue with all religious beliefs to promote mutual understanding so that Malaysia can continue to develop peacefully in ethnic and social harmony. In that regard, the Malaysian Home Ministry has a particular responsibility to explain thoroughly and objectively to its citizens the issue at stake.
We strongly condemn all acts of intolerance against any person because of his religion of belief wherever they occur. Unfortunately, no country is immune from this. We call on public authorities to fully protect all religious communities, including Christians, from discrimination and from repression.
The Commission gives high priority to freedom of religion or belief as central tenets of the EU's human rights policy by raising the issue in political dialogue with countries where the problem persists, by supporting local human rights projects and by actively promoting freedom of religion or belief at the UN forums.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 12.00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in voting in favour of the joint resolution, I am highlighting the particular seriousness of the violence carried out in Malaysia in response to an exclusively nominalistic issue.
Indeed, it is certain that both Christians and Muslims believe in only one God, who is the God of all men, believers and non-believers alike. The fact that He is referred to by different names is absolutely secondary. To claim that the Muslim God is only Muslim and can therefore be invoked only by Muslims, using a traditionally Muslim name, means returning to the ancestral and tribal view that there is a God for each group of human beings. In other words, it means contradicting the monotheistic idea that makes universal religions which, like Christianity and Islam, oppose idolatry and polytheism, great religions that are close to people.
No less serious is the persecution of the Copts in Egypt. It was on the shores of the Mediterranean that monotheistic religions, which claim to be, and are, forces for promoting brotherhood and peace, were born. However, it is remarkable that it should be precisely on the shores of the Mediterranean, in Jerusalem - a holy city for those who believe in God, Allah and Jehovah - that the main breeding ground for conflict is found.
It is precisely Egypt that is the most powerful country in the area, where Christians and Muslims must coexist peacefully in order to play a peacemaking role throughout the southern Mediterranean area.
I support the joint motion for a resolution on the recent attacks against Christian communities because it strongly condemns all kinds of violence, discrimination or intolerance that is based on religion or beliefs. I think that it is vital to support all initiatives that are aimed at encouraging dialogue and mutual respect between communities and which seek to safeguard fundamental rights such as freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Men and women all over the world continue to suffer the most brutal forms of persecution simply because they believe in God in the same way that He is venerated from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains. Following statements by China, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and Vietnam, among others, Parliament today condemned the harassment of Christians in Egypt and Malaysia.
Europe views all this with relative indifference. There are even those who defend this failure to act by invoking respect for other people's culture and freedom to worship. Europe's silence on this issue, truly astonishing in a region whose origins, culture and traditions are imbued with the Christian faith, threatens to become deafening ...
This brings to mind the Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna's comment on earlier persecutions, which aptly illustrate the spirit of our times, whereby he noted that people are quicker to worry about the fate of polar bears than about the thousands of Christians who live their lives under threat.
Another year, 2010, has started with the bloody persecution of Christians in many parts of the world. We cannot, as the European Parliament, be passive in the face of these crimes and acts of violence. The situation of Christians is equally dramatic in countries not mentioned in today's resolution, such as North Korea, Iraq, India and Sudan. Attacks on Catholics are increasing in Vietnam. As a Member from Poland, a country with a deep-rooted Christian tradition and a country with a long tradition of respect where many religious communities coexist, I would like to express solidarity with the families of the victims. The Egyptian and Malaysian authorities must guarantee Christians and members of other communities and religious minorities the possibility to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, or face sanctions from the European Union. For this reason, we should endorse the resolution on recent attacks on Christian communities.
The recent attacks against Christian communities in Egypt and Malaysia can be viewed from two different perspectives. First, we must emphasise that the European Union, as a community of European States that have reached a high level of democracy and the rule of law, must not, in the spirit of religious tolerance, human and minority rights, pass over such events in silence, regardless of where in the world they may occur. We must make it clear to governments that strive to continue to maintain good relations with us that Europe demands that the widely accepted norms of universal human rights be respected by its partners, and that the future development of relations can be affected by problems involving human rights. At the same time, we must not forget the infringements of human rights that occur on the territory of the European Union.
In some cases, religious tolerance, human and minority rights - including those of members of minority churches - need to be developed further in EU Member States as well. If Europe wants to set an example to the world, it cannot allow anyone on its territory to suffer discrimination for his or her religious convictions, ethnic origin or membership of a national minority. We can see that the legislation in force in Egypt similarly guarantees religious freedom, but in practice, the experience of Christians is that the opposite is the case. Unfortunately, we can find similar examples of a discrepancy between the law and daily practice in EU Member States as well.


Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes


Rheumatic diseases (written declaration): see Minutes


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Wednesday, 23 June 2010.


Documents received: see Minutes


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)


Announcement by the President: see Minutes


Cross-border cooperation to combat terrorism and cross-border crime (debate)
The next item is the report by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision on the implementation of Decision 2007/.../JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (11563/2007 - C6-0409/2007 -.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, the report which we have produced for debate and approval today embodies a 2005 initiative, in which the seven Member States decided to step up cross-border cooperation in all areas relating to terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.
