Written explanations of vote - 8th parliamentary term Ulrike LUNACEK

Members can submit a written explanation of their vote in plenary. Rule 194

Combating terrorism (A8-0228/2016 - Monika Hohlmeier)


. – I would like to explain why I voted against the directive on combating terrorism. While I agree with the general objective of harmonising the definitions of terrorist offences at EU level, I believe this directive contains major flaws:
– I am concerned about the definitions of terrorist offences in Article 3, since they include destruction of infrastructure likely to cause ‘a major economic loss’. Governments could use this to muzzle acts of civil disobedience or NGOs, including environmental groups. I believe that terrorism should be an act of violence that endangers human lives, not business.
– I am alarmed by Article 5 on public provocation to terrorism, which criminalises the ‘indirect’ provocation to commit a terrorist offence. Nobody knows what this entails. It is likely to lead to abuses to freedom of expression. Read in line with Article 21 on the blocking of websites, the notion of indirect provocation is very dangerous.
– Finally, I am critical of Article 9 on the criminalisation of travelling. I still do not see the point of criminalising the travelling in itself, since other offences are enough to prosecute a suspected foreign fighter. The fact that intra-EU travels are also covered makes me anxious for our freedom of movement.