AA16CR14

AS (2016) CR 14

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fourteenth sitting

Wednesday 20 April 2016 at 10.00 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 Oomen-Ruijten, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Debate: Renewed commitment in the fight against anti-Semitism in Europe

      The PRESIDENT – We come now to the debate on the report titled “Renewed commitment in the fight against anti-Semitism in Europe” (Document 14008), presented by Mr Boriss Cilevičs on behalf of the Equality Committee, with an opinion from the Political Affairs Committee (Document 14023), for which the rapporteur was Mr Titus Corlăţean.

      I remind you that speaking time is limited to three minutes. In order to finish this debate by 12 noon, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.45 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes.

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

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – Dear colleagues, one would have hoped that the Holocaust brought anti-Semitism to an end, so that more than 70 years after that atrocity, today’s debate, resolutions and recommendations would not be needed. On the contrary, unfortunately, antisemitic statements, presentation of Jewish conspiracy theories, justification and even glorification of the Holocaust, and persisting prejudice, stigmatisation, discrimination and violent attacks on Jewish communities, Synagogues and Jewish premises, are not only still encountered but on the rise in several European States. We should be vigilant. Our responsibility is to be proactive, to react and to ensure that we combat all forms of discrimination and prejudice with force and determination. That is why we are discussing this issue today in the Chamber. I am sure we are ready to renew our commitment to combat this curse.

      I started my work on the report by analysing the appalling and targeted attacks against members of the Jewish community in Toulouse, Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen. They shed light on the fact that anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in our societies, where prejudice persists and develops. This is a current and concrete threat. The motion at the centre of the report recalls Resolution 1563, which was adopted in 2007, on combating anti-Semitism in Europe, and asks for an evaluation of its implementation. I therefore had to take stock of member States’ actions since 2007. I thank all who contributed to the preparation of the report.

      I have tried to analyse the growing feeling of insecurity felt by the Jewish community in Europe, which has made some move to Israel, as well as the weight of prejudice felt in daily life and stereotyping in society and in the media. I reviewed existing legislative frameworks, educational problems, prevention and awareness-raising campaigns and have tried to present some examples of good practice. I reiterate that there can be no efficient action against anti-Semitism if a comprehensive anti-discrimination and anti-racism legislative framework is not fully implemented and guaranteed. Comprehensive legislation often exists, but its implementation can still remain limited. Unfortunately, that is the case in many Council of Europe member States.

      We must encourage further reporting of antisemitic attacks and hate crimes, because the latency of such attacks is high. Holocaust remembrance needs to be supported to combat ignorance and indifference, which feed anti-Semitism. I stress that I am convinced that parliamentarians can play a crucial role in combating intolerance and hatred. We have a responsibility to show political leadership even if we are not to bring in additional laws. We can play an important role in the prevention of anti-Semitism by systematically and publicly condemning antisemitic attacks and discourse. We can also work towards ensuring that national legislative frameworks have the tools to condemn and effectively combat anti-Semitism.

      I remind the Assembly that combating anti-Semitism is one of the priorities of the No Hate Parliamentary Alliance for this year and the next. I encourage members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to join and be active in the Alliance.

      In the proposed draft resolution, we call on member States to make the public denial, trivialisation, justification or praise of the Holocaust a criminal offence, where that is not yet the case. We also call on member States to ensure the prosecution of political figures and parties for antisemitic statements. We express our concerns about the perpetration of discriminatory stereotypes and call for action to combat this scourge. We show our determination to combat all forms of discrimination and intolerance. We cannot accept that members of the Jewish community are sometimes afraid to identify themselves as Jewish.

      The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination voted unanimously in favour of the draft resolution and I count on your support for this text. I would like to express my gratitude to those who took part in the debate on the amendments, most of which were accepted by the committee. I stress again that unfortunately it is time once again to consider the fight against anti-Semitism a priority and our responsibility.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Cilevičs. You have six minutes and 53 seconds remaining.

      I call Mr Corlăţean to present the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee. You have three minutes.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy fully supports the report and considers it timely and relevant today. Jewish communities are anxious about their safety and future in Europe, and the post-war consensus to root out anti-Semitism in Europe is weakening dangerously.

      As highlighted at the hearing organised yesterday by the Committee on Political Affairs with the participation of the International League against Racism and anti-Semitism – LICRA – there is an urgent need to address anti-Semitism among youth from countries where hatred of Jews and Israel is widespread. The Council of Europe offers precious tools for teachers and educators, and we, as policymakers, can do more to raise awareness of the unacceptable hatred that is pervading our societies. We need to support and encourage civil society to build coalitions and bridges with diverse communities and to educate in terms of citizenship and democratic values.

      We believe that dialogue between political and religious leaders should be further enhanced to tackle this problem both at the governmental and parliamentary levels, and that the importance of Holocaust remembrance should be actively promoted by all parliaments and governments.

      We feel the need for more awareness-raising campaigns promoting respect and harmonious living together, such as the No Hate Speech campaign, at all levels of society, including in the framework of integration programmes for migrants and refugees. In this context, I would like to mention that these priorities are also included in the mandate of the current Romanian chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, a relevant international partner of the Council of Europe.

      Finally, we argue in favour of a more active role that we parliamentarians can play in the prevention of anti-Semitism, for example by setting up all-party parliamentary groups against anti-Semitism to strengthen the fight across the political spectrum. This was the spirit of the opinion and the six amendments unanimously adopted by the Committee, which I ask you to support today. I also wish to thank all those who have contributed to our opinion, including the precious support from our secretariat.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – “Do young antisemites really exist? There are fresh young minds and souls that have already been affected by this imbecilic poison? How sad, how worrisome for this 20^th century that is just beginning.” That is a quotation from Emile Zola in his “Letter to Youth”. Unfortunately, the start of the 21^st century has not yet brought an end to that poison. “Never again” was, after all, the very moral foundation of our institution.

      This anti-Semitism, as the rapporteur said, finds its source in an ancient hatred that is fed by prejudice about the supposed power and wealth of Jews, and based on ignorance of “the other”, of his or her culture and religion, and sometimes even a simplification in distinguishing between the rejection of Israeli policy and the rejection of Jews in Europe. Whatever the manifestation of anti-Semitism, it must be condemned, especially here in Strasbourg. The Alsatian Jewish community is the second largest Jewish community in France, but what is particularly striking is that Judaism has played a very significant role in the history of Alsace, and many heritage monuments are to be found in Alsace that relate to its Jewish history. For a long time, because of the Concordat regime, religious institutions and representatives of the State have engaged in dialogue on these issues. We have set up working groups for inter-religious dialogue to talk about problems, exchange views and try to avoid the dissemination of this antisemitic poison and prevent such acts. This does not mean that we do not have anti-Semitism in Alsace. Unfortunately, we saw the desecration of the Jewish cemetery in Sarre-Union just last year, which was an object demonstration of that anti-Semitism.

I am fully committed to the attempt to overcome the irrational fear that leads to hatred. Only knowledge will lead to mutual understanding and therefore tolerance and respect. As requested by Mr Legendre in his report yesterday, learning for citizenship must include teaching respect and tolerance for others. In my report on education and religion, which I was honoured to present to the Parliamentary Assembly in September 2005, I asked that our States commit themselves to educating young people in human rights, mutual respect and the history of our religions.

      The time has certainly come to act. We not only owe that to young people so that they can arm themselves against anti-Semitism; we need also to protect against the spread of hatred and intolerance by the so-called Islamic State, which is so close to the ideology that led to the horror of the Shoah. In that respect, I support the rapporteur’s proposals about the teaching of the Holocaust and intercultural dialogue in schools. I believe that we can teach critical thinking so that our future citizens can be truly committed democrats who oppose anti-Semitism, and so that we can answer Zola’s question about whether young antisemites truly exist. Let us say no to that, and let us promote our values, human rights and freedoms.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on the quality and thoroughness of his work. However appalling it may seem, considering the tragedy of the Shoah, anti-Semitism has indeed been on the rise, to an alarming extent, in the last few years in Europe. Hatred of Jews still exists, rampant and insidious, and expressed through the same terrible clichés, as in our darkest hours, by the heirs of a criminal ideology. Added to that there is propaganda, and violence and murder are perpetrated and laid claim to by those for whom religious wars are the ultimate purpose in life. Those people are convinced that those who believe in a God other than theirs or who do not believe at all deserve death. They are certainly criminals and madmen but they are also dangerous merchants of hate, surfing on modern technology to exploit people’s ignorance, weakness, or even idiocy, to spread yet further their ideology and perhaps even resort to crime.

      We should denounce all manifestations and expressions of anti-Semitism, and any antisemitic acts. Anti-Semitism is not an opinion; it is a crime and should be punished as such. There should be no tolerance of such things – no tolerance, even, of graffiti, an aside or a blunt statement. People feel that they are protected behind the cowardly anonymity of social media. Above all, we must focus on education to teach people what anti-Semitism has produced in the history of humanity. We need to target young people, who sometimes do not know about the full horror of the tragedies of the past.

      Some young people are the target of antisemites. How can we stop that happening? We can try to prevent it through campaigns, books and films, and above all through visits to the most awful places of the Shoah. Just a few hours in Auschwitz can change your life forever. We will always remember the mountains of hair, the abandoned toys and the railway platform at Birkenau. School syllabuses in each of our countries should make it obligatory to visit or have an exchange with such places, and the places should network so that people can be informed.

      One place close to my heart is the house of children in Izieu, which is a memorial to 44 children who were assassinated, the youngest of whom was four. The children and the seven adults looking after them were arrested on 6 April 1944 by the Gestapo of Lyon led by Klaus Barbie. None of them came back. Every year, I visit the centre in Izieu. I need to remember the disappeared children – their absence and, somehow, their presence. I discreetly observe the reaction and emotions of today’s children who visit that peaceful place where, nevertheless, the worst thing that could happen did happen. Silence, the pain, the emotion and, above all, words can tell us everything. When we are faced with anti-Semitism, we must talk, share and fight, so let us talk, fight and share. It is our duty as citizens and as members of parliament.

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – As one of the driving forces behind this report as well as the ALDE spokesperson, I commend Boriss Cilevičs, as previous speakers have, on an excellent job of work that shines a light on the different facets of anti-Semitism, and on the best practice of many member States to try to counter the phenomenon.

      ALDE very much welcomes this specific focus on anti-Semitism, which can take different forms. There are two main sources of anti-Semitism in Europe right now, depending on geography. First, there are the traditional forms of anti-Semitism, which, lamentably, are well known and are espoused by right-wing groups. However, a new form of anti-Semitism is now coming from just a small part of the Muslim community. A study carried out in Belgium in 2013 showed that 51% of young Muslims polled agreed with a statement that Jews foment war and accuse others of being responsible, whereas only 7% of the general population felt that to be true. Some 45% of young Muslims felt that Jews control everything and similar percentages felt that Jews had too much power in Belgium. Those manifestations of anti-Semitism must not be neglected or overlooked.

      The report has the merit of looking at trying to detect and highlight instances of anti-Semitism. The report looks at the security aspect of anti-Semitism, and that aspect has been introduced in many of the amendments to flesh out what is already a very comprehensive report. Basically, we are trying to encourage the authorities to help the Jewish community to secure their community and ward off any threats. Of course, the report sets out the principle of the criminalisation of public denial of the Holocaust and the denial of crimes of genocide and other crimes against humanity. They are rightly criminal offences, but I think there is perhaps a risk of us turning many views into criminal offences. We have to strike the right balance between the freedom of expression and of the media and academics, and these unacceptable assertions. That is why we should confine ourselves to any statements made that are linked to the Holocaust. I will table an amendment along those lines in due course. Essentially, 70 years on from the end of the Second World War and the genocide of the Jews, many Jews are seeking a way out. They hope to leave. That signals our failure, which is why we need to be on guard to ensure that Jews, along with all other citizens, feel that their future is in Europe.