The German Presidency proposed incorporating part of this agreement in the Community acquis by means of a framework decision, that is to say under the third pillar, on the lines of what was done with the Schengen Agreement, leaving aside, however, the matter of illegal immigration which, according to the Tampere mandate, should come under the third pillar.
It is therefore regrettable that clear Community powers were not included in the international treaty, since this not only creates judicial confusion, but leaves us with two legal frameworks of reference.
The first was negotiated in a less than transparent manner. National parliaments were not consulted, nor was the European Parliament. We were only consulted at the last minute, in haste and in a non-binding manner as the instrument was about to be incorporated into the Community acquis.
The report of our unfortunate fellow Member Fausto Correia sets out the position of the European Parliament on this matter.
Today we are pleased to be able to say that the Council consultation is being presented on the basis of the codecision procedure. This is a consultation which does not confine itself to the agreement itself but includes its preamble and annex, which we appreciate, because, although they are technical, they contain provisions which are of great political significance. Many of them are designed specifically to ensure the protection of personal and sensitive data.
However, we are sorry that the Council has still not approved the framework decision on the definition of data protection in order to lay down certain minimum rules. It is incongruous for the Council to prepare to adopt this decision rather than its own general law. Nor was the European Data Protection Supervisor consulted at any time.
Briefly, the report provides for cooperation in terms of exchanging data on DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registration numbers and personal and non-personal data. The aim is to be able to compare the DNA profile of a person with the future databases of 27 national contact points.
The report clearly indicates that common guarantees must be laid down for the protection of data and the right of defence of suspects and guilty parties. Only the non-coding parts of DNA, in other words the zones containing no genetic expression, may be transferred.
All shared information must indicate the stage of the proceedings affecting the person concerned and the database from which the information was obtained.
The European Parliament must be consulted again if the Council wishes to alter the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany in any way and particularly regarding the number of loci needed to make accurate comparisons.
I would also remind the Council that the Conference of Representatives of the Governments of the Member States called for the possibility of incorporating this framework decision in the new Lisbon Treaty system, in order to allow recourse to the Court of Justice.
I would also like to point out that, in the paragraph relating to officers and the possibility of cross-border cooperation, I do not agree with the part approved in committee, which gives officers powers to detain and to take statements in a Member State other than their own.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, bilateral cross-border cooperation has always existed but this decision will be a first in terms of Europe-wide cooperation. It is true that there is concern, serious concern, that, despite good intentions, the proliferation of networks may lead to abuse and possibly to serious mistakes.
Protecting the innocent is without doubt the foremost concern of everyone and of our House in particular, given that it represents all our citizens.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the political agreement reached in the Council on 13 June 2007 on the first part of the legislative package aimed at transposing the Prüm Treaty into European law, Germany has submitted the initiative that we are about to discuss, namely the implementation of the decision which is the subject matter of the first part and its annex.
Mrs Dührkop, the Commission has consistently supported the integration of the Prüm Treaty into the European Union. This is an instrument of major importance that will significantly strengthen police cooperation between the Member States by enabling them to take more effective action to combat terrorism and cross-border crime, for example by facilitating the exchange of the DNA profiles and dactyloscopic data of wanted persons.
The removal of checks on persons at the internal borders of the EU, between the signatory countries of the Schengen Agreement, is a major step forward in the process of European integration. However, it is our duty to ensure that this area of free movement is also, of course, an area of security and justice.
Improving police cooperation between the Member States' authorities, while fully respecting fundamental rights and, in particular, data protection, is essential for guaranteeing greater security within the European Union for the benefit of our citizens.
The draft decision that we are discussing today constitutes follow-up action required to ensure the full technical and operational implementation of the decision on which the Council reached political agreement in June 2007. This agreement aims to transpose the essential provisions of the Treaty of Prüm into the legal framework of the European Union.
The Commission has also consistently supported the need to involve Parliament in the procedure for amending the annex to this instrument. In the Commission's view, the provisions on data protection laid down in the decision of June 2007, as well as in the draft currently being debated, will be supplemented by the provisions of the Framework Decision on data protection in the third pillar. They clearly need to be supplemented, as you have said.
For its part, the Commission generally welcomes the amendments that you propose, Mrs Dührkop. However, as this is an initiative put forward by the Member States, Mr President, the Commission will submit its detailed position on the amendments during discussions in the Council.
This is my response, and I would like to conclude by thanking your rapporteur once again for having been kind enough to highlight the means and conditions for the proper implementation of this decision.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are few issues on which the citizens of Europe broadly agree that Europe is making serious efforts on their behalf. What we are debating here today is a significant issue of that kind: cooperation among Member States in order successfully to combat cross-border crime and terrorism. I am very glad we managed to reach a consensus in committee too, thanks to the preparatory work and the very fair cooperation with the rapporteur. That means that while we may not agree on every single point, we are broadly in agreement and want to play our part in making headway in this matter.
