Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 13 March 2012 - Strasbourg

12. Discriminatory Internet sites and government reactions (debate)

  President. – The first item is the Council and Commission statements on discriminatory Internet sites and government reactions.

May I remind you that there will be no catch-the-eye procedure on this particular item.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, in a world where the Internet has become a basic tool in almost all parts of our lives, including political life, the way it is used and its impact on societies and individuals is of increasing interest to us all. Frankly, it is hard to imagine a world without the Internet and the Internet constitutes a vital tool when it comes to exchange of information.

Today’s debate is very important, touching upon two of the most fundamental principles of the European Union: freedom of expression and non-discrimination in an open and secure Europe. As the Presidency, we are very much aware of the concerns of this Parliament when it comes to the possible misuse of Internet sites and of the specific reasons which have led this debate to be placed on your agenda this week.

I believe that while discussing this issue, we must distinguish between law and politics and, legally speaking, it goes without saying that there is freedom of expression in Europe. It is a cornerstone in our democracy and must be cherished. It is clearly stated in the Charter and the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas.

I need not remind you that, according to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, the Union shall accede to the Convention on Human Rights. This debate also relates to the principle of free movement of workers, which is a pillar of the European Union. However, freedom of expression is not equivalent to the right to express anything about everyone. Freedom of expression should be exercised within a certain framework in order to protect other fundamental rights. So, establishing this framework can be brought about by legal remedies in national legal orders and, to some extent, also at EU level.

Politically speaking however, I want to make it quite clear that I and the Danish Presidency condemn any form of discrimination. The Council also cherishes the principle of non-discrimination and all activities of the Councils are carried out in respect of this fundamental principle.

I hope you will understand that my comments this afternoon are necessarily brief and limited in scope. That is because the Council has neither discussed nor adopted a position on the issue of government reactions to Internet sites which raise questions concerning discrimination. As far as any specific comments this Parliament has in relation to reactions from any particular Member State, it is not for me representing the Council as a whole to take a view on this issue.

However, finding the right balance between freedom of expression and non-discrimination is a very important task and I very much look forward to hearing your views on this issue.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission has serious concerns about the website launched by the Dutch PVV Party and, as you know, I have personally condemned this website because it is an open call for intolerance and intolerance has no place in Europe.

I called on all citizens of the Netherlands not to follow the intolerance of the PVV website and I commend the very strong reaction that they have shown. The Dutch complaints bureau for discrimination on the Internet has received well over 6 000 complaints from citizens and, in addition, many political parties in the Netherlands, including those from the majority, have dissociated themselves from this website.

The response by Dutch business leaders is particularly welcome. They have condemned the xenophobic nature of the website and warned about its damaging effects on intra-EU trade for the Dutch economy.

I also applaud the fact that the European parties have raised their voice. I cannot quote all those who have been very outspoken on this, but the President of the EPP has said ‘I am angered’; ALDE has said that the website goes against all European values of dignity and liberty. President Martin Schulz has given his analysis that the website shows completely unacceptable behaviour. I would like to recall that ten ambassadors have written an open letter in which they express their concerns about the discriminatory and stigmatising nature of the website, saying it was a deplorable initiative. I would like to quote the Council of Europe’s Secretary-General, who wrote that he is concerned because the website is hosted by a political party which is linked to the governing coalition, and so on and so forth.

Let me add to this that it is unacceptable that EU citizens should become the target of xenophobic and intolerant attitudes because they have exercised their fundamental freedom to move from one Member State to another. The citizens of the 27 Member States have the right to move, work and study wherever they like and they should feel at home no matter where they decide to move. All governments have the duty to ensure that EU citizens from other Member States feel welcome. They must explain to their citizens the important benefits the free movement of citizens has for the economy and for our societies.

The Framework Decision on combating Racism and Xenophobia obliges Member States to make intentional public incitement to hatred against persons punishable. Incitement to xenophobic hate is an offence in Europe, so it is for the Dutch authorities to investigate fully the lawfulness of this website under Dutch law and under Union law. I applaud the joint motion for a resolution by the PPE, the Socialist Group, the Liberals, the Greens and the Communists. That is the right way to proceed: to say altogether, ‘no, there is a limit to what one can do’.

The European Union is founded on the values of democracy, non-discrimination and the rule of law. These have to be respected by all, including by national politicians.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Vice-President Reding, thank you for being here and thank you, too, to the President-in-Office of the Council for attending this sitting. This afternoon, we are talking about racism and discrimination. These are serious issues, but they are clearly not serious enough in the eyes of the Dutch Prime Minister for him to come and debate them with us. Nevertheless, it is because of a partner in his parliamentary majority that we are forced to hold this debate today. Over and above his empty chair politics, I regret, above all, that the Dutch Prime Minister is refusing to distance himself from a website that is racist, violent and misleading.

Indeed, it is wrong, first and foremost, to say that European workers do not contribute to the Dutch economy. Throughout Europe, the economy has benefited from the mobility of workers from Central and Eastern Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, although it is not perfect, the internal market, which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, is one of the pillars of Europe and there is absolutely no doubt that Dutch companies have benefited from it over those 20 years, as have companies from other countries, and that they have taken advantage of the Central and Eastern European market. Indeed, since 1993, those companies have invested more than EUR 23 billion in Poland, they are the largest investors in Romania and I congratulate them on that. However, beyond the economy, I ask the following question in particular: what message is the Dutch Prime Minister sending when he refuses to condemn the PVV website? That the single market is only for goods and services, and not for workers, men and women? That there are good and bad workers, depending on the passport they hold?

