AA15CR05

AS (2015) CR 05

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fifth sitting

Wednesday 28 January 2015 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

3. The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

4.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

5.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.15 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

      THE PRESIDENT* – This morning the agenda calls for the second round of the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Serbia. In the second round, a relative majority applies.

      The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 13652.

      The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair.

      At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will reopen at 3.30 p.m. At 5 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the ballot. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

      I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

      The names of Ms Stefanelli and Ms Strenz have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m. I thank you for the work you will do. If possible, the result of the vote will be announced before the end of this afternoon’s sitting.

      I now declare the ballot open.

2. Terrorist attacks in Paris: together for a democratic response

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate under the urgent procedure on the report entitled “Terrorist attacks in Paris: together for a democratic response”, Document 13684, presented by Mr Jacques Legendre, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. I remind you that the Assembly decided during the sitting on Monday morning to limit speaking time to three minutes.

      I call Mr Jacques Legendre, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.

      Mr LEGENDRE (France)* – The 7, 8 and 9 of January 2015 in Paris saw terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 17 people. They were not the first attacks in Europe. A few months ago, emotion was high following the killings in the Jewish museum in Brussels. Let us not forget the horror that was visited on the Jewish community in Toulouse and the appalling attacks that hit London and Madrid.

      We all feel that the attacks in Paris attacked the heart of what we believe in in Europe: freedom, tolerance, culture and civilisation. Twelve newspaper journalists were killed in cold blood. The aim was to punish them for cartoons they had done, to shut them up and to attack in the most radical fashion the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

      Four customers at a Jewish supermarket were killed in cold blood because they were members of the Jewish community. Killing someone because they belong to a religion is a crime, regardless of which religion that is. We are talking about a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Nothing can forgive the murder of someone in Europe, whatever is happening in the Middle East.

      Two police officers were also victims of those barbaric acts. A young police woman, who was unarmed and was intervening following a road accident, was murdered in cowardly fashion. A police officer who was there to protect journalists was injured and then murdered in cold blood. They were murdered simply because they were part of the police force and embodied the authority of the State.

      Let us not harbour any illusions. The Paris attacks targeted the heart of our culture and our response should be equal to the aggressive acts committed. These acts cannot be defended. Some people suggest that this was a conspiracy: that they were not attacks as we think they were, but were simply designed to frighten the population. Let us not pay any heed or give any credence to these negative or negationist views. We know exactly who the perpetrators of these crimes are; they have been identified. One of the terrorists stated that he was acting on behalf of al-Qaeda and Da’esh, and he claimed to be a part of these networks. These are the facts.

We need to have an in-depth discussion on this. We need to unmask the people behind this, but of course we should not attack an entire community – an entire religion. The perverted religious reasons given by the perpetrators of the attack should not make followers of Islam guilty of the crimes committed. The present freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our society. This freedom does not, of course, allow slander: it is down to the courts to rule on whether there has indeed been slander or incitement to racial, social or religious hatred.

A categorical refusal to excuse the use of terrorism is not a reason not to think about why people resort to terrorism, particularly young people who are attracted by jihad. We need to look at why this is going on, to try to prevent it from happening, but on no account must we excuse the inexcusable.

We live in a tolerant, free and liberal, democratic Europe and this justifies the fact that the Council of Europe exists – and we are members of the Council of Europe and proud to be here. Let us come together to underline our resolve. Never, ever should terrorism make Europe backslide on its values. We must never backslide on tolerance, democracy or liberty. These are the values that underpin our continent.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, rapporteur. You have eight minutes left to reply.

We now come to the list of speakers. We begin with those speaking on behalf of the political groups.

I call first Mr Rouquet, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr ROUQUET (France)* – In 1825, under the reign of King Charles X of France, a law on religious sacrilege was adopted which envisaged the death penalty for the profanation of consecrated hosts. However, it was not applied. Juries systematically acquitted those who had been charged. Today, Islamist terrorists have, in a cowardly manner, assassinated for blasphemy the journalists of Charlie Hebdo. On some sides, one hears voices saying that those journalists went too far and should have applied self-censorship. In 1825, a famous polemicist, Félicité de Lamennais, regretted that the law should not be more engaged in the defence of Catholicism, and noted that a State is politically or legally atheist when God is excluded from its laws, when religion is not an essential part of its constitution and when it is banished both from political and civil institutions. This is what the revolution did in France and this is what it seeks to preserve.

A State is still politically or legally atheist when it professes indifference towards religion, because this is tantamount to recognising none. Replace the word “atheist” with “secular” and you are at the heart of today’s debate to admit the re-establishment, de jure or de facto, of blasphemy, and whether it concerned Christ or Mohammed – often caricatured by Charlie Hebdo – it would be to return to the darkest ages of the Inquisition and the stake. You begin by burning newspapers and books and you end up burning people. The only limit to freedom of expression is to be found in the need to not incite hatred and murder. In other words, to attack ideas and beliefs, even unjustly and even excessively, is co-substantial with freedom of expression. To attack human beings – hence anti-Semitism – or to incite that is unacceptable.

We now have to think of solutions. The excellent, very well-balanced report of Jacques Legendre has provided us with interesting avenues to go down. I note in particular his invitation, addressed to all member States, to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, to strengthen it and promote intercultural dialogue, and to adopt measures to combat marginalisation, social exclusion, discrimination and segregation.

Let us be proud of our values and our democratic ideals: the genuine victory of terrorism would be our denying them.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Mignon, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MIGNON (France)* – Thank you, President. I hope that you feel better soon – your voice, I mean.

The jihadist perpetrators of the terrorist attacks in Paris belong to a worrying, amorphous network claiming affiliation to radical Islam, which, from Karachi to Paris, from Nigeria to Algeria, has been carrying out cowardly, despicable attacks. Young people in a large number of our countries are leaving to join terrorists, irrespective of whether their country promotes multiculturalism or integration.

Even though we hardly dare mention this, it is true that we are witnessing a veritable ethnic cleansing of Christians in the East and in a large number of Muslim countries. Leaving Islam for another religion – that is, apostasy – is a criminal offence in many States.

At the same time, as Chancellor Merkel reminded us recently, Islam is a religion of Germany and a religion in many countries, including France, and most followers of Islam seek only to practise their religion in peace, as we can see from the very large number of reactions that occurred after the attacks. Let us not jump to any conclusions. As one speaker on Monday reminded us in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, this Islam of terrorists is simply an Islam of poverty, lack of culture and failure. It is also web-based Islam. We should do everything we can to consider the funding sources for this perverted Islam: they come from regimes that are in favour of a fundamentalism that is becoming increasingly radical, and those regimes, which have significant wealth, are cracking down on their population through dictatorial, corrupt and backward means.

What should we do? We must not compromise on our values: freedom of expression and neutrality of the State, in terms of religion and democracy. We also need to respect freedom of religion for all religions and we need to deal with them on an equal footing. We need to enable the creation of places of worship, because that is far better than having self-proclaimed or clandestine places of worship.

More specifically, what can our Assembly and the Council of Europe do? A number of avenues have been identified in Mr Legendre’s impressive, rich report. For instance, the Council of Europe has a convention to clamp down on terrorism, and I think all member States should ratify it. There are still 15 States that have not yet ratified it. We can add to this. Cannot we use our instruments against money laundering to identify suspicious funding in some States? Our Assembly can be a wonderful forum for sharing experience and identifying best practice, because we have similar problems to contend with. Let us organise a real dialogue on religion. Let us not try to identify deceptive, fallacious theories in a type of supermarket or forum where each person can find the religion that suits them. Let us try to foster a true dialogue, where we can become aware of – and make people aware of – each other’s religion.

We need to look at all the conditions for living together once again. Having dialogue does not mean compromising on our values or our principles. The European People’s Party (EPP) has always believed in liberty, humanity, progress and democracy and inter-religious dialogue. Are not we simply standing up for our Christian roots and democracies? This is the most important thing.

Long live Europe! Long live freedom! Long live democracy!

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mignon. I call Ms Mateu Pi, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms MATEU PI (Andorra)* – This is a thorny debate. The attacks in Paris were an attack against our values, our culture and our society. They were an attack on our Organisation – on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. You do not kill someone because you do not agree with them, here or anywhere else. That is unacceptable and totally unjustifiable.

      The journalist who shared with us her comments last Monday stated that the only limit to freedom of expression is hatred, and I agree with that vision. The Paris attacks not only struck at freedom of expression, but were motivated by hatred of others, hatred of difference and hatred of the rule of law. That hatred is based on the abuse of religion and ideology. It was that abuse that led the terrorist organisation Islamic State on 19 January to assassinate 13 children for watching a football match. That is intolerable, as unacceptable today as it has always been, whether in France, Belgium, Australia, Spain, Syria, Iraq, Israel or Palestine – in other words, everywhere.

      Respect for others and for the rule of law are the values that bring us together, and that means we must condemn any abuses that lead to bloody, blind violence in the name of a cause that has been adulterated, because Islam, Christianity and Judaism, as well as other religions and ideologies that exist in our societies, have values of peace, solidarity and tolerance. Our Organisation is the spearhead for that. We will not tolerate these acts or use words to excuse them. That is why we are Charlie in France, Iraq, Belgium, Spain, Israel and Palestine – everywhere we are Charlie, always and forever. We entirely support Mr Legendre’s excellent report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Denemeç, who speaks on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey)* – I reiterate our condemnation of the horrible attack against Charlie Hebdo, which resulted in the sad deaths of not only its artists, editors and staff, but Parisian policemen. The attack was clearly aimed at the heart of freedom of expression. The intention was to divide cultures and create public outrage and an atmosphere of fear and hostility. Ultimately, the goal of such attacks is to disrupt social cohesion across Europe and alienate certain segments of society.

      A disheartening development is that, following the terrorist attacks, we unfortunately observed numerous xenophobic attacks in some European countries, targeting innocent people and places of worship. However, I believe that there are also many encouraging developments that we can, and should, focus on. The unequivocal and unanimous denunciation of the attack through the unity march in Paris, which brought together world leaders, including the Turkish Prime Minister, and people of all creeds and colours, was a grand display of solidarity against terrorism.

      Following the horrendous attacks, the Muslim community in Germany, with the participation of the German President and Chancellor, rallied to condemn them and declare that no act of terrorism can be attributed to any religion, ethnicity or social group as a whole. The attacks have been denounced strongly by all segments of society in Turkey and in other Muslim countries. That strong stance and solidarity is encouraging and demonstrates that these dreadful acts have been disowned by the vast majority of Muslims around the world.