The Prüm Agreement process was very laborious and took a long time. We only advanced bit by bit. Yet it is a good thing that we now have European agreements on the exchange of data, that national databases are being linked up and that we can use those national databases to pursue and prevent crime.
I would have liked to see more progress in certain areas of this whole project. That is why I am taking this opportunity not just to talk about what we have achieved to date but also to say this: of course this decision also includes a few points that may apply tomorrow and the day after. For instance, we want to use joint police forces more efficiently and quickly and we want police forces from one Member State that have specific skills to be able to operate in another Member State. Mrs Dührkop Dührkop has just pointed out that there are certain difficulties. Yet it is important to drive this process forward, to ensure that we have more European responsibilities here and carry out more joint actions. In the end we may find that a very good way to promote the European idea is by demonstrating to people that we are trying to resolve important issues in a manner they too consider positive.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I believe I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we had excellent cooperation with the rapporteur. We cooperated very closely, as Mr Reul has just said. Nonetheless, we have to ask why it is so urgent to take a decision, why it has to be taken now and, in particular, before the end of the year. We would have been very happy to see the Lisbon Treaty rules apply here, such as judicial review, as also proper participation in the sense of codecision with the European Parliament.
As regards the data protection aspect that was addressed here, Prüm has its own data protection rules, and then there are the implementing rules and the treaty rules. Indeed Mrs Dührkop Dührkop also noted the need for a framework decision in the third pillar. If we take a careful look at the categories of data regulated by the Prüm Treaty, we see that it is more than necessary to have framework legislation on the matter. We must also ask why so-called special categories of data are included, such as data providing information on sexual orientation, health, political and union activities, and religious belief. That goes far beyond the basic data needed in relation to organised crime. There are restrictions on the use of that data yet it remains incredible that it can be used at all.
In the case of DNA data, we strongly support the rapporteur's view that - if that data is necessary and if it can be exchanged - it must be clearly restricted and used only for the purpose for which it was intended. Furthermore, it must be made clear that Member States which do not have national DNA databases are not obliged to establish them.
I want to finish by saying that it would be very sensible - as personal exchanges of views with police authorities have brought to light - if, instead of concentrating on legislative measures, we financed programmes to assist the exchange of personnel between police forces. That would be sure to improve cooperation in the Union.
It is astonishing that the funding has not yet been clarified given that the decision is to be taken very soon. Before spending money, people should know how much is to be spent, before taking a decision people should know how much it costs.
Mr President, the German Government's initiative and the report we are debating are not innocently technical, as they are being made out to be. They are about the technical and administrative conditions necessary for the swift and successful application of preventive data recording enacted by the Treaty of Prüm, which was incorporated into EU legislation a few months ago. DNA data, fingerprints, personal data and information of all kinds is gathered, processed and exchanged automatically in every possible detail, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, between the repressive mechanisms of the Member States and the EU. Every citizen and worker in the EU may be under preventive surveillance and recorded as data. The security forces act on the slightest suspicion that someone might at some point in the future commit offences or endanger public order and security. In other words, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
The report we are discussing takes things a step further in data recording legalisation, opening the door to the recording and exchange of data relating to political views, religious or philosophical convictions and party political or trade union membership. Why do you need all of this? To tackle organised crime? That is a lie! You want to record data on everyone in the world! You want to ban and intimidate anyone who questions your policies! For this reason, we, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, are voting against the report.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, since the 9/11 attacks if not before, the EU has concentrated its technical security measures almost entirely on combating terrorism. Now, it is certainly right actually for us not to make it easy for potential assassins to download bomb-making instructions from the Internet and of course closer cooperation among Member States is to be welcomed. Yet, in the fight against terrorism we cannot allow innocent citizens to become targets or awkward critics to be silenced.
I believe there is a dangerous trend worldwide constantly to erode the basic liberties for which our forefathers fought so hard. We are running the risk of becoming a profoundly illiberal society, by passing on passenger data, by Internet surveillance. I hope we do not soon find that every nonconformist who attends a demonstration supports a referendum, or even dares to criticise the EU is branded a potential terrorist.
Of course it is important to be vigilant - but not to the detriment of civil liberties. And of course we must not allow other areas, such as combating organised crime, to suffer as a result. We must not underestimate the dangers of ever-expanding parallel societies, migration-based violence and potential ethnic and cultural conflicts.
Mr President, when talking about incitement to terrorism in the age of the internet and the age of new technologies we are talking about completely new challenges and completely new threats and, as my colleague has said, we must strike a very fine balance between infringing the civil liberties of various political organisations and combating threats to our security and the security of our citizens.
In recent weeks, speakers from the Council of Europe, for example, have raised various concerns and asked us to adopt in full various recommendations presented by the Council of Europe. We must be selective as to what aspects of the Council of Europe's very valuable work we transfer to the European Parliament, because Parliament has its own, unique role to play in this matter.