      Mr David DAVIES (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I associate myself and my group with the report by Mr Cilevičs. Although it is shameful that, only a few decades after the Holocaust, we are once again facing a rise in anti-Semitism, the one positive thing we can take out of this morning is that virtually all of us – I would hope everyone in this Chamber – are in full agreement with every word that we have heard so far.

      The dreadful rise in anti-Semitism was brought home to me on a recent trip to Malmö, where I visited the Jewish community centre, which operates behind heavy security. That is reflected across Europe in Jewish schools, synagogues and communities. While I was there, I heard that there are different forms of anti-Semitism. Of course, it is understood that there are fortunately only a very small number – but a number that we must take seriously – of so-called far right activists. I do not actually like to refer to them as far right, as I do not recognise them as having right-wing politics at all, but we know who we mean – the neo-Nazis – and there are a small number left in Europe. However, there are other forms of anti-Semitism.

      At the moment, there is anti-Semitism from a minority on the left. We have seen that in the British Labour Party. I hasten to add that the vast majority of people in the British Labour Party are as appalled as the rest of us at a small number of antisemitic activists within their midst, such as a councillor who put out a tweet suggesting that Hitler was the greatest man in history, and an election candidate who said that Hitler was a Zionist god and that she did not understand why ISIS had not declared war on Israel. Sadly, that person was reinstated as a member of the Labour Party, which many people will find deeply distressing. I also heard from the community in Malmö that there has been a rise in anti-Semitism as a result of a minority of people within the Islamist world who hold deeply hateful attitudes towards Jews. That is something that we need to talk about and address, and I am glad that it is now being discussed in a forum such as this.

      I completely accept the recommendations of the report. I would even go a little bit further. I have talked to activists of Muslim heritage in London and Malmö, and they have suggested to me that we need to do more to tackle anti-Semitism within the Islamic community. The suggestions included insisting that sermons in mosques are always delivered in, or at least translated into, the language of that country so that everyone can understand what is being said; much more rigorous inspections of schools to ensure that antisemitic material cannot be disseminated to children; and looking at the foreign funding of mosques, madrasas and schools across the whole of Europe. There is a great deal to be done but the one thing, at least, that we can take from the discussions we have had this morning is a commitment from all sides of the political spectrum to look at and deal with the issue.

      Mr HANŽEK (Slovenia, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – The Unified European Left condemns all hostility, whether on the basis of religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability or any other personal characteristic of an individual. It opposes most vigorously the abuse of freedom of speech that sows hatred towards others who are different, humiliates the individual or attacks human dignity. In the Council of Europe, we adopted a number of resolutions and other documents that set out our fundamental values and outlined the boundaries of permissible conduct. At the same time, we are aware that the changing social and political circumstances require us to top up our commitments. Our renewed commitment to fighting anti-Semitism in Europe is one such commitment.

      In recent years, we have seen an escalation of intolerance. This has manifested itself in hate speech, xenophobia and racism, which have become worse with the refugee crisis. History teaches us that if such events are not stopped efficiently and in a timely manner they can end horrifically. If we want to stop these negative trends, parliaments and governments of all States of the Council of Europe must take decisive measures against the spread of hatred. They must re-examine the adequacy of their laws and amend them where necessary.

      The Group of the Unified European Left supports the efforts of member States to legislate and act on the new realities of society. The report is an adequate response to one of the pressing chapters in the history of hatred – anti-Semitism. However, we also need more answers to the other types of discrimination, which are also very problematic. The burning issue is primarily an increase in hostility towards refugees and Islamophobia.

      We must also note the wrong thinking that says warning about Israeli human rights violations of Palestinians is anti-Semitism. This thinking equates anti-Semitism with critics of human rights violations by the Israeli Government. Number three in the current Simon Wiesenthal Center list of the top 10 antisemitic slurs is the European Union, because of its decision to label settlement products from the occupied territories. Such thinking hides the essence of the problem and prevents the detection of a real anti-Semitism.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Despite the horrors of the Second World War, which cost the lives of 6 million Jews, it is a sad fact that we still have to fight antisemitic attitudes and actions in Europe.

      In 2011, the Assembly gave its full support to the report “Living together: combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe”, which was initiated by our Secretary General. In this expert report, the rise of intolerance was the cause for greatest alarm, in particular the spread of intolerance and hostility against Roma, immigrants, asylum seekers, Muslims, Jews, and, in some countries, Christians. Rising support for xenophobic and populist parties was, to some degree, seen as the product of intolerance and prejudice, which at the same time aggravated them in a series of mutually reinforcing vicious circles. Referring to studies of attitudes, the report states that negative opinions of Jews are increasing, although they are still less common in Europe than in some other parts of the world. That matches the findings of similar studies in Norway, as referred to in our country’s reports to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

      In Norway, Jews are one of five national minorities. As such, they are protected by the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. In connection with our reports on implementation, the Committee of Ministers has advised us to pay special attention to the fact that intolerance against Jews seems to be increasing among children and youngsters. It is difficult to know why, but we do know that young people are more exposed to hate speech on the Internet and on social media. From this point of view, the rapporteur’s emphasis on educational measures seems very much to the point.

      The rapporteur warned us against making this a debate on Israeli-Arab issues. I could not agree more. But that goes for all parties. In Norway, there is a so-called “Centre against Anti-Semitism”. In practice, they are ultra-conservative defenders of Israeli politics and strong promoters of Islamophobia. As such, they seem to have found their allies on social media among xenophobic nationalists. In a peculiar way, these traditionally opposite and mutually hostile forces now seem to mirror each other in a quite nasty way.

      Let me finish by paying tribute to all the young Norwegian Muslims who, last year after the attacks in France and Denmark, formed a living chain around the synagogue in Oslo while a service was going on inside.

      Mr ABAD (France)* – The Council of Europe was built on the idea of “never again” in reference to the horror of the Holocaust. I have the honour of being the President of the Conseil Department de l’Ain in the Département Français. There is a children’s home in that region which became the Maison d’Izieu, where 44 children, aged five to 17, and seven adults were arrested and deported in 1944 on the orders of Klaus Barbie for the sole reason of their being Jews. This anti-Semitism, which we thought had disappeared, is still present, as we can see from the murder of Jewish children in Toulouse, the attacks on the kosher Hyper Cacher store in Paris and the Jewish museum in Brussels. We must renew our commitment to combating this hatred in all of Europe, as is stressed by the title of the report.

Ten years ago, Ilan Halimi was tortured to death because he was Jewish and therefore must have been rich – according to the aptly named “gang of barbarians”. We must ask ourselves some hard questions about the development of new forms of anti-Semitism not just in France but in Europe as a whole. The arrival of new technology, new forms of discrimination and the phenomenon of radicalisation are changing the ways we must combat anti-Semitism. The role of the Internet is clear. As in the phenomenon of radicalisation, which is associated with antisemitic acts – look at the example of Mohammed Merah – hate speech targeting Jews is disseminated on the Internet and social networks. It can be a question of denial or prejudice about the supposed power and influence of Jewish communities, without talking about sites that under the cover of anti-Zionism are calling for condemnation or even extermination of all Jews. These antisemitic statements are affecting young people more and more.

      In France, denial of the Shoah can lead to prosecution. In fact, Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen was found guilty of that in the gas chamber case. But what can we do about Internet sites from countries where so-called freedom of expression opens the door to all forms of hatred? The rapporteur talked about the correlation between peaks of violence in the Middle East and antisemitic attacks. As he quite rightly indicated, the role of the media is decisive in this regard. The renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Syrian conflict is a reality. Have we forgotten that the Jews in France are first and foremost French citizens of the Jewish religion? Some people mix up Israelis with Israelites. The “death to Jews” slogans that we have seen in certain demonstrations have no place in the Republic.

      This is a question not of the history of the Jews, but of the history of the whole of Europe and our civilisation. As the rapporteur stresses, it is often ignorance that gives birth to intolerance and violence. As parliamentarians we must have the courage to recognise that there is a threat to our ability to live together. We must be exemplary in our fight against anti-Semitism, especially with regard to the young generation.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Abad: it is good to see you back here again.

      Mr SCHÄFER (Germany)* – It is an honour to speak here today. I made my maiden speech in the European Parliament here in 1994 on a different subject, European electoral law. You too, Madam President, were then a member of the European Parliament. We might be from different political groups and different countries but we have travelled the road together and have witnessed 15 become 47 in the Council of Europe.

      We are discussing how we, regardless of our backgrounds, join together to fight anti-Semitism. Nationalism is the last bastion of nonsensical thought in the modern age. We must fight this phenomenon because we know that evil words inevitably give way to evil deeds. As nationals of a country in which the worst crimes against humanity were perpetrated by the Third Reich, a special responsibility is encumbent upon us. Over 150 years our civilisation has been shaped by our Jewish citizens.

      Later this morning we will hear from a Head of State who has no truck with nationalist discourse. The unforgettable Johannes Rau, who has unfortunately passed away, played a special role in this regard. In a parliamentary speech he said that all forms of racism and anti-Semitism must be combated and the perpetrators punished. We will uphold that duty, using the full force of the law to promote peaceful co-existence in all societies. Every attack on a minority is an attack on society as a whole. Tolerance, pluralism and the rule of law must prevail.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schäfer. It is a real pleasure to listen to you once again.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – It is crucial that we renew the fight against anti-Semitism – an absolute evil that we thought had disappeared after the Holocaust. I therefore congratulate Mr Cilevičs on his opportune report.

      The president of the association of French Jews recently reminded us of the unacceptable fact that in the past 15 years French Jews have been the victims of half the xenophobic acts committed in the country, despite the fact that they represent only 1% of the population. I therefore accept Mr Cilevičs’s recommendation that the Shoah really be made an integral part of secondary education programmes. I emphasise the word “really” because it has become difficult to raise the subject in certain geographical areas, where pupils have been indoctrinated in their family environments with antisemitic prejudice, which is disseminated through anti-Zionism – a form of visceral anti-Semitism.

      The Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, has rightly stated that anti-Zionism is simply a synonym for anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. This anti-Semitism sometimes expresses itself hypocritically – for instance, in the call to boycott Israeli products. I am pleased that France opposes the calls for boycotts, and I hope it will soon be joined by all member States. I also hope that the European Court of Human Rights will not give approval to a particularly pernicious form of anti-Semitism. I note with interest that anti-Zionism sometimes results in an apparently unnatural alliance of the extreme right and the extreme left, bringing to light the hateful and anti-democratic nature of both extreme forms.

      We must forcefully fight ghettoisation, which is creating fertile ground for radicalisation and terrorism. Failure to accept the fundamental value of tolerance of others is a breakdown of the social contract. We sometimes forget that citizenship gives people not only rights but duties. We must not be naïve and not pay sufficient attention to certain States’ financing of extremely dangerous religious movements, which threatens democracy and the rule of law. All antisemitic acts must be recorded, and I approve of the proposal to redouble our efforts to guarantee the better collection of data on hate crimes.

      Surveillance of the Internet must also be improved. At the European level at least we must put strong pressure on the providers of Internet access so that they participate in combating the dissemination of hate messages. Moreover, we must forcefully condemn any attempts to deny the Holocaust. Respect for all religious beliefs must be taught in schools. Fanaticism – the conviction that those who do not share your beliefs are infidels or lower class – is unacceptable and must be combated vigorously. Although it might appear unlikely, we must guard against going back to the religious wars that ravaged France and other European States.

      Ms ANTILLA (Finland) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Cilevičs, on his good report.