The internal market is not a one-way street. Its rules apply to everyone alike. They apply to services, to financial transactions and to workers. I will say it again: Europe is not just a single market; it is also and, above all, a community of values.

We know only too well that discrimination, racism and xenophobia led to the darkest pages of our history. Here among us are Members whose parents fought and died to liberate Europe and the Netherlands 60 years ago. Can we in all good conscience remain silent and fail to respond to the incitement to hatred of certain parties? I will simply repeat what the Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke said: ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) reiterates its moral appeal to the Dutch Prime Minster to condemn the offending website clearly and quickly and, like Ms Reding, I am very pleased that here in this Parliament, the democrats have tabled a joint motion.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI), Blue-card question. – Madam President, I wonder if Mr Daul remembers the words of Pastor Niemoller: ‘When they came for the Communists, I did not speak out because I was not a Communist’. He might have continued, ‘When they came for the Dutch Freedom Party, I did not speak out because I was not a member of that party’. He concluded, ‘When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out’.

Incidentally, I do not endorse the comments about Eastern Europeans. I suspect they are actually a euphemism for third-world immigrants. But, of course, free speech is not just for people with whom we agree.

  President. – This was not a question, it was a statement. Mr Brons. This process is in order to authorise questions.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, it is true that it was not a question but a statement. I must say that it was a silly statement. Let us now speak on the real subject.

(DE) For many years and even decades, we have been attempting to create a new Europe with as few borders as possible. A Europe in which everyone feels at home, in particular, as Mr Daul mentioned, our fellow Europeans, the citizens of Eastern Europe, following the fall of the iron curtain. For the members of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, there is only one Europe. Whether people come from the east, west, north or south, they are all inhabitants of this continent and they deserve our respect. They are all people who can make mistakes and who may occasionally create an unpleasant impression in their neighbourhood. However, there is no difference between the people from the eastern and central parts of Europe and those from the west.

We want to create a Europe of this kind with all the fundamental freedoms and with the opportunity to work anywhere in the continent. The developments that have taken place in this area are very poor. We have already discussed this today in the context of the threat of suspending the Schengen Agreement. The previous Danish Government suddenly expressed the desire to close its borders. Quite apart from the fact that it currently holds the Presidency of the European Council, I am very grateful to the current Danish Government for reversing this decision.

There is one government which is continuing to prevent Romania and Bulgaria from joining the Schengen Area. This happens to be the Dutch Government. Quite by chance, this is the same government which is working together with the party that has created this dreadful website. I can only repeat what Mr Daul has already said on the subject, because despite all our differences, Parliament must take a joint approach. This website is totally unacceptable and goes against all our European values. It must be shut down by the people responsible, who should realise that this is intolerable.

However, the most unacceptable aspect of all this is the failure of the Dutch Government and the Dutch Prime Minister to react. He recently said to me in the course of a conversation that it was not their website and it would be even better if a government were to set up a website like this. Nevertheless, this is a party which is cooperating with him. It may not be a formal alliance, perhaps it is an informal one, but in any case, they have a relationship. They are sleeping in the same bed. The government should not be doing this with a party which creates a website of this kind. Therefore, I can only say once again to Prime Minister Rutte: we are waiting. We are still waiting for you to distance yourself from this. We do not want you to call in the police to close it down if this is against the law, as Ms Reding has said. However, we are waiting for Mr Rutte to make a clear political statement indicating that he is opposed to the citizens of the European Union being treated in this way and that he also opposes racism and discrimination.

I agree with Ms Reding – even though you did not mention one of the first statements by the S&D Group, but that is not what we are discussing – that it is important for us to take a joint approach in this matter. It is important for our group and the entire House to stand up against racism and discrimination in Europe. Mr Rutte should take note of this and he should respond to this call.

(Applause)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Blue-card question. – Mr Swoboda, have you in the Socialist Party considered the root cause of this problem? Have you considered that, when you have to justify the existence of the very badly functioning European Union, you claim that it is because otherwise there would be tension and maybe even war among nations?

Do you recognise that instead of more peace, more friendship, there is increasing tension among the nations of Europe? Why is this? It is because your European Union is a totally artificial malignant institution that forces on European nations very malignant economic policies and a lack of self-determination. That is the root cause, Mr Swoboda.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Madam President, Ms Morvai, I totally disagree with you. There are no tensions between the peoples and the nations of Europe. However, there are some political bodies, like the one to which you belong in particular, that want to generate tensions and to make political capital out of existing problems, such as unemployment and perhaps even poverty. Thank goodness that the vast majority of Members of this Parliament are completely opposed to the way in which these far-right groups behave. I am among those who are against this.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Madam President, my group has nothing but contempt for Mr Wilders’s initiative. We made that clear straight away. It is really unacceptable and it is a disgrace that something like this is still possible today in the 21st century.

However, that initiative did not just come out of nowhere. That initiative was no accident. The actual reason for this initiative by Mr Wilders’s party lies in the sudden collapse in his party’s support in the opinion polls in early January and a subsequent loss of seven seats. It was, indeed, the first time that this had ever happened to Mr Wilders’s party. The reason why that happened is quite simple. Mr Wilders was simply unable to stop carping at people. He heaped criticism on Queen Beatrix for wearing a headscarf during a state visit to Oman. He started attacking her and Wilders’s criticism of their queen did not go down very well with the Dutch, and rightly so.