      I am convinced that such acts of terrorism, and rising intolerance and xenophobia in Europe, underline the importance of the Parliamentary Assembly’s work. The need for co-operation in the struggle against hate speech is absolute. We must improve our efforts to tackle instabilities before they have regional and global repercussions. Again, as a parliamentarian from Turkey, which is a secular country with an Islamic majority, I express our condolences to the families of the victims and our solidarity with those who seek a peaceful world governed by mutual tolerance of different cultures and based on the values of the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Jónasson, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteur for the report and proposals, which we support. The mass rallies of solidarity in the wake of the atrocities committed in Paris are testimony to the determination that people will never give up the freedom and liberties that have been acquired over centuries of struggle. We have once again been reminded that the struggle for freedom never ends. A young woman at the Paris rally said, “The show of solidarity gave hope and swayed fear away.”

      Let us not forget that the movers of history not only advocated ideas of change, but challenged the existing order, whether power structures, ideas or norms. They did so in varying ways, but sometimes a pen was their only weapon. Rosa Luxemburg hit the nail on the head when she said, “Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently.” In the same vein, Albert Camus reminded us that, “A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” The clear message is that when freedom of the press is challenged, we must all rally to its defence. That defence is the defence of a free and democratic society.

      However, a show of solidarity for freedom may easily be transformed into something that it was never meant to be, or even into its opposite, a demonstration of force. History shows us that strong emotions can easily fall prey to manipulation, and tendencies in that direction are certainly evident now. Political leaders should be aware that manipulating feelings when they are running high for political gain is like playing with fire. After the attack on the Twin Towers, and prior to the invasion of Iraq, George Bush jr used the word “crusade” to rally his forces against the enemy. He did not use the term often, but when he did more recruits enlisted for Al-Qaeda than at any other time in these troubled days. The marches taking place in Europe and other parts of the world after the attacks in Paris are for liberty, freedom of expression and freedom in general, and they should not be interpreted as a confrontation. They may be a show of strength, but of moral strength above all.

      In our autumn session, we were addressed by the President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament, Olemic Thommessen. He explained in a moving speech how the Norwegians dealt with the horrendous terrorist attack when 77 young Norwegians were murdered in Utøya by a home-grown terrorist. Olemic Thommessen said: ‘The answer from...Norwegians, who poured on to the streets in the days that followed, was less one of demanding retribution than of sending out a message of defiance. People marched in silence, many carrying a single rose to remember the 77 victims. It was, in the words of the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, a message of “even more democracy, even more openness, but never naivety”’. He then recited a poem called “The Answer” by Helge Torvund. In the poet’s words, this is the answer:

      “Never a bomb in our nameNe

Never a gunshot

Let us never forget

We don’t want revenge

We will win

With peace”.

      The Group of the Unified European Left in the Council of Europe is grateful for this opportunity to express our determination not to give up in our never-ending struggle for freedom.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does the rapporteur wish to respond to the spokespeople for the groups now, or at the end of the debate?

Mr LEGENDRE (France)* – At the end.

THE PRESIDENT* – Colleagues, the vote is open for the second round of the election of the judge for Serbia. Will you please vote behind the President's chair?

Let us move on with the debate. I call Mr Cruchten.

      Mr CRUCHTEN (Luxembourg)* – The recent tragic events in Paris shocked us all. This craven attack on our values through such cruel deeds was appalling and we share with our French friends their grief and send our sympathy to the families and friends of the victims.

I congratulate the rapporteur on striking a careful balance in his report on the religious dimension of the attacks. Yes, the murderers in Paris claimed that they were acting in the name of God and their beliefs, but terrorism is not the exclusive preserve of any one religion. Let us not forget that other attacks against our values and lifestyles have happened in Europe recently, such as that at Utøya. All such atrocities call for a reaction and it is only normal that we should debate such things.

The surge in solidarity we have seen across the world in the past few weeks is a healthy first reaction. Citizens in France and elsewhere have stood up to defend freedom and democracy. Of course, that will not be enough. The second stage must be a political reaction. It is clear that although one of the main concerns is public security, which means that we must consider how effective our measures to combat terrorism are, such concerns should not lead us to cast aside individual freedom and fundamental rights.

The tightening of laws against terrorism, border checks, transfers of passenger name record data and other such measures are initially useful, but they treat only the symptoms and not the disease. We should not have to apologise for our values of tolerance and mutual respect; we should defend the way in which we live. Let us not forget, however, that we live in a world where there is more inequality between North and South. In our own countries, the rich are getting richer and the poor are becoming more numerous. Such unequal societies are a hotbed for terrorists and extremists of all colours. That is why we need to intensify our efforts to fight poverty, strengthen our welfare States, combat exclusion, discrimination and stigmatisation, and give hope once again to millions of young people in Europe and elsewhere that the situation will improve and they will find a place in our society. This is the biggest challenge of the 21st century and I am delighted that the resolution is along those lines.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – I am deeply wedded to freedom in all its forms, and the attacks that plunged all of Paris into mourning were an attack on our fundamental values. Defending co-existence and freedom of expression is an absolute duty for any democrat, but to achieve that we must show clear-headedness and sensitivity. I am in favour of freedom of expression for the press and for citizens.

As our great republican Act of 1881 on the freedom of the press states, printing and publication are free. That principle remains indispensable, regardless of the medium in which that free expression takes place. It should be uniformly adhered to by all member States of our Organisation, but unfortunately this is not the case. For instance, the Azeri concept of freedom of the press and journalists could be greatly improved.

Freedom of expression is not an abstract absolute but a necessary condition for a balanced social and democratic life. It must be exercised while respecting all people, because otherwise it will simply descend into abuse. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the murder of the Charlie Hebdo editorial team, but I do not think that such coarse constant anti-religious aggression is the best illustration of freedom of thought and writing. There comes a time when the accumulation of such aggression becomes an attack on living together.

We must not think that the legitimate defence of freedom of opinion can be based on the systematic denigration of religious beliefs or on systematic disdain for the feelings and reactions created by such beliefs. We might sometimes believe that some movements are attempting to capitalise on the emotion triggered by such attacks, but although it will be difficult if not impossible to embark on a proper dialogue to set limits when they need to be set and to mobilise all people in all democratic countries against this fanaticism, those actions are indispensable.

Our Assembly must play a full part in this dialogue. I call on you all to do so and thank the rapporteur, Mr Legendre, for his work.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – We were all very shocked by the attacks in Paris on the journalists and the attack on the grocery store, which showed clear signs of anti-Semitism. They were attacks on freedom of speech and on the freedom of religion, so they also targeted the rule of law and the values of the Council of Europe. As they were attacks on our values, we should be careful about our response. If we want to defend and strengthen the rule of law and human rights, our response should also follow the rule of law. We should also make it clear that safety and freedom of speech and religion both fit into our society and into the rule of law. If our measures are disproportionate and affect our personal freedoms, the terrorists will have gained some success. Then they would have won.

The rule of law is strong enough to come up with a good answer. We hear a lot of reflex reactions that we should introduce measures that are firmer and disproportionate, but that would be the wrong answer. It would create even more fear and lead to more exclusion. Who do we need to be most afraid of? The people who live in our society: second or third generation migrants who belong to us. Some of them feel alienated and excluded from our society, so when we consider why they go down the track of radicalisation we must be very careful to look for solutions that will include them in our society and give some perspective so that they can adhere to our values, integrate and take part in our society.

There are some good examples of that in Belgium, in Mechelen and in Vilvoorde, where they take an intensive policy towards these young people who tend to be influenced or seduced by fundamentalism. Those projects are really successful and we gained the trust of those people, who came back into society and started to participate again. We must consider societal answers and not just firm measures that make a larger gap between groups in our society.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Agramunt is not here, so I call Mr Türkeş.

      Mr A. K. TÜRKEŞ (Turkey) – I start by expressing my shock at the terrorist attacks in Paris and my sympathy for those who lost their lives, their families and all those who were hurt by this inhuman crime in one way or another.

      Terrorism is a crime against humanity and cannot be justified in any circumstances. However, in order to be able to comprehend the nature of such acts of violence, we have to look beyond the surface and at the sources. Unfortunately, we have had the sources of the problem right here for too long: underdevelopment, inequality, unemployment, lack of education, mismanaged migration, failed integration policies, economic crises and deterioration of social cohesion and, most importantly, a lack of empathy.

      I fear that this mix will continue to cause problems, unless reason and empathy, together with tolerance, respect and understanding other people, take its place. This is, and must be, where the Assembly steps in, and we are preoccupied with these issues. We, as parliamentarians, must do more. But most importantly, we must strive to make empathy a cornerstone of the functioning of societies, and notwithstanding the categorical denunciation of any form of violence, that includes striking a balance between freedom of expression and respect for other people's values.

      We must not allow these events to lead to the stigmatisation of certain segments of European societies, as that would in turn lead to greater insecurity and isolation. We must resist biased portrayals fuelled by populist rhetoric. We must not allow terrorism to achieve its perverted aims by driving a wedge between segments of society, but counter it by finding new ways of increasing social cohesion and solidarity throughout Europe and the world. In the hope that we will eventually achieve that long sought after goal, I would like to thank you all very much.

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I wish to extend my condolences to the French people and the French delegation and to express my solidarity with them. I had the pleasure of living in France for a time as a younger man, and one of the things that impressed me most about France was the diversity and unity in diversity. That was one of the many things under attack in the horrible events that took place in Paris.

      What impressed me was that it was possible to be French while being of Latin, Germanic, North African, Catholic or Protestant origin. Religion and origin do not matter; what matters is citizenship. Many European States take their republican ideas from France, and my own is no different. Indeed, during various attempted revolutions and more successful revolutions in Ireland, France was very much the model. The principle of liberté, égalité, fraternité was very much the terrorists’ target.

      Unfortunately, we have had a lot discussion about the freedom of the media, but some elements of the media outside France were very quick to paint a picture of France that bears no resemblance to the France that I know. It was alleged for political ends that there were ghettoised, no-go areas in France. It was interesting for me to read that there were no-go areas, because from what I saw when living in France and spending time in some of those areas, I knew that, in fact, they were not no-go areas.