      The recent attacks in Toulouse, Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen show that anti-Semitism is not merely a part of our history: it finds its origin in ancient but unfortunately persistent prejudice and leads to violent acts. We hoped that the horrors of the Holcaust had brought anti-Semitism to an end. On the contrary, antisemitic statements, the presentation of consipiracy theories, and the justification and even glorification of the Holocaust are not only still encountered today but are on the rise in several European countries.

      To combat anti-Semitism effectively we must look into the preconditions for violence as well as its roots and analyse the current manifestation of prejudice against people. The Parliamentary Assembly has noted a worrying trend of racist, xenophobic and intolerant manifestations in Europe for some years. It most recently condemned anti-Semitism last year in Resolution 2069. The work is not yet done, however. We must continue to make the right decision in member States of the Council of Europe in line with the draft resolution in this good report. As politicians we are responsible for ensuring that these objectives are included in national legislation.

      I want to end on a serious note. As mothers and fathers we have an important responsibility to educate our children in accordance with human values to avoid anti-Semitism and racism and hate speech in Europe. My colleague Petri Honkonen has prepared a motion calling for the protection of children from racism and hate speech. I hope this will lead to a report and some important recommendations for all of us to implement.

      Mr FEIST (Germany)* – I warmly thank the rapporteur, Mr Cilevičs, for this report. It is important that we talk about anti-Semitism here at this time. It is not acceptable that members of Jewish communities in Europe have to be afraid of walking around and being recognisable as Jews in certain areas of cities. We must work on how to combat that.

      I am pleased, as a member of the German Bundestag, that the report refers to the interparliamentary conference we had in March in Berlin, when hundreds of members of parliament from 40 countries came together to discuss this matter. It is important that we not only thrash this issue out together, but think about how our findings can make their way into national legislation. The President of the German Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, made it clear that if people come to Europe as refugees for protection, we have expectations of them. We must expect them to understand that anti-Semitism is something we cannot and will not accept. When we are talking about the integration of refugees in Europe, an important component is that our values and standards are recognised by the people coming in. Those values include rejection of anti-Semitism and xenophobia. The report shows that we can do something in the national sphere as well. We can stop certain institutions and organisations having access to public funds if they are antisemitic. Wherever there is Holocaust denial or anti-Semitism, we must root it out, even if it is dressed up as criticism of Israel.

      We need to do something about the training and education of young people in not only Europe but elsewhere. We co-operate on education projects in the Arab world, where anti-Semitism sometimes has its roots in school books, and we must try to exert influence there. I will give a good example of how to deny anti-Semitism a platform. The German Culture Minister, Monika Grütters, decided to remove grants from a theatre that wanted to stage a play that promoted Hezbollah. That is a good example of what we can do.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Nowadays the world community is facing many serious threats, with serious damage to countries’ economies caused by the ongoing consequences of the global financial crisis on the one hand, and public concern with regard to confrontation in the political arena on the other. Alongside that, terror outbreaks and religious and racial discrimination cannot leave us indifferent.

      I believe that the report is timely and needed. The Parliamentary Assembly has noted a worrying rise in manifestations of racism, xenophobia and intolerance in Europe for some years. In that context, the Assembly has relentlessly condemned anti-Semitism, most recently in Resolution 2069 in 2015 on recognising and preventing neo-racism. Anti-Semitism and its manifestations are in contradiction with the fundamental values of the Council of Europe. I agree with the rapporteur that anti-Semitism is not an isolated phenomenon and should be looked at with other forms of hate. Europe is becoming increasingly diverse, and interactions between persons of different religions could help to reduce prejudice and discrimination. Awareness-raising campaigns on diversity and living together are needed throughout Europe.

      I would like to take this opportunity to mention that in my country, Azerbaijani and Jewish peoples have a long tradition of tolerance and interaction. By some accounts, Jews lived in the territory of Azerbaijan from the 5th century BC. Jews, who experienced many waves of persecution in the Persian Empire and later in imperial Russia and the Slavic regions of the Soviet Union, fled to Azerbaijan for asylum. The Jewish and Christian communities in Azerbaijan enjoy and exercise rights equal to those of the Muslim community, which makes up the majority of the population. Jewish people have never been mistreated for their religion. Azerbaijan is a country in which a mosque, a church and a synagogue can co-exist in peace.

      Today, the government cares greatly about the Jewish and Christian communities in Azerbaijan. Their holy places are protected by the State, and they are provided with all the necessary conditions to celebrate and conduct their services. Over the years of independence, the Azerbaijani Government has restored synagogues that were devastated under Soviet rule. In 2011, the largest synagogue in Azerbaijan was built with government funding and inaugurated in Baku in a ceremony attended by the chief rabbi of Israel. Jews live in every region of Azerbaijan. There is a settlement of Jews in Azerbaijan – Krasnaya Sloboda – that is believed to be a unique all-Jewish city outside Israel. Jews are active in every sphere of public life in Azerbaijan: for example, in politics, in governmental structures, in education and in health. I can proudly say that our country is a place where Jews were enabled to preserve their religion and identity. The atmosphere of prosperity and tolerance that Jews have experienced in Azerbaijan throughout history could be an example for many countries.

      Mr HASSON (Observer, Israel) – Good morning. I thank the rapporteur and appreciate that we are having this important discussion about anti-Semitism. On behalf of the Jewish delegation and Israel, I must say that we, as Jews, know and understand the huge challenge of dealing with anti-Semitism in Europe. Unfortunately, Europe has become an unsafe place for Jewish people in the past few years. We cannot live with or stand that reality.

      Anti-Semitism is all over the Internet. The report touches on the fact that more and more websites are inciting anti-Semitism. One of the main challenges is educating the young generation in Israel and Europe on how to live together and work together and not to judge people based on their religion and what they represent. Internet providers can and need to block all kinds of websites that have antisemitic publicity and propaganda.

      If Israel and all of Europe stand together and work together on this issue, we can win against the antisemites. We should not connect anti-Semitism with disagreeing with Israel’s policies; the two are different. You can disagree with Israeli policies without connecting that to anti-Semitism. If we can think and work in that way, we can make a better world.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia)* – It is somewhat disappointing that, in the 21st century, we are here to discuss anti-Semitism and hate speech against Jews. We should be concerned, but the discussion is necessary, because we observe those trends both in Council of Europe member States and elsewhere. Legal consequences and repression are only a part of the solution – they deal with the symptoms but not the illness. We should be worried about the emergence of prejudice and ignorance, and ultimately violence, among young people who display aggressive behaviour against minorities and people who are different from what might be considered to be the majority identity.

      Education is the medicine to apply. It can eliminate the lack of knowledge that leads to prejudice and ultimately to violence. That is why I wholeheartedly support the resolution before the Assembly today. It speaks about the need to ensure that the teaching of the Shoah is an integral part of the secondary curriculum in all member States. We need to monitor that in future to see how our education systems in our member States address that challenge and what measures they take.

(Ms Guzenina, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Oomen-Ruijten.)

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – The report by Mr Cilevičs and the Committee on Equality and Non- Discrimination is very timely. It is a paradox that, at a time when we know more and more about the atrocities committed against European Jewry in the last century, anti-Semitism again raises its ugly head. It is as if, contrary to what the more evolutionary and optimistic school of history argues, mankind will never learn from its history, but instead will be tempted to repeat its cruellest and most barbarian acts again and again. That is why we need such reports – to remind us never to let our guard down in defending human dignity, in speaking out against hate acts and hate crimes, and in shining a steady light on that awful period in the 1930s and 1940s when the Holocaust was planned and carried out, leading to the near-disappearance of a whole ethnic group.

      That paradox is apparent in my home country of Sweden. During and after the Second World War, Sweden welcomed many Jews who managed to flee Nazi-occupied Europe, and for decades anti-Semitism was not an issue. Today, however, as the report points out, “persisting stereotypes, insults and physical violence are experienced on a daily basis by members of the Jewish community in Europe”, as are “desecrations and profanations of Jewish property and monuments”. That is unacceptable. Indeed, it was deemed so serious a problem that in March 2015 President Obama sent a special envoy to Stockholm and the city of Malmö to analyse how Swedish cities were coping with rising threats against Jewish communities there.

      I support the various measures proposed by our rapporteur and the committee. I will ensure that the report and the resolution we adopt become known in my country. The legacy of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Jewish lives in the closing days of the Second World War, and who gave his own life in the process, must not be sullied or forgotten. Instead, it must serve as an inspiration for all citizens across Europe, in the defence of the safety and dignity not only of Jews, but of all exposed ethnic or other groups.

      Mr SILVA (Portugal) – I congratulate Boriss Cilevičs on his interesting report. We should also congratulate Mr Titus Corlăţean. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and their secretariats, are to be commended.

      Anti-Semitism is not about the State of Israel and it is not about anti-Zionism. Anti-Semitism is about human rights. That is why it is so important to fight its manifestations. In that combat, we oppose fear, prejudice, racism and intolerance. As we step up the fight, we are defending the values of our civilisation: freedom, solidarity and democracy, and above all human rights as a whole. That is why fighting anti-Semitism means, most of all, defending ourselves, our families and our societies, as well as peace and progress in Europe and the world.

      Combating anti-Semitism is an obligation on us as members of the Council of Europe, which is why I endorse the ideas and strategies presented in the document “Renewed commitment in the fight against anti-Semitism in Europe” that we are debating. The best strategy to combat anti-Semitism is prevention. We have to stay vigilant in order to avoid anti-Semitism as well as all other kinds of racial speech on mass media or social media.

      Education is crucial too, because it means teaching the history of the Holocaust, a dramatic moment that cannot be denied. Education means teaching the values of dialogue between different faiths and different races, and it means increasing the capacity to detect and fight hate speech. Finally, education is a very efficient way to increase our skills to stay vigilant in tackling anti-Semitism and all forms of racism. The forces of darkness remain scourges of our civilisation.

      Ms CROZON (France)* – In 2015, the French Government recorded 2 032 racist and antisemitic acts, which was up 22% on the previous year. That was largely down to the threefold rise in anti-Muslim acts, more than half of which were committed in January and November following on from the attacks in our country, but anti-Semitism persists at an exceptionally high level. Jews account for 1% of France’s population but were subjected to 51% of those violent acts.

      Anti-Semitism in Europe has its roots in persistent and deeply anchored stereotypes. We must tirelessly fight that history and culture. The education of the younger generation is a challenge; we must not reproduce the ideologies of purity and hatred that led our continent into chaos. In my view, it is not sufficient simply to stem the tide of racism and anti-Semitism. They are not simply old fears that bubble to the surface in times of crisis, but new fears and a reflection of violence in a world where the future cannot be controlled. “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters” wrote Antonio Gramsci. It is particularly true of a world in which we have increasing globalisation, where individuals are pitted against one another and where a capacity to consume seems to be the measure of everything.

      We have failed to come forward with a new collective utopia and instead we are fragmenting and withdrawing into our own identities, be they cultural or religious. We see fear of difference, victimisation and a competition of memories, together with the prominence of identity and demands by States to protect what distinguishes rather than forging a society together. This is often fuelled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which is being exported to our countries in the form of mutual mistrust between Jewish and Muslim communities.

      Following the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher, we were particularly struck by the fact that some of our young people felt that the victims were not entirely innocent. That is why we must fight selective indignation and explain that, while criticism of the Israeli Government may be legitimate in public debate, calling into question the right of Jewish people to live securely in Israel or elsewhere is not acceptable. In the same way, we must reject any lumping together of jihadism or calls for political Islam with Muslim people’s rights to practise their faith freely.

      This will be a long-term battle. We must recall universal principles, but they are not enough in themselves. We must work together to promote intercultural dialogue, dismantle ghettoes, do away with self-segregation, and ensure that everybody has a role and prospects in a society that no longer judges a person on their origins or beliefs but judges them on what they bring to the whole.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – Congratulations to colleagues on these important and good reports. I want to underline three matters: security, culture and diplomacy.