And, so, what did Mr Wilders do? He immediately tried another tack with another issue. This time, the target was not the Royal Family; this time, it was the Eastern Europeans. He opened a complaints website where people could complain about the presence in the Netherlands of Poles, Slovaks, Bulgarians and other Eastern Europeans. That is the real reason why this complaints website was set up.

That said, I totally agree with Mr Daul that the Dutch Government’s silence was, in fact, unacceptable. Whether or not this is a party question, as the Dutch Government claims, is, in fact, irrelevant. I think that we all have the right to know what the Dutch authorities actually think of an initiative established by one of its illustrious citizens somewhere on its territory.

What I can tell you, Mr Daul, is that I have, at any rate, personally tackled Prime Minister Rutte over this.

(FR) I hope that you do the same thing with Mr Maxime Verhagen because, as you know, it is not just Mr Rutte’s position; it is a position of the Dutch Government and, thus, of the two parties in power. It would be wise for you, too, to intervene to encourage the Dutch Government to take a position.

Indeed, we also know that what is happening in the Netherlands is not an isolated event at present. There is something more serious going on in Europe. When I see, for example, your candidate for the French Presidency saying that half of all immigrants should leave the country, stigmatising the Muslim community, threatening his European partners and jeopardising the Schengen acquis, I have to tell you that that language and behaviour are unacceptable today, too. As I said this morning, I wonder who really is the far right candidate: him or Ms Le Pen?

In any event, what we must not do, and what we have not done with the resolution, is hide things here. When things happen in the Netherlands, we must denounce them. When things happen in France, we must denounce them. When things happen in Hungary, we must denounce them, too, together!

(Applause)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE), Blue-card question. – Madam President, my question to Mr Verhofstadt is why does he refer only to the very important aspect of it, which is xenophobic racism, but does not refer to the data protection aspect? I recall how fiercely he attacked Prime Minister Orbán on one of the three legislative issues in this Chamber on data protection. What is happening in the Netherlands is a violation of the Data Protection Directive of 1995, just as much as it was invoked vis-à-vis the Hungarian Prime Minister. Could he please apply the same standard?

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – Madam President, I have no problem in recognising what Mr Saryusz-Wolski is saying. I hope that the Dutch Government is not just quiet on this for the moment but that they are examining this problem, based on the rules that exist in Holland and, at the same time, based on the rules that exist in the European Union.

For me, this case is not closed – on the contrary – and for me also, the response that was given by Ms Reding is not the end. I want there to be a follow-up on this and I want there to be a clear statement from the political side in Holland that this is not tolerable at all, based on the legislation on data protection – and because they have received a number of complaints from individuals about other citizens living in Europe and in Holland – and, at the same time, based also on the other legislation in Europe.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D), Blue-card question. – (NL) Mr Verhofstadt, I very much agree with you. However, the fact remains that the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is part of your EP group and part of the ruling Dutch coalition, the government which is failing to distance itself from this despicable initiative. Have you asked the VVD to put pressure on Mr Rutte and, if so, what was the answer?

I find it actually too ridiculous for words that here you are saying this is despicable and, yet, the Netherlands VVD is shrouding itself in silence.

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Mr Hans van Baalen, who is the head of the delegation of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), has clearly distanced himself from the initiative and has asked Prime Minister Rutte to do the same. I cannot help noticing, however, that the coalition party in the Netherlands does not appear to have had the courage to do so.

This is not the first time I have said that here. Three days ago, I was in Amsterdam, where I gave a speech at the launch of Hans van Mierlo’s book, ‘An Insane Adventure’, and where I said that the silence at the Catshuis – the residence of the Dutch Prime Minister in the Hague – was, in fact, unacceptable. However, the position of both liberal parties in my group has been made very clear, including that of the VVD and of Mr van Baalen.

  Marije Cornelissen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Madam President, a Polish MEP recently said that more Dutch people should see the film ‘The Lives of Others’, because then they would understand how immensely hurtful it is for people who have lived behind the Iron Curtain to learn that a complaints website exists calling on people to snitch on their fellow citizens.

This website stigmatises and stereotypes workers from Central and Eastern Europe and panders to discrimination against them. The outcry there has been over this website has not been without reason. The Dutch Government’s policy choices have been gradually filling a chalice with bad blood: the exclusion of Romanian and Bulgarian workers, the blocking of Schengen, the restriction of the social rights of EU citizens. And this website is the last drop that has made the chalice run over.

This debate is not about the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), nor is it about Geert Wilders, though he would very much like that to be the case. His despicable initiative is an attempt to provoke and nothing more than that. This debate is about the position of Prime Minister Rutte, a prime minister who is neglecting his responsibilities. It is his responsibility to condemn this website in the strongest terms, because it is stigmatising EU citizens, and he is neglecting to do that.

It is Mr Rutte’s responsibility to protect the citizens of his country from discrimination and to address the causes thereof and he is neglecting that responsibility. It is Mr Rutte’s responsibility to accord paramount importance to the fundamental European right of free movement and he is neglecting to do that. Prime Minister Rutte has forced himself into a corner by repeatedly stating that he has no intention of condemning the website. And he seems to think that it would be a defeat to retrace his steps while he still has time.