      Of course, there are areas of poverty in France, as there are in every country in the Council of Europe. More needs to be done to address social deprivation in France, in Ireland and right across the world. Those areas might be characterised not by religion but, unfortunately, by a failure to attain the social rights that we would like.

      In the limited time available, I wish to tell a brief anecdote. I visited a little shop in Paris to buy dates on my way here. It was run by North Africans. I do not know whether they were Christian, Jewish or Muslim. One makes assumptions, but I simply have no idea and it is irrelevant. I bought the dates – perfectly nice dates, you will all be delighted to hear, I am sure – but as I was leaving the shop, I looked at the pays d’origine, and it was Israel.

      It is said that anti-Semitism is rampant in France. I have not seen that, and I do not think that it is a fair or true allegation to make about France. Clearly, the attack in the Jewish supermarket was driven by anti-Semitism and the intention was to drive a wedge between the many peoples who are proud to call themselves French and live in this great country, but we must not let those who seek to divide and to artificially create a so-called clash of civilisations succeed. We must stand up for liberté, égalité, fraternité.

      Ms STEFANNELLI (San Marino)* – On behalf of the delegation of the Republic of San Marino and the parliament of my country, I wish to address to the victims’ families, the French institutions, our French parliamentary colleagues and the people of France our feelings of closeness after the barbaric assassinations of the past weeks. We were totally horrified by the cruelty, brutality and contempt for human life shown by the perpetrators. We firmly condemn acts of terrorism committed in the name of religion or, rather, fanaticism and religious extremism.

      The attacks on the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket clearly show how madness, extremism, pure hatred and intolerance can generate horror and brutality unworthy of human beings. The events in Paris are a frontal attack on democracy, on the fundamental freedoms of democratic States and on freedom of thought, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. They are thus an attack on the democratic values that are specific to our western societies and intended to destabilise and radicalise our institutions.

      The events in Paris should not simply be considered as affecting just one country alone. Every democratic State should feel as though it has been struck in the heart by a vile terrorist act. Therefore, all democratic societies should reply together with all the democratic means that we have at hand.

      The Council of Europe, as the common home of democracy, the rule of law and the defence of human rights, is the principal forum to condemn and to combat with every legal means the phenomenon of terrorism and disdain for human life. The Republic of San Marino will therefore support the draft resolution and recommendation. We shall support any democratic initiative to reaffirm the democratic values of our countries and the supremacy of the forces of law against any barbaric act perpetrated for reasons of hate, intolerance or radicalisation.

      The campaign against hatred, which will begin tomorrow, has our full support, and we are convinced of its usefulness because only democracy based on our values – respect for human life and the convictions of others and for dialogue, not confrontation – can effectively combat hatred and religious intolerance. The Council of Europe, which recognises the fundamental role of democracy, should strengthen all initiatives to promote education and democratic culture, especially for young people in schools and families, and intercultural and interreligious dialogue. Thus we can combat terrorism and the radicalisation of our societies, which otherwise can lead to terrorism.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – First, as a Muslim and Azerbaijani, I condemn the acts of terror in France a few weeks ago, and express my condolences to our French colleagues. The president of our country, and our people, have severely condemned those acts of terror, and together we should spare no effort to prevent a further recurrence of such incidents anywhere in the world. However, we should also severely protest against those who want to connect such acts of terror with Islam.

      Some politicians’ speeches are accelerating the growth of Islamophobia in Europe. That is of serious concern to us all, and we should consider the great tensions that that could create in Europe and for us all, and strongly protest against that. We should not forget that such statements could increase tensions and undermine dialogue between cultures and religions. At the same time, our Organisation and member States should not have double standards in dealing with such issues. During the terrorist attacks, many leaders demonstrated solidarity with the French people and took part in the march against terrorism in Paris. We also supported it. Such a stance against terrorism and the killing of innocent people should be supported, regardless of where, by whom and to whom those acts were committed. Regardless of in which state such things happen, the same stance should be taken against terrorism and massacres.

      Next month, we shall commemorate the anniversary of the Khojaly massacre and genocide that was committed by Armenian armed forces. Hundreds of civilians, including women and children, were cruelly killed, and dozens of people were taken hostage and tortured. Unfortunately, even today we do not hear protest statements by our colleagues, European politicians and many other leaders. The perpetrators of that crime still walk freely in Armenia and have not been sent before a judge. No matter where such acts occur, we should work together to bring those who kill innocent people to account. While expressing my deep condolences to my colleagues and the French people, I reiterate that as member States we should struggle hard against any kind of intolerance, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism in Europe. At the same time as supporting freedom of speech, we should also protest against the humiliation and insulting of religious beliefs, regardless of people’s religious affiliation.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – First, I express my sincere sympathy with the friends and family of the French journalists, and indeed with the French people. What happened in Paris is awful and calls for a prompt reaction from us. In Russia, we have often suffered from terrorist acts. They have always been cowardly, horrific crimes that do not deserve understanding and are designed to plant fear in our hearts.

      We have great respect for the solidarity that was shown in French society, upholding its values after what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Whatever one’s attitude to that publication and the cartoons, nobody deserved to die for that. At the same time, that terrorist act brings to the fore a whole series of ethical, philosophical and practical questions that we must discuss. Is freedom boundless in a multicultural society? Where do we draw the line beyond which some people, representing one religion, are not prepared to go along with things any more and wreak revenge, even at the price of their own life? Is there such a line? Can one cross it deliberately and wittingly?

      How effective is the migration policy of European countries? What about schemes that are designed to integrate people from non-European cultures? The bedrock of values in European society may be alien to those people. That is no surprise but what can we do about it? What about people who were born in Europe but have their own values and are entitled to profess a faith or express themselves? We should defend their rights as a minority. How can we prevent an explosion of hatred when the Arab world has been shaken by war and political crises? Is what happened in Paris an echo of the Arab Spring? Often, we see an escalation of violence here as a result, and we should not pour oil on the fire. We must show pan-European solidarity because only in that way can we overcome such challenges. In this situation we should not allow emotion to hold sway over common sense, and we should not sink to disparaging certain peaceful people who have nothing to do with extremists. Otherwise, the gulf opening up in society will become even wider and could lead to even greater consequences.

      Some people draw parallels with the Middle East, but the problem does not lie there; it lies here, round the corner from us in the next street. The root causes lie here, as does the solution. We need the political will to recognise mistakes and correct them. We must be responsible and uphold pan-European values and rights for the sake of our future.

      Mr MAHOUX (Belgium)* – The horrible acts that occurred in France, and that were preceded in Belgium by acts just as horrible, constitute a call to humanity. We must offer our condolences to the families of the victims, but also to humanity at large – at least that part of humanity that defends the values of freedom, equality and fraternity. We have the responsibility to respond to such horrible acts, and I refer to what Mr Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, said, which was that we need exceptional measures but not measures of exception. On the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the camps, special measures are often those taken by regimes where democracy does not pertain. One counter-example is not to be followed, even if the red thread of measures to be adopted is first and foremost the protection of our citizens – I am speaking of measures such as those adopted in the United States following the 11 September attacks against the Twin Towers. There is no space for a Patriot Act here.

      Of course we must support the police and intelligence services which, through their positive action, prevent the perpetration of such acts of terror, but we must have a guarantee, especially when it comes to exchanging information. We need the guarantee that in each of our countries there will be legislation and Bills to protect individual freedoms and the right that we all have to privacy. It is also necessary to ensure that we can live together. The terrorists want to divide democrats, and we should say that Islam is not “radical Islamism”, and that the terrorist attacks were perpetrated precisely because it was a question of killing Jews. At the same time, we must cease imposing acts of repression in relation to prevention.

      We live in a society where the right to speak, believe, not to believe, or to believe at one point but not at another, is absolute, and we should defend freedom of thought relentlessly. “Je suis Charlie” means that creators have to be defended within a broad culture that respects everyone without leading to unanimous thought. It is a debate that creates dialogue, not violence.

      Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – The Charlie Hebdo attacks, as history will remember them, did not come out of the blue and will not go with the perpetrators into their unmarked graves. They came from somewhere and some time. Somewhere in the future, distant or near, they will come to hunt and haunt us again and again, until we put an end to the blind ignorance that we practise and in which we hide in comfort. The attacks in the heart of Paris and in the Jewish supermarket were not an isolated incident. Indeed, they were a challenge not only to free speech and our values but to our religions, Christian or Jewish. They were a challenge to our identities and a challenge to our history – the great revolutions of France, Germany and any other of the age of enlightenment. They were a challenge to our very existence and we have to understand them.

      By raising our pens in the air as a symbol of defiant free speech, we exhibit our ignorance of the global nature and scale of the threat that is now on the tracks to carnage. The great problem that we face is not the radicalisation of our own European citizens but the cause of that radicalisation. Initially a peaceful population and part of our public life, the European Sunni Muslim communities in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium and elsewhere get more and more radicalised by the appealing and dangerous ideas that are imported from the Gulf much faster than oil. From that point on, these citizens of ours, whom we knew as normal people, turn to evil, fight in the most cowardly battles in the deserts of Syria and Iraq and bring the war back with them to our streets.

      Ironically enough, the same freedom of speech and all the other freedoms that we enjoy allow the hate speech and the hateful and ignorant teachings of Ibn al-Wahhab to find fertile ground in our lands, on our streets and in our suburbs. By letting those British preachers speak in the streets of London, by granting the Turkish preachers of Germany the right freely to spread whatever they want and by allowing the two-faced North African clerics of France to say one thing in French and another in Arabic, we risk not only our own freedom of speech.

      We, the Europeans, have to understand that the moderate followers of Islam are easy prey for the hunters of the radical teachings if left unchecked. This may seem un-European, un-French and uncivilised, but in order to defend our Europeanness, our Frenchness and our civilisation, we have to restrain and monitor the access of our populations to intolerant speech, which, by being free, deprives us of our own freedom of speech and our own freedom to live.

      It is obvious that we prefer fighting the metastasis rather than looking into the cause of the cancer. It is the cancer that is now growing quickly and has the potential to drive us into the grave using our own values and tools – the freedom to speak and to teach anything, anywhere and to anybody. This has to stop and has to stop now. If it does not stop today, there will be no tomorrow. The tomorrow of Europe is bright, it should be bright and we have to do everything to make it happen.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I thank the rapporteur for his report and strong beliefs. I also thank everyone who has taken the floor to express their sympathies for the attacks in France that targeted Charlie Hebdo. Unfortunately, that was the not the first time that such attacks occurred.