In dealing with the new threats posed by terrorism, the most difficult problem we face will be to actually define what incitement is, and whether justified criticism of governments could ever be considered to be incitement to terrorism. That was one of the arguments presented recently, at a meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, by Mr Dick Marty from the Council of Europe. He seemed to have little faith in our democratic structures, suggesting that various articles could be misused by governments. I have more faith than him in our democratic procedures, and believe we will be able to handle this issue sensitively, but also with the prudence it demands of this institution.
Mr President, there are 4.3 million individuals whose DNA is on the UK national DNA database and available to police. That is 7% of the UK population - at least five times higher, as a proportion, than in any other country. That figure includes 150 000 children under the age of 16, of whom 25 000 have never been charged with an offence. Britain's most senior police forensics expert has even suggested that children as young as five should go on the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they might be potential criminals in later life. This is taking predictive policing to a ridiculous level.
My party believes this to be the realisation of Orwell's 'Big Brother' Britain. The DNA of innocent people should not be exchanged, and at the very minimum, in line with the advice of the European Data Protection Supervisor, there should be precise limitations on what data can be exchanged and a health warning in that exchange if the person has no criminal record.
(PT) Mr President, Vice-President Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a second decision to establish rules necessary for the implementation of another initiative that already has the political agreement of the Council, but has not yet even been adopted.
I am aware that there has been a series of initiatives to combat terrorism and cross-border crime in order to strengthen security and vigilance, but I regret that the same attention has not been paid to increasing the protection of fundamental rights. The European Union still has no standard set of procedural safeguards and no adequate third pillar legal instrument on data protection, as Vice-President Barrot has just recognised in his speech.
I ask you, Commissioner, to help us explain to the Council that this situation is unacceptable, especially if we take into account that most of the measures to combat terrorism and promote police cooperation have involved the collection and exchange of personal data. This latest initiative is yet another example and it is all the more serious as it involves the collection, storage and sharing of DNA data and fingerprints, etc. The data protection standards set out in Chapter VI of the Prüm initiative, which ensure more specific guarantees, are not self-sufficient and, in order to function correctly, they need a complete and general framework, which can only be effectively guaranteed through the framework decision on third pillar data protection.
It was with great satisfaction that we approved this initiative, in which essential aspects of cooperation in the Prüm initiative will be transposed into the Union framework. However, we cannot leave the job half done. It is also essential to ensure the existence of a clear and effective judicial framework for data protection.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, in my opinion, Mr Coelho has just provided a very clear and objective picture of the situation.
The proposal initially put forward by the Commission was certainly more ambitious, and we regret, in particular, the decision's more limited scope. However, the purpose of the decision is to lay the foundations required to ensure a minimum level of protection in the third pillar. Without the adoption of such a decision, we would have no general rule applicable in the third pillar, which would be even worse. We hope that this decision will be adopted as soon as possible, once Parliament has delivered its opinion on the new text that the Council has submitted to Parliament for the second time.
As I said earlier, when thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Dührkop, once again, clearly, in the Commission's view, the provisions on data protection will be supplemented by the provisions of the Framework Decision on data protection in the third pillar.
With these closing remarks, Mr President, I should like to thank all of the speakers for their contributions to this debate.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank all those fellow Members with whom it has been a pleasure to work on this report. I will not answer you individually, but in general.
All of us are particularly concerned about the need to strike a balance between combating terrorism and crime and, at the same time, rigorously protecting private and public rights because no one may be stripped of his civil rights for the sake of the fight against terrorism.
Such a balance is sometimes difficult to achieve, but it is up to us democrats to be constantly on the lookout for any abuse in this area.
Secondly, reference has been made to police cooperation: this is vital. I live in a region where terrorism exists. I have police protection myself, and when I have to go to France, I have to ask my local police to send a form to Madrid, who will then ask France for permission to cross the border with a gun, and that takes a week. I realise that we ought to have a swifter, less bureaucratic method, so perhaps there could be a European police permit. I think, I believe that European police forces have more or less the same training.
Furthermore, Mr Alvaro, as Sarah Ludford and Mr Coelho also mentioned, we urgently need the Framework Decision, and this is a matter which we want to put to the Council. We need minimum standards of data protection. This is a fair demand on the part of all citizens.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.
in writing. - Today we are fortunate that law enforcement agencies have tools at their disposal such as DNA data, automated fingerprint identification and vehicle registration data. I am all in favour of having a common database of all the necessary tools to fight terrorism and cross-border crime. It is a fact that data protection is essential but in the fight against terrorism and international crime it is secondary.
Not only am I in favour of sharing databases but I am also in favour of having compulsory national databases. The majority of European citizens and residents are law abiding and should not fear having their data, be it DNA and fingerprinting, available on a common European database.
Malta is a neutral state but where terror is concerned we are not neutral. The targeting of innocent civilians can never be justified. Terror is one of the most hideous crimes at par with genocide and war crimes.
At present the norm is that terrorists are tried in national courts. The time has come to consider an international judicial structure specifically for trying terrorists.
in writing. - (FI) There needs to be greater cooperation between the border control authorities, customs, the police and the security authorities to improve the safety of Europeans.