On Thursday, we will be adopting a resolution here, by an overwhelming majority, in which we make it clear that Prime Minister Rutte’s failure to condemn the website will be an even greater defeat, for him, for the Netherlands’ reputation and, actually, for all Europeans. If Mr Rutte wants to be a prime minister who does business with the big boys and big girls of Europe, then he needs to be seen to address the consequences of this website and his government’s policies, like a real man. If he fails to do so, then his name will look totally in place on that illustrious list that is in the making: Berlusconi, Orbán, Rutte.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD), Blue-card question. – (NL) Ms Cornelissen, I have listened to you very carefully. You compare the situation with the film ‘The Lives of Others’, a film which is about the communist dictatorship in East Germany, where people were spied on because of their political opinions and where a dissident political opinion could lead to imprisonment, losing one’s job, consequences for one’s children, etc.

Blimey! Do you really think it is reasonable to compare that situation in a totalitarian society with a website calling on people to report, not the presence of Eastern European nationals, but criminal offences committed by them? It is my view that one really does not bear any comparison whatsoever with the other, but do you beg to differ?

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Madam President, the question was put to me, so I will answer it. Mr Vanhecke has given a very good demonstration of how hurtful it must be for people from Central and Eastern Europe to know that such a website exists. Life under communism was hell and, for these people, the fact that that kind of system of snitching has once again been set up conjures up memories of those times, which continue to make their lives hell.

And, of course, the film and the website are not strictly comparable, but the feelings the latter provokes are. We politicians must also take into account the feelings we generate. And, indeed, as Mr Verhofstadt has already said: if you have a criminal act to report, then you should go to the police, and that is what you should do, regardless of whether the criminal is a Dutchman/Dutchwoman or an Eastern or Central European.

  Peter van Dalen, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (NL) Madam President, Dutch electoral law unfortunately allows the existence of political parties which do not have any members. This means that the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) consists of one man, Geert Wilders. Wilders is the PVV. In French and English-speaking regions, they immediately and very transparently saw through this. It is, therefore, true what they say: P, double V equals PW equals the Wilders Party.

The great leader Wilders saw the light one day and uttered these impressive words: things are not going well in the Netherlands, they have to change! Putting his money where his mouth was, he became the only member of the new party ‘P double V’, the Wilders Party. Le parti, c’est moi!

The Wilders Party has only one member and it also has only one policy: things have to change. Therefore, roughly every three months, Mr Wilders starts taking direct pot shots at some random target: the Moroccans, the Turks, the Greeks, Queen Beatrix, ritual slaughter, the euro. Hmm, who has not had a thrashing yet from the great leader Wilders? Today, it is the Poles and Eastern Europeans. Tomorrow, it will be you or me!

That is what this whole thing amounts to, Madam President – nothing more and nothing less. The great leader Wilders thinks that things have to change and, time and again, he throws a tantrum to vent his frustrations. I believe we are showing too much respect to the P double V party by devoting a debate to it in this House. Certainly, when we recall that a debate here costs tens of thousands of euro per hour, we could have put that money to better use. I quote, with consent, the P double V donor Mr Hartong: ‘This is a joke’.

Madam President, today’s debate would not have been necessary if Prime Minister Rutte had immediately and unhesitatingly distanced himself from that website. He ought to have condemned the website straight away, because it encourages the intimidation and stigmatisation of a large group of people. Such a condemnation was all the more necessary because Mr Rutte depends on the support of the Wilders Party as a reluctantly tolerated junior partner in his government. In addition, the Prime Minister ought to have, in the same breath, praised the daily contributions of many Poles and Eastern Europeans to the Dutch economy. And I say that on behalf of my group in general but, in particular, on behalf of the Polish, Czech, Latvian, Lithuanian and Hungarian members of my group.

If Prime Minister Rutte had immediately expressed that condemnation, then we would have been able to have made more constructive use of our precious time here today.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, today we are holding a debate on a Dutch website that openly incites hatred and xenophobia against Eastern European workers.

Do you have problems with Eastern European immigrants? Have you lost your job to a Pole, a Bulgarian, a Romanian or other Eastern European? We want to know. That is what you can read on the site. That leaves us speechless; it is incitement to racial hatred. It also seems that the website is receiving more than 10 000 complaints per day.

It is the work of a far-right party – which would be serious enough in itself – but, as has already been said, it is, in fact, a member of the parliamentary coalition that supports the current Dutch Government, which is refusing to condemn it.

The Danish Presidency and the Commission have just condemned this initiative, but you continue to refer the matter back to the Member States and their courts. I thought that the Commission was the Guardian of the Treaties, and that free movement and non-discrimination were European Union values. It seems that some values are more important than others, and when it comes to economic matters, when it comes to the free movement of goods or capital or barriers to competition, the Commission is much quicker to condemn. How do you expect the citizens not to wonder about the European Union’s real values?

There is worse, however. Similar practices are developing in many Member States. In Poland, two far-right sites cite a jumbled list of left-wing activists, homosexuals and foreigners as enemies of the race. In Latvia, Russians are targeted because of their registration plates. In both Poland and Latvia, very personal information is circulated about the people concerned. In Luxembourg, a law restricting foreign residents’ access to family allowances has just been adopted. We have already talked about Hungary and Mr Verhofstadt spoke about France. Indeed, our campaigning President of the Republic, after attacking the Roma, wants to hold referenda on immigration and is undermining the Schengen area.