      “Je suis Charlie” has been translated into many different languages. That is important. As a French person, I was stunned and shocked by what happened. When it occurred, we all felt the sudden need to take to the streets but to do so in silence. It was quite a mystery, but it was a real moment of national unity and democratic consciousness. The movement is certainly very impressive.Of

      Of course, the political facts are important. There are two key issues: first, freedom of expression; and, secondly, living together. We need to stand together and to ask others to help us – French people need other people’s help. We need to be able to continue to laugh about things, whether they are religious or political or anything else. We need to claim the right to respect blasphemy and insolence. That is what Charlie Hebdo was all about. Freedom of expression is sacrosanct. The press should be free. Journalists should be responsible and they need to have the right to their own views. Of course there are limits. When such terrorist crimes are glorified, those limits are crossed.

      The most difficult thing is living together. Our Irish friend advocated the virtues of France, but as a French person I know that we have not fully succeeded with integration. It has been quite a painful experience, in fact. Living together is based on willingness and democracy. I am an historian and historians often say, “These are deliberate and voluntary acts. You need to want to do them.” For that to be done, two conditions have to be met. The first is to have a fundamental respect of others. That is universal: we are all different but we are all equal. The second is to have absolute respect for beliefs, matters of conscience and thoughts. The word “secularism” may seem a bit taboo – we can choose another word – but in France we want that absolute respect to be guaranteed.

      I simply want to state that all this should be taken on board. I refer to paragraph 18 of the report. Yesterday, we added the whole aim of living together, which we believe should become a clear project of the Council of Europe. We need to move down that road and have clear thoughts in this area.

      Mr REIMANN (Switzerland)* – The terrorist attacks at the beginning of January in Paris should be condemned in the strongest terms. I fully respect what Mr Legendre has done in his report. He has clearly condemned what happened.

      In the plenary, we have to try to understand the nature of the attacks. Paragraph 17.7 of the resolution calls on the Assembly to “protect journalists, writers and other artists from extremist threats” and violence. I fully agree with that, but one component that is important to the media is missing from the resolution. What do I mean by that? Let me simply quote the Swiss media minister, Doris Leuthard, who belongs to the Christian Democratic People’s Party. She stated: “Satire is not a blank cheque. No publication can legitimise violence.” What she was simply pointing out caused a great deal of anger but also a great deal of agreement. I belong to the second category. I believe that satire should not be a blank cheque for doing what you want. That can concern journals such as the ones that we have been discussing.

      I certainly believe in protecting media freedom in Europe. I took part in the debate on terrorism. The tragic victims of the Paris attacks needed to be protected by media freedom. Satire and media freedom do have limits. In a civilised society, there can of course be disagreements and arguments. I believe in living together and respecting freedoms and religious beliefs, though it takes a lot for me to feel that my Christian beliefs have been offended. I hope that the media will show some restraint; there should be a basic level of respect and tolerance of others. Satire should not be carte blanche for writing anything. The events in Paris and the response to them may give rise to a reaction. We need to look at the causes of the attacks, but I state again what our media minister said in Switzerland: nothing that is published can justify violence.

      Mr VALEN (Norway) – We mourn with the French people after the hideous attack on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish community in France earlier this month. It was a meticulously planned, politically motivated attack on the basic freedoms that we enjoy, and we are all moved by how French society has been able to stand together following the attacks.

      I want to say a few words about the aftermath. As with the terrorists of the extreme left of the ’70s and the extreme right terrorist attack in Norway four years ago, the attackers in Paris sought to split our societies. The ideologies of the violent Islamist movements of our time, and the emerging extreme right in Europe, are very much alike. They feed on each other’s world views, in which conflict is inevitable. They want our reactions to their attacks to be brutal, so that they can say that they were right. We must not grant them that. Often, we respond to terrorism by stating that we are not afraid. I often wonder if that is really true. I can only speak for myself, but I have to admit that at times I am very much afraid. I worry. I look over my shoulder in public areas. I think we should admit that we are not only afraid, but outraged.

      Good friends of mine were at Utøya in Norway four years ago. Most of them survived. They were victims of hideous violence. I wish that I was able to say that I can forgive the terrorist, but I cannot; in all honesty, I think that I will always hate him, and I wish him no good. That is why we practise the rule of law. We do not practise the rule of law because we are such good people – always empathetic, always rational. On the contrary, we do so because we could all let our rage guide our actions if someone close to us was harmed. That is the best case that we can make for the rule of law. To be angered or frightened is very natural, but those feelings would make a terrible political compass.

      Rule of law protects the wrongdoers because the alternative is barbarism and injustice. We must remember that now, when we are enraged and afraid. We must keep that in mind as new proposals to introduce massive surveillance are discussed and when we measure our response; I therefore disagree wholeheartedly with the representative from Armenia, Ms Hovhannisyan. We should keep that in mind when someone tries to tell us that these acts of violence are some kind of war, or a result of a clash of civilisations; that is the terrorists’ narrative. We must keep cool heads and warm hearts. That is a way of responding that is also in the spirit of Charlie Hebdo.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.

      Mr CHISU (Canada) – Thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity to speak about the terrorist attacks in Paris. I also thank the rapporteur for his work on this subject. Earlier this month, innocent people were killed, and the values embodied by the Council of Europe were attacked – values that Canada shares. The Parliament of Canada also came under terrorist attack on 22 October last year.

      These events force us to examine, once again, the counter-terrorism measures implemented in Council of Europe member States, at European level as well as internationally. Measures taken to counter terrorism at different levels challenge the delicate balance that must exist between security and respect for fundamental rights. The security and defence of citizens of Council of Europe member States is highly important, but policies put in place to meet that end must respect the values on which the Council of Europe is based, such as respect for fundamental rights.

      It is important to acknowledge that the protection and surveillance measures implemented so far were not able to prevent the recent terrorist attacks. Ongoing threats have led Council of Europe member States and European Union institutions to re-evaluate their internal security policies. The Paris attacks add pressure to this re-evaluation process, at a time when the European Union is working on a new strategy that would build on the 2010 to 2014 European Union internal security strategy. A sound European Union internal security strategy is crucial because it would facilitate co-operation among member States and ensure a systematic approach to these issues. There is also a need to re-evaluate international security agreements.

      It is important to recall that the European Union has signed bilateral passenger name record agreements with Canada, as well as with the United States and Australia. Passenger name record – PNR – data are information collected by an airline at the time of a passenger’s reservation. Law enforcement authorities can use PNR data to fight crime and terrorism. However, because the use of PNR data for law enforcement purposes involves the processing of personal data, it raises some concerns regarding the respect for fundamental rights. I invite Council of Europe member States to continue participating in the discussion regarding the establishment of a European PNR framework that would apply inside the European Union. Should they decide to go in that direction, this European PNR framework would face the challenge of taking into account terrorist threats while respecting fundamental rights. To conclude, I emphasise that co-operation on this issue between Council of Europe member States and Canada should be a priority, based on the PNR agreement between the European Union and Canada.

      Mr LE BORGN' (France)* – On 7, 8 and 9 January, 17 people lost their lives in Paris. They were victims of terrorist attacks that shocked the world. They died because they embodied freedom of expression, and showed fearlessness. Through their work, and their passion as journalists and cartoonists, they showed that we can laugh at anything. Others died because they were Jewish. They were killed in cold blood as a result of their faith, a few hours from the Sabbath in a Jewish supermarket. Others died carrying out their duty admirably; they were ensuring order and citizens’ safety and security in public.

      Obscurantism, fanaticism and hatred caused this outrage. Muslims, who in their thousands expressed solidarity with the victims through words and deeds, and solidarity with the national community, to which they fully belong, did not cause this. The attack was on democracy, liberty, pluralism, tolerance, and the right to believe in the God of one’s choice, or in no God. We in the Council of Europe should rally around these rights, which are so well expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is those rights that the murderers wanted to shoot down – in vain, because the reaction in Europe and across the world was instantaneous, overwhelming and comforting. “Je suis Charlie” was said throughout France and elsewhere.

      There have never been so many people taking to the streets to confirm the democratic society to which they feel strongly attached, and the right to communicate, blame, make fun of and even blaspheme. That is freedom of expression, which should be protected, but exercised responsibly. Only a judge can decide whether that freedom has been abused and whether there has been incitement to hatred or violence. In Charlie Hebdo there was neither hatred nor violence. Nothing whatever can justify terrorism or anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not an opinion; it is a crime.

      At a time when we are marking the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and hearing once again about the horrors of the Shoah, how can it be possible for a Jew in France to live in fear? Have we lost all sense and forgotten history? Are we not being completely stupid if there is anti-Semitism? We need to combat jihadism and the brainwashing carried out on social networks, which causes radicalisation against a backdrop of social exclusion, failure at school and even segregation.

A democracy is strong only if it can defend itself. Let us defend ourselves and ensure that the security forces and intelligence services are given the legal and budgetary means to act. Let us defend ourselves by fighting together on the European level, by underlining the law relating to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, and by protecting law and liberties. Let us also be ourselves through engaging in dialogue, sharing our culture and ideas, and reaching out to young people. Education is as important as ever.

Ms SCHOU (Norway) – The horrible terrorist attacks in France earlier this month shocked us all. Words fail to express our emotion when faced with such acts of terror. My deepest sympathies and solidarity are with the victims’ families and the French people.

Those events were an attack on the core values of the Council of Europe and on the basic elements of human rights and democracy, including, first and foremost, the right to life, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, to mention but a few.

Unfortunately, what happened is not unique in today’s Europe. Four years ago, my own country experienced the horror of terror and mass murder by an extremist who claimed to be fighting against Islamism. Although the two events had different ideological motivations, they are both an example of the threats our societies face from extremism and radicalisation. How we respond will be crucial for our democratic future.

Xenophobia, racism and nationalist extremism require a resolute response from all, regardless of political divisions. We shall not let violent threats and weapons change our freedom of thought and democratic values. We must not let fear, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or hatred eat up the values that define us: freedom of expression, tolerance and mutual respect.

Extremism feeds on poverty and discontent and on groups who feel that they have been set aside. In Europe today, too many people feel that they have been set aside for economic, religious or ethnic reasons, and that creates anger. If we want a better future for our children, we need to concentrate our energy on reducing the number of people who feel that they have been set aside. It is our duty to actively create a sense of belonging for all individuals in our countries.