The purpose of the Prüm Convention is to deepen cooperation between EU countries to counter terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration.
The Prüm Convention will strengthen security within Europe. A smooth flow of the exchange of information between the security authorities, especially border control authorities, will be a key priority.
There must be weighty reasons for information exchange between the EU countries. Clearly, breaking the law is a good reason for this as is sufficient evidence of intended wrongdoing.
Information exchange needs to respect the protection of law-abiding European individuals so that abuses of human rights do not take place as a result of breaches of privacy.
The purpose of cooperation in matters of security is to keep Europe a safe place to live in and to protect law-abiding citizens.
Cooperation in matters of security must protect Europeans against criminals in order to make our everyday lives as safe as possible and to enable our children to live without fear.


Formal sitting - Ingrid Betancourt
Ladies and gentlemen, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, it gives me great satisfaction and a great feeling of admiration to welcome Ingrid Betancourt to the European Parliament today. A warm welcome to you, Mrs Betancourt!
(Applause)
The fact that you are with us today is a testimony to the fact that courageous people never give up hope in the fight for freedom and human dignity. After your release on 2 June 2008 I had the honour of writing to you on behalf of the European Parliament and welcoming you back to freedom. Now the moment has come for you to be here as our guest.
You were held captive for six years, four months and nine days. You alone know what you had to go through during those 2 321 days, but you have become a symbol of freedom throughout the world and a symbol of human resistance to enforced distress and the deprivation of fundamental human rights as well as a role model of dignity and courage for us all. Your children were with you all the way. I will never forget how your two children - your daughter and your son - sought me out several years ago when I was in a different role, and how they advocated for their mother. That was the love of children for their mother. You can be proud of your children!
(Applause)
Terrorism as practised by your kidnappers is a direct assault on our values, on freedom, on human dignity and on democracy.
Mrs Betancourt, your example shows us very clearly, yet again, that democracies must never retreat in the face of terrorism. It is a political and moral duty to ensure that the rule of law is always upheld.
During your captivity, many members of the European Parliament worked tirelessly for your release and I know that many representatives of the various Ingrid Betancourt committees are here today - active champions of your cause, people who are working for the freedom of all hostages in Colombia. I would like to greet and extend a warm welcome to all of you who spoke up on behalf of Ingrid Betancourt and are here in the European Parliament today.
(Applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, we must tirelessly continue our efforts to secure the release of all those who are still being deprived of their freedom. This is another reason for your visit to us today. You yourself said: 'For a victim of terrorism, the greatest danger of all is to be forgotten. When I was in the jungle, I had a face and I had a name. I am now asking we do the same for those who stayed behind.' Those were your words, and they still are. In the name of the European Parliament, we call today for this to happen.
This year we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948. This declaration presented the first worldwide, formal obligation to protect the dignity of each and every person and the equality of all people, without regard to skin colour, religion or origin. Article 3 of the declaration states: 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.'
Many, many people have been deprived of their freedom because they have defended human rights. At the conference entitled 'The defenders take the floor', which is being organised this week here at the European Parliament, we have heard numerous testimonies from people who have been oppressed, arbitrarily arrested or forced into exile because of their fight for fundamental rights and freedoms. We have also had the opportunity to discuss in detail how we can better protect these people and support their work.
Mrs Betancourt, we are all honoured and delighted to ask you now to address the European Parliament.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a very emotional thing for me to be here with you today, on the very day when the United Nations and the European Union are commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights together.
Of course, all I can do is think what an extraordinary coincidence that is. Just three months ago, I was watching you at work from the deepest depths of the Amazonian rainforest, and my greatest aspiration was for others to come and speak here on our behalf, while we remained prisoners of the madness of some, and of the neglect of others.
It is a miracle, I truly believe, to be able to share these moments with you. I come here full of admiration, to a Parliament that I constantly envy. Like all Latin Americans, I dream that your example will be contagious and that our people will unite so that one day we can meet in a Latin American parliament, like yours, and through dialogue and respect find the keys to a great and generous common destiny for our continent.
I know only too well how much you thought of me during those difficult years. I precisely remember your commitment, alongside our families, at a time when the world had lost interest in the fate of the Colombian hostages and when talking about us was frowned upon.
In the jungle, I used to listen to the radio, which broadcast a session taking place here. I had no pictures, but I did have the voices of the journalists describing the session. It was from here, from this chamber, through you, through your refusal to give up and your silent disapproval, that my first help came. Thanks to you I understood, more than five years ago, that we were no longer alone.
If I kept hoping throughout those years, if I could cling on to life, if I could carry my cross day after day, it was because I knew I existed in your hearts. I told myself that they could make me disappear physically, but my name and my face would always live on in your thoughts.
That is why, from the moment I first set foot back in the free world, I wanted to come here, to this place that I feel is also my home. I had to tell you that nothing you said or did was in vain. If I am alive, if I have rediscovered the joy of living, I owe it to you. You must understand that your words delivered me well before physical help actually reached me.
