Het strafbaar stellen van het aanzetten tot terrorisme: een bedreiging voor fundamentele rechten? ( en)

MEPs and national MPs voiced concern on Monday at plans to revise the framework decision on the fight against terrorism, which seeks to criminalise public provocation to commit terrorist offences. They stressed the lack of clarity of the concepts used and the absence of a safeguard clause. Their comments were made a round-table discussion organised by the EP Civil Liberties Committee in Brussels.

The legislative proposal put forward by the European Commission seeks to bring the EU framework decision into line with the corresponding convention of the Council of Europe by criminalising "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence", "recruitment for terrorism" and "training for terrorism", the aim being to prevent the radicalisation of individuals.

"Terrorism is increasingly protean" in an age when "the internet offers it a global stage", stressed rapporteur Roselyne Lefrançois (PES, FR).  However, "the proposal does not allow the outlawed behaviour to be defined", she said. "Where does freedom of expression stop? We need a clear formulation, a safeguard clause and provisions guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights. These ingredients are missing from the Commission's recipe".

Max Peter Ratzel, director of Europol, spoke of a resurgence of terrorist acts in the Union, with 483 attacks in 2007, divided between regional terrorism and islamic terrorism. While most of the attacks came under the former category, he said "islamic terrorism is starting to put down roots in the European population".

"5000 websites helping to radicalise our young people"

"We need an intense democratic debate to strike the balance between security and liberty", was the view of the EU anti-terrorism coordinator, Gilles de Kerchove. He argued "Al Qaeda will remain active in the coming years" and its development "on the franchise model" will force Europeans to strengthen terrorism prevention. "The media branch of Al Qaeda communicated every three days on average in 2007", he noted. "On the internet, around 5000 websites are helping to radicalise our young people in Europe".

Adequate guarantees for fundamental rights?

According to Dick Marty, head of the subcommittee for criminal matters and combating terrorism at the Council of Europe Assembly, "we must complete our criminal arsenal to broaden the "punishability" of certain forms of behaviour". However, "it is hard to draw a clear, sharp line in the grey area between individual freedom and the need to stamp out terrorism". He stressed the fact that the safeguard clause in Article 12 of the Council of Europe convention was included only in the preamble to the Commission proposal and therefore only had a declarative value. "This is unacceptable (_) governments with bad intentions could thereby criminalise all kinds of opposition", he said.

Ioannis Varvitsiotis (EPP-ED, EL) doubted whether the proposed revision could be applied, since "the meaning of the concept of public provocation is difficult to determine". His doubts were shared by Panayiotis Demetriou (EPP-ED, CY), who felt that the best way to fight terrorism was to "turn to the moderate elements in societies where terrorism exists, so that they can put pressure on the more radical elements".

"You can't mix prevention and repression"

Alexander Alvaro (ALDE, DE) believed that the proposed text "should have included Article 12" of the convention. In addition, "one cannot regard as a criminal offence an opinion that depends on an interpretation". (_) Who defines it? You can't mix prevention and repression like that", he argued.

In reply, Gilles de Kerchove maintained that the proposal was being unfairly criticised, explaining that "like a directive, it establishes general principles and leaves it to the Member States to implement them. The courts know the difference between incitement to murder and the expression of a political opinion", he said.

"Trust the judge"

The representative of the Commission contended that the proposal contained "clear definitions that provide the necessary raw material" for transposition into national law.

The representative of the Slovene presidency, Bostjan Skrlec, argued that the defence of fundamental rights was not included in the preamble to the proposal because "if it had to be cited every time in the text, its importance would thereby be diluted". This view was backed by French Senator Pierre Fauchon, who believed "we must stick to general formulations and trust the judge". However, the senator voiced reservations about the concept of "public provocation" in the text. "A Koran school is not a public space, nor is a private meeting. Yet it's in those places that individuals' minds are being poisoned", he said.

07/04/2008

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Chair : Gérard Deprez (ALDE, BE)

"Pubic provocation to commit terrorist offences": Round-table discussion with European Parliament and national parliaments