All of this is intolerable. It brings back sad memories, and not just in Eastern Europe. We cannot content ourselves with fine rhetoric; we must take action. It is high time that we did.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (PL) Madam President, the beautiful town of Maastricht is located in the Netherlands. The Treaty on European Union was signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992. One of its key provisions talked about creating an area without internal frontiers. Freedom to travel and freedom to choose the country where you want to live and work were some of the cornerstones of the success of the European Union. It is all the more regrettable that it is precisely in the Netherlands that a draconian violation of the European Union’s fundamental principles has occurred. This violation is the portal of Geert Wilders’s PVV party, on which it is possible to post complaints against the behaviour of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, with no fear of retribution. I want to state clearly that I have no objection to stigmatising the behaviour of thieves, hooligans, vandals or thugs, but because they are thieves, hooligans, vandals or thugs, and not because they are Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians or representatives of any other nation.

We must make it clear that this portal awakens evil demons. It brings to mind the familiar tragedies of the 20th century with concepts of ethnic exclusion and second-class citizens. I come from a country where the Germans once murdered 6 million people and, in some places, there were signs saying nur für Deutsche – German citizens only. Are we about to see signs in the Netherlands saying ‘Dutch citizens only’? I am asking because the lack of a definite response from the Dutch Government on this matter is an absolute scandal. I understand that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands is hostage to the Freedom Party, but the fundamental values of the European Union must not be sacrificed on the altar of any political interest. This portal breaches three directives: the Anti-Discrimination Directive, the directive on freedom of movement, and the directive on personal data protection.

I demand a strong reaction from the European Parliament and, as a Pole and as an MEP from Poland – a country which shed blood for the liberation of the Netherlands at Arnhem under Generals Maczek and Sosabowski – I urge the European Parliament to condemn unequivocally this outrageous portal and to put pressure on the government of the Netherlands to force it to close this portal.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), Blue-card question. – (PL) Mr Kurski, while fully agreeing with your statement, I would like to ask you a question, since you are a member of a group within the European Parliament whose members have voiced very similar anti-Polish views in the UK. Will you do something in order to ensure that the UKIP party, with which you are currently associated, refrains from expressing anti-Polish sentiments in the UK?

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD), Blue-card answer. – (PL) Thank you for this question. In response, I would like to say that I have already done something to defend the values you mentioned. The decision of my group, and of my national delegation within this group, the decision of Solidarna Polska, was to veto membership of the EFD for the Dutch Member who could not sever his links with this portal. My own life and my own behaviour are proof that I will defend the values you discussed.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). – (NL) Madam President, eight years ago, no fewer than 12 countries joined the European Union. Everyone knew then only too well that those countries were not ready to join. The ambition was to create not a stable EU, but, first and foremost, a large EU. The accession requirements were simply relaxed.

The consequence of that is that already, three hundred thousand people from Central and Eastern Europe have moved to the Netherlands. The reality is that the sheer numbers of these people are causing major problems in terms of housing, employment, education and social security. Unfortunately, this has also been accompanied by a large increase in crime and a massive burden on our society.

Yes, Madam President, this is the reality, one we have found out about through the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV)’s website, which has already received more than a hundred thousand complaints.

The Brussels elite is partly responsible for the relocation of crime to the Netherlands, and the overburdening of services that this entails, because of its open-borders policy. The free movement of persons, yes, but this has also been accompanied by the free movement of crime and the concomitant social burden. The Dutch are bothered by it and have had enough. And they are not alone. France is having the same problems and now even the French President, Sarkozy, is threatening to suspend French membership of the Schengen area.

Meanwhile, Madam President, we are having a plenary debate here, but not about the problems, as our citizens would expect. No, we are having a debate about PVV’s website which is trying to map those problems. This is a world turned upside down. This Parliament is sweeping the problems under the carpet, this Parliament – including its President – does not want to know the facts. We are listening to our citizens. It is you, not we, who are walking away from the problems!

The Brussels elite in the Commission and Parliament sees only the European dream, when, in reality, it appears to be turning into a nightmare, like a bubble bursting, but they do not actually want to know anything about this. They are like squabbling children who are throwing a tantrum now that there are no more presents to open. They can now shed their mask of moral superiority because our citizens have seen through it. Madam President, it is time that this Parliament was abolished.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE), Blue-card question. –Mrs Zijlstra, do you know what the contribution of the migrant community to your GDP is? 0.3%. Do you know how much they pay in taxes? EUR 1.1 billion, much more than they take from your social coffers. Do you know what is the unemployment rate among migrant workers? 1%. Much less, five or six times less, than on average in the Netherlands.

So you are profiting from this migrant work, not the other way round. If you intend to export your goods and banks, you have to accept the workforce and the freedom of movement.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Mr Saryusz-Wolski, yes, of course, we know what the figures are. I would like to point out on that score that, despite the contribution of, in this case, Polish workers to the Dutch economy, the negative contribution caused by the huge numbers of people leaving Poland, the ‘wealth drain’ of Poles to the Netherlands, is many times greater in Poland, and that is a gap which again has to be resolved by European subsidies.

However, what I am talking about and what is much more important, is that the Dutch are having to deal with overburdening as I said. In the fields of housing, employment, education and social security. And your comments will not alter that fact.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE), Blue-card question. – (NL) Madam President, a question: does the honourable member know what Poland’s growth figures are and would it not be a splendid thing if the Netherlands achieved such a high level of growth, too? And do you know any people in your neighbourhood who can say that they have never had a Polish worker provide a service for them? Can you confirm that?