Thank you!
(Applause)
Thank you to all of you. Thank you for opening your hearts to this tragedy such a long way away. When I thought about the creation of a status of victims of terrorism and I talked to the UN about the need to allow room for expression to the families of the victims, I thought of the example you gave us. I know you welcomed my family, my mother, my children, and you listened to them. In the jungle, when I knew that, it made all the difference to me. Through your generosity, the European Parliament has become a platform to tell the world about the scale of the barbarity we experienced and that more than 3 000 of my compatriots are still experiencing.
The words spoken here, which enabled me and my companions to be freed, created the need to act while respecting the lives of all the hostages, and also of all the guerrillas, who were our kidnappers. The fact that there was no violence was the result of your stringency and commitment. That is a particular, clear, concrete result of your action.
(Applause)
I would also like to pay tribute here to the thousands of human rights activists, the thousands of freedom fighters who have worked all over the world to secure our return, and the return of many, many other people throughout the world. I can see here the yellow t-shirts of the FICIB.
(Applause)
(ES) I would like to thank the FICIB for fighting for all hostages in Colombia. You were the first to open these doors. Thanks to you, fifteen of my companions and I found freedom. We need to keep fighting and battling to free those that remain, and I know that I can count on you.
(Applause)
(FR) There were many freedom fighters. There was the FICIB of course, and many other committees all over the world: committees in Paris, committees in Italy, in the Netherlands, many, in Greece, Germany, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, everywhere. We had friends everywhere: in Canada, in the United States, everywhere in Latin America, but it all began here. Thank you!
(Applause)
Every day for more than six years, these freedom fighters organised actions to ensure our tragedy was not swamped by indifference. We are free, some of us, but not all. Their fight goes on.
More than ever we need your support for them, for your doors to be open, for your willingness and time. However, more than ever we need your word. The only weapon we should believe in, you see, is the power of words.
(ES) I would also like to talk about the extraordinary tool that words are, because today I am thinking, with a great deal of sorrow, about a woman who used words as her weapon and was fought against with violence and firearms.
A Colombian woman, Olga Marina Vergara, died on 22 September, murdered along with her grandson, her son and other members of her family. She was a human rights activist. She was a woman who spoke out, who used her words to defend others.
I am thinking about her today, and here, in this sacred place, I ask the authorities of my country, Colombia, to do what is necessary to seek out those responsible so that they may be brought to justice in a fair trial and therefore punished for the disgraceful acts they committed.
(Applause)
(FR) Words are extremely important, you know. It is with words that we can combat hatred and violence most effectively. I am sure that on many occasions you have felt the frustration of not being able to 'do', when 'saying' just seemed like spitting in the wind. I think perhaps that is something you will have experienced - it certainly happened to me when I was a member of the Colombian parliament - that you regret, for example, that you are not part of the government, the executive, where decisions are taken, cheques are signed and things get done. In a material world where what we cannot see does not exist, it is a frustration we all have to watch out for.
Parliament, though, is the temple of words, of words that liberate. This is where all the big awakening processes of a society begin. It is here that the things that really matter to our people are conceived and expressed. If the executive authorities end up taking action, it is because, well before that, someone here, one of you, has stood up and spoken. You know as well as I do that whenever one of you speaks here in Parliament, evil takes another step backwards.
Words have a genuine hold on the real world. Sartre felt it from childhood. Françoise Dolto expressed it beautifully when she said that humans were beings of words, and that words could care, heal and bring to birth, but could also cause sickness and kill. The words we say have the force of the emotions within us.
I was stunned to discover - and this is something quite personal, I am giving you a glimpse into my private life here - that my daughter had kept herself going during my absence on a store of words I had uttered without really thinking over the course of our lives. I did not imagine at the time the hope and strength these words would give her when I was far from her, in captivity. She particularly remembers a letter I had forgotten I had written, that I sent her on her fifteenth birthday. She tells me that she read that letter on each birthday...
(Applause)
...and that each year, because she had changed a bit, she always found something new in it that spoke to the person she was becoming...
(Applause)
The doctors have a name for this: it is post-traumatic stress syndrome. It has to be dealt with. That is all it is. I am sorry.
So I was saying that each time she found something new in these letters that spoke to the person she was becoming, what she was going through. My God, if only I had known! I would have been so careful to scatter her path with more love and more security.
I think of us, of you and me today. If we could really grasp the true measure of the effect that our words have, perhaps we would be more daring, more courageous, more demanding in our discussions about how we relieve the sufferings of those who need us to fight for them. Victims of despotic regimes know that what is said here today conveys the weight of their suffering and gives meaning to their combat. You have always remembered their names and situations. You have prevented their oppressors from taking refuge in the fact that their crimes are forgotten. You have not allowed them to dress up with doctrine, ideology or religion, the horror to which they subject their victims.
