Speeches

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, this is a violation of international law, and it must finally come to an end! Fortress Europe is not only cementing itself externally, it is now moving from Member State to Member State, from border fence to border fence, across the EU – something I never thought possible! On behalf of Member States, such as Poland, refugees are detained at EU-sponsored border walls. Or they'll be robbed somewhere. They are beaten, humiliated, starved. Under the eyes of Frontex, women, children, men are exposed to the sea, pushed into forests, thrown into rivers. Tens of thousands died at the EU's borders. And nothing happens! Push-backs It's a human rights surrender, and it's illegal. No national court in the world – nor, moreover, any Polish court – can Push-backs legalize. The core of each Push-backs Refugees are denied the right to apply for asylum in the first place. This completely abolishes the individual right to asylum – it is gone! And we can't let that happen! The peoples of Europe have experienced in two terrible world wars what it means not to be able to flee anywhere. The fundamental right to asylum is one of the most important values of post-war Europe, is the great lesson of a century in which millions of people were abandoned and their lives destroyed. There must be no turning back to this barbaric age! I call on the Commission to take action not only against Lukashenka, but against every Member State that tramples on human rights.

Madam President, When we talk about energy prices, about the fact that 34 million people in the EU can hardly or not at all heat, have no hot water, get sick, we are talking about a central social question that we have to solve. What we finally need is everyone's right to energy. We need access to energy as a public good. That's not what the market is doing. A Europe-wide ban on power cuts is necessary. We need electricity price caps. We need a real reform of the European electricity market and socially and climate-friendly energy taxation. Socially fair climate policy means fair redistribution, for example through an eco-bonus that can benefit poor households. And another thing: Natural gas does not prevent the rise in energy prices, but only the massive expansion of renewables. And that's what it has to be about.

Mr President! I want to make it very clear: For our group, biometric facial recognition in public spaces is unacceptable. In principle, facial recognition should only be used to a limited extent in strictly regulated cases. Respect for fundamental rights is a measure of every state governed by the rule of law. We do not want the comparison of biometric facial features to gradually become the standard procedure for police work. The technical feasibility alone, the facilitation of police work, does not justify the automatic use of such a fundamentally invasive technology. And that is why we will also vote against the EPP amendments. We have a strong report on the table that clearly identifies the potential for discrimination through AI, because algorithms can promote social and racist thought patterns. The EPP amendments counter this. In the case of biometric facial recognition, it is not only the risk that citizens automatically become suspects that is relevant. There is also sufficient evidence of errors – that innocent people are being put into trouble. Biometric facial recognition, once accepted as a standard, is mass surveillance and a serious invasion of privacy. And that is precisely why any form of unsolicited surveillance must be prohibited.

Madam President, Pegasus, the winged horse in Greek mythology, turns out to be a Trojan horse with bad intentions. In short: Such software must be withdrawn from circulation. And since the NSA scandal at the latest, we all know quite well what espionage can do. And the private espionage and hacking service provider, which sells this software to tens of surveillance-hungry countries and doesn't even think about stopping it, needs to be shown the red card. Such service providers are illegal. And the fact that they still collect funds from taxpayers in order to be able to monitor unwelcome journalists, human rights activists and lawyers unrestrainedly is really the barrage of perversion. If I hear you like this, Commission and Council, yes, then I wonder why I should actually believe you, after the NSA scandal had no consequences that could lead to ePrivacy He was arrested, who felt fifty. Privacy shield Is it to be given to the United States? Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and Commission, you should ensure that not a single Member State uses such software. Ladies and gentlemen, we haven't gotten through with the subject yet.

Mr President! 200 million allowances have been issued so far. This shows that the rule is adopted by the citizens and yet it is a good idea – for which we have argued, who have roughened their hair, who have blew the nights around their ears. We've done all of this, and that's our job, that's how it has to be. But why, I ask myself now, should I, when I go to Greece, Passenger locatorFill in the form where I have to indicate where I am and for how long. And I am threatened, if I am not yet fully vaccinated, to be additionally tested, possibly even after arrival. Completing mandatory forms also applies to Spain. Spain travel health That means beautiful there. In Italy or France, a declaration on honour is required. Elsewhere, the certificate is used to do what you want to do. A veritable labyrinth of additional national provisions – and now, as a connoisseur of German small-scale government, I say: depending on the principality and county with its own signum on sword and shield. Thus, even in the case of a good cause for themselves, the Member States are proving themselves to be the guardians of numerous meaningless regulations. Most importantly, they are yours. However, European politics is not the sum of national ego-trips, which clearly underscores the fundamental right to free movement. The beauty of the national map is relative in a patchwork and confuses the citizens. We should put an end to this, and a bit more European is not really too much to ask for at this point. Let's just do it.

Madam President, One thing in advance: Yes, we must take decisive action against child sexual abuse, and yes, we must do so without delay. But no, this regulation does not do it justice. I say this as much as I have supported the rapporteur in all her struggles. The result is indiscriminate scanning of communications, which is neither a proportionate nor an effective response to crime. What is achieved is something completely different: This is mass surveillance of communications, and it is illegal. Providers of messenger services such as Facebook are now being commissioned to scan the content and metadata of all communications for known and unknown material, which leads to the mass of completely unsuspected images and images being affected, captured and also people under general suspicion, who are completely innocent, on orders of magnitude. Yes, even grooming, which is not even properly defined – there is no such definition – should be included! Indiscriminate, suspicion-independent mass surveillance of all communications can be justified by nothing, but nothing at all. It is a serious encroachment on the privacy of citizens and legally a scandal, and that actually passes the lives of the children concerned. Instead of relying on unlawful derogations, there must be a regime that actually protects children and upholds citizens' rights. That's what matters.