On Monday, we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Nazi death camps in the Second World War. If we can learn anything from the history of 70, 75 or 80 years ago, it should be how terrible things can get when too many people close their eyes to a growing catastrophe. We again face difficult times and we are being tested. It is clear that we cannot afford to close our eyes again.

As parliamentarians, we must lead. It is our responsibility to promote freedom of expression and to stand up for tolerance among people. Whatever our opinions or religious beliefs, we must stand strong and call on all citizens to defend together the values we cherish. They have never been more important.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – The destruction of Armenian Christian churches in Aleppo, Kessab and Deir ez-Zor was committed by similar people to those who killed Charlie Hebdo journalists in the centre of Paris. The same hands are cruelly beheading people with peaceful professions in the deserts. At first glance, it may seem that terrorism has moved its focus from political, economic and military problems to a religious war between Muslims and Christians, but that is a deceptive impression. There is no war of civilisations.

I do not want to speak about the past but about the steps we must take today and tomorrow to defend our values and traditions. Although we may not feel the need to discuss those truths because they are so simple and comprehensible, they are under attack every day and we are not learning the moral of the story.

A few days ago marked the 25th year since the massacre of Armenians in Baku. It was a terrorist act organised at State level and committed in the most cruel and inhuman way. The acting Government of Azerbaijan did not offer a single word of condemnation or repentance for the murders, which are not covered by a statute of limitation. The streets of Baku were flooded with blood and the events were narrated in a book by the Azerbaijani novelist, Akram Aylisi. In response, his books were burned in Baku and he was declared a traitor. That is not surprising, because State terrorism in Baku remains the axis of its relations with its neighbours.

The Armenophobia preached by Baku officials and the daily threats of war against Armenia are nothing but political terrorism against the people. The drastic growth of Baku’s military budget and its acquisition of offensive weapons are nothing but military terrorism. If the daily violation of the cease-fire and the recent escalation of the situation on the border, which could turn into a war, are not forms of terrorism, what are they? I say this with deep pain in my heart, because young people aged between 18 and 20 from both Armenia and Azerbaijan are being killed.

We are defending our homeland, but what are our neighbours defending – peace and stability in the region? Is it right for them to declare Armenia and Armenians as enemy No. 1 because they want to blame all inter-political problems on the existence of an external enemy?

We must wake up. History proves that when problems are resolved by wars, murder and terrorism, it is not long before the next war, murder or terrorist act. If we want to get rid of this evil, we have to understand that terrorism and victimhood do not belong to a particular side. The shots of terrorism are targeted against all of us, irrespective of nationality, age, gender or religion.

Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – Today we face unprecedented activity from terrorist groups. The Paris tragedy shocked the whole civilised world. Nothing can justify killing people. This disease – be it in Africa, Europe, Australia or the Americas – touches every corner of the world. The international community has to combine its efforts to create a united front against terrorism.

We Armenians have suffered from acts of terrorism and continue to do so. At the beginning of the 20th century, Armenians were expelled by the Ottoman Government from our native land. People were killed, tortured and left to die in Syrian deserts. The few who survived built churches and schools, and after 100 years, the descendants of those who survived the Armenian genocide have become the targets of terrorist groups.

The international community was horrified by the recent barbaric destruction of the Holy Martyrs Church in Deir ez-Zor and the Armenian Catholic Cathedral in Aleppo. Islamic terrorist groups targeted Christian and other minorities. Armenia contributes to NATO and the United Nations-led peacekeeping operations that are trying to keep the peace not only in the region but elsewhere in the world. In contrast, Azerbaijan has adopted tactics used by terrorist groups. I will give a vivid example of its terroristic behaviour. An ordinary Armenian villager, Karen Petrosyan, mistakenly wandered into Azerbaijan’s territory. He was arrested and humiliated in front of cameras – a tactic used only by terrorist organisations. The next day, he was found dead. There is also the case of the murderer Safarov, who was glorified in Azerbaijan for killing his sleeping Armenian classmate.

      Baku is not only ignoring the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and the international community, which has asked it not to use force and to implement confidence-building measures, but is doing the opposite. It bears full responsibility for the escalation of the situation. Azerbaijan has become a serious threat to the security and stability of not only the South Caucasus, but the wider region. It is high time for us to put aside our differences and hit terrorism with a strong fist.

      Mr ROMANOVICH (Russian Federation)* – First, allow me to express the condolences of the Russian delegation to our colleagues from the French delegation on the loss of lives in the attack against the magazine Charlie Hebdo. We would also like to express our condolences to the Jewish community in France, which was also the victim of the terrorist attack.

      The attack against Charlie Hebdo was similar to the attacks against the Twin Towers in New York, the Beslan school, the London Tube, the Madrid train station and other places in other countries. However, we must separate it from the issue of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression. It was a terrorist attack, and we must focus on condemning terrorism and its causes. That issue is linked to the North-South divide and the aspirations of certain countries – in particular, the wish of the United States to control the oil and gas reserves of the Middle East – which are often concealed beneath religious and cultural issues. However, countries in the Middle East have been forced to submit, and phantom regimes have been established in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. Perhaps one will be established in Iran in the future.

      In Europe, Ukraine must be added to that list. It is a country with a different culture and history, but the Sloviansk region contains the largest gas and shale reserves in the area. The United States used the same methods to intervene in a country of another culture and another history, where they had the same tragic results: chaos, civil war and thousands of victims. Jihadists and terrorists see no differences between countries, so the civilised world must present a united front against terrorism.

      Mr SHAHGELDYAN (Armenia)* – I express our deepest condolences to the French people. The despicable terrorist attack in Paris claimed the lives of 17 people who died defending the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of thought. It was an attack on France, its institutions and its values. It affected not only France but the entire international community, because it was an attack on our universal values. Armenia condemns all terrorist attacks in the strongest terms, and it shares the emotion and the strength of feeling in France. Armenia and the international community are calling for more efforts to be taken to combat terrorism.

      We were all shocked by the terrorist attack a few weeks ago, but it was not the first of its kind. It is vital that efforts are taken to prevent, as far as possible, similar attacks from occurring in the future. The time has come for us to ask the right questions and listen to the right, but difficult, answers. Have we done enough to ensure a better present and future? Have we responded as we should to prevent terrorism, and should we do more? Are values experienced and perceived in the same way in every corner of the world? Can multiculturalism, universalism and liberty justify the aim that is sought? That list of questions is not exhaustive, but it must trigger discussions and thoughts on this matter. We will not be able to come up with a solution straight away, but we must address the current problems.

      The Paris attack should be a wake-up call. An alarm bell has sounded, and we must carry out the right assessments. What can we do to combat terrorism? Our response should be strong and collective. The Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly have key responsibilities in this struggle. Liberty is the foundation of the republican regime. Freedom is the foundation of the future of our democracy. At the same time, freedom should be secured and defended. We must be strong and do everything we can to defend freedom.

      (Mr Wach, Vice President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur)

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – First, I express my condolences to the French people and the world. Searching for the causes of terrorism may seem simultaneously difficult and simple. One person may see what happened in Paris as an act of violence against freedom of speech and expression. Another may consider it a terrorist act caused by disrespect towards fundamentalist Islam. Another may see it as punishment of the publishers. The most dangerous view is to see it as the beginning of a hidden, dangerous clash between religions.

      We all know that the act of murdering humans called “terrorism” has nothing to do with any religion. Terrorism is a weapon against civilisation. It resonates when the power over information is in the hands of people who spread information and images about terrorism. That is why terrorists and their political and financial backers know that it is important to control the media and information technology. People are used to a constructed virtual world. They have no time for a direct and personal approach. Sometimes we think that that world is our personal perception but in reality it has been formed somewhere by other people. We follow that automatically.

      We need to strengthen media and other information technologies in democratic countries to help to construct an objective reality. This concerns not only terrorism but other processes going on in the world generally. It is our duty to strengthen mass media and information technologies in our countries. That is one way to have a personal approach and not be under the influence of such information processes.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Following the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices and the Jewish supermarket in Paris, the British Parliament expressed its condolences and solidarity with the people of France. I am certain that the United Kingdom delegation here today would expect me, as the first British speaker in the debate, to reaffirm those condolences and place our sorrow on the record.

      I congratulate the rapporteur on the report. However, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group, I shall at the appropriate time move a sub-amendment to Amendment 3. I shall also be supporting Amendment 4. Both those measures seek to remove the words “radical Islamism” from the report.

      I am a Christian. I have a profound respect for Islam and I do not believe, and those who think like me do not believe, that these attacks had anything to do with Islam or the Muslim faith. They were perpetrated by people whose commitment was to political murder only. It would be wrong for us in any way, shape or form to seek to glorify or justify those acts in the name of any faith whatever.

      Nor must we allow the hard right to hijack the situation in the name of anti-multiculturalism. It is to our shame that the part-time Member of the European Parliament who leads the racist right in the UK, within minutes of the attack, was condemning the circumstances, blaming those actions on a fifth column and seeking to undo 2 000 years of proud history of multiculturalism in our country.

      Again, we must not give the perpetrators of those actions the satisfaction of believing that they can in any way, shape or form influence the freedom and tolerance that we all hold so dear. As you know, Mr President, I am the chairman of the Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society. The pencil has become the symbol of freedom of speech. It is mightier than the sword, the scimitar and the Kalashnikov. It is up to us to ensure it remains so.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia)* – I am pleased to take part in a debate and to read a report of this calibre. Je suis Charlie, of course. There is no reason to go through the reasons why je suis Charlie. I feel European. I am defined as European. Everyone who is European in this Chamber would say the same. Unfortunately, some reactions to this terrorist act and tragedy, which had so many victims, show that some people do not agree with je suis Charlie. I was expecting European politicians and prominent people to express solidarity.

      There is an unfortunate trend, including in Georgia. The day after the attacks, some people said that the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo were an act of blasphemy – that although terrorism and killing could not be justified, those people had no right to publish those cartoons. That is disturbing because we are here to defend freedom of speech. Something might be offensive or shocking, but we must have freedom of speech. That is what Europe is about. The reaction showed that not just French but other Europeans, Americans and Canadians share that message and say no to any threat to freedom of speech. That was a step forward and affirmation of democracy in Europe.