And is it not the case that the Netherlands has achieved its prosperity because it has been an open country? Is it not the case, Madam President, that the Polish workers are making an important contribution to our open economy and that those same Polish workers are paying taxes and social security contributions and that, therefore, under law, they are also accruing rights, and that they are not entitled to benefits. You know that. You ought to know it.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Ms Oomen-Ruijten, your assertion that Central and Eastern Europeans have no entitlement to benefits is blatant nonsense. At present, a total of over 12 000 of these people in the Netherlands are in receipt of benefits and that is a tenfold increase on a few years ago.

Why has the Netherlands become rich, you ask? The Netherlands has become rich thanks to hard-working Dutch people, the Dutch men and women who have put their country on the map. You are now leaving these very Dutch people in the lurch by talking only about the impact of individual migrant workers and by failing to discuss the problems I have raised here, ones which councillors in big cities have also witnessed, namely, in the fields of housing, employment, education and social security.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Blue-card question. – (NL) Madam President, I have two questions for Ms Zijlstra. The first question is: since this time a year and a half ago, you have been an informal part of the Dutch Government, have you not? Therefore, I am wondering what the PVV has actually been doing over the last year and a half about all that overstretching of services that you keep going on about and all the other problems the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) claims it wants to tackle?

The second question is: have you ever studied the history of Europe in any depth? Because, if you had, you would perhaps see that, in the time before open borders, Europeans caused each other a great deal more nuisance, in the form of war, dictatorship and violence, than in the peaceful, prosperous European Union that we have today, even, indeed, taking into account the occasional problems that need to be addressed.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Madam President, since its establishment, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) has been opposed to the way in which the accession of all these countries has taken place. In 2004, all of these countries acceded to the European Union, though they were simply not ready for it.

And yes, I have studied European history in depth. What you are referring to, I believe, is the situation of thirty or forty years ago, but Europe has always had its disasters. Every emerging empire has always collapsed precisely because of internal disagreements caused by mass immigration from outside.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), Blue-card question. – (PL) Madam President, this portal not only exists; it provokes aggressive attacks and increases aggression against Poles living in the Netherlands. We are currently seeing brutal assaults against people on a daily basis. I would like to ask whether you accept the existence of the portal, which, in itself, is a manifestation of aggression toward specific nations, and all the acts it provokes.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Madam President, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is a party which does not, under any circumstances, permit violence in the public arena. We reject every form of violence. This website in no way calls for violence against anyone whatsoever. It is simply there as an inventory of Dutch citizens’ concerns. It is something which, in a real democracy, would be appreciated by real politicians and would not be condemned or even threatened with censorship, such as by certain people here who appear to be under the impression that they are acting on behalf of democracy.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, in the name of the Commission, let me call on the Netherlands authorities to take all appropriate measures to fully assess the lawfulness of this website and to draw the necessary consequences.

The Netherlands authorities have to look into the matter from different angles. First, the framework decision against racism and xenophobia. The national courts have the responsibility to determine according to the concrete circumstances and context whether a concrete situation represents an incitement to violence or hatred on the basis of race, colour, religion, descent, national or ethnic origin. I want to make it clear that the Commission cannot replace the assessment of the relevant criminal judge at national level. Second, their national laws on hate speech on the Internet. Third, there are national laws implementing the 1995 Data Protection Directive. Here, it is the Dutch data protection authority which is responsible for taking action in order to analyse the initiative, to investigate whether an unlawful processing of personal data is taking place and to take the necessary steps to correct this.

This debate was about the unacceptable behaviour of a political party, the reputation of a national government, the rights of individuals to exercise their rights and obligations linked to the Free Movement Directive, the rules commonly agreed by all governments to protect all Europeans, and the values – everything we believe in and everything on which we are constructing our common future.

I am very glad to have heard the political leaders from a wide political spectrum in this House combine words and forces in order to condemn unacceptable behaviour. I think we can be proud of the European Parliament today.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members of the European Parliament, thank you very much for the debate today. Out of respect for the agenda, I will keep this brief. Many important issues and problems have been touched on today and, as President-in-Office of the Council, I have taken note of your opinions and concerns. I would like to reiterate that the Council has not had an opportunity to discuss the question of the Member States’ handling of Internet sites. However, I would also like to make it absolutely clear today that the Council obviously fully upholds the principle that it should not be possible for any EU citizen to be discriminated against on account of his or her origin. That is an absolutely fundamental principle. It is a basic building block of the EU. It is an element of our shared values and history. I therefore expect all Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that the fundamental rights of all EU citizens are respected and enforced. This applies both in relation to discrimination and in relation to the freedom of expression.

  President. – Minister Wammen, thank you very much, and thank you all, dear colleagues, for this extremely interesting discussion.

– The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 March, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I want to express my concern about the website launched on the initiative of the PVV party, on which complaints about people from Central and Eastern Europe living and working in the Netherlands can be posted. This website breaches the European principle of freedom. Under Articles 15 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, citizens have a right to freedom of movement, to engage in work and to study. The portal breaches the principle of a dialogue. It is one-sided and subjective in its assessment. It is aimed directly at a specific group of people and incites hatred.