      There is a growing number of antisemitic incidents and a growing feeling of insecurity among our Jewish citizens in Europe at a time of mass migration and terrorism and of a new type of increasing insecurity. That creates the context for this new form and new dimension of anti-Semitism. I therefore believe that our security measures, which include reducing the number of migrants to Europe, fighting terrorism and increasing the security of our ethnic communities, are important. We probably do the most for our fellow Jewish citizens if we create security inside Europe and if we can protect our borders.

      I congratulate the rapporteur on the culture dimension of the report because it is probably the most important aspect. I underline the importance of our Jewish organisations, especially in countries where there are large Jewish communities. In Hungary, we have 200 000 Jews—the third largest Jewish community in Europe. I got a letter from the chairman of MAZSIHISZ, the Federation of Hungarian Jewish organisations, asking the Hungarian delegation to support the report. We will therefore obviously support it.

      We have just completed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) presidency, which was an important exercise for Hungary. We are glad that Romania is trying to follow the same path. One of the greatest successes of the Hungarian IHRA presidency is that we have been able to amend European Union data protection regulation. European archives cannot reject research on the Holocaust and on communism on grounds of personal rights and so on. The European Parliament has just voted on that and I draw colleagues’ attention to that important development. I also draw their attention to the exhibition that we have opened outside the Chamber on the European totalitarian past. It deals with Nazism and communism in parallel.

      I cannot say what I wanted about diplomacy, but we should not forget that anti-Israeli policies are a form of anti-Semitism in Europe. We should not deny that. Yes, it is possible to criticise Israel, but it can be a most dangerous form of anti-Semitism.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I congratulate our rapporteur on his excellent work. We are sad that the subject is topical again. The horrors of the Second World War left us with the hope that anti-Semitism had been banished for ever from our continent. Regrettably, that is not the case. Nevertheless, there is a note of optimism. Anti-Semitism today is found among extremists and is not a predominant sentiment, as was the case before the Second World War. We have therefore learned a little from history, but much remains to be done.

      I fully agree with the rapporteur that we must apply criminal sanctions to any manifestations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and I am pleased that my country has always unflaggingly sanctioned such unacceptable behaviour. We must pay close attention to online media, which can be sources of hate messages, as we have seen with various terrorist sites. Much depends on the providers of access to the Internet.

      Of course, we must teach the Holocaust. That dramatic past must not be forgotten. On a continent such as ours, which has suffered so many centuries of nationalist wars and hatred, it is essential to teach the past in the most objective way possible. Unfortunately, that is not always self-evident. We must also encourage, as Mr Cilevičs does, exchanges among young people of different faiths. To know one another better is doubtless one of the most effective ways of combating stereotypes.

      It is therefore essential that schools do not become sectarian places, thereby preventing healthy exchanges. After all, once a young person is convinced that only information that conforms to the sectarian rationale is legitimate, it becomes difficult to transmit a different message that is regarded as discredited a priori, and is therefore not heard. That is why I fear that obliging the perpetrators of antisemitic acts to participate in educational programmes on the Holocaust will not be very effective. As with de-radicalisation, it will be a long-term process, and must be organised by those who can be heard by those who are deeply rooted in hatred and exclusion.

      I am sensitive to Mr Cilevičs’s concerns about protecting schools, but I do not see how we can take the risk of leaving them without protection in the current circumstances, which may unfortunately continue into the future. As Mr Cilevičs rightly said, some points need to be studied further, especially the delicate issue of the border between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. I thank him for his important work and members for their attention.

      Mr VALEN (Norway) – Anti-Semitism is a historically rooted European toxin. It is important to remind ourselves that the crimes against Jews in Europe, not least the Holocaust, were made possible not only by the regimes of the 1930s and 1940s but by the antisemitic sentiment in almost every European country. Ordinary people in Norway, France and Germany contributed to those unparalleled crimes. The rise of everyday anti-Semitism in Europe must cause us alarm in this day and age. We cannot afford not to be alarmed.

      Let us not forget, therefore, that the growing anti-Semitism in Europe today is not merely a problem in certain immigrant communities, but a sentiment that is spreading throughout the political establishment of Europe as we speak. Antisemitic demagogues are now elected representatives in Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine and Greece. With the rise of the extreme right wing in central Europe, hateful ideologies are now able to use parliaments as a platform for their hateful message. Anti-Semitism in Europe is a European responsibility.

      I also support the gentleman from Israel, Mr Hasson, who spoke earlier. I view myself as a staunch opponent of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and a supporter of Palestinian freedom, so I bear a special responsibility to be crystal clear in differentiating politics from ethnicity and politics from religion. Just as the whole pro-Palestinian movement must draw a crystal-clear red line against anti-Semitism, the European right wing has to do the same with the extreme right of Europe. That is our responsibility.

      For the record, I must add that the policy outlined in paragraph 7.1.2 of the draft resolution is not a policy that I think will be considered in Norway any time soon. I have the utmost respect for countries that have chosen to implement such legislation, but we must be vigilant and not rely just on criminalisation. Anti-Semitism is a poison that has to be defeated through everyday action. With this explanation in mind, of course I will still vote in favour of this critical resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Forer in the Chamber. Mr Jakavonis is next on the list.

      Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – I thank my colleague and friend, Boriss Cilevičs from Latvia, who has gathered and processed a lot of objective information. This report on the very serious subject of the Holocaust is very well written indeed. I am pleased to note that the report paints an objective picture of the reality.

      Lithuania is an eastern European country. It is very much in the middle of eastern Europe, yet we do not have much radicalism. Since 2003 we have managed to open a whole network of centres to promote tolerance. We already have 115 of them. As a result, there is a good understanding of the fact that Lithuanian Jews were citizens of our country who did a lot to develop our State, and who participated very actively in the social, cultural and political life of Lithuania. In our general education schools there are seminars and lessons on the Holocaust as it took place not only in Lithuania but abroad. We have a whole series of projects and initiatives that promote the very rich cultural heritage and tradition of Lithuanian Jews, including “They lived amongst us”, “Every human being has a name” and “The living history of Lithuanian Jews”. It is very important that we have a number of special days: 23 September commemorates the Lithuanian Jews; 27 January remembers the victims of the Holocaust in general; and 16 November is a day of tolerance. It is also very important that we have a lot of teaching materials on the Holocaust. There are CDs and DVDs; there are maps that show where Lithuanian Jews lived; and we have also recorded the memoirs of a number of survivors of the Holocaust.

      Mr REICHARDT (France)* – “Far from having been eliminated, anti-Semitism is today on the rise in Europe. It appears in a variety of forms and is becoming relatively commonplace, to varying degrees, in all Council of Europe member States. This upsurge should prompt Council of Europe member States to be more vigilant and tackle the threat which anti-Semitism represents for the fundamental values which it is the Council of Europe’s role to defend.” That is actually a quote from a resolution that this Parliamentary Assembly adopted in 2007 – nine years ago.

      What have we seen happening across Europe in the past nine years? As we have heard, there has been a constant increase in antisemitic words, deeds and violent acts. If we do not tackle the root causes of this evil, even the best treaties, conventions, international declarations and national legislation based on the best intentions will all come to nothing. The Council of Europe and the European Union have produced the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which give pride of place to the principle of non-discrimination, tolerance and equal treatment of all people.

      However, to be effective, we have to go beyond mere legislation. Recently the director of the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union indicated some practical steps that could be taken, particularly the need for authorities to record any antisemitic incidents so as to know what form they take and why they happen. These records should then be very useful in order to take more effective measures against such offensive acts. All member States of the European Union and the Council of Europe are represented on the Working Party on Hate Crime, which the agency set up in 2014. That group will soon be publishing some best practice it has highlighted, which will help States eradicate antisemitic acts.

      Unfortunately, France is one of the countries where the Jewish community, because of the words and deeds aimed against it, feels most threatened. As a response, a 40-point programme designed to tackle anti-Semitism has been launched in my country, with four priorities: mobilising the State, local authorities and voluntary organisations; having stiffer penalties for antisemitic language or acts; stemming the tide of hate on the Internet; and, above all, shaping people’s awareness through education, culture and the media. This is very much part of Mr Cilevičs’s report so I commend it to the Chamber. We need to take action as soon as we can and in the most effective way possible in this very important area.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – I agree that anti-Semitism and other forms of hate speech and hate crimes are on the rise. I come from Turkey, where Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities have coexisted for centuries in harmony and peace. We are therefore very sensitive to combating all forms of discrimination based on religion and ethnicity.

      Today Jewish citizens in Turkey are an equal and indispensable part of our social structure. The security of the Jewish community is guaranteed by the State. While Jewish citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms guaranteed by the laws and treaty, recent changes in domestic legislation further strengthened the legal punishment of criminal offences of anti-Semitism. Therefore, blaming Muslim groups for rising anti-Semitism has no rational grounds. The Holocaust and anti-Semitism are not the product of Islam or Muslim communities.

      I thank the rapporteur for this timely report. Remembering the sorrows of European history, it is one of the utmost moral duties of European countries to take effective measures against anti-Semitism. However, I should point out that paragraph 7 goes beyond the scope and purpose of the text; it covers not only the Holocaust but other crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. In my view, that approach is problematic in many respects. First, there is no universally agreed and binding standard or any uniform rule or practice in the international legal system on this matter. The vague and sweeping wordings in domestic legislation raise the possibility of the abuse of language. Today the terms “genocide” and “crimes against humanity”, often used without sufficient knowledge about what they are, have acquired subjective meanings. We should refrain from subjective lines of argument in such important reports.

      As is highlighted by European Court of Human Rights case law on freedom of expression, the criminalisation of the denial of genocide or other crimes against humanity as such cannot be justified from the perspective of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In any case, we condemn anti-Semitism and any necessary measures should be taken. However, we should be careful about not only anti-Semitism, but all forms of hate speech and hate crime, including Islamophobia.

      We should pay attention to good practices. Edirne in Turkey, for example, has the largest synagogue in Europe – the third largest in the whole world. It was restored at a cost of more than €6 million by the Turkish State. It is now open for the Jewish community in Turkey.

      Mr KHADER (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – Anti-Semitism is definitely deplorable; it is a brand of racism and all brands of racism are deplorable. However, it is also deplorable to use one brand of racism as a pretext to justify other brands of racism.

      I agree with my Israeli colleague that anti-Semitism should not be confused with the attitude towards the policies of the State of Israel. Criticism and even the rejection of Israeli policies have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian land, its building of illegal settlements in the occupied territories and its oppression of the Palestinian people, denying the right to self-determination, are all flagrant violations of international law and the values of democracy and human rights. Breaches of international law should be sanctioned; in many cases, that is the position of Europe, including in the attitude towards some European powers. Israel should not be exempted.

      The call to sanction Israel because of its violation of international law is perfectly legitimate and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Hate speech against the Jews in Europe should not be a pretext for justifying Israeli crimes against Palestinians in the Middle East. I stress that the mainstream of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement clearly distinguishes between anti-Semitism and the Israeli occupation of our land. Prior to the eruption of this conflict, Jews, Muslims and Christians co-existed peacefully in the land of Palestine. We do not hate the Jews, but we clearly reject Israeli occupation.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Farmanyan is not in the Chamber, so I call Ms Kobakhidze.

      Ms KOBAKHIDZE (Georgia) – Dear colleagues, please allow me at the outset to express my sincere appreciation of the respected rapporteur for his report on the crucial issue of anti-Semitism. The report contains an entry stating that in recent years the relevant bodies in Georgia have collected no incidents involving anti-Semitism. I would like to emphasise that neither in the past nor today has an incident of this type been recorded or taken place in Georgia – and that will always be the case.