      Unfortunately, some politicians were keen to point the finger not at the enemy, but at multiculturalism, which is not good. This appalling ideology is based not on Islam, but on Islamism, and it is designed to kill. We must find the resources to resist that. I wonder whether we are prepared to confront that ideology, which is sophisticated. Do we have enough means to fight terrorism? Have we not almost said that it is not legitimate to fight terrorism? That plays into the hands of people who are spreading that ideology throughout Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – On behalf of the Moroccan delegation, I present my condolences to the French delegation and the French people. We should not fall into the trap of terrorists, extremists and their logic. It is not about a war of religion or civilisation. It is not a confrontation between Islam and secularism, the East and the West. It is about the difference between civilisation and barbarians. It is about a war against extremism and terrorism. These terrorist attacks make no distinctions. They have happened in Paris and in several Muslim countries – even in mosques. Terrorist groups have also threatened political officials in Morocco: ministers, parliamentarians and other public figures.

      The Muslim world – Muslims and the religious authorities – have clearly condemned these attacks. They have said loud and clear that terrorists do not represent Islam. A billion and a half Muslims do not consider that these groups can speak on their behalf or on behalf of the Prophet. The Prophet, in his life, would never have behaved in this way, although he was harassed and criticised in his time. Many of the critical comments against the Prophet were rebutted subsequently through argument based on reasoning.

Of course, these acts cannot be justified. We need to be firm and unanimous in condemning them.

We must not forget that these terrorist ideologies have proliferated in a context of civil war and instability in several States in the region. The international community needs to face up to its responsibility in solving this conflict, to bring about stability in the region. We also need to emphasise the nature of these groups, which are different entities and cells, separate from each other. This is a transcontinental and transnational phenomenon – people who operate far from mosques and who operate mainly on the Internet or through their own individual relations.

We also need to find a balance. We need co-operation between the relevant security agencies, we need to promote a culture of living together, interreligious and intercultural dialogue – the alliance of civilisations – and we need, first and foremost, to promote a culture of mutual respect and understanding. We also need to apply more imagination to reconcile freedom of expression and respect for the faith of different groups. We think this reconciliation is possible.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Wach.)

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Above all, I reject the speeches of my Armenian colleagues, which are full of deceptions. Unfortunately, this has become a way of thinking and a philosophy of living.

      Terror is negative in all its manifestations. Thus it regards its targets as always deserving hatred and, in essence, takes no account of how big or small its targets are in respect of its scale and destructive consequences. A terrorist act perpetrated 20 years ago in the Baku underground that scored the most horrible world record, with more than 600 victims who were innocent civilians, and the terrorist attack leading to the murder of 12 persons in the editorial office of the journal Charlie Hebdo in the French capital are in principle the same tragedies. Each terrorist act is another plot against humanity, so all representatives of mankind who think normally should demonstrate solidarity in combating terrorism, thus jointly raising their voices.

Perhaps Azerbaijan feels the bitterness and horror of terror more closely than other Council of Europe member states, given how we are situated vis-à-vis terrorism implemented at State level by Armenia for nearly 30 years.

Nevertheless, other nuances of the Paris terror attack require serious analysis. What is the motivation of the crime? The border between moral terror and armed terror is transparent, so their pursuit of each other is natural. However, when you study the situation closely you realise that contradictions are not generated from inside society, but transmitted to society. Sometimes it appears that a proposal and an instigating idea are dispatched from some invisible and mysterious centre, as if that evil power who controls the situation creates the quarrel – instigates it – on both sides, leading to a radical polarisation of the world, enlarging and deepening the scope of confrontation.

The Charlie Hebdo issue that was published after the terrorist attack was printed in an edition of 5 million copies in six languages. On the front page of that journal is a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed, weeping and holding in his hands a poster saying, “I am Charlie”. Dear colleagues, what do you think is the meaning of this? Is it a next effort at insulting the self-esteem of the Muslim world, or a provocation of some religious zealots to perpetrate new terrorist attacks against such insults, or a triumph of freedom of expression?

Calling for the punishment of the terrorists who perpetrated the Paris tragedy, without any mercy in any place in the world and at any time is a moral duty for everybody. Nevertheless, all of us should demonstrate solidarity regarding the immediate eradication of such wicked voices, and states, that instigate such things to further complicate the reasons, the impetus and the excuse for terror. The only way to defeat that evil and Satan is our unity in this struggle.

Ms KRONLID (Sweden) – The recent terrorist attacks in Paris against Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish food market shocked us all to the core. I express my sympathy and condolences to all those affected by these atrocious acts.

These crimes were directed against our central values here in the Council of Europe: freedom, democracy and human rights. The attack against the Jewish food market, in addition, illustrates a highly worrisome rise in anti-Semitism, a phenomenon that we must combat with the utmost resolution.

Nor are these barbarities the first in recent times in Europe. We all remember the tragic events in London and Madrid, to mention just a few. Indeed, a mass killing in Stockholm before Christmas four years ago was only narrowly avoided when the suicide bomber blew only himself up by accident, on his way to a nearby crowd of people in the city centre.

A deeply troubling development is under way in Europe, in which extremist groups are formed and people can travel freely to Syria where they join the Islamic State or other terrorist militias, with many subsequently returning to Europe, where they may soon engage in various terrorist acts.

My own party, the Sweden Democrats, have long warned of this alarming trend. It is, alas, only now that other parties are waking up and only now that our long-standing request to make it a crime to join terrorist militias abroad is being considered in earnest, in my own and other European countries and at European Union level.

It is of the utmost importance that we in the Council of Europe stand united in our condemnation of terrorism, and that we take urgent joint action to prevent the travelling, training and return of would-be, foreign-trained terrorist fighters. We have to do this, not only to protect our common security and the values we hold dear, but also to contribute to long-sought peace in the Middle East, which is tormented by war, where the humanitarian situation is worsening daily for thousands of refugees, and where thousands more have already perished – among them many Christians. I also know many Muslims who are highly critical of the Islamic State and acts of terrorism and who are worried about their security in Europe today, as are many Christians who have had to leave the Middle East.

Now is the moment for new, determined joint action to defend our fundamental freedoms, values and principles, and to combat terrorism and all forms of extremism with all our might. I welcome the important resolution, “together for a democratic response”.

THE PRESIDENT – I remind members that the vote is open to elect the European Court of Human Rights judge for Serbia, in a second round of voting. Will members who have not yet voted please do so, behind the President’s chair?

I call Ms El Ouafi from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco)* – I should like to share some thoughts with you about this barbaric act which befell our dear France. I speak as a Moroccan who has lived in Italy for 18 years. I also had the honour of doing my higher education in the Sorbonne in Paris. Of course, we condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Nothing can justify these acts of terrorism. Our condemnation is impervious to any kind of religious cover. This attack targeted the cohesiveness of French and European society. It was designed to sow discord and distrust between the various components of society.

      The answer is solidarity, cohesion and fighting terrorism in any shape or form. We must work together to eradicate anything that funds terrorism. We need members of parliament to show solidarity in rejecting any association between terrorism and Islam. As a Muslim, I am reassured that fighting terrorism also means working on the root causes in society that have produced this monster. We need to consider the marginalisation and segregation suffered by our young people, our sons and daughters, who are part of the second generation. They were born here and are European. Our policies should be designed to protect them from this outrageous ideology of death, which has nothing to do with the essential values of Islam – peace, tolerance and freedom.

      The Paris attacks were a terrible shock. We are convinced that the France of the enlightenment and of fraternity will have the political intelligence to provide answers to the true social questions that have arisen, because this pseudo-fundamentalism is something against which all democrats must fight. We must learn the lessons and look at any shortcomings we have had. I am afraid that there will be much more fear, distrust and stigmatisation of European Muslims and that everyone will be cast in the same light. We Muslims are the first victims of Islamist terrorism. It is not Islam that produced these terrorists, but the discordant gulf in society.

      I will conclude with the words of Spinoza: “Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand.” We need to understand, because only then can we react the right way.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Ameur from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr AMEUR (Morocco)* – Allow me to express our solidarity with our French friends. Many Moroccans have demonstrated, as have many in other Muslim countries, to express their solidarity with the French people and to speak out against these modern barbarians. The tragic events in Paris remind us once again that we face a global and blind terrorist threat that is constantly spreading. The exceptional mobilisation in France and around the world to speak out against these barbaric events and support freedom of expression and democratic values is an historic turning point in the fight against this phenomenon.

      The attacks in Paris remind us that a global threat requires a global response. Co-operation and solidarity between countries and peoples are vital. We must recognise that the attacks highlight the deficiencies in prevention and in counter-terrorism at the level of nation States and of the international community. It is unacceptable that security co-operation is still inconsistent and insufficiently co-ordinated, given that the terrorist groups, despite their profound discrepancies, agree on common objectives.

      The international community is still arguing about how to manage certain regional conflicts, and these disagreements are often exploited by terrorist groups. I am thinking of the appalling management of the Syrian conflict. I am also thinking of other countries, such as Nigeria, where Boko Haram has committed atrocities unprecedented in the history of mankind, or the chaos in Libya and Yemen, which have become refuges for jihadists.

      The fight against terrorism calls for a twofold strategy: first, at the domestic level, its causes must be urgently addressed; and secondly, at the global level, we need genuine international solidarity and a relentless will for more visibility and consistency in conflict management, because terrorism feeds on indecision and hesitation on the part of the international community. That is the approach we need in order to come up with appropriate responses to this modern-day barbarity.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Sabella from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – How do we go forward, and what role is there for the Council of Europe? The terrorist attacks in Paris evoke sadness, shock and disbelief, which we all share. The question is this: how do we tackle the causes and repercussions of these and similar attacks? Some might stress the need for more co-ordination on security issues. Others might opt for education, for greater understanding of the other. Others still will point to the need to address the iniquities and disparities that exist within and across our societies. Yet when we look at young people across our different societies, we see that they have special needs, such as opportunities for work, creativity and, most importantly, the creation of an identity that is linked not to one narrow community, but to society as a whole. We cannot afford to allow our young people, irrespective of religion or ethnic and national background, to remain on the side, marginalised or even alienated from what is going on around them, but at the same time finding solace in cyber-connections that promise identity and even salvation through this or that mythical justification.

      We are challenged both here in Europe and in the southern Mediterranean to find ways of confronting our joint concerns to create societies that share universal values of respect for each other through adherence to freedom, democratic principles and basic human rights. We should honour those brave people killed and injured at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket by thinking of practical ways of coming together. The mass rally in Paris, led by President Hollande, and in which President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine participated, alongside other world leaders and hundreds of thousands of people, emphasised the need to come together. The way forward is through mapping a strategy that aims to address the root causes of the problem and coming up with solutions that reach out to all segments of society, but particularly young people.