Let us not forget that citizens of Central and Eastern Europe working in the Netherlands also participate in building the Dutch economy. As a Pole and a citizen of Europe, who knows its history, I would point out that many Polish soldiers died for the freedom of the Netherlands during World War Two. The soldiers under General Stanisław Maczek of the First Armoured Division deserve to be mentioned, who, after heavy fighting, liberated many Dutch towns, such as Breda, without civilian casualties. At that time, the residents did not spare their words of appreciation and gestures of gratitude to the Poles for the considered tactics which avoided the destruction of their homes and monuments. In the windows of Dutch homes, there were signs in Polish reading ‘Thank you, Poles’. We are building a Europe in which all citizens should be treated equally, and I appeal for this pursuant to Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I am not greatly surprised by the initiative from the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) because this is just one in a series of such actions intended to stigmatise certain groups of immigrants, which is something that we have become used to from the European far right for some time. However, I am indeed surprised by the muted response of the Dutch Government to this initiative which tramples on the European Union’s values by inciting intolerance and discrimination. Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are fully-fledged EU Member States, and their citizens must be treated as such and not as some second-class citizens. The free movement of workers is a fundamental freedom enshrined in the Treaty which the Netherlands has signed. This is therefore a freedom which the Netherlands must respect and facilitate at all times, not only when Dutch companies have access to the markets of Central and Eastern Europe.

Nevertheless, I do not support the call for a boycott of Dutch products made by some of my colleagues because this goes against the principles of the internal market and because I firmly believe that this initiative is not supported by most of Dutch society. I have even received messages of support from Dutch citizens who have clearly distanced themselves from the action taken by the PVV. However, I also expect the Dutch Government likewise to distance itself from and strongly condemn this initiative.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Dutch Government’s silence with regard to the racist website promoted by the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) proves the considerable influence that this extremist party has on the Netherlands’ European policy, especially concerning the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In fact, the Netherlands is the only Member State which has virtually closed its labour market to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. It is also blocking both countries’ accession to the Schengen area in an illegal and, in particular, immoral manner.

This new website, which is extremely offensive and xenophobic, is a new expression of the PVV’s anti-European sentiment which, unfortunately, is once again going unpunished by the European Commission and especially by the Dutch Government. Both the silence from the Dutch authorities and the Commission’s lack of action are unacceptable and encourage the PVV to pursue its policy of xenophobia. It would therefore not surprise us if the next initiative from the PVV was to make it compulsory for foreigners to wear distinctive badges or simply to expel them from the Netherlands. As the Guardian of the Treaties, the European Commission must not only speak out in condemnation of these initiatives, but also take concrete measures, failing a satisfactory response from the national authorities.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) An acquaintance of mine sent me the following Facebook post the other day: ‘I lived in the Netherlands for 20 years. From birth, the Dutch are a very tolerant people; something like this would have been inconceivable back then. Today, this is all due to a wave of right-wing radicalism’. This was in response to the news story that the Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders, launched a website encouraging people to file complaints against Central and Eastern Europeans taking employment in the Netherlands. Four years ago, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the right-wing government of the Netherlands distanced himself from the anti-Islamic film released by Wilders’s party. Back then, the government was not yet dependant on the support of a radical, extremist party. The current right-wing minority cabinet, however, is unwilling to condemn the creation of this website. This is because its survival depends on the support it receives from Geert Wilders and his associates. The Dutch Government is perfectly aware that the 200 000 Central Europeans who have been legally employed in the Netherlands since May 2007 are not adding to existing problems but, on the contrary, contribute to the welfare of the country’s citizens. The data of Dutch economic researchers show that a Polish or Hungarian worker taking long-term employment in the Netherlands contributes an annual EUR 24 000 to treasury income. We expect the Dutch Government to not only condemn all xenophobic, hatemongering actions on the part of the Party for Freedom, as well as all forms of discrimination, but also to provide factually accurate information to the populace about how foreigners, including immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, contribute to the prosperity of their country.

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. – (HU) We noted with regret that the Dutch Prime Minister did not attend today’s debate on the radical Dutch website that slanders Eastern European citizens. While, for partisan reasons, European liberals launch attacks against popular governments with reference to fundamental rights, the liberal Dutch Prime Minister openly collaborates with the radical Party for Freedom responsible for the website. We are deeply outraged that the website of the Party for Freedom incites the Dutch populace to file complaints against citizens from Eastern Europe based on their origin. Such acts and their tacit toleration undermine trust between Member States in times when what is needed is, in fact, reinforced solidarity. One cannot hide behind the freedom of speech when the fundamental personal rights of other citizens are being trampled underfoot. We must not tolerate such mockery of human dignity or the questioning of equality irrespective of origin. We must not tolerate open slander against Eastern European citizens. The issue of the Dutch website is not about abstract legal principles but about a specific case of practical violation of fundamental rights. Yet, despite extensive calls from the international community, the liberal Prime Minister remains unwilling to distance himself from the website. Such behaviour is detrimental to EU integration and weakens faith in our common values.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) This site, which is targeted against Central and East Europeans, oversteps the boundaries of free speech, violates civil rights and creates a xenophobic atmosphere. I cannot agree that this is an internal matter concerning one party.

Encouraging complaints to be made against workers from other countries puts them on an unequal footing and leads us to refer, as many colleagues have said, to Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits any kind of discrimination based on citizenship.