      Indeed, we are and will always be proud of the exemplary friendship between the Jewish and Georgian people, an invaluable asset of the two nations that already dates back 26 centuries. In 2014, Georgia’s Jewish history museum was restored and renovated in commemoration of this centuries-long friendship and is believed to have contributed to a further strengthening of Georgian-Jewish cultural relations. It is worth noting the contribution made by Mr Ivanishvili, a former prime minister of Georgia, to the effort to restore a number of cultural and religious monuments stored at the museum. That restoration is only one episode in the relations between the Georgian and Jewish nations, but we believe it is enough to demonstrate that almost no other two countries in the world can boast of relations comparable to the brotherhood and ties established and maintained between our two nations. It was in Georgia where a notion of "the Jews of Georgia" emerged and was established – a notion that might seem totally irrelevant, but which has become so familiar to everyone.

      Jews have always been actively involved in the process of building the State of Georgia during the life of our country. They have contributed to shaping Georgian culture and helped to raise international awareness of it. They have always served Georgia, without ever having their identity compromised. That is why they have converged with the Georgian nation and the environment. This relationship – this friendship – is an invaluable asset to us and we will spare no effort in maintaining it. The evidence of that is everywhere – not least in the fact that two synagogues in Tbilisi serve the Jewish community. With national anti-discrimination legislation in place, the ties will be further strengthened.

      The contribution the Jewish people make to the economy of Georgia is also worth mentioning and considering. Tens of millions of dollars of investments, large tourist groups, a visa-free regime between Georgia and Israel – all these serve as powerful incentives to the economic growth of Georgia.

      In conclusion, I would like to tell you that, in the modern world, there are virtually no alternatives to tolerance, mutual respect and friendship. I repeat over and again that the best example of the respect and maintenance of these values is the Georgian-Jewish relationship. We call on everyone to share our example, respect the most fundamental European values and extend the hand of friendship. Let us stop racism together. Let us stop anti-Semitism together.

      Mr ALLISON (Observer, Canada) – I thank Mr Cilevičs for this excellent report on anti-Semitism in Europe and the Assembly for allowing me an opportunity to speak on an issue that has long been a preoccupation of mine.

      As noted in the report, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance are a damaging reality that threatens core notions of equality and the rule of law in our countries. Reports of violent anti-Semitism seem inescapable in recent memory: the murder of four people at the Jewish museum in Brussels in 2014, and the killings at Hyper Cacher in Paris and a synagogue in Copenhagen in 2015. In Europe, new political parties indicate a rise of xenophobia, anti-Semitism and ultra-nationalism. France is experiencing a significant exodus of Jews – nearly 8 000 Jews left the country for Israel in 2015, citing a feeling of insecurity and rising anti-Semitism.

      Canada’s history differs from that of nations in Europe. We are a country of immigrants; as such, a focus on integration and respect for diversity is essential to how we grow as a nation. To this end, we have built a strong legal framework that protects individuals from discrimination and defends freedom of religion or belief at both the provincial and federal level. Anti-Semitism is a problem that Canadian governments and parliamentarians have always taken seriously. Yet anti-Semitism remains a reality in Canada, just as it does in Europe. A recent audit recorded the highest number of antisemitic incidents yet, with a marked increase in complaints about harassment. In 2015, there was an arson attack at a Montreal synagogue and a Jewish cemetery was vandalised in Winnipeg. Those are just a few of a long list of incidents. We must recognise this trend and work together to defuse conflict arising from xenophobia, extremism and anti-Semitism while focusing on promoting freedom of religion or belief and protecting diversity.

      I wish to applaud some recent initiatives. The European Union Commission has appointed a co-ordinator on combating anti-Semitism whose role is to reach out to communities and develop strategies to combat hate crime, hate speech and discrimination. There is also the No Hate Parliamentary Alliance, and France adopted an action plan against racism and anti-Semitism that focuses on data collection, changes to the approach to such crimes in criminal law and services for victims of hate crimes.

      Following those examples and working within the legal frameworks of our own nations, and the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular Protocol No. 12, I encourage us as parliamentarians to strengthen mutual respect and tolerance by condemning all forms of intolerance and violence against individuals based on their beliefs. I thank the rapporteur again for this important report, and I look forward to further discussions on the role of parliamentarians in combating intolerance and promoting freedom of religion.

      Mr SHAHGELDYAN (Armenia)* – This report is very important and topical for people throughout the world, not just Europe, because hate is on the rise and anti-Semitism is one of its worst forms. Europe, with its policy of humanism, is fighting against discrimination and hate and there is high-level political will to tackle that threat. It is therefore important that the No Hate Parliamentary Alliance should be effective in its work.

      At the same time, in one member State of our Organisation at the highest political level they are fanning the flames of hate in the schools. On the Internet and on YouTube you can see in an Azeri school the headmaster shouting out the names of towns in Nagorno-Karabakh and the students of various ages shouting back that they will take them over. That is a cultivation of hate policy and radicalisation of children.

      We have a Jewish community in Armenia and always have done. We have received representatives of the Jewish community organisations in Europe and we understand their feelings very much. I feel that in order to combat hate and anti-Semitism we must not just take decisions and adopt legislation, but prepare and bring about policy of prevention and reaction.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – First of all, I reject Mr Shahgeldyan’s speech, which was full of lies. The subjection of Jews to various pressures, their persecution and oppression and the existence of anti-Semitism is unfortunately a long-standing occurrence. It is doubly a pity that the misfortunes that this long-suffering and talented people have suffered over millennia are not simply a sorrowful story but a harsh reality that dominates contemporary life.

      We should find more prompt and modern methods for the fight against anti-Semitism. If anti-Semitism is a trend, that signifies an epidemic from which there may be grave implications: xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism and inter-religious discord as well as intercultural disagreements. If anti-Semitism is still standing in the first quarter of the third millennium, the probability of similar outbreaks of hatred and violence against other people is inevitable.

      Further to the thoughts of my colleague from Azerbaijan, Ms Gafarova, my country is a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional and multicultural State and has been such for its entire history. The proclamation of the year 2016 officially as a year of multiculturalism is a clear affirmation of that. The lives of Jews in Azerbaijan should be studied and cited as a model against the background of continuing undesirable attitudes towards the Jews, even in some leading world countries. Both mountain Jews and European Jews are living unprecedentedly comfortable and safe lives in Azerbaijan, unlike in other countries. Furthermore, that is not a new occurrence, but a process that has rich history and traditions.

      The first appearance of mountain Jews in Azerbaijan occurred 2 700 years ago, according to reliable written sources, and European Jews started their journey to Azerbaijan in the late 19th century. While in Baku they numbered 2 500 in 1897, by 1913 the figure reached 10 000. In following decades the numbers continued to increase. Those statistics alone tell us much about the attractiveness of Baku and Azerbaijan for the Jews. Even in the Soviet period, Baku and Azerbaijan were a place where the Jews felt most happy and safe. Certainly, having been accepted by Azerbaijan as its inhabitants, this hard-working, intelligent and capable people provided a big contribution to the progress of the country, and they still do so today. There are currently seven synagogues, which are found in Baku, Guba, Oghuz and other cities of Azerbaijan, as well as numerous Jewish cultural and educational centres. The United Nations has underlined in official reports relating to the Jews that Azerbaijan is in the vanguard of countries where Jews can fully and freely observe their traditions.

       The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. The texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours from now.

      I call the rapporteur, Mr Cilevičs, to reply. You have seven minutes.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – Colleagues, I am very grateful to everyone who participated in the debate, which was really interesting. I thank you for your support and for your critical remarks. I will not be able to respond to every statement and point that merits further discussion, but I will try to single out some of the most important ones.

      Mr Destexhe, Mr Valen and Mr Küçükcan spoke about the dubious nature of the call to criminalisation and the justification of genocide. I see your point and have great sympathy with that. However, I cannot fully agree with Mr Küçükcan. We do have an internationally accepted definition of genocide. The problem is about it being universally applied. Indeed, different member States disagree about which situations qualify as genocide. The European Union framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia refers to internationally recognised cases of genocide, so perhaps we should think in that direction.

      We must be very careful about restricting freedom of expression, but I remind you that, as mentioned in my explanatory memorandum and in several cases such as Ivanov v. Russia and Garaudy v. France, the European Court of Human Rights clearly stated that Holocaust denial is not covered and is not protected by the freedom of expression. Mr Davies and several other speakers mentioned the problem of increasing immigration to Europe and its possible connection with the increase of anti-Semitism. I fully agree with Mr Valen and Mr Küçükcan and disagree with those who put all blame for the increase of anti-Semitism on the increasing number of immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe. Anti-Semitism is much older than modern migration and the systemic persecution of Jews and the Holocaust were not committed by immigrants.

      In the meantime, we should not disregard existing problems out of wrongly understood political correctness. That is why I very much appreciate the amendment proposed by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Indeed we should combat this prejudice and anti-Semitism in the context of an integration programme, just like in schools’ curricula. This is the same problem as applies with gender equality or the intolerance and persecution of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people. Those people who come from countries that are not democracies – that have a long history of imposed prejudice – must be assisted in better understanding and accepting our European values.

      This is a delicate issue, but let us not forget that anti-Semitism was not brought to Europe by immigrants. Many people, such as Mr Abad, Mr Salles, Mr Silva, Ms Crozon and our friend from Israel, Mr Hasson, spoke about a possible link between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. I fully agree with those who said that Israel should not be immune from criticism, in particular for its failure to meet its commitments as a Council of Europe Observer State. But legitimate and justified criticism against the State of Israel should be distinguished from anti-Israelism as a modern form of anti-Semitism. Here I would like to refer to recent speeches by the German Chancellor, Ms Merkel, and our former colleague European Union Commissioner Frans Timmermans, at the recent Berlin conference on anti-Semitism, which was mentioned by our German colleague here. When the very right of the State of Israel to exist is denied, it is not a legitimate position but a clear manifestation of anti-Semitism.

      Mr Christoffersen, Mr Hanžek and others stressed that anti-Semitism should be combated in the context of the general fight against intolerance, racism, xenophobia and hatred. I could not agree more. Only when we have a comprehensive network to combat hatred and racism can the fight against particular forms of hatred and racism be effective. I do not think that we need special conventions, instruments or mechanisms against anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism and other manifestations of hatred. No, we need general comprehensive instruments that are sufficiently effective and can be applied to combat effectively any kind of hatred or prejudice that unfortunately exists in our society.

      Mr Rouquet expressed some doubts that participation in education courses on the Holocaust could be effective. I cannot agree. It is not a punishment; it is assistance. It is not the fault of people if they were not aware of the Holocaust – they were not taught about it. So we must give everyone the chance to learn about it. It is probably a systemic problem of our education systems that surprisingly many people know very little about the Holocaust. Several members said that visiting Auschwitz can change lives. We should not oblige everyone to visit Auschwitz, but we have a lot of movies, books and other written material about it. It is unfortunately the case that many young people in Europe are not aware of the situation, and it is our obligation to help them.

      I am grateful to the excellent secretariat of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for their immense help with the preparation of the report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Cilevičs. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – It is with some emotion, including a little bitterness, that I rise to speak this morning. Mr Cilevičs is right: we hoped, but could not believe, that anti-Semitism had no place on our continent. We thought that the horrors of the mass extermination during the Second World War had vaccinated Europe and the entire world so that we were immune to the disease of anti-Semitism. That was optimistic. I feel bitter about the situation that Mr Cilevičs described so well in his report. An alarming stereotype is evolving into prejudice, and prejudice is escalating into discrimination and violence. Hate speech is widespread on the Internet and often also in public discourse.