When I was a prisoner, on several occasions I heard Raúl Reyes, the Farc spokesman, speaking for me. I heard him say on the radio: 'Ingrid says this' or 'Ingrid says that'. I was outraged to find that with my kidnapping, not only had I been dispossessed of my destiny by the guerrillas, but they were also taking away my voice.
It is with the awareness that I have found my voice again that I am speaking to you, to tell you how much the world needs Europe to speak out. In a world in which anxiety is becoming even more pressing, where our fear of tomorrow means we are in danger of closing in on ourselves, we need to open up, hold out our hands with generosity and start to change the world.
The consumer society we live in is not making us happy. Suicide rates, levels of drug use and violence in society are just a few of the symptoms of a global malaise that is spreading. Global warming and its wake of natural disasters is there to remind us that the Earth is sick of our irresponsibility and also our selfishness.
(Applause)
What is the relationship between this and the suffering of victims of brutality throughout the world? I think there is a very profound relationship. When I was in captivity, I got the chance to study the social behaviour of my kidnappers, obviously at some length. The guerrillas guarding me were no older than my own children. The youngest were 11, 12, 13, and the oldest were 20 or 25 at most. The majority - I would say 95% of them - were working as coca leaf pickers just before being recruited by the Farc. They are known as 'raspachines'. They spend their time, from sunrise to sunset, turning coca leaf into coca paste, which will eventually be used as the base for cocaine.
These are young peasants who live in often very remote regions, but who, through satellite television, are very up-to-date with what is going on in the world. Like our children, they are bombarded with information and they dream, like our children, of iPods, Playstations, DVDs. For them, however, the consumer world they covet is totally out of reach. Moreover, their work on the drug plantations, though better paid than that of traditional peasants in Colombia, barely covers their essential needs.
They find themselves frustrated, unable to contribute to the needs of a family, pursued by the forces of law and order (naturally, because they are engaged in an illegal activity), often victims of the corruption and occasional violence of an unscrupulous officer, and subject to all the abuses, fraud and dirty dealings of the criminals who rule the region. This the empire of criminals, of the drug trade, of the mafia. They end up drowning their sorrows and the three pesos they have earned in alcohol at the makeshift bars where they find refuge.
When the guerrillas recruit, these young people feel they have found the solution to their troubles: they are fed, clothed and housed for life. They have the feeling of having a career, because they can rise through the ranks of the guerrillas' military organisation. They also have a gun at their shoulder, giving them the status of respectability in the region, that is, in the eyes of their family and friends. That is why, where there is poverty, being a guerrilla is a form of social success.
However, they have lost everything. They have lost their freedom. They can never leave the Farc, or see their family again. They will become, without realising it (but I have seen it), the slaves of an organisation that will never let them go; they are cannon fodder in a senseless war.
This body of some 15 000 young people, who form the bulk of the Farc troops, would never be where they are if our society had offered them real prospects of success. They would never be there if the values of our society had not become inverted and the thirst to own things had not become such an important part of living.
(Applause)
Our society is in the process of producing guerrillas by the bucket load in Colombia, fanatics in Iraq, terrorists in Afghanistan and extremists in Iran. Our society crushes human spirits and throws them out like the system's waste: the immigrants we do not want, the unemployed who are such an embarrassment, the drug addicts, mules, child soldiers, the poor, the sick, everyone who has no place in our world.
We have to ask ourselves questions. Do we have the right to keep building a society where the majority is excluded? Can we allow ourselves to be concerned only with our own happiness when it produces unhappiness for so many others? What if the food we throw out by the tonne was redistributed in countries to those who are hungry? What if we looked for more rational models of consumption, to give others access to the benefits of modernity too? Can we conceive of a different civilisation in the future, where communication puts an end to conflict, to armed conflict, where advances in technology enable us to organise our time and space differently so that everyone on the planet has a rightful place through the simple fact of being a citizen of the world.
I truly believe that the defence of human rights demands the transformation of our customs and habits. We need to be aware of the pressure that our way of life is putting on those who do not have access to it. We cannot leave the tap of iniquity running and believe that the vase will never overflow.
(Applause)
We are all human beings, with the same needs and desires. We should begin by recognising the right of others - the person we see under the bridge, those we do not even want to look at because they spoil our environment - to want what we want.
(Applause)
Then there are our hearts. We are all capable of the best, but under group pressure, we are also all capable of the worst. I am not sure we can feel protected against our own capacity for cruelty. When I observed those holding me, I always wondered whether I could act like them. It was clear that most of them were under great pressure, the kind of pressure that group demands placed on them.
What can protect us from that? What will ensure we do not violate human rights, firstly within ourselves - when we accept it, close our eyes or make excuses - and secondly within the world? How can we protect ourselves from this? Our best shield will always be found in our spirituality and our principles. However, it is with our words that we must fight; words make the most extraordinary sword.
That is why I keep repeating that dialogue is essential if we are to bring an end to war in the world. Whether this war is the war in my country, the Colombian war, or if it is happening in Darfur, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo or Somalia, the solution everywhere will always be the same. We need to talk; it is essential that we recognise others' right to be heard, not because they are right or wrong, not because they are good or bad, but because by talking we can save human lives.