      The Council of Europe, with its Parliamentary Assembly and Partnership for Democracy, has a crucial role to play in coming up with such a strategy and implementing it. Let our goal be for the future of youth to be a future of hope, away from indoctrination, exclusivity and lethal narrow identifications. Let us all face up to our responsibilities and not fall apart because of our differences.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Al-Astal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Ms AL-ASTAL (Palestine) – In the name of the Palestinian people and on behalf of the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestinian Authority, I express solidarity with the French people and French delegates and convey sympathy to the families and victims.

The terrorist attacks and such crimes under the pretext of Islam outrage world conscience and have nothing to do with Islam and real Muslim people. The horrible attack showed that extremism is not just a problem for the Middle East but for Europe and the whole world. So, what are the important questions? What is the root of the problem and how best can we challenge and treat it? What happened in France was committed by French nationals but was inspired and rooted outside French borders in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and other Arab countries.

I advocate tolerance among all religions and faiths, and dialogue is very important. I believe that the separation of religion and the State, peaceful co-existence and non-interference in other countries are important in avoiding such attacks. As Palestinians, we respect universal values and the declaration of human rights, democracy, the rule of law and freedom. Respecting the right of our people to independence and to have our own State based on the 1967 borders would cut out all the ways in which extremists use our situation as a reason for such attacks. Thank you for listening, and I hope that these attacks will finish and that the world can live in peace.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Bensaid from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr BENSAID (Morocco)* – I pay tribute to all victims of terrorism, wherever they are. Crimes perpetrated on the basis of hate have no excuse. Unfortunately, in 2015 we have already been scarred by barbaric acts throughout the planet, in Paris, in Belgium, in Syria and in Iraq. That reminds us that terrorism is everywhere. Everyone must ask what democracy’s answer should be. What can we do to ensure that universal values are upheld? The world needs to react, because hotbeds of terrorism are multiplying and any citizen might suddenly be subjected to it. There has been no contact with groups or organised cells in some cases, so what can we do if someone is a fanatic, intent on dying? Terrorism is not just about violence and war and it can often have a harmful effect if we overreact. The war in Afghanistan is an example of that. If we clamp down, that can regenerate or perpetuate terrorism.

In the face of fanaticism, society must work on the root causes. We do not want grandstanding; we must consider our role as the elected representatives of the people. Terrorism today sometimes comes out of religious fanaticism born from despair, poverty, ignorance and hate of others. Those are all hotbeds of terrorism throughout the world. We need to stop this machine of hate from affecting our children.

The opposite of terrorism is humanity, which brings us together without distinction of race, belief or colour. We need to free the world from terrorism and fanaticism and to free ourselves from stigmatisation and putting people in ghettoes, from tyranny and tribalism and from anything that tends to exclude others and lead them to fester in hate. As the Koran says, when someone kills one person, it is as if they were killing all humanity and when someone gives life, it is as if they were giving life to all humanity.

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium)* – The Paris attacks did not only target journalists working for Charlie Hebdo. They also targeted Jewish people. Let us not forget that before the Paris attacks, there were the killings in Toulouse that targeted Jewish children and the attacks in Brussels that targeted the Jewish museum and killed four victims. Mr McNamara is no longer in the chamber, but he was a little too optimistic to say that there was no revival of anti-Semitism in France. I do not believe that. I believe that there is such a revival in France and in Belgium, so much so that Jewish people feel threatened.

In Belgium last year, there were 102 anti-Semitic incidents, an increase of 60%. Let me give you a few examples. A doctor – I say this because I am a doctor – refused to give care to a 90-year-old patient simply because she was Jewish. That was the most serious anti-Semitic act of the last year. Many Jewish people have police protection. In some areas of Brussels, you cannot walk wearing a kippah. You can wear a Christian cross or Islamic garb, but you cannot wear a Jewish kippah or you might be insulted. In schools, the situation is critical. In one school, the very last Jewish child had to leave as the result of pressure.

Brussels is, of course, the capital of Europe, and there are three Jewish schools in Brussels. One had to move as a result of pressure from the neighbours and Jewish children have been told to remove their kippah as they leave the school and not to go to the closest metro station but to walk to one further away that is seen as less dangerous. In France, as in other countries, the Shoah is part of the curriculum, but it is no longer taught as it causes hostile reactions.

I could give you many other examples. The day before yesterday, when we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Russian troops, in Brussels a European memorial to those events was desecrated. We must all be aware that history can be repeated in different forms – things do not always happen in exactly the same way. Today, the physical safety and security of Jewish people is under threat in a large number of countries in Europe, including, unfortunately, my country, Belgium. Let us not deny this new anti-Semitism; let us combat it, not just with words but with actions. Each and every one of us should be able to live together, including those in the Jewish community.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – I am sorry, Madam President, that I was not in the Chamber earlier. I congratulate Mr Legendre on his excellent report.

      I begin with a few words in remembrance of the cartoonists, journalists, police officers and customers of the Jewish supermarket who were attacked by the terrorists. These horrific attacks, which come after similar attacks committed in Canada and Australia, have highlighted for all Europeans the need to find a way to respond to the various forms of jihadist terrorism. In Syria and Iraq, thousands of Europeans and other foreigners are in danger. The French police have discovered an Iranian fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie, the British writer. Such terrorists are the same kind of people who murdered the Charlie Hebdo journalists, and our response must be clear.

      How should we react at European level to the barbaric attacks committed by people who were educated in the values of tolerance while in our schools and societies but who reject and trample on them today? The phenomenon has an endogenous dimension, as well as an exogenous one. We need to fight jihadism in countries where these groups control territory, but we also need to stop them travelling to our countries and committing new attacks. Muslim countries have a role to play, too. The fact that extremism can turn into terrorism with much loss of life is sometimes due to them. We therefore need Muslim communities throughout the world to condemn the attacks in Paris and to reject extremism in general.

      The Internet has become the main tool for spreading extremism and violent radicalisation and for increasing the number of recruits to jihadism. Secularism is an essential feature of free and peaceful countries. We need to support secular States, including Muslim States in Europe – for example, Azerbaijan or Turkey. Despite the threat of terrorist attacks, we must say clearly that European countries will never give in and we will always fight this threat.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – This excellent report covers all the main issues, and I warmly congratulate Mr Legendre. I am proud of the magnificent response of our western countries and our parliaments. As Roger Gale said, there was one-minute silence in our parliament in London. Our press responded well and did not try to incite hatred against the overwhelming mass of Muslims in our country who showed solidarity. The press praised the fact that a Muslim shop assistant helped those Jews hide in that shop, and giving that man immediate French citizenship was a great act by President Hollande.

      We must all say, “Je suis Charlie” to show our solidarity and to express our condolences to those who suffered and the relatives of those who were killed, but I would follow our Belgian colleague in saying – I do so as a Welsh Protestant Christian – “Je suis Juif”. Now is the time to show solidarity with our Jewish colleagues, when anti-Semitism is increasing in Belgium and throughout Europe but perhaps less so in the United Kingdom, when we are reminded of the 70thth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Soviet army – yes, the Soviet army – when I see pictures of Auschwitz on television and when I go to Yad Vashem and see the choir of young people singing in Poland in the mid-1930s and realise that most of them were killed. I unashamedly weep at the thought of those young children being killed in our Europe.

      We should battle strongly not only against any form of press restriction, except in the key defined areas, but against any form of anti-Semitism. The first role of the State is, of course, the security of its citizens, but that security must be broadly defined in terms not just of armies and intelligence services, but of living together. We must keep up our guard, but we must also hold out the hand friendship to all our minority communities, including, of course, our Muslim community.

      Ms ROSEIRA (Portugal)* – This is a time for condolences and remembering the victims, but also a time to reject and condemn terrorism. There is a time for emotion and a time for feeling, but there is also a time for reason, so that we understand the geopolitical situation and the fact that terrorists want to attack our values, the way that we live together and our dearly fought for freedoms. We must never make their lives easier. We must never give in to them.

      Terrorism is a complex phenomenon, so the response must be complex and not immediate. We cannot fight attacks on our fundamental values, such as freedom of the press, with actions that would jeopardise other fundamental freedoms that are so dear to us. So there is a time to condemn and a time to take firm, intelligent, rational and effective action, while fully respecting the values of our society, which cannot be called into question.

      Yesterday, we remembered Auschwitz. We considered the fact that intolerance, a lack of respect for others and evil can become commonplace. Yes, this attack targeted Paris, but it also affected all our countries: we were all French and we all condemn the attack together. We need to act together to fight terrorism, but we must do so while respecting the Council of Europe’s values and human rights. We must never forget what Victor Hugo said: “Neither despotism nor terrorism. We want…progress.”

      THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the speaker’s list. I call Mr Legendre, the rapporteur, to reply. You have eight minutes.

      Mr LEGENDRE (France)* – I thank the representatives of the political groups who, in perfect harmony, all condemned terrorism and said that we would never give in to it. I thank them for their kind words about my report. That it has been endorsed by the representatives of the various groups is testimony to the fact that during my difficult task of reacting to such appalling acts, I tried to show moderation in the report and strike the right balance. The balance lay in a clear condemnation of the guilty parties – the murderers and those who instigated the murders. They have names and have claimed responsibility – Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State – and that is clear.

      We also had a problem with the fact that the murderers said that they were acting in the name of Islam. How can one judge that? Our friends from Palestine and Morocco – I thank them for this because I thought it was very moving – clearly reminded us that Islam has nothing to do with such an attitude; there is nothing in common. The vast majority of Muslims would not recognise any justification of those acts used by the perpetrators. I therefore tried not to use the words “radical Islamism” too often in the report because that might have suggested that I was confusing Islam with a radical extremist version of the religion. That would have been wrong and unfair to our Muslim compatriots, and could have fed Islamophobia, which of course we must avoid.

      We must, however, call a spade a spade, and we must also consider the root causes of what drove three young men who were born in France and came from communities from North Africa and Mali, to commit those acts. That is why, after denouncing what they did, we felt that we had to call for careful reflection on those root causes, including possible social and cultural causes. We were very sensitive to what a sociologist said in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy when they recalled to us that often these are poor communities with a low cultural level, and our various States must provide some kind of response to that. In our social and cultural responses we must, of course, promote the culture of living together, which Ms Durrieu and other speakers so rightly mentioned, and we must also take security measures.