      At the same time, I am grateful for this opportunity to call on everybody – parliamentarians and politicians first, but also society at large – to react and renew their commitment against anti-Semitism. I am grateful to Mr Cilevičs for pointing out all the symptoms of anti-Jewish prejudice and indicating many ways to counter that scourge. Among many other things, I appreciate his attention to education, which is fundamental to fight anti-Semitism and promote non-discrimination. Our young people should remember our history, because that is the basis for the future of Europe.

      I am grateful to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for its unanimous response to the work done by Mr Cilevičs.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Equality Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 10 amendments have been tabled. I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 5, 6, 9, 3, 4 and 10 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so Ms Centemero?

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      Amendments 5, 6, 9, 3, 4 and 10 are adopted.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Amendments 1 and 2, which are identical. I call Mr Küçükcan to support the amendment.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – I will leave it to the proposer of Amendment 2 to support the amendment.

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium)* – I just want to make it clear that even though Amendments 1 and 2 are identical, they probably have different motivations. The rapporteur made the distinction clear, and I fully agree with what he said. It is not a question of denying the fact that there are other crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity: it is just a question of not interfering with this debate on anti-Semitism. Let us just concentrate on that. I think it is wiser not to open a broader debate on all crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity that could be prosecuted, but to concentrate only on anti-Semitism, which is the subject of the report.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – The committee is against the amendments.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendments 1 and 2 are rejected.

      We come to Amendment 7.

      I call Mr Corlăţean to support Amendment 7 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – This is a natural amendment, because when we refer to the need for reflection, debates and dialogue, and when we try to identify the causes of and combat anti-Semitism, it is natural to focus on the political leaders, who have responsibilities, and on the religious leaders of different faiths.

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

      What is the opinion of the Equality Committee on the amendment?

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 8, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7.3.6, insert the following words: “, including in the framework of integration programmes for migrants and refugees;”

      I call Mr Corlăţean to support Amendment 8 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – It is very easy to support the amendment after the brilliant explanation and arguments made during the rapporteur’s last intervention on this point. He mentioned that we are making the need distinct by referring to the programmes of integration of migrants in Europe and not blaming the whole community from that point of view. It is a natural amendment and the rapporteur’s reasons for the amendment are perfect.

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by the Equality Committee, which proposes: in Amendment 8, before the word “integration”, insert the following words: “school curricula and”.

I call Mr Cilevičs to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the committee.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I, too, will refer to my recent intervention. If only integration programmes are mentioned, it might create an impression that we put all the blame on immigrants and see only that problem. The amendment is necessary to find a proper balance.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of Mr Corlăţean?

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – I support the sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14008, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Guzenina.)

2. Address by Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria

      The PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria. After his address, Mr Fischer will take questions from the Floor.

      Dear President, welcome to the Assembly Chamber, which you already know very well from your experience as a member of this Assembly, and from a previous visit in 2014. I am particularly honoured and glad to welcome you now, as your country is celebrating its 60th anniversary as a member of our Organisation. For 60 years, Austria has been a solid and committed partner, and a strong promoter and defender of democratic principles. Most recently, during the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, Austria has taken the lead in defending gender equality and supporting efforts towards a more tolerant and inclusive society. Your presence here today speaks of your strong support of those shared values. Thank you very much for all the work you are doing. It is with great pleasure that I give you the Floor.

      Mr FISCHER (President of Austria)* – President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the Parliamentary Assembly, as has been pointed out, this year – in these very days – Austria is celebrating its 60th anniversary of joining the Council of Europe. I thank the former President, Ms Brasseur, for her kind invitation to come to the Council of Europe and address the Chamber, and for the opportunity to speak before this distinguished audience. I also thank you, Mr President, for your warm words of welcome.

      The key topics of the Council of Europe – democracy, human rights, human dignity, the rule of law, constitutional loyalty and so on – are concepts that I have lived and breathed as a politician. Throughout my political career, they have been with me. My political life actually began approximately 50 years ago. In 1962, I began working for the National Council of Austria, which is the Austrian Parliament, as a legal expert. In 1971, for the very first time I was elected as a member of parliament in Austria. At the beginning of the 1980s for some time I was, in fact, a member of this Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      In April 1956, Austria joined the Council of Europe. I should perhaps add that only a few months later – in other words, in the autumn of 1956 – we experienced the shock of the crushing of the Hungarian revolution, with the concomitant influx of a great number of refugees into Austria. I remember it well. I was a student at the time and I worked in a camp in Traiskirchen where we welcomed refugees. I was very happy to be able to help the refugees and to help to take care of them as they came to Austria.

      Right from the outset Austria has been very committed to the work of the Council of Europe. For Austria, the Council of Europe is a unique platform where we can work out new forms of inter-State co-operation at government and parliamentary level, and perfect them. The European Convention on Human Rights has become a crucial component of Austria’s constitutional order. Many of the landmark rulings handed down by Austrian courts can be traced back to the European Court of Human Rights and its rulings. In fact, I visited the Court just a few moments ago.

      In April 2014, exactly two years ago, I had the opportunity to come before this august Assembly and say a few words. At the time, I spoke about important stages in the development of the Council of Europe. I will not reiterate what I said then. This time, if I may, I would like to devote my attention to a few topical points.

      One topical point is very positive: the European Court of Human Rights has, over the course of the past few years, been able to reduce its considerable backlog of outstanding complaints. We also face another fact, however. Unfortunately, when it comes to respecting democratic standards and guaranteeing the liberties that are so essential for the development of a free civil society, we have to say that these phenomena are not exactly in fine fettle right now. In fact, in some of our member States, the Council of Europe is facing the danger of backsliding, for example on the undermining of a properly functioning constitutional jurisdiction.

      Terror is not new in our history. In Europe, however, in the relatively calm years of reconstruction and recovery after the Second World War, we may have got the impression that terror and terrorism were phenomena that could be relegated to the past. This started to change in the 1970s with individual acts of terrorism and hijackings, the purpose of which were to draw attention to the struggle of radical groups of Palestinians. In Germany and in other European countries and cities, small and extremely determined left-wing radical groups tried to use terror and kidnappings to blackmail the States concerned. We believe we have turned the page on that particular phenomenon, but we now have a new phenomenon: a new form of terror.

      The new form of terror cannot, of course, be equated with Islam and we cannot pin the blame for it on Muslims, generally speaking. It is novel in the sense that it seeks to cause a great degree of uncertainty and terror by arbitrarily killing as many people as possible, with lives cruelly snatched away. Unfortunately, the strategy is proving successful, and there have been the recent examples of the dreadful attacks in Paris, Istanbul and Brussels. Any sensible and decent-thinking human being will, of course, condemn those attacks most firmly. At the same time, however, we are struggling to come up with the right answers and the right preventive measures. We need to fight against this form of terrorism. That fight cannot take the form of police co-operation alone. We cannot create a police State either. The Council of Europe has developed new legal instruments. For example, the new additional protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism addresses the subject of so-called foreign terrorist fighters. A lot still remains to be done, but our basic values must not be impinged upon in any way in the current context.

      As I have already pointed out, I was here two years ago. That was the last time I visited the Council of Europe and I stood here before this Assembly. At the time, the Assembly was discussing the temporary suspension of the voting rights of members belonging to the Russian Federation’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly because of the Ukraine crisis and the situation in Crimea. The hope was that the crisis could be overcome swiftly. Today, two years down the road, nobody can claim that this problem has been resolved. There are, if I may say so, some glimmers of hope. The Minsk talks have been a positive development. They have yielded some results, or at least partial results. The extent of the confrontation has been curtailed and there is now a lower number of casualties. The basic root of the problem is still unresolved, so the situation is still far from satisfactory – and indeed dangerous.

      Last week, I visited Moscow as part of an official mission. I had the opportunity to talk, at quite some length, with President Putin. Foreign Minister Lavrov was also present at the talks. The situation in Ukraine was one of the key topics addressed during the conversation. If I may share my impression with you, it is that Russia can hardly be satisfied with the sanctions and the cooling of its relationship with Europe. At the same time, however, Russia is not – or not yet – prepared to pay a reasonable price for a solution. On the other side, Ukraine must be even more dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, yet it is not prepared to, or is not in a position to, pay a reasonable price to reach a solution. By that I mean the exact implementation of the content and chronology of the Minsk agreements, and the ability to find a workable arrangement of self-government.

      All parties concerned must understand that there is a correlation between the implementation of the Minsk agreements and an end to sanctions or at least the gradual lifting of sanctions. Austria recognises this fact and we understand this state of affairs. We have adhered to the sanctions and we have been very loyal vis-à-vis the European Union when it comes to the system that has been established. From an Austrian perspective, we believe that this is an incentive to work even harder towards the implementation of the Minsk agreements. I very much hope that all parties understand that.

      For me, it remains a basic premise that as far as Europe and Russia are concerned it is good if we have good relations. I would also argue that it would be bad for Europe and Russia if our relationship was bad. In order to improve relations, we need to understand the position of the other side. We need to understand the other. Russia needs to understand what it is that exercises its partners in Europe – what we are concerned about. Conversely, Europe must understand what it is that Russia is concerned about and has been concerned about over the past 25 years since 1991. My personal view – this really is just a personal comment, if I may – is that a policy that would lead us, within the foreseeable future, to Ukraine’s accession to NATO is one that, for Europe, Ukraine and Russia, would ultimately bring more disadvantages than advantages.

      The key problem facing Europe is without doubt the crisis in migration and the stream of refugees. Last year more than 1 million people crossed the European Union’s external borders as migrants or refugees and sought protection in European States. Austria was much affected by this phenomenon, and one country alone cannot resolve this crisis: international co-operation and co-ordination must be at the top of the European agenda.

      We stand by the right to asylum, but if our common European asylum policy fails individual States or groups of States will be forced to take counter measures at the national level. Over the past six or seven months we have witnessed in many European countries a considerable backlash in public opinion and attitudes to refugees. We must avoid the topic of refugees becoming a fuel, or indeed dynamite, deployed by right wing extremist organisations, by xenophobes or by those who hold nationalist views.

      It cannot be denied that there have always been such attitudes. People who belong to another nationality, to another religion, to another faith or who have a different colour skin unfortunately often face general mistrust, but to counter that we need the declaration on human rights and to refer to human dignity – an inalienable right. We can also refer to the exhortations of His Holiness the Pope and to our commitment to solidarity. We can also refer to other world leaders, such as the Cardinal of Vienna, Dr Schönborn, who has spoken of the right to asylum as a sacred right, and to the wonderful dedication and commitment of swathes of our civil societies. That commitment was experienced in Austria after the crushing of the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and in 1968 with the crushing of the Prague Spring. More recently, solidarity has stood the test of time.

      Two factors have unfortunately contributed to a change in attitudes: the quantative factor – the sudden in increase in numbers, with its concomitant consequences – and the sentiment of inequality, of an unfair burden-sharing system. Germany, Sweden, Greece and Italy are well placed to give us their figures and perspective. From the Austrian perspective, I can say that our country has a population of 8.5 million and that almost 800 000 refugees entered our country in the second half of 2015. Most of them went on to Germany but nevertheless that could not become a permanent state of affairs, which is why I ask for your understanding. Austria received 88 000 asylum applications. That corresponds to about 1% of its population and was higher than the number of births.

      That is difficult to explain to our constituents – to our people – when European Union figures show that the total number of asylum applications in 23 member States did not correspond to 0.5% of the total population and that in 15 member States the figure was less than 0.1%. I therefore ask you to understand the measures taken by the Austrian Federal Government to settle the problem and its consequences – including the integration of refugees – for schools, employment and so on. We have tried to resolve the issue in an orderly fashion. We have taken measures including the establishment of an approximate reference value, namely 37 500 asylum applications for 2016. That figure still corresponds to 0.5% of the population and means that Austria is well above the average applied in the European Union as a whole.