(Applause)
I want to convey to you the certainty that fills me. There is nothing stronger than words. We must shower the world with words, to touch hearts and change behaviour. It is by drawing on the treasure in our souls that we can speak on behalf of everyone. It is with the words that spring from the depths of our being that we will build peace. It is with words that we will protect the freedom of everyone; it is through words that we will start to build a new civilisation, the civilisation of Love.
(Applause)
Allow me to speak to you about Love. You know that since my release, I have constantly thought about the fate of my unlucky brothers, those who are today chained to trees like animals, who remained in the jungle when I left. Come with me to where they are.
(Applause)
I am sorry, I am so embarrassed.
(Applause)
Follow me to where they are, under the cover of huge trees that hide the blue sky...
(Applause)
... suffocated by vegetation that closes in on them like a vice, drowned in the incessant humming of nameless insects that do not even allow them the right to rest in silence, besieged by all sorts of monsters that pursue them...
I am sorry, I cannot do this. I am really sorry.
(Applause)
...besieged by all sorts of monsters that relentlessly pursue them, so their bodies are racked with pain.
At the present time, it is possible they may be listening to us and waiting, ear pressed to a radio, for these words, our words, to remind them that they are still alive. For their captors, they are just objects, goods, even less than livestock. On a daily basis, they are for them, for their kidnappers, for the guerrillas, a tiresome chore, they do not provide any immediate return, and they are an easy target for their irritation.
I would like to say each of their names to you. Please give me the gift of a few minutes as a tribute to them, because as they listen to us call out to them, they answer the roll call by their hearts beating a little faster, from the depths of their jungle tomb. We will have succeeded for a few moments in freeing them from the heavy humiliation of their chains.
ALAN JARA, SIGISFREDO LOPEZ, OSCAR TULIO LIZCANO, LUIS MENDIETA, HARVEY DELGADO, LUIS MORENO, LUIS BELTRAN, ROBINSON SALCEDO, LUIS ARTURO ARCIA, LIBIO MARTINEZ, PABLO MONCAYO, EDGAR DUARTE, WILLIAM DONATO, CESAR LASSO, LUIS ERAZO, JOSE LIBARDO FORERO, JULIO BUITRAGO, ENRIQUE MURILLO, WILSON ROJAS, ELKIN HERNANDEZ, ALVARO MORENO, LUIS PENA, CARLOS DUARTE, JORGE TRUJILLO, GUILLERMO SOLORZANO, JORGE ROMERO, GIOVANNI DOMINGUEZ.
I also think of that extraordinary woman, AUNG SAN SUU KYI, who is paying with her life for her people's right to freedom, and who has begun a hunger strike to make herself heard. She needs our words more than ever to lift her up.
(Applause)
Of course, I also carry in my heart the cross of another of my fellow countrymen, Guilad Shalit, who was taken hostage in June 2006. His family is suffering like mine suffered, knocking on every door, moving heaven and earth to secure his release. His personal fate is mixed up with political interests that are nothing to do with him, and over which he has no control.
GUILAD SHALIT, AUNG SAN SUU KYI, LUIS MENDIETA, ALAN JARA, JORGE TRUJILLO, FORERO,...
These names resounding within these walls carry the weight of evil. They have to know that until they are released, each one of us will feel like a prisoner.
I desperately hope that the applause that rings out from this Parliament can carry our love, all our strength and all our energy to them, across the space that separates us. May they know that we are totally committed. May they be sure that we will never keep quiet and will never, never stop our action until they are all free!
Thank you.
(Standing ovation)
Ingrid Betancourt, you have shared your heart with us, the freely elected Members of the European Parliament and - ladies and gentlemen, I believe I can say this on behalf of you all - we have never before experienced such a deeply moving time in this Parliament as we did just now.
Mrs Betancourt, you have given us a message of solidarity and expressed a desire that your experience - the suffering that you had to endure and the freedom that you now have - will also lead to all those who are still being held captive by terrorists obtaining the same freedom that you now have. That is the greatest sign of solidarity that you can offer all captives around the world, and for that we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
(Applause)
Mrs Betancourt, by your peaceful fight for freedom, for democracy, for human rights and for the dignity of every individual, you have encouraged us, the freely elected Members of the European Parliament, to continue the struggle by peaceful means, without easing up, and with great commitment. You have encouraged us to enter into dialogue, and you have described words as the most important thing in life. Words were at the beginning of human communication. You encourage us to continue along this path.
Mrs Betancourt, let me say this in closing: we have been privileged to experience this deeply moving session with you, a time of deep human emotion, but at the same time a fervent call to action - a call to us, who have been elected in order to take action. Now that you have been given back your freedom and a new life, we hope you find peace in your native country, France - an important country in the European Union, which holds the Presidency of the European Union for this half of the year - and that you will find the happiness you wish for. Most of all, we wish you the love that you have spoken of. Merci, Ingrid Betancourt!
(Applause)
(The sitting was opened at 3.55 p.m.)