I hope that the Dutch Government will take measures enabling them to defend the name of its country which is one of the founding members of the EU and which was renowned, until recently, for its people’s liberal attitudes and tolerance. These are values which should not be sacrificed, whether because of economic problems, because of the rise in unemployment or of Euroscepticism, and in no way because of one party’s aspiration to gain popularity. Otherwise, a serious question mark will remain over the Dutch Government’s ability to adopt an impartial stance, both with regard to the anti-Bulgarian website and on Bulgaria’s and Romania’s membership of Schengen.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I called on the Dutch Government, immediately after the website appeared, to make a robust response to the initiative from their extremist government partners. I pointed out to the administration in The Hague that they were obliged to take action to defend workers’ right of free movement in the EU. I wish to thank my colleagues in the European Parliament because they have supported us by condemning this initiative. Many governments and parties pretend to forget that East European workers have made a significant contribution to Western countries’ economies. I have felt, right from the start, that the European Commission must take an official stance, given that the basic EU principles on the free movement of workers are being violated. There are many statements being made in Europe which ought to be raising question marks. We are all aware of what the European Union’s values are. Doubts are increasingly being cast over the freedom to travel and work. The populism being demonstrated by some parties only helps perpetuate a feeling of insecurity both among the European citizens working and living in a particular Member State and among the citizens of that state.

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE), in writing. – (BG) Today, five years after Bulgaria and Romania were admitted to the European family, displays of discrimination and racism are still permitted against citizens from these countries. One example of this is the website created by the Dutch PVV Party for making complaints about Eastern Europeans. This action is detrimental to Europe’s future because it disseminates racism and xenophobia, and it must be condemned straightaway.

European citizenship is a symbol of free movement within Member States, granting the right of establishment within the EU. This is why the assertion that Bulgarians are taking the jobs of Dutch citizens is groundless and goes against fundamental European values. I wish to point out that the Netherlands labour market is also completely closed to citizens from these two countries. In November 2011, the European Commission published a report highlighting the positive impact the mobility of Bulgarian and Romanian workers was having on the European economy. This is yet further proof that the creators of the website are not dealing with real facts, but are relying on populist tactics.

I call on the European Commission and the Dutch Prime Minister to implement swift, effective measures in condemning the website in question and taking the necessary legal steps to close it down. Eastern Europe is waiting for a clear signal that such displays of discrimination will not be tolerated in the European Union.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – There has been an alarming and accelerating increase in the amount of discriminatory online content in the past few years. According to the estimates of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, there are approximately ten thousand online groups, blogs, chat rooms, videos and games that were created by racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic persons, the most serious of which are, of course, those operated by terrorist groups and other criminal associations. The Commission and Member States must consider developing a code of conduct for combating online incitement of hatred, and modifying their legislation to effectively respond to the new challenges of information technology. First, those websites that are fundamentally discriminatory in nature or instigate crimes need to be shut down; the national and international procedural rules for doing this need to be properly established. Second, discriminatory content appearing in mainstream websites and, most typically, in social networks must also be rejected. Although these pages have so many visitors that supervising them is almost impossible, authorities need to reach agreements with content providers and server hosts to at least limit such activities. Third, it must be considered that certain websites might be discriminatory by negligence, such as official and administrative pages of public interest that are non-accessible for people with disabilities.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The events currently taking place in the Netherlands are dangerous. Within the first 48 hours of this website’s launch, 22 000 complaints had already been registered. Inciting hatred and violence against all East Europeans could have harmful consequences. The Dutch Freedom Party is obviously attempting to raise its profile by adopting a provocative attitude, without thinking about the long term. However, I am shocked by the muted response of the Dutch Government and the very crass message issued in diplomatic terms by Prime Minister Mark Rutte. You cannot also ignore EU ambassadors, European Commissioners and state presidents. Such initiatives must not remain unpunished in a community with values, such as the one that we share.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We recently heard in the news of the arrests made by Unipol in the homes of thousands of Internet users, in Europe and in the United States, who were uploading and downloading images of child pornography. The solution that assisted in the investigations carried out by the police – whom I thank on behalf of the citizens who use the Internet for constructive purposes and not as a weapon to harm the most vulnerable – is called ‘protected anonymity’, meaning the ability of the provider of such services to record the real details of the user, who can surf the Internet while appearing anonymous to other users. When an offence is committed through such a connection, the user must then face their responsibilities. It is the same principle that connects vehicle owners with their registration plate. However, in contrast to our congested motorways, the Internet is the open road for free expression that, according to some opinions expressed in this House, nobody should dare to restrict, even when the matter in question is child grooming or paedophilia offences. The message we send out today is significant. I hope that Written Declaration 29, adopted on 23 June 2010, will soon receive the necessary means for its implementation, since I believe that the dignity of children is entitled to the same protection as online privacy and freedom of expression.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I think that by expressing my outrage at the content on the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) portal, I am expressing a view held not only by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), but by the vast majority of Members of Parliament. Mr Wilders and his party argue that the large number of workers from new Member States will increase crime and cause a deterioration in the standard of living in the Netherlands. This ignores the fact that precisely this group often accepts jobs which need to be done, but which the Dutch are reluctant to do. Immigrants contribute significantly to the Dutch GDP. Urging citizens to write denunciations against workers from Central and Eastern Europe is a manifestation not only of repugnant discrimination, but also of political immaturity. If we want to build a common international order such as the EU, the introduction of divisions based on negative stereotypes within the Union shows either a lack of understanding of what the EU is and should be, or wilful conduct striving to destroy it. Regardless of the motives, which should be condemned, it is high time that Mr Wilders and other politicians who build support based on nationalist and xenophobic slogans understand that the EU’s continued stable existence requires that we speak with one voice on key issues such as tolerance and equal opportunities in employment. This is in the interests of countries such as both Poland and the Netherlands.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President