      With good control of the European Union’s external borders we will not have to pay so much attention to internal borders. The Brenner border is a sensitive one, for historical, political, psychological and economic reasons. With an unabated influx of refugees Austria will have to address the issue of border checks. Similarly, Germany’s Wasserberg border is sensitive, as is the border between Italy and France around Nice. It is not, however, appropriate to speak of closing our borders or of locking them and sealing them, and I should not want to speak in such terms. Austria cannot and will not seal itself from Germany or any other country, but we must know how many people are crossing our borders and how we can integrate them. We do not want to turn back the wheel of history.

      Austria will next year chair the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), for which it has made good preparations, and our experience of holding the chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers in 2013-14 will be invaluable.

      I should like to conclude with a few personal comments. At the beginning of my address I mentioned the fact that I began to work for the Austrian Parliament in the early 1960s. In the mid-1970s I became leader of the Social Democratic Party in Austria. I then left the parliament for a couple of years and became federal minister for science and research. For 12 years I was Speaker of the Austrian National Council and in 2004 I was elected President of Austria, with 51% of the vote. In 2010 I was re-elected with the support of 79.3% of the votes cast. This Sunday we shall organise the first round of elections for a new Austrian President. I think I am safe in saying that none of the candidates – five male candidates and one female candidate – will receive more than 50% of the votes in the first round. On 22 May 2016, therefore, we shall have a run-off between the two highest scoring candidates, and on 8 July 2016 I shall hand over my responsibilities to my successor – him or her.

      I look back on my lengthy career in politics with a great deal of joy and gratitude, and over the next few weeks I shall bid farewell to a number of very dear friends. I am delighted to be here with you today following Madam Brasseur’s invitation and to have the opportunity to say goodbye to the distinguished Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I thank you for your attention and wish you all the best for the future. (Applause)

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Fischer, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches. The first question is by Mr Axel Fischer.

      Mr Axel FISCHER (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – President Fischer, thank you very much indeed for those clear words and for the various issues you chose to address. It is wonderful that at the end of your term of office you felt it so important to return to the Council of Europe. That emphasises the importance of our work. President Agramunt has just said that I cannot make a long speech, but I want to say that I think all of your work has been fantastic. As a long-standing politician, where do you think the main responsibilities of the Council of Europe lie in future?

      Mr FISCHER* – We are not seeing any kind of watershed or turning point whereby the Council of Europe has to shift its focus. Rather, a number of responsibilities are becoming more urgent, and the Council of Europe now faces more complicated conflicts. In my eyes, the Council of Europe is a body that can make a contribution to peaceful co-existence and development. I feel that it is the guardian of parliamentary democracy and democracy in the round. It is there to espouse the European constitutional principles that are common to many of us and to act as the guardian of those principles. Indeed, the Council of Europe should stress the cohesive nature of Europe. Notwithstanding our national differences, we have certain common goals and aspirations. All of those principles need to be anchored in our consciousnesses. However, the Council of Europe certainly has its work cut out for it in the 21st century.

      Mr SCHIEDER (Austria, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – Mr President, I would like to thank you for what you said today, and particularly your clear words on the Brenner issue. We have achieved a lot in terms of human rights and the rule of law, which are so needed and are being tested. At the same time, some people are calling those achievements into question. How can we maintain our solidarity in the future?

      Mr FISCHER* – Behaviour based on solidarity is irreplaceable, but at the same time, it is not enough. In a greater Europe, as represented here in the Council of Europe, we see different parts of European culture clashing with one another. There is no doubt that British parliamentarianism is rather particular and different, and that the south European States have their own habits and peculiarities. Scandinavian and Nordic countries have special aspects as well. Because we have not dealt with that, the differences have become greater. We now need a united European political culture. We have to do what it says in our constitutions, but that is not enough. There has to be a positive spirit based on our constitutions and on experience. We must implement what is in our constitutions, but not everything that they allow for should be done.

      We should always look at things by putting ourselves in the other’s shoes. In other words, if you are in government, you should always think, “We might be in opposition tomorrow,” and vice versa – the opposition should think, “If we achieve our targets, we will end up in government.” My aspiration and dream is for political culture in Europe to become one. It should be enhanced so that things that are possible but are harmful to democracy are not allowed to happen. That is what I want.

      Mr GOPP (Liechtenstein, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – I would like to thank you for your very able address. Austria has decided to take a strict view on border controls; I can comprehend that. However, its moves are controversial within Austria, particularly when it comes to tightening up controls on the Brenner pass, which you mentioned. You also talked about the comprehensive failure of European asylum policy. What does Europe now need to do in order to ensure that we do not jeopardise the notion of Europe as being united and showing solidarity?

      Mr FISCHER* – I gather that President Juncker was here yesterday. It would have been a good idea to ask him that question, because that, of course, is his job. I am not sure exactly what his response is to that, but my view is that the current Schengen system is predicated on external borders being effectively patrolled. If we cannot secure our external borders, there will inevitably be problems, which is why we must address that first and foremost.

      Obviously, I am struck by what Germany has done in recent years. I know why Austria took the action it did. If we looked at trying to stem the migratory flows, if we had more fairness in the distribution of refugees within Europe and if, moreover, it were possible for the whole issue of refugees not to fuel populism and to be exploited for party political purposes, we would already have achieved a great deal. We have to show humanity in dealing with these human beings. The climate in 2015 was one of a lack of preparedness, but those days are behind us now. We are now prepared for what is to come, even though there will be more influxes of migrants.

      Ms USTA (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group)* – Mr President, the new law on Islam in Austria gives people new rights. That is great, but at the same time, mosques and Islamic organisations are not allowed finances from abroad, which is not the case for other places of worship, be they Armenian, Orthodox or Christian. How does it fit in with the principle of equality that only Muslims are affected by this ban on foreign finance?

      Mr FISCHER* – I am glad you think that the Islam law is by and large a positive thing. It was a very difficult piece of legislation. As many people will know, back in 1912, Austria was the first European country to recognise Islam as a religious community and to take the necessary legislative steps to protect it. That law dates back more than a hundred years and it needs to be renewed and reformed. There has been a wide-ranging discussion – you may know that there are many different opinions even within the Islamic community – and I have been pushed in all sorts of different directions following the influence of the Islamic community in Austria.

      We have managed to find a common denominator in the form of the law, which was passed with a vast majority in the parliament. Parts of the Islamic community see it as a positive thing but some do not. During the process, we had to consider all sorts of aspects, including security. There is a truly independent constitutional court where people can take cases if there is any kind of infringement of the equality rules. If the court finds in their favour, things will change, but a lot of legal experts say that differentiations exist for other reasons – we think that the law will not be found to be unconstitutional in that respect. By and large, it is a good law, and a lot of people from other countries are coming to Vienna to study it.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – As everybody seems to be speaking German in the Chamber, I will follow suit.

      I was delighted, President Fischer, to hear that you had a friendly meeting with President Putin, and that you advocate the normalisation of relations between Russia and the European Union as soon as possible. That is obviously in everybody’s interests, so what prospects do you think there are for the lifting of economic sanctions? How soon do you think they will be brought to an end?

      Mr FISCHER – We do not have to speak German, so I will try to answer in English.

      Austria has supported the sanctions in the institutions of the European Union because it was necessary not to remain without reaction after what happened in the Crimea and parts of the Ukraine. It is our opinion that sanctions are not an end in themselves. Of course, it would be good if we can create a situation where Europe, united, can decide to reduce or end the sanctions. I believe, as the German Foreign Minister does, that we should think in a step-by-step way. It is necessary to make progress on the Minsk agreement. My feeling is that, perhaps in a year, the process of reducing sanctions can start, but we are already further along than we were. That would be fine, but both sides must contribute to such a development.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Fischer. We now come to the speakers list. I propose that the questions are answered in groups of three.

      Ms WURM (Austria)* – President Fischer, I warmly welcome you to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the guardian of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Over the course of its history, the Council of Europe has extended its scope of activities and faced the major challenges of our time, such as through setting standards in combating violence, including violence against women. You have already mentioned terrorism and the convention on the prevention of terrorism. What is your assessment of the responsibilities of the Council of Europe today and over the next 60 years? As an experienced politician, what would you say will be the focal points?

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine)* – I want to ask a question about the situation in Ukraine. Mr President Fischer, you mentioned the idea of reducing step by step the sanctions against Russia, but do you have any idea how to push Mr Putin to reverse the annexation of Crimea, withdraw his troops from the eastern part of Ukraine, and release Nadia Savchenko, who is a member of this Assembly? Perhaps you have an idea how to manage that. Will you reiterate your adherence to the territorial integrity of all member States of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe?

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – Mr Fischer, I congratulate the Republic of Austria on the 60th anniversary of its accession to the Council of Europe. You mentioned that, in four days’ time, the election process to decide your successor will start. At the end of your 50-year career, I want to ask you a very personal question. What is the most important thing in your political career that you have wanted to achieve but never managed?

      Mr FISCHER* – I thank Ms Wurm for her friendly statement. The job of the Council of Europe is not one that I can encapsulate in a nutshell. It is too much to ask of me to state that in a few words, so I refer her to what I said at the outset about the founding principles. I hold the Council of Europe in the highest esteem. As Secretary General Jagland has said, if it did not exist, we would have to invent it. Obviously, we must look ahead to see how the Council of Europe will develop.

      Mr Ariev asked whether I had a patent remedy for solving the problems between Russia and Ukraine. The annexation has universally been criticised as an infringement of international law, but I do not have a ready-made solution. President Poroshenko and the American President have ideas for a solution, but I would be hoodwinking you if I were to suggest that my suggestions will be followed; that is just not the case. It is my personal conviction that sanctions are not an end in themselves, and I am all for co-operation and for acting as a bridge. I am a representative of a country that has good political relationships with many countries. I think that progress can be made on negotiations on Crimea and the Minsk process. That seems obvious to me. On your question about whether Ms Savchenko will be released, that is again up for negotiation. I do not rule out processes being set in motion that might lead us to where we want to be.

      I did not say something that I should have said: it would be a good thing for Russia and Ukraine if they improved their relations. It will be damaging to both if their relations continue to be so poor. We live in an age where all our countries must co-exist in Europe. Ukraine and Russia are neighbours and I therefore believe that co-operation is the only way forward.

      Let me deal with Ms Brasseur’s question. I was born in 1938, and as a child I lived through bomb attacks. I sat in an air raid shelter when we were hit by hundreds of bombs. I was very scared and my mother was even more frightened. My overriding political goal was therefore to avoid war and secure peace. War is not the ultima ratio, but the ultima irratio. It was not me but Willy Brandt who said that, but I have been wedded to that sentence. It has not been possible to banish war completely and to preserve peace. That is possibly the reply to Ms Brasseur’s question: the greatest and most important goal that I was unable to achieve, and that no single individual or country can achieve, is banishing the absurdity that is war from the history of humanity.

      Mr CSENGER-ZALÁN (Hungary) – The international community has recognised autonomy for South Tyrol as a model. We have successful co-operation between Vienna and Rome, and thanks to that we have a structure that allows a minority to thrive. It has proved stable and effective and is indeed a model. Do you think that it could be applied to other international conflicts? Could it serve as an example? Could others adopt it, either in whole or on part?

      Mr KRONBICHLER (Italy)* – I will speak in your language in honour of your impending departure and because my country, Italy, protects my German mother tongue. Why are you treating the Brenner pass as a normal border, closing it sometimes, and leaving it open when it could be closed? Why does Austria not use that territory as an exceptional experiment to overcome the refugee crisis? Thank you and I wish you all the best.

      Ms OOMEN-RUIJTEN (Netherlands)* – You mentioned 1956 when Austria, along with many other European countries, including the Netherlands, took in many refugees. That contrasts starkly with the current situation. There is a problem about closing the Brenner border, but what will you do? More refugees will come in and we must look at how that chimes with our values.

