8. zakonodajno obdobje Bas EICKHOUT

Although deeply committed to the right to demonstrate, we voted against the resolution on the right to demonstrate as supported by the European right-wing parties. We believe it is a resolution a minima that fails to draw any consequences from the violence that occurred during the recent demonstrations in several Member States, including France. While recalling the fundamental importance of the right to peaceful demonstration, this text should have been the opportunity to strongly condemn violent repression, to denounce the recent adoption of restrictive laws on freedom of assembly in certain countries such as France, Spain and Poland, and finally to launch a European initiative against the use of the so-called ‘less-lethal weapons’.
We, Members of the Greens/EFA group, would have preferred a more explicit condemnation of the use of violent and disproportionate interventions by state authorities, particularly in France, Spain, the United Kingdom and Romania. Through this resolution, we wanted to call for an EU-wide ban on flash-balls and LBD40 weapons that are responsible for many injuries and even deaths during demonstrations. Those are demands from the ecologists, demands that are unfortunately not covered by the resolution adopted today. For a more detailed overview of our requests, see the motion for a resolution B8-0104/2019.

. ‒ I would like to explain why I voted against the proposal for a 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 defined as 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 conjunction with Article 21 on the blocking of websites, the notion of indirect provocation is very dangerous.
Lastly, 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 travel is also covered makes me anxious for our freedom of movement.