      I have taken note of what our colleague, Mr Chisu, said on behalf of Canada about the passenger name record, and we want to ask the European Parliament to revisit its position and accept the implementation of a PNR system, which could prove effective. We know that it is not only through police measures that we can protect ourselves; we also need to focus on the resources that our police forces and our intelligence agencies have to protect our citizens.

      Another point made by several speakers concerned the limits to freedom of expression. We have referred to blasphemy and to the suffering that a number of believers might have experienced at what they felt was a direct attack or serious mockery of their deepest beliefs. I have attempted to state in my report that it is up to the law, and that the limits to freedom of expression are when someone expresses hatred of other people’s values. Any incitement to hatred needs to be fought against, and freedom of expression needs to stop when it jeopardises the lives of others. We must think about that, including about the level of media coverage of the tragic events we have experienced.

      I would like to respond to more of my colleagues, but in conclusion I am sorry that Mr Huseynov, referred to an invisible and mysterious centre behind the publication of 5 million copies of Charlie Hebdo. In many of our countries people have come together, but that is not due to an invisible or mysterious centre – I think we should fight that conspiracy theory. The phenomenon was the result of the indignation that people felt. Like millions of other people, I also demonstrated in France to say that we stand for freedom of expression and respect for all religions. We intend to ensure respect for those values, even if – this is my experience – I have occasionally been shocked by certain cartoons in Charlie Hebdo that were not in line with my own political sensitivity. Respect for freedom and for the words we give to others needs to unite us at the Council of Europe now more than ever.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Legendre, for your excellent report, and for your presentation and reply to the debate. Does the vice-chair of the committee wish to take the floor? I congratulate you, Ms Khidasheli, on your nomination as the new vice-chair.

      Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – This has been a truly great debate that we can all be proud of. We have showed a united front against terrorism and aggression, and the debate has unified all member States and political groups. That is very important in these difficult times for Europe, when so many threats and challenges lie ahead. Our fight for freedom, freedom of the press and freedom of expression should not be overshadowed by any acts of terror, and that has been said clearly by most members of the Assembly.

      I cannot agree with more, or express better, the point made by Ms Durrieu when she identified the two most important issues in the debate: freedom of expression and living together. Those are the two most crucial pillars for us all to stand united behind and for which to fight together. We should put no buts or conditions on our core values, and that is what the report is about. I join all those who have thanked the rapporteur for putting everything that matters to Europe and to the Council of Europe so perfectly and eloquently in his report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the draft resolution to which four amendments have been tabled. We also have a draft recommendation. The amendments will be examined in the order in which they apply to the draft resolution, as published in the compendium of amendments. I remind members that speaking time on the amendments is limited to 30 seconds.

      We now come to Amendment 3 and the oral sub-amendment. I believe that Mr Destexhe no longer wishes to support Amendment 3. Is that correct?

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium)* – Yes, that is correct, Madam President. The amendment has been withdrawn after the explanations from the rapporteur and our discussion in the committee yesterday.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Therefore we need not examine the amendment, unless somebody wishes to support it. That is not the case. We have received an oral sub-amendment, but that also falls, as we no longer have the amendment.

      We now come to Amendment 1. I call Lord Anderson to support it.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – This amendment should be read with Amendment 2, as it strengthens paragraph 8. It mentions the context of Toulouse, Brussels and the rising tide of anti-Semitism, for which there is no excuse or justification. We should say that clearly in the text.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We have an oral sub-amendment from the committee, to the effect that, in Amendment 1, the words “paragraph 4” should be replaced by the words “paragraph 9”. This is a technical amendment. The sub-amendment is admissible and no one opposes it. Although it is only a technical change, we need to vote on it.

The committee is, of course, in favour.

The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We now come to Amendment 1, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

The committee is in favour, of course.

The vote is open.

      Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

      We now come to Amendment 2. You have referred to it already, Lord Anderson, but I nevertheless give you the floor.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom)* – This is a technical amendment. It has to be read in conjunction with the previous amendment, which has just been adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is in favour, of course.

The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is adopted.

      We now come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Denemeç to support the amendment.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – We would like to replace the phrase “radical Islamism” with “all forms of extremism”. The terrorists use Islam only as a shield for their ideology. They are trying to legitimise themselves, which is why they call themselves “Islamic State”, but it is a terrorist organisation. We have a heavy responsibility to be careful in our choice of words. For that reason, we ask for the amendment to be adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Legendre.

      Mr LEGENDRE (France)* – As I indicated earlier on several occasions I have avoided the term “radical Islamism” and have often replaced it with “jihadism”, but jihadism is one thing – fighting in what you consider to be a holy war. Radical Islamism, which would be a perverted form of Islam, is something different, which is why I think that the term should be used at least once in the draft. That is why I oppose the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13684, as amended.

The vote is open.

      The draft resolution contained in Document 13684, as amended, is adopted, with 133 votes for, 0 against and 5 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13684. The majority required is two thirds of the votes. The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation contained in Document 13684 is adopted, with 124 votes for, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

      My congratulations and many thanks to the rapporteur, as well as to the committee and its secretariat.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – Voting in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Serbia is now suspended until 3.30 p.m. I ask colleagues who have not yet voted to do so this afternoon; it is important that everyone votes.

      The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m., with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

2. Terrorist attacks in Paris: together for a democratic response

Presentation by Mr Legendre of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Doc. 13684

Speakers: Mr Rouquet (France), Mr Mignon (France), Ms Mateu Pi (Andorra), Mr Denemeç (Turkey), Mr Jónasson (Iceland), Mr Cruchten (Luxembourg), Mr Rochebloine (France), Ms Strik (Netherlands), Mr A.K. Türkeş (Turkey), Mr McNamara (Ireland), Ms Stefanelli (San Marino), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Shlegel (Russian Federation), Mr Mahoux (Belgium), Ms A. Hovhannisyan (Armenia), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Reimann (Switzerland), Mr Valen (Norway), Mr Chisu (Canada), Mr Le Borgn' (France), Ms Schou (Norway), Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia), Ms Karapetyan (Armenia), Mr Romanovich (Russian Federation), Mr Shahgeldyan (Armenia), Ms Magradze (Georgia), Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Mr Yatim (Morocco), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Ms Kronlid (Sweden), Ms El Ouafi (Morocco), Mr Ameur (Morocco), Mr Sabella (Palestine), Ms Al-Astal (Palestine), Mr Bensaid (Morocco), Mr Destexhe (Belgium), Mr Agramunt (Spain), Lord Anderson (United Kingdom) and Ms Roseira (Portugal)

Replies: Mr Legendre (France) and Ms Khidasheli (Georgia)

Amendments 1, as amended and 2 adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13684, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Doc. 13684 adopted

3. Next public sitting

Appendix I

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON/ Christine Muttonen

Luise AMTSBERG/Gabriela Heinrich

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE/Chiora Taktakishvili

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Josep Anton Bardina Pau

Doris BARNETT/Annette Groth

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/ Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI/Giuseppe Galati

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY/Robert Neill

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN/Hendrik Daems

Beata BUBLEWICZ

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA/Robert Shlegel

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK/Tineke Strik

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI/Eleonora Cimbro

Fred de GRAAF/Pieter Omtzigt

François GROSDIDIER/Jacques Legendre

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Jordi Xuclà

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Margus HANSON

Alfred HEER/Maximilian Reimann

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Svitlana Zalishchuk

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Guguli Magradze

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Tore Hagebakken

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ

Josip JURATOVIC

Antti KAIKKONEN

Mustafa KARADAYI/Hamid Hamid

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Niklas KARLSSON

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elena KOUNTOURA*

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/Iwona Guzowska

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Serhiy LABAZIUK

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN'

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Philipp MIßFELDER

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Piotr NAIMSKI

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACŞU*

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Killion Munyama

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Waldemar PAWLAK/Marek Borowski

Foteini PIPILI*

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ*

Alexander ROMANOVICH

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV

Indrek SAAR*

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI*

Kimmo SASI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER/Gerhard Pfister

Salvador SEDÓ

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN/Jeffrey Donaldson

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Dalia Kuodytė

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV/Valeri Jablianov

Karin STRENZ

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI

Damien THIÉRY*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS*

Mihai TUDOSE/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Goran TUPONJA

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Olga-Nantia VALAVANI*

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON/Baroness Judith Wilcox

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD

Gisela WURM

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI*

Leonid YEMETS/Pavlo Unguryan

Tobias ZECH

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN/Naira Karapetyan

Levon ZOURABIAN/Mher Shahgeldyan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, France*

Vacant Seat, Republic of Moldova*

Vacant Seat, Republic of Moldova*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’/ Vladimir Gjorchev

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Andrzej JAWORSKI

Michał STULIGROSZ

Ryszard TERLECKI

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Jan RZYMEŁKA

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Corneliu CHISU

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Najat AL-ASTAL

Nurbek ALIMBEKOV

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI

Elmira IMANALIEVA

Bernard SABELLA

Asiya SASYKBAEVA

Mohamed YATIM

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Serbia

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Werner AMON/ Christine Muttonen

Luise AMTSBERG/Gabriela Heinrich

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga

Volodymyr ARIEV

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Josep Anton Bardina Pau

Doris BARNETT/Annette Groth

Deniz BAYKAL

Ondřej BENEŠIK/ Gabriela Pecková

Deborah BERGAMINI/Giuseppe Galati

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Brian BINLEY/Robert Neill

Beata BUBLEWICZ

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA/Robert Shlegel

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Peter van DIJK/Tineke Strik

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Josette DURRIEU

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Fred de GRAAF/Pieter Omtzigt

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Gergely GULYÁS

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Jordi Xuclà

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Margus HANSON

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Svitlana Zalishchuk

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Denis JACQUAT

Frank J. JENSSEN/Tore Hagebakken

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ

Antti KAIKKONEN

Niklas KARLSSON

Tinatin KHIDASHELI

Bogdan KLICH

Igor KOLMAN

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Julia KRONLID

Marek KRZĄKAŁA/Iwona Guzowska

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN'

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA

Philippe MAHOUX

Soňa MARKOVÁ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Piotr NAIMSKI

Zsolt NÉMETH

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Killion Munyama

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Waldemar PAWLAK/Marek Borowski

Cezar Florin PREDA

Mailis REPS

François ROCHEBLOINE

René ROUQUET

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Salvador SEDÓ

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV

Mihai TUDOSE/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN/Marie-Christine Dalloz