      Mr FISCHER* – I am very proud of the self-government model in South Tyrol. It took 40 years of negotiations to achieve that. When I am abroad, looking at Kosovo, or on other occasions, I get asked about the details of the model, how it works, what the negotiating positions at the time were and so on. I am asked in-depth questions about it and I am happy to provide information because it may prove helpful in other situations. Of course, we cannot equate the South Tyrol model with what might be applicable in Ukraine, Kosovo, Corsica or any other parts of the continent because historical, geographical and linguistic circumstances all play an important part. Problems can be resolved, concessions and compromises need to be made, and individual elements of the South Tyrol model can be used as an example or inspiration, but South Tyrol, region A, cannot be transferred to another region, region B. It cannot simply be uprooted and transplanted.

      Mr Kronbichler spoke about the Brenner border. You said that it was not a normal border in terms of the checks and measures that could be applied there. I attempted to explain what the Brenner border is. I have also talked about concepts, language and objectives. I often hear these points being made in Austria, and I often reject them because, to date, although we have not had a break or a reduction in the influx of individuals or goods, if we are talking about 100 000 or 200 000 refugees, what can I say? It cannot happen at the Slovenian border, the Hungarian border or the Czech Republic’s border, yet at one particular border, can all the regulations be inapplicable and void? Can any country stand up with a clear conscience and say, “We have one border where we simply turn a blind eye. Anyone can come in. Different rules apply, not the usual ones that apply to border traffic”? I mentioned 37 500 asylum applications that we could accept this year as a reference point. It is one of the highest numbers in Europe. We will not get positive feedback from the Austrian population if we say, “Let’s take maybe 5 000, and that’s it; there’s no room for anyone else.” Others might say, “Why are you limiting the figure to 37 000? What about 100 000?” You have to look at the picture as a whole and in context. The Brenner border is important and special. I am in touch with the Land governor, but I cannot say that all provisions, arrangements, regulations apply at all borders except this one. That would be a pull factor.

      In a way that is also a reply to Ms Oomen-Ruijten from the Netherlands. People often accuse me of defending a certain type of culture – a welcoming culture – and I say that welcoming foreigners and people who are seeking refuge and shelter is part of our political culture. We have to treat these people in a dignified way. We also have to rely on our traditions. That said, of course in the co-operation between individual European States we cannot have too much deviation in what we do. Refugees from Syria, the Near East and Afghanistan look particularly at Germany, Austria and Sweden. Saying, “Let them all go to these countries and that solves our problem” is too facile. That is not a way of resolving the issue. So I ask for your understanding. I hope I do not have to defend myself on both fronts: to those would prefer borders to be pretty much sealed up or at least closed a bit, and to those on the other side who say that numbers do not matter at all.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece) – President Fischer, I come from Greece and I know that on several occasions you have presented a clear and brave stance on the refugee crisis, not hesitating to criticise the overall European policies on the issue, as well as the recent European Union -Turkey agreement. In this light, I would like your view on the following questions. First, do you think that the unilateral sealing of European borders is an adequate response to the refugee crisis that is compatible with our common European values and the European and international framework for the protection of human rights? Secondly, do you think that the European Union -Turkey deal presents a proper response to the issue, given the dismal record of Turkey regarding the brutal violation of human rights and basic democratic principles?

      Mr ŠEPIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – Mr President, thank you very much for your brilliant contribution and service to the policy of peace and development, not only of Austria but the region and the entire European Union. Bearing in mind your great political experience, how do you see the future of the European Union and the western Balkans in the next 10 years?

      Mr FISCHER* – I say to the colleague from Greece that I believe that the unilateral sealing of the border is not sound European policy. However, in view of the fact that the external borders are not working, European States have to perform certain checks because we need to know roughly who is coming in and how many, so we cannot just not check at all, as I said earlier. The European Union -Turkey deal is a deal that all the European Union countries have agreed to, including Greece. It is an agreement that controls unregulated migration, at least to some extent. I said on Austrian television that I have some doubts about whether that agreement is going to work in the way it is planned. I say it again here in the Council of Europe: I have some doubts about whether it will work as planned but it is a unanimous decision and, as President Juncker said yesterday, we will keep a close eye on this. My successor will keep a close eye on it in Austria.

      To the gentleman from Bosnia I say that I have visited Bosnia many times in the past 20 years and I have always felt a great sympathy for it. It is not the easiest of places. Sarajevo is a city with a very interesting history. I was very sad that repeatedly in the past 10 years reforms and changes to the constitution have been broached and then, because of the different structures, things have fallen on stony ground. I had hoped in the past 18 months that the situation was improving. My position and the Austrian position is that the enlargement of the European Union is becoming more problematic and the hurdles are becoming higher but we believe that the European Union is not complete if the western Balkan countries are not members as well. They should become members and then that area will become more stable and conflicts can better be avoided.

      I thank everybody very much for their patience and their questions. I wish you every success.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr President, thank you very much for your inspirational speech. I wish Austria another 60 years of successful membership of our Organisation.

3. Next public business

The PRESIDENT – 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 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Renewed commitment in the fight against anti-Semitism in Europe

Presentation by Mr Cilevičs of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 14008.

Presentation by Mr Corlăţean of the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 14023.

Speakers: Mr Schneider, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Destexhe, Mr Davies, Mr Hanžek, Ms Christoffersen* Mr Abad, Mr Schäfer, Mr Salles, Ms Anttila, Mr Feist, Ms Gafarova, Mr Hasson, Mr Hajduković, Mr Nissinen, Mr Silva, Ms Crozon, Mr Németh, Mr Rouquet, Mr Valen, Mr Jakavonis, Mr Reichardt, Mr Küçükcan, Mr Khader,

Ms Kobakhidze, Mr Allison, Ms Shahgeldyan, Mr Huseynov.

2. Addess by Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria

Questions: Mr Axel Fischer, Mr Schieder, Mr Gopp, Ms Usta, Mr Kox, Ms Wurm, Mr Ariev, Ms Brasseur, Mr Csenger-Zalán, Mr Kronbichler, Ms Oomen-Ruijten, Ms Kavvadia, Mr Šepić.

3. Next public business

Appendix I

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 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

Tasmina AHMED-SHEIKH

Brigitte ALLAIN/Anne-Yvonne Le Dain

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON/Eduard Köck

Luise AMTSBERG/Annette Groth

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN/Ion Popa

Iwona ARENT*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina

Mehmet BABAOĞLU

Theodora BAKOYANNIS/Evangelos Venizelos

David BAKRADZE

Gérard BAPT/Jean-Claude Frécon

Doris BARNETT/ Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/ Teófilo De Luis

Meritxell BATET/ Soraya Rodríguez Ramos

Deniz BAYKAL

Guto BEBB/Paul Scully

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Włodzimierz BERNACKI

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs

Jokin BILDARRATZ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Tobias BILLSTRÖM

Oleksandr BILOVOL

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

Anne BRASSEUR

Piet De BRUYN/Hendrik Daems

Margareta BUDNER

Valentina BULIGA

Dawn BUTLER*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO

José CEPEDA

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Anastasia CHRISTODOULOPOULOU

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Paolo CORSINI

David CRAUSBY*

Yves CRUCHTEN*

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Geraint DAVIES*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Renata DESKOSKA*

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Namik DOKLE*

Francesc Xavier DOMENECH*

Jeffrey DONALDSON/David Davies

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß/ Axel Schäfer

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON/André Schneider

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Franz Leonhard EẞL

Markar ESEYAN

Nigel EVANS

Samvel FARMANYAN*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Doris FIALA/Manuel Tornare

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Bernard FOURNIER/André Reichardt

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ

Martin FRONC*

Sahiba GAFAROVA

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Xavier GARCÍA ALBIOL*

José Ramón GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ*

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Mihai GHIMPU/Alina Zotea

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Oleksii GONCHARENKO

Rainer GOPP

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Maria Grecea

Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT*

François GROSDIDIER/Rudy Salles

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Gergely GULYÁS*

Emine Nur GÜNAY

Valgerður GUNNARSDÓTTIR

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Killion Munyama

Hamid HAMID

Alfred HEER*

Gabriela HEINRICH

Michael HENNRICH/ Thomas Feist

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

John HOWELL

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU

Florin IORDACHE*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Sandra JAKELIĆ/Josip Bilaver

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Andrzej JAWORSKI/Daniel Milewski

Michael Aastrup JENSEN

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Anne KALMARI/Petri Honkonen

Erkan KANDEMIR

Marietta KARAMANLI/ Pascale Crozon

Niklas KARLSSON/Azadeh Rojhan Gustafsson

Nina KASIMATI*

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Filiz KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR

İlhan KESİCİ

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Jarosław Obremski

Manana KOBAKHIDZE

Haluk KOÇ

Željko KOMŠIĆ/Saša Magazinović

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN/Nikolaus Scherak

Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková

Elvira KOVÁCS*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Florian KRONBICHLER

Eerik-Niiles KROSS/ Raivo Aeg

Talip KÜÇÜKCAN

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Yuliya L OVOCHKINA*

Inese LAIZĀNE

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Luís LEITE RAMOS

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER*

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*

Filippo LOMBARDI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUCAIDES/ Stella Kyriakides

Philippe MAHOUX/Petra De Sutter

Marit MAIJ*

Muslum MAMMADOV/Vusal Huseynov

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Marek Černoch

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Duarte MARQUES

Alberto MARTINS

Meritxell MATEU

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA/Seán Crowe

Sir Alan MEALE/Phil Wilson

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Jasen MESIĆ

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Damien Abad

Marianne MIKKO

Anouchka van MILTENBURG

Orhan MİROĞLU

Olivia MITCHELL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Thomas MÜLLER/Roland Rino Büchel

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN*

Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Johan NISSINEN

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Suat ÖNAL

Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN

Joseph O’REILLY/Rónán Mullen

Tom PACKALÉN*

Judith PALLARÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Jaana PELKONEN*

Agnieszka POMASKA

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Baroness Doreen Massey

Mark PRITCHARD

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO/Eleonora Cimbro

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Kerstin RADOMSKI*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Melisa RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ*

Helena ROSETA*

René ROUQUET

Alex SALMOND*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Giuseppe Galati

Milena SANTERINI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Sergiy Vlasenko

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH/ Andreas Schieder

Paul SCHNABEL

Ingjerd SCHOU

Koos SCHOUWENAAR*

Nico SCHRIJVER

Frank SCHWABE

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Aleksandar SENIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Paula SHERRIFF*

Bernd SIEBERT*

Adão SILVA

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Egidijus Vareikis

Jan ŠKOBERNE*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI/ Augusto Michelotti

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ

Ionuț-Marian STROE*

Dominik TARCZYŃSKI

Damien THIÉRY

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI

Goran TUPONJA/Snežana Jonica

İbrahim Mustafa TURHAN/Burhanettin Uysal

Nada TURINA-ĐURIĆ/Domagoj Hajduković

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Liana Kanelli

Leyla Şahin USTA

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN/Rasmus Nordqvist

Vladimir VORONIN/Liliana Palihovici

Viktor VOVK

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Marija Maja Catović

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Jacek WILK

Andrzej WOJTYŁA*

Morten WOLD

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ

Serap YAŞAR

Leonid YEMETS

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN/Mher Shahgeldyan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Boriana ÅBERG

Hans Fredrik GRØVAN

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Barbara ROSENKRANZ

Observers

Dean ALLISON

Percy DOWNE

Yoel HASSON

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Armando LUNA CANALES

Jennifer O’CONNELL

John OLIVER

Ulises RAMÍREZ NÚÑEZ

David M. WELLS

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Mohammed AMEUR

Nezha EL OUAFI

M. Omar HEJIRA

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM