AS (2014) CR 30



(Fourth part)


Thirtieth sitting

Tuesday 30 September 2014 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

4. Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A no later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated

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

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

May I remind the Assembly that at yesterday morning’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time for this morning’s debate be limited to three minutes.

In view of the time available and the number of speakers on the lists, I propose that speaking time in each debate this afternoon be limited to three minutes. Is that agreed?

It is agreed to.

1. Counteraction to manifestations of neo-Nazism

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the presentation of a report on an issue of great concern throughout Europe. I am pleased to welcome Mr Olemic Thommessen, the Speaker of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament, to this Hemicycle once more. Mr Thommessen, it is an honour and a pleasure to have you here again following the welcome you gave to a number of us during the European conference of presidents of parliaments, which you hosted in Oslo. Thank you very much. That conference was a great success, and it was an honour for me to co-chair that meeting with you.

At that conference, Mr Thommessen and I published a joint statement supporting the initiative to make 22 July the European day for the victims of hate crime. Mr Thommessen, we are all aware that that date is a very painful memory for your country, as it is for us all. The horrendous massacre in Oslo and Utøya should never be forgotten, and it should remain a strong reminder of our responsibility to combat neo-Nazism, hatred and extremism. That proposal is included in the draft resolution and the draft recommendation presented today by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and I am confident that it will be fully endorsed by our Assembly.

The rapporteur, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, will now present her report. I thank her for all her work both on that report and on other reports. Unfortunately, she will hereafter no longer be a member of this Assembly, so I take this opportunity to thank her on behalf of us all for everything that she has done. You are a very good example of how we should all work in this Assembly. Thank you very much, Marietta.

The first item for this morning is the debate on the report entitled “Counteraction to manifestations of neo-Nazism”, Document 13593, presented by Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, with an opinion presented by Ms Olga Kazakova on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, document 13602, and a statement by Mr Olemic Thommessen.

In order to finish by 1 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.30 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes.

I call Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Thank you for your kind words, Madam President. In the early 1970s, I met a woman who survived a Nazi concentration camp during the Second World War. She had numbers burned into her arm, but that was not the scar that hurt her the most. It was the scar inside – the scar that you could not see – of her horrible experiences in the Nazi concentration camp that haunted her every night and day for the rest of her life. Hate crimes committed by neo-Nazis today have the same effect on their victims. Unfortunately, my report “Counteraction to manifestations of neo-Nazism” is more relevant today than ever.

We all have neo-Nazi movements in our countries. In some member States, those movements are dormant, waiting to come out of the dark when the right conditions arise. Those conditions might be social unrest, austerity or the failure of Government to handle migration in the right way. My report focuses on how to prevent people, especially young people, from entering into neo-Nazi movements or parties, and how to help them leave such movements if they do join. Although in the preparation of the report I visited some of our member States and had hearings with others, this is not a country report. My resolution is about best practice, good examples and shared experience that we can all use. Early awareness of manifestations of neo-Nazi hate crime or hate speech is crucial across society, from civil society to non-governmental organisations, Government, politicians at all levels, schools, trade unions, churches and so on. We must react early, forcefully and consistently to manifestations of neo-Nazism. All member States have some kind of law on hate speech and hate crimes. Use your laws. Implement your laws. Train your police officers, prosecutors and judges so that they can detect hate crime.

      The best way to prevent hate crime is to start with the kids. We should teach our children in school about democratic values. We should teach them that we are all equal and we all have the same value. We need to educate them and, one might say, vaccinate them against hate speech and hate crime, especially online. Of course, we must train our teachers so that they can tackle the anti-democratic ideologies that appear today. It is not easy to help those who want to leave neo-Nazi movements or organisations and there is no quick fix, but it is necessary to do so. We have jump or exit programmes in many of our member States, in which former members of neo-Nazi movements or organisations often help others to leave. It takes time and it costs money, but it costs more money to do nothing. All the criminal acts committed by such people cost money. Look at how much it costs in purely monetary terms to destroy the life of a victim. That does not even take into account the other costs, which you cannot count in money, of destroying the life of that victim. Therefore, we have to invest in exit programmes. At the same time, we must have victim support and witness support, both of which need investment.

      I am pretty sure that during the debate, the question will be raised of whether we should ban neo-Nazi parties. Personally, I am against that. I think that parties should be voted out by the citizens in elections. If we ban such parties, they will only change their name, go underground and reappear in another form, which would make things even more difficult for us. As I said before, if members of neo-Nazi parties commit crimes, we have laws to deal with them. I encourage you to use your laws and prosecute those who commit such crimes. It is all right to do that, but parties should be banned only as a last resort.

      I suggest in my report that every member State should have an action plan and a national co-ordinator to combat neo-Nazism. As I found out, there were good examples and good experiences in every country, which must be shared, so we should start by doing that on a local level. I also recommend that there should be a co-ordinator at Council of Europe level to promote the exchange of experience and good practice, so that we do not have to re-invent the wheel every time. There are so many good things going on in all our member States. I would also like to mention that I believe there is a real need for a report on anti-Semitism.

      I know that Mr Thommessen, the Speaker from the Norwegian Storting, is going to speak, and I am sure that he will talk about making 22 July the European day for victims of hate crime. I make the same suggestion in both my resolution and my recommendation. Dear colleagues, even if you remember nothing else that I say, I give you this one line on how to combat neo-Nazis. They are not to be ignored, but they should not be turned into martyrs either.

      I want to thank Despina very much; without her, I would not have this report. I look forward to a long debate on this very important issue.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Rapporteur, not only for your work but for your presentation. I call Ms Kazakova, Rapporteur of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – I congratulate Ms Pourbaix-Lundin on her work. The growth in neo-Nazism is evident. Many people have set aside our values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, which are the basis of European integration. Neo-Nazism is one of the worst manifestations of extremism. Its propaganda takes advantage of dissatisfaction among the population and incites them to violence. Politicians should be aware that people may take anything that they say against specific groups not only as a justification for discrimination but as an open call for violence. Neo-Nazism is not an abstract or archaic concept; it results in violence against certain groups of people, who must be protected. Victims must have access to the judiciary, and any crimes committed under the guise of neo-Nazism – from humiliation and bullying to mass murder – must be the subject of thorough and, if necessary, international investigation.

      This Assembly cannot ignore the recent mass burials of people who had been tortured and bullied in the Donetsk oblast of Ukraine, which is very like Nazi repression. On this subject, we do not have the moral right to remain silent about former Nazis being turned into heroes through building monuments to them, about public demonstrations in support of Nazi values or about monuments to those who fought against the Hitler coalition being defaced.

      We must not go back to the ideals of Adolf Hitler. A relay baton is being handed on to those who want to continue to kill. During the Second World War, the 14th Regiment of the Galizien Division participated in the complete destruction of the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka, where 500 people were killed, including women and children, and I could of course mention Babi Yar and Oświęcim or Auschwitz. No one criticises the sentence of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which identified the SS, with all its units, as a criminal organisation.

      The rapporteur has suggested naming 22 July as a day of memory because of the 77 people who were murdered by Breivik—of course, we all feel for their loved ones—and that is a good idea. Our work must make sure that such terrible things can never happen again anywhere in the world.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kazakova. I ask the President of the Storting, Mr Thommessen, to take the floor.

Mr THOMMESSEN (Speaker of the Norwegian Parliament) – Madam President, members of parliament, dear colleagues, I want to start with a few lines by the Norwegian poet Helge Torvund:

      “When the summer explodedAn

      And the petals of July

      Burned down

      With the bitter smoke

      Of death

      And the pavement turned red

      What was our answer?

      Never a bomb in our name

      Never a gunshot

      In the name of youth

      Let us never forget

      We don’t want revenge

      We will win

      With peace.”

      The poem is called “The Answer” – the answer to the brutal violence on the tiny island of Utøya and the bombing in Oslo on 22 July 2011 by a home-grown terrorist. The answer of the scores of Norwegians who poured on to the streets in the days that followed was less of demanding retribution than of sending out a message of defiance. People marched in silence, many carrying a single rose to remember the 77 victims. It was, in the words of the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, a message of “even more democracy, even more openness, but never naïvety”. At a time of unprecedented grief, Norwegians preserved a sense of normality and stability by sticking to the rule of law. The terrorist had to stand trial, and that trial had a broader impact on our society as a whole: it confirmed our fundamental values.

      Today’s debate is hugely important. Hate affronts and attacks our equality of esteem and human dignity, values that are fundamental to all member States of the Council of Europe. In your resolution, you call for an end to the protection of hatemongering, with reference both to the right to free speech and the tacit acceptance of the majority. We need to slow down hate, not help it on its way.

      For this reason, I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, and the committee on helping to set a standard and on making a stand against the unacceptable. As parliamentarians, you are well placed to expose advocates of hate in public debates and to fight their rhetoric and hate-filled ideology. Xenophobia, racism and nationalist extremism require a resolute response from all, regardless of political divisions.

      Some of you may have seen that Ms Brasseur and I wore identical t-shirts at the University of Oslo three weeks ago. We had received the t-shirts from youth activists who hope that 22 July will become a pan-European day to commemorate the victims of hate crime. The white t-shirts sported a red heart containing two words: "No hate". I for one strongly support this youth initiative, and I hope these young people have convinced many of you in the Chamber today to do so.

      Hate has a chilling effect on speech and it stifles public debate. Last month, young Muslims in Oslo organised a demonstration against radical Islam. A 19-year-old, Faten Mahdi al-Hussaini stood in front of the Parliament and spoke up against the hate and extremism of a group called the Prophet’s Ummah, which actively supports the group “Islamic State”. As one of the initiators of the protest, she received serious threats after the demonstration. The media was right to describe her as a brave person, but her bravery is also part of the problem: you should not have to be brave to participate in a democratic dialogue. Actual incitement to hate crime should be combated with the full force of the law, but controversial words should be countered by more speech.

      I caution those who try to demonise extremist parties and, by extension, their voters. Demonisation shuts down communication and preserves ignorance. It is counter-productive in the fight against extremism. In the case of voters, it lumps together a broad range of people and masks their differences. Tagging people is unwise: it runs the risk of unintentionally generating support for extremist groups. What we need to do is to consider the reasoning behind votes cast and to take such voters seriously. As you point out in the resolution, public anxiety over threats to jobs and the welfare State may cause a shift in support to populist extremists. These parties also carry an appeal to voters who are anxious about the cultural impact of immigration and increasing diversity. As mainstream politicians, we must address the allure of a society frozen in time, with a static and unchanging culture.

      Some commentators have called the current economic situation in Europe a test of the common labour market and of free labour mobility in the European Union. The internal market offers a tool to alleviate the unemployment crisis in Europe by allowing people to move to where there are jobs. As parliamentarians, we need to think long and hard about how we meet and include people in our communities. If we want people to take the plunge and make use of the internal market, we must ensure that they are well received. We cannot accept sullen anger to simmer in parts of our population. It is our duty actively and visibly to create a sense of belonging for all individuals in our countries. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your very strong statement and commitment. We all have to stand together in order to combat neo-Nazism and populism. I look forward to seeing you later, when we open the Living Books side-event.

      We now come to the list of speakers. I remind you that each speaker has three minutes. We will begin with the representatives of the political groups. The first speaker is Ms Erkal Kara, from Turkey, representing the European Democrat Group.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – In order to combat neo-Nazism, you have to understand the root causes and take a hard look at the present state of European society. The economic crisis, unemployment, the material difficulties with which many Europeans are confronted – all this has no doubt contributed to the rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of intolerance.

It is against minorities that different forms of intolerance and extremist violence are aimed, yet in Norway we saw that such violence does not necessarily discriminate in that way: it can be directed against anyone. Europe must continue to combat any form of discrimination, intolerance or violence aimed against individuals or groups. We need to concentrate first and foremost on prevention by deconstructing stereotypes and prejudices through education and awareness-raising. At the same time, it is also important to protect victims of violence and hatred and to ensure access to effective justice for them. If we do not protect individuals and minorities, especially immigrants, against such violence, it will increase. Victims will not turn to the police if they believe that the crimes committed against them will not be properly investigated, and that will have a negative impact on the integration process. Because of such impunity, the perpetrators of such crimes will not be afraid and will repeat their criminal activities. States therefore need to introduce more measures aimed at integration.

Because of the current economic and political atmosphere, States are turning away from such efforts, which is a grave mistake that can undermine social harmony in Europe. It should not be forgotten that immigrants are a primary of source of wealth for Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Neo-Nazism is like a carbuncle on the backside of democracy and we should all face up to the fact that, sadly, it is a growing influence in our societies. We all have a responsibility in one way or another to take up the fight against it – in our own parliaments and outside – and to get the wider community onside on this very important issue.

The report is an excellent exposé of the current situation, but there are six points I would like to emphasise. The first is the need for early education. It is vitally important that education be considered as an effective tool in combating neo-Nazism, and it has to start at a very early age in our schools. The second point is the need for both national and European-wide action: a co-ordinated approach across Europe in tackling this issue. The third point is the need for exit measures for individuals involved in exploiting young people and others. We have to find a way to give those individuals some hope in society, so we can remove them from the claws of those who perpetrate such actions.

Fourthly, victim protection and support is vital. The Norwegian Speaker spoke with great eloquence about the danger a Norwegian woman faced when she spoke out against what was happening in her country. It is right that people should be protected. I myself have police protection in the United Kingdom. Police CCTV cameras have been installed in my house because of threats made by the English Defence League after I stood up for immigrants in my area. I received very credible death threats, and I can assure you it is not a pleasant experience.

Fifthly, we need to find ways of combatting hate speech online. Too much abuse is allowed to go unchallenged on various media outlets, and we need to find a mechanism to tackle that.

      Finally, insufficient legal measures are available for States to deal with this problem properly. We need to address that, too.

      I thank the rapporteur for this report. It has been a pleasure to work with her over the years she has been here. I have not always agreed with her, but one thing is for sure: when she speaks on these issues, people listen. I am delighted that there will be a life for her outside of the Parliamentary Assembly and the politics in her own country, and I wish her well for the future.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Katrivanou on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – “Neo-Nazism constitutes a deadly threat to European societies and democracies”, and I think at least the vast majority of people in this Chamber would agree with that statement. I want to focus on two things: the roots of the problem, and how to take specific measures at all levels – legislative, educational, political and social.

      The report is a positive step, and we are pleased to see that many of the suggestions made by the UEL were adopted. However, there are deficiencies, such as the emphasis on hate-speech instead of hate-crime, and the failure to address Islamophobia, homophobia, and Roma and LGBT marginalisation, which are directly linked to neo-Nazi violence.

      As I said, I want to focus on the question of what creates the fertile ground that nurtures neo-Nazism. Despite qualitative and important differences between the different versions of far-right and neo-Nazi violence – from Norway to Hungary, Greece, Austria and Ukraine – we have to admit that there is a binding thread. Neo-Nazism grows on the fertile ground of the neo-liberal and conservative management of the recent crisis: austerity policies and the construction of a “fortress Europe” that closes in on itself and keeps out the “barbarians”, the outsiders, while destroying democracy and the welfare state, thereby leading to unemployment, homelessness, marginalisation, fear and intolerance. The inter-war years showed us that all these elements are the breeding ground of fascism, hatred and violence directed against immigrants, Roma people, LGBT people – everyone who is “different”.

      However, we must also consider the question of direct political accountability. For example, there is the European Union’s problematic attitude towards the neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Some Governments – such as those of Sarkozy, and Samaras in Greece – actively promote xenophobia and institutional racism. In Greece, we have a pure neo-Nazi party that seems more like a criminal gang—thank God the trial will start soon. It has violently persecuted immigrants, gay and transgender people, the Roma and anti-fascists. It has also killed people. Golden Dawn acted undisturbed for years, until it killed a Greek anti-fascist. It was recently disclosed that the secretary-general of the Government was in close collaboration with the organisation.

In conclusion, besides every legislative, educational and penal measure we can take against neo-Nazism, we also need a policy that promotes democracy, social justice, equality, inclusion and solidarity. We want a society where Europeans and immigrants, women, men, homosexual and transgender people, Christians, Muslims, Jews and atheists can live together in hope and in solidarity against the violence and barbarism of neo-Nazism.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Christoffersen on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank the rapporteur. Fighting neo-Nazism, as well as other right-wing extremism, is of utmost importance. The more these ideas are allowed to spread without counteraction or contradiction, the more they threaten to undermine the core values of the Council of Europe. A worrying fact is that these extremists seem to appeal especially to the younger generation. As the rapporteur states, the targets of neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists are often foreigners, migrants and asylum seekers, Jews, the Roma and LGBT people. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

At the end of the day, though, this is not just about protecting particularly vulnerable groups; it is about the security of the whole of society. Do you remember the report presented in 2011 by the Group of Eminent Persons? It summed up the main challenge for Europe in 10 words: “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe". It is that simple; that difficult. The group also gave the Assembly two rather clear messages. The first was that right-wing extremism constitutes one of the largest threats to democracy and human rights. Support is rising for xenophobic and populist political parties all over Europe. There are direct links between the growth of intolerance, xenophobia, discrimination, religious conflict, parallel societies, extremism and the loss of democratic freedoms. Secondly, the group points its finger at us, saying that the lack of political leadership is a main contribution to those developments. As parliamentarians, we have to ask ourselves whether we are about to repeat old mistakes. Are we the kind of politicians who are described as following public opinion, rather than speaking out against it?

Both reports call for counter-action. As a Norwegian, I am pleased to see the rapporteur’s support for the initiative by youth activists in the No Hate Speech Movement to make 22 July the European day for victims of hate crime. We underline that the terrorist was not a neo-Nazi, but a person with an extreme hatred of our multi-ethnic and multicultural society. The Norwegian delegation has presented a small, but important, amendment to the wording in paragraph 11. We do not want the terrorist to grow even bigger in his own eyes by being mentioned in a Council of Europe document, so we suggest that the reference to him is omitted and that we point directly to the actions instead.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Németh on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – The EPP congratulates Ms Pourbaix-Lundin on her original human and empathetic approach, which is a highlight of her career in the Council of Europe. We are proud of her, as we are proud of Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, who is a credible politician in our ranks, fighting neo-Nazism and political extremism. This is a serious political problem, with a pan-European dimension, as the report suggests, which requires a pan-European answer. The Council of Europe should be a perfect laboratory of best practice in that regard.

The key principle is that democracy should not be weak and it should not tolerate extremism. All the State powers should step up against it with the highest level of creativity. For that reason, freedom of speech should not apply to hate speech. Above all, the approach should have constitutional-level regulation, with individuals in all member States able to file civil lawsuits on hate speech. Parliaments should protect themselves against hate speech by, for example, tightening their house rules. Freedom of assembly should not apply, in my view, to paramilitary groups. Although I agree with the rapporteur on political parties, political parties and paramilitary groups are totally different. There is the positive example in Hungary of the tightening of the criminal code on so-called “uniformed crime” to avoid the intimidation of Roma and other national minorities. In my opinion, freedom on the use of symbols should not apply to the use of totalitarian symbols. In that regard, the European Court of Human Rights should revise its case law to respect those member States that have restrictive regulations on symbols.

In conclusion, as the report states, it is about prevention, education, culture and memorial days, including the European day for victims of hate crime, which is most welcome. We should do our utmost to support Jewish, Roma and minority cultures in Europe, because we are the continent of cultural diversity.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. First on the speakers list is Mr Voruz.

      Mr VORUZ (Switzerland)* – First, I congratulate Ms Kazakova on her courage in producing her report. She is bold indeed, given that she comes from the Russian Federation and given that the Duma has adopted some very restrictive legislation on freedom of speech for large sectors of the population. Well done indeed.

We are seeing a reawakening of neo-Nazism, which can perhaps be explained by the economic crisis, but also by the neo-liberal programmes and policies being imposed in a certain number of countries which are fuelling extremism and enabling extremists to speak out with some violence. I come from Switzerland, which, unlike some countries, is not going through an economic crisis. We have been confronted with extremism. During national celebrations, some youngsters gave the Nazi salute. I have spoken out in my regional parliament about banning it. The tribunal in the canton where the demonstrations took place has firmly condemned the neo-Nazis. They were brought before the federal tribunal because there is no article at federal level that prohibits the Nazi salute. That is very serious, and that is why we are doing what we can to ensure that federal legislation be amended in order to include such a prohibition.

      In the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons this morning we talked about everything that is happening in the countries around us, including the problems in Ukraine and the Russian Federation. There, too, we are seeing a reawakening of neo-Nazism that should be condemned whatever the cause may be, whether economic crises or political crises. We cannot just tolerate Nazi salutes. If we come from a country that has suffered war that was provoked by the German Nazis, we should constantly remind ourselves of that. We should condemn these practices.

      We condemn all forms of Nazism. Islamic State, to my mind, is an illustration of a form of Nazism, so we should be firm in our condemnation. We need to stand up and defend democracy. We should not allow extremists to use our democracy and our democratic principles with a view to performing provocative gestures and – who knows? – establish some new form of dictatorship.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Mota Amaral.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – I congratulate and thank the rapporteur, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, for her committed work on a very sensitive and timely issue – the eruption of extremism across Europe that is especially visible in some of the member States of our Organisation. She has been leading a serious reflection on this subject in our Assembly involving prestigious recommendations and fact-finding visits on the spot whenever neo-Nazi incidents occurred. She deserves to be commended for the work she has done in order to prepare for our debates both at committee and plenary level, and to provide all of us – and the national parliaments of which we are also members – with food for thought and also, I dare say, for action, on this serious problem. I fully support the propositions contained in the draft resolution and the draft recommendation presented by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy to the approval of our Assembly.

      The key to combatting neo-Nazism and all other forms of extremism, be they from the right or left wing of the political spectrum, is prevention. There is a real need to provide objective information about the wrong principles and the tragic consequences of Nazism, and all other forms of extremism, at the very beginning of the education of the younger generations. Evidence has shown that extremist groups are proving successful in attracting and indoctrinating young men and women, even to the most horrible forms of terrorism. The history of the 20th century, with all its violence and wars which cost the lives of millions of human beings, could become the centre of those teachings. The paramount dignity of the human person and his or her freedom and fundamental rights, of which democracy and the rule of law act as guarantors, should be considered the basic value of any civic education.

      Our rapporteur correctly pointed out that extremists do not deserve to be made martyrs. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech must be respected, but it should not be invoked in tolerance of hate speech and crimes, and the evil ideology of Nazism, which is at the origin of a violent dictatorship, a devastating war, and the monstrous crime against humanity called the Shoah. On the other hand, there is a need for democratic political parties to face the problems now confronting all European societies, such as unemployment, the impoverishment of the middle class and massive illegal immigration, and to find reasonable solutions to them all. The blindness and stubbornness of some European leaders, who are captured by the dogmas of economic liberalism and unregulated globalisation, are also serious threats to the stability of our democratic societies. Policies of austerity and political correctness seem to be breaking ground towards extremism.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – I support this report, although I think differently about some aspects. There are many pages of specific proposals and hope, and that is just what our work should be. I disagree with the use of the term “extreme right”, because that is not a dignified term. I prefer to say, “those who are violent”. Those who are violent have no ideology; they suffer from a kind of delirium. Others seem to have a delirium that is of the left. It is perfectly dignified and acceptable to be of the left or of the right, but not to pursue such a delirium. Despite that, I will support the report, because it is an important step and I respect the work of the rapporteurs.

      Although I have not seen it, there is a film by Margarethe von Trotta about Hannah Arendt where she talks about the banality of evil and how one needs to differentiate these things. It is wise, in the age in which we live, to realise that one thing is violence with a great show and the other is the de facto use of violent practices – Nazi practices – to solve problems. We are witnessing a number of different conflicts where armies use Nazi practices to try to solve problems. That is to say, they do not use liberal democracy but rather the power they have – “might is right”, and not the might of the word or argument – to try to overcome those who are agin them.

      It is important to take up a proposal made yesterday by my friend and colleague Paolo Corsini about historical denial. We need to think about those who deny the Holocaust and the massacre of Jews and others who think differently, such as Gypsies or homosexuals – those who show such hate and lack of respect for others. We are told that ideas do not kill, but I think they can and do. We should be very careful about this. Ideas that promote hatred should be considered beyond the bounds of liberal democracy. I agree with the rapporteur on these things. One way to move forward is to remember that ideas can kill. We should not trivialise evil. We should remember that those who use violence are, as it were, paying tribute to Nazism.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Diaz Tejera. I call Mr Rzayev.

      Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)* – The manifestations of neo-Nazism and xenophobia are part of a huge threat to stability and safety in Europe. Azerbaijan is one of those countries that has felt the effects of destructive separatism, and neo-Nazism and xenophobia is part of that.

      In Armenia, much is said against Azerbaijan. That is part of Armenia’s State policy. For instance, Robert Kocharyan, the ex-president of that country, talks about the genetic incompatibility of Azerbaijanis in terms of living with Armenians. In 2011, in Baku, there was a summit for religious leaders where more than 200 members of the clergy of different countries were present. One of the guests was the Catholicos of All Armenians, Karekin II, who expressed the idea that he would help to restore an 18th-century Azerbaijani mosque in the city of Mets Shen; it had been destroyed and it is still in ruins. We believed him and decided to write a letter to him about possible Azerbaijani participation in the work of restoring that mosque in order to preserve cultural links during the work of restoration. However, we have not had an answer from the Catholicos to that offer of help. Perhaps this Assembly could help us get an answer. This expression of support for intercultural and interethnic dialogue could help to prevent the ideology of Nazism and xenophobia from taking root among the nations.

We support the work of the commission and Ms Pourbaix-Lundin in trying to combat Nazism, and we hope that the report and resolution will be of practical use in counteracting manifestations of neo-Nazism throughout the world.

(Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Mr President, dear colleagues, what is happening today in Europe – this triumph of racism and intolerance – is disgusting, so our colleagues have chosen a good subject. We need a strategy to combat racism and neo-Nazism. I agree with the rapporteur that we urgently need to find strategic and comprehensive solutions. We must leave no stone unturned in combatting this problem, but we will not succeed in preventing the triumph of racism if we do not introduce concrete measures and prosecute the propagators of hatred, especially when they are police officers, as is often the case.

      Just a few weeks ago, the President of Azerbaijan, which has the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, met with ambassadors and said that the objective of Azerbaijan was to keep Armenia a hostage and to bleed it dry. That was published on the official government website. The Armenian State is referred to as a fascist State, and apparently if it does not cease its activities, its very survival will be in danger. Every day, many other anti-Armenian appeals are repeated by the Azerbaijani authorities, and that is a propagation of racism and hatred sanctioned officially by a member State of the Council of Europe.

The Armenian people are referred to as genetic enemies of Azerbaijan. The assassin Safarov, who killed an Armenian officer with an axe, was, because of the pusillanimous action of the Hungarian authorities, sent to his own country, and the Armenian officer has not been brought back to life, of course. Karen Petrosyan, a young Armenian who crossed the border by accident, was cruelly assassinated in Azerbaijan, but the person who did it was treated as a hero. General Akberov’s file is now before the European Court of Human Rights over allegations of murder.

      We are, therefore, debating a very topical problem, but all the declarations made here will remain an empty letter if we do not ensure the prosecution of those responsible through the police and the judiciary.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Huseynov.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The revival of ideologies that have taught us such tragic lessons is on the one hand dangerous, and on the other hand disturbing. If the horrible damage and innumerable losses caused by certain trends and political ideologies is so obvious, how can they be revived? If Nazism, in its new cover, is being revived in Europe and the world, and if the youth become more involved, no one should ignore such disturbing signals.

Counteracting neo-Nazism from all directions is important, as it is being revived both under its own title and through other manifestations. For instance, during the Soviet period, 25 to 30 years ago, Armenia, a current Assembly member, was a multinational country, but in the late 1980s the process of ethnic cleansing started. Between 1988 and 1989, more than 300 000 Azerbaijanis were forcibly deported from the territories historically inhabited by them in Armenia. Afterwards, this policy was applied to other ethnicities in Armenia. Russians, Jews, Greeks, Kurds and other national minorities were gradually expelled from the country, and now Armenia has become a mono-ethnic country. It is a unique member State that does not resemble any normal country in the Council of Europe. In an era of open borders, when all countries and nations mix with one another, to implement such State policies is a vivid example of racism and Nazism

After the cruelty perpetrated by a neo-Nazi in Norway on 22 July 2011, someone proposed that the day be declared a European day for victims of hate crime. The massacre of hundreds of innocent civilians, irrespective of age or gender, because of their Azerbaijani ethnicity, and the brutal and merciless slaughter of an entire city solely on the basis of nationality, is not only an undeniable example of genocide, but an obvious manifestation of both old and neo-Nazism. It would be appropriate to declare 26 February – the day of the Khojaly genocide – a common European day for victims of hate crime.

The swastika, as an emblem of Nazism, has become a source of fear for most generations, but it did not come into existence in the 1930s. It was invented neither by Adolf Hitler, nor by others around him. This symbol, which became infamous in the 20th century, existed 1 000 years before Christ – scholars date it to the Neolithic period. In ancient times, the swastika was a symbol of sun and life, but black policies succeeded in turning it into a symbol of death and darkness. Today, we need unanimity among all States if we are to combat the manifestations of Nazism in its “neo” covers – an ideology that has proven itself capable of turning light into darkness.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Mr Triantafyllos.

Mr TRIANTAFYLLOS (Greece)* – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 68 years ago, on 1 October 1946, the Nuremberg trials came to a close. The international military tribunal in Nuremberg put an end to a bloodbath of terror and tragedy. Today, we are discussing a new phenomenon in Europe that has resulted in neo-Nazism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Can this be the result of the economic crisis in Europe? Is it the result of particular policies or major social problems? I would say no.

Above all, these phenomena and political failures in Europe have led to a climate hostile to politics and parliamentarianism. We are creating fertile ground for terrorism. We need policies that produce effective change in the lives of citizens. We need to come up with answers to the questions that the citizens of Europe are putting and the problems they encounter every day – problems of immigration and so on. There is a lack of specific decisions. Poverty and hopelessness are the real causes of this situation. But I also think we must address populism. We must face up to it in all its forms. Above all, new technologies, especially the Internet, have taken on extraordinary dimensions, and politicians seem completely absent from these new technologies. We can see how the extreme right is omnipresent in all those technologies, which it uses to convey messages intended to soften up public opinion towards neo-Nazism.

      The Council of Europe’s movement to combat hatred can achieve results, particularly by raising awareness among young people. Of course, we must conduct educational campaigns from the earliest stages, and we must change our institutions to criminalise neo-Nazi movements and hate speech, as we have succeeded in doing in Greece. It is our duty, because we are witnessing too many such phenomena.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Jenssen.

Mr JENSSEN (Norway) – I thank Marietta Pourbaix-Lundin for an important and well-written report on the common European challenge of how to combat neo-Nazism, hate speech and hate crime that results from extremism, racism and hatred. The Norwegian delegation fully supports the youth initiative to turn 22 July into a day of remembrance to raise public awareness of hate crime and its consequences for society, as mentioned in paragraph 11 and in amendment 9 to the draft resolution and amendment 10 to the draft recommendation. I would also like to express our thanks to the President, Anne Brasseur, for giving such wholehearted support to the initiative, along with Olemic Thommessen, when she visited Norway a short time ago and for repeating that support in the Chamber yesterday and today.

The terrorist attack in Norway on 22 July 2011 was shocking and extremely traumatic for Norway. It should never be forgotten, nor should the hatred behind those terrible attacks. What happened on 22 July was not the result of a specific neo-Nazi ideology; it was the result of anti-Islamic ideas and hatred of multicultural society, free democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These are fundamental values of the Council of Europe, and we are proud of them. As parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to defend those values and speak out against hatred.

In the suggested amendments, we therefore propose less focus on the perpetrators of hate crime and more emphasis on our ambitions for a European day for victims of hate crime and the hoped-for effects of having one. I therefore ask for the Assembly’s support for amendment 9 to the draft resolution and amendment 10 to the draft recommendation. Counteracting extremism, radicalisation and hatred and showing solidarity with the victims of hate crime should be our specific focus each 22 July.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Gafarova.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this report. It is important to speak today about this issue, because neo-Nazism is increasingly widespread in Europe. The report is therefore timely and needed.

I agree fully with Ms Kazakova that neo-Nazism is not a new phenomenon and not merely a form of xenophobia. Racism and aggressive nationalism are its main characteristics, and I believe they are one reason why the world community still faces serious breaches of the fundamental norms and principles of international law. As a result, people throughout the world continue to suffer from devastating wars, aggression, military occupation and ethnic cleansing.

That kind of ethnic cleansing has been conducted by Armenia against 1 million Azerbaijanis for more than 20 years, during which time Armenia has used force against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan, occupying 20% of my country’s territory. As a result of that ethnic cleansing, not one Azerbaijani now lives in Armenia or the occupied Azerbaijani territories. Now, in the 21st century, Armenia is a mono-ethnic country. Despite the ceasefire agreement reached in 1994 and the commencement of negotiations, the conflict has not yet been settled. It is a pity that Armenia has manoeuvred to protract negotiations, thus reducing to zero all values, international codes and principles.

I believe that the counterweight to neo-Nazism must be tolerance and multiculturalism. I would like to respond to my colleague from Armenia, Ms Zohrabyan, who again and again, from session to session, has spread wrong information about Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijani people. I proudly point out that tolerance and multiculturalism have existed for centuries in my country. Azerbaijan is a place where representatives of different religions and nations live in peace and friendship. Nowadays, Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians and the Christian community in Azerbaijan, along with the Muslim community, enjoy and exercise equal rights.

Some months ago, Azerbaijan established the Baku International Multiculturalism Centre, provided for by decree of the President of Azerbaijan. The centre was created to meet the need for special care and environmental enrichment gained over centuries of historical experience in the field of multiculturalism. In a few days, Baku will hold the fourth Baku humanitarian forum, in which multiculturalism will be one of the most discussed issues.

In the modern world, there is no practical alternative to tolerance and multiculturalism. I believe that we can realise it in Europe, which is the common space for us all.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Bourzai.

Ms BOURZAI (France)* – The results of the recent elections held in Europe are very worrying indeed. The success of extreme right-wing parties in those elections demonstrate a crisis in progress. Certain forms of xenophobia and Nazism have increased, particularly among young people in France. During the recent European elections, the extreme right-wing party managed to woo the under-35s. Some 30% of those under the age of 35 voted for the extreme right-wing party, 5% more than in the general population. Given that, I stress the importance of educating young people in order to tackle this particular ill at its root.

In her report, the rapporteur cites several interesting initiatives that seem to prevent or counter neo-Nazism. Perhaps she will allow me to add the initiative taken by the Ministry of National Education in France in its campaign of action against racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. The campaign is being conducted by schools, local authorities and approved associations. Initially, it was based on two complementary approaches: first, educational and preventive measures with a view to raising awareness among pupils; second, firm, tough and systematic sanctions against acts of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Other measures have recently been incorporated into the campaign with a view to inculcating a sense of responsibility in pupils committing racist, anti-Semitic or discriminatory acts, establishing some form of mediation within schools confronted with such situations and fleshing out training programmes on Internet risks relating to incitement to racial hatred.

Preventing discrimination is a priority educational objective from kindergarten to upper secondary school. I think we are in it for the long haul, but we must pursue our efforts with perseverance and determination.

      There is no denying that there is a heightened sense of xenophobia in Europe, and we are seeing a rise in neo-Nazism. Given that, we really need to get on the offensive and tackle these excesses. We need a global response and a real strategy, as we were enjoined to do by Mr Jónasson in his report last January. It is through this dynamic and proactive approach that we can erect a bulwark against all forms of neo-Nazism and xenophobia. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Madame Bourzai. I now call upon Mrs Taktakishvili. Mrs Taktakishvili is not here, so I call upon Madame Pipili.

Ms PIPILI (Greece)* – The Greek delegation has been here at the Council of Europe for the last two years, and these two years have been so difficult for our country, not only because of the economic crisis but because of the rise in the hardline Nazi movement. We are seen here as the black sheep of the Council of Europe because of Golden Dawn. That is why the Greek nation has been labelled racist, but that is not true: Greece did everything to resist the Nazis and paid a very heavy price. It did so throughout the war and after it. In today’s Greece, we now see the development of this neo-Nazi party, but the country has responded courageously and put the leaders of our neo-Nazi political group in prison.

      So, ladies and gentlemen, we face a common enemy, because the neo-Nazi movement and the appearance of extreme right political parties is something that many parliaments are now experiencing. So the question is: how can we force our democratic authorities and our democratic institutions to deal with the issue? We should start with kindergarten as part of our educational system. But we must also make sure that it is in the public places – in the marketplace, in the places where all the marginal people such as the poor and those without a job hang out – where we apply our efforts by showing that the true victims of Hitler and the historical Nazis were not the captains of industry or the “haves” of that society; the true victims were the poor Germans: the German peasants, and the Austrian peasants too.

      I would also like to state that, as is the case with terrorists and drug traffickers, in the same way we must strengthen our judiciary and our penal system to make sure that we have very fierce punishments for Nazis, such as freezing their assets. We have also been discussing the way in which Golden Dawn is financed for many weeks now.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Mr Loukaides to the floor.

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – The draft resolution includes a well-documented set of measures and tools to be used by governments, parliaments and societies in the fight against neo-Nazis. The education system has a catalytic role to play in educating children with the values of respect for diversity, multiculturalism and human rights. Knowledge, through interactive teaching methods, the history of the Second World War and the devastation caused by Hitler’s fascism can create powerful resistance mechanisms in young people’s minds to the rhetoric of neo-Nazis. Although it is a broader phenomenon, anti-Semitism is also connected to neo-Nazism, and merits, as the rapporteur rightly proposes, a specialised Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe report.

At the same time, the report clearly records the tactics used by modern neo-Nazis to penetrate into societies and the young generation. I highlight the experience of Cyprus, where a branch of the Greek Golden Dawn party operates. Besides other characteristics, this branch has also exploited our pending national problem, that of the ongoing Turkish invasion and occupation, through nationalistic discourse and the cultivation of hateful neo-Nazi theories and propaganda.

In addition, we must emphasise the effects of the neo-liberal austerity policies and the subsequent poverty that have prevailed in Europe. These effects have brought about dramatic results for the people and have provided an effective breeding ground for the seeds of fascism. That is why we do not agree with the reference in the report that characterises austerity as being “probably necessary”.

Furthermore, we believe that the definition adapted in the report on neo-Nazis must be supplemented with one of its fundamental features, which is anticommunism and the hostility that it breeds towards the ideas of social equality and the struggles of the working class. It is precisely for this reason that neo-Nazi rhetoric, claiming to act in favour of working people and the popular masses, is a false and dangerous pretext. Their intention and real policies aim at exactly the opposite.

In conclusion, I underline the responsibilities of right-wing parties, although they are not the only ones, who in their attempt to earn the votes of the extreme right in effect legitimise the political agenda of the extreme right and neo-fascists. We must also reflect on who bears the responsibility for the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine today.

Let me end my intervention by saying that the best protective shield against neo-Nazism is popular and social mobilisation for asserting and defending human rights and democratic principles in every aspect of public life.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Loukaides. I now call Mr Shai, Partner for Democracy from Israel.

Mr SHAI (Israel) – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report is extremely important, but it is not enough. The struggle against neo-Nazism is too slow, not yet effective and, may I say, even disappointing. We, from Israel, follow this with a lot of concern, and we expect much more determination and much more fundamental work in order to implement such a report.

Anyone whose family was killed in the Jewish Holocaust, such as mine and that of many people in Israel and around the world, expects not only words but deeds. An action plan should be implemented as soon as possible, with proper human resources and budget, in order to stop neo-Nazism now.

This phenomenon teaches us that words and statements, even decisions made by this forum, are not enough. This phenomenon should be stopped right away in a long campaign that is well budgeted, guided by State leaders and public opinion and implemented by force and by law enforcement authorities across Europe.

Anti-Semitism is back, and we in Israel are following it with a lot of concern, as I said. Over the last few months we have detected a rise of at least 20% in anti-Semitic phenomena all around Europe. They follow the Israeli-Palestinian, or Israeli-Hamas, armed conflict in Gaza, which caused a lot of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic actions all around Europe. Anti-Semitism in many cases becomes anti-Israelism, and anti-Israelism becomes anti-Semitism.

Israel is the shelter and refuge of Jews from around the world. More and more Jews from Europe are deciding to move to Israel in numbers that we never expected. Thousands of them have decided to leave Europe and come to Israel. Is this what you suggest they do right now? Israel is open, we welcome them, but at the same time they were born in Europe, and the first priority is to stay and live here. Did you decide to get rid of the Jewish people? It is time to take action, as I said.

Seventy-six years ago, the Munich Conference met. It was supposed to stop the Second World War. It did not. Did we forget the lessons from it? Seventy-six years have passed. We should remember what happened there and make sure that history does not repeat itself.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Ms Bokuchava.

Ms BOKUCHAVA (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for her work on this report. I greatly value and appreciate its positive and forward-looking perspective, because it suggests that we focus on measures that can be used to contravene and prevent the emergence and proliferation of neo-Nazi movements within the Council of Europe’s space. She interestingly argues — I wholeheartedly agree with the approach that has been elaborated on by the governments of Norway, Sweden and Germany — that swift government action is important and is, in fact, key in preventing the emergence of such movements. Unfortunately, we do not see swift actions from the governments in other Council of Europe member States to prevent the emergence of such groups, but rather we see endorsement.

At this point, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Russian Federation, which is not preventing the formation of such groups, but is actually encouraging their operation; it is not decrying their activities, but is actually financing, legitimising and justifying them. Of course, I am speaking about a phenomenon that we are all familiar with now, which is the operation of neo-Nazi groups in the territory of Ukraine, where, on behalf of the Russian State, they are fighting a war. These groups are terrorising, torturing, displacing, killing and wounding thousands of Ukrainians, and instead of a swift, concentrated response, as we have seen in civilised nations enumerated in the report — I mentioned three of them — we see complete negligence from the Russian authorities.

In Georgia, my own country, extremist groups have, unfortunately, also been given a free hand by the government and there are hate crimes. For example, the nailing of a pig’s head on a madrassa was not investigated by the government, despite the fact that there is clear evidence that this horrific act was carried out by the head of the youth organisation of the Georgian Dream coalition, which, as you know, is the ruling government coalition in my country right now.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now give the floor to Ms Fataliyeva of Azerbaijan.

Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Ladies and gentlemen, let me start with a quote from Michel de Montaigne. “I do not believe, from what I have been told about this people, that there is anything barbarous or savage about them, except that we all call barbarous anything that is contrary to our own habits.”

Unity is greatly needed today. Unity is how we can overcome all the challenges of the modern world, not because it makes us feel good and not because it sounds pleasant, but because it is the only way to overcome the essential deficits that exist in many countries of the world, one of the most important of which is moral deficit, which is the inability to recognise ourselves in one another.

We have such a deficit when people – especially children – belonging to other ethnicities are being killed; when people are taught to hate other ethnicities from early childhood; when historical and religious monuments and places are destroyed because they are different; and when children are thrown toys stuffed with explosive devices. No doubt, the main ways to prevent the manifestation of neo-Nazi xenophobia lie on the shoulders of education and culture, as well as on information and awareness campaigns. Young people should be taught about cultures, history and beliefs other than their own. Unfortunately, xenophobia, racism, neo-Nazism and other forms of intolerance are based not on ignorance but on terror and extremism.

I come from Azerbaijan, a country where tolerance is not a political issue but is just a way of life of every citizen. Often in this Assembly we hear people talk about so-called Armenophobia, which is actually a myth, but let me remind colleagues that, at present, thousands of Armenians live in Azerbaijan, whereas, as my colleague said, you would not find any ethnic Azerbaijani in Armenia, because they were ethnically cleansed and deported from Armenia and, worse, they were massacred in Azerbaijani lands, in Khojali and other regions of Nagorno-Karabakh.

I fully agree with every paragraph of the report, and I hope that it will not be a theoretical manual but will be put into practice.

Here in the Council of Europe one of our main goals is to create unity of nations and religions, to make the world a better place. However, true unity cannot be easily won; it starts with a change in attitudes, a broadening of our minds and our hearts, including the minds of political leaders, and a strengthening of the position of international organisations. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now give the floor to Mr Schennach from Austria.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Thank you, President. I thank Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin warmly, not just for submitting a fantastic and, at the same, worrying report, but for the work that we have conducted together in many different venues at the behest of the Council of Europe. I thank her for this splendid cooperation. I also thank Ms Kazakova, who is here too. I also thank colleagues for some courageous amendments that have been included in this report.

On the subject of the resurgence of neo-Nazism in Europe in its various embodiments, I have to point out that we have colleagues of such extraction sitting in some parliaments. For me, Jobbik is more of a gang than a party. In respect of Roma, for example, we have heard in recent days what vile things the employees of private security companies have done to refugees.

This all comes from the same black sewer, where xenophobia is at home and where homophobia has its origins. We see just how violent many of the followers of such groups are. They all share the same philosophy. Their origins almost always seem to lie in a lack of self-esteem and a lack of education. Some groups try to gain some self-esteem through acts of this kind. Also, it is a question of a lack of social integration and youth unemployment. Tremendously high youth unemployment in Europe is part of the reason for this fertile ground for neo-Nazism.

We also need to include right-wing populism in this discussion. I am thinking about a strong party of that kind in my own country, and I am thinking about the Front National in France, which is equally worrying, and about the Vlaams Blok. All these parties, which are now represented in the European Parliament and some of whose representatives are present here, are part of this problem; we should consider them as such and consider just how we can remove the fertile ground from under them. To do so, we must offer prospects for young people and have better forms of education.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. The next speaker is Ms Antičević Marinović.

      Ms ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ (Croatia) – In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in the number of neo-Nazi demonstrations and groups in Europe. Emboldened by their recent success in European and local elections, the extremists have driven home the message that they are not only on the rebound but are here to stay. Neo-Nazi groups commonly use freedom of speech laws to legitimise their movements and attract attention to themselves, but that has nothing to do with freedom of expression. More worryingly, neo-Nazi groups are recruiting young people. They use methods such as holiday camps to instil their ideas in young people. They teach young people that foreigners are enemies and that they need to restore blood purity. In recent years, increasing cases of Holocaust denial can also be attributed to such groups.

Reuters reported on 12 November 2012 that a member of a neo-Nazi party said in an interview on Mega TV in May 2012 “Auschwitz. What is Auschwitz? I didn’t go there. What happened there?” Many agree that better education in schools is essential to reversing that trend. There are good reasons for believing that governments are either conflicted or confused in their approach to neo-Nazi parties. The president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews said in a statement: “The decision of the government is disappointing and politically completely wrong. Hesitation and procrastination instead of courage and determination. The government has missed the opportunity to send a clear and credible signal of a strong democracy.”

The real question, however, is why support for far-right political parties has increased in recent years. The discontent that arose after the financial crisis due to skyrocketing unemployment, spending cuts and austerity measures throughout many European countries has fuelled far-right movements. Such movements blame the main political parties for the economic crisis, and young people without jobs and hope are attracted by their ideas and promises of a better life. Nationalist, euro-sceptic and xenophobic sentiments have been brewing in many European countries for many years, but the policies of austerity have brought those sentiments to the surface.

In September 1933, Joseph Roth, unarguably one of the greatest novelists and already in exile in Paris, wrote in his prophetic article, “Let me say it loud and clear: The European mind is capitulating.” We should not underestimate the results of the recent elections in Europe. Crisis in Europe is a crisis of Europe. To what extent is the rise of right-wing extremism in Europe due to the economic crisis? The relationship is more complicated than we often think, but nobody can deny the relationship. The impact of the economic crisis on democracy is stronger than we are ready to admit. We must be careful about current economic policies. Europe suffers from economic failure, massive unemployment, low growth and the pressure of the euro. Democracy is about looking for alternatives. We can say that there is no solution, but people will find a solution, and sometimes that solution will be dreadful.

We must rebuild a new Europe based on the welfare state, equality and justice. Lessons must be learned. In 1939, Max Horkheimer said, “Whoever is not prepared to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism.” In short, we need to restore capitalism.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Faber-van de Klashorst.

Ms FABER-VAN DE KLASHORST (Netherlands) – The report shows that there is great concern about the emergence of neo-Nazism, which poses a problem to the whole of Europe. My party shares that concern. The swastika that Islamic State sympathisers carried in a demonstration in the streets of The Hague, not far from the Houses of Parliament, was confrontational. It was equally confrontational that the demonstrators threatened to rip off the clothes of a female journalist.

The report mentions various neo-Nazi groups, but it ignores the co-operation between Islam and Nazi Germany. That co-operation was initiated by al-Husseini, the then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was an admirer of Hitler. Both men shared a common goal: the annihilation of the Jewish people. Al-Husseini opposed the immigration of Jews to modern-day Israel, so such immigration was discontinued, partly by his doing. He encouraged Hitler in the total annihilation of the Jews.

Himmler personally showed al-Husseini around Auschwitz and Majdanek. Al-Husseini was so enthusiastic that he wanted to set up similar extermination camps in the Middle East. He also recruited Muslims for the Waffen SS. One of the most notorious Waffen SS units was the Handschar division that committed atrocities in the Balkans. Let us not forget that the Nuremburg trials declared the SS, and all its elements, a criminal organisation.

You may think, “Why bother? It is now all in the past.” That past, however, is alive within the Muslim Brotherhood, the spiritual father of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation. That organisation likes to describe itself as the voice of Islamic organisations in the western world, and its tentacles reach into various social and political organisations in Europe. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation also has a voice in the United Nations.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology that leaves no room for diversity. Individuals have to submit to the dictatorship of Islam, which rejects constitutional democracy, western freedoms and the equality of men and women, gay and hetero and believers and non-believers. Islam is the biggest booster of anti-Semitism. Islam will never change. There is no such thing as moderate Islam; there is only Islam, which endeavours to force Islamic law, the sharia, upon the whole world through jihad. “Moderate Islam” is a term invented by the European multicultural elite. The term is a form of wishful thinking. It is time for Europe to wake up and recognise Islam’s true face.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Mayer.

Mr MAYER (Austria)* – Thank you, Marietta, for an excellent report. It is a shame that you will be leaving the Parliamentary Assembly. We will miss you, your work and the outstanding quality of your reports.

Neo-Nazism is a political phenomenon. Everyone within the Council of Europe and within our national parliaments—people in Europe and across the world—knows of the terrors that the Nazi regime perpetrated in Europe. The Nazi regime perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity, yet we are seeing echoes and reverberations of that ideology today. In some countries, neo-Nazism is often just a protest movement, an expression of people’s frustration with conventional political parties. Elsewhere, however, neo-Nazism is firmly entrenched. We must educate the electorate that neo-Nazi movements are using new technology to network and that, in no time at all, they can organise mass protest rallies. That important point is mentioned in the report, alongside prevention through political education. We must debate those issues with small children, which places huge demands on educational scientists. We cannot start early enough to acquaint young children with the horrors perpetrated by neo-Nazis or the National Socialist regime. We must address the breeding grounds of such ideologies. Police and governments must have resources to combat that phenomenon, but we should not forget the judicial response. We must create the legislative conditions so that the courts can condemn acts of racism and neo-Nazism, for which there should be zero tolerance. I welcome the “No Hate Speech” movement espoused by the Council of Europe. We must remind ourselves of the importance of not encouraging hate speech.

Once again, I thank Marietta for an excellent report based on much research. I wish you all the best for the future.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mayer. I call Mr Stroe.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – I congratulate our colleague Ms Pourbaix-Lundin on her excellent report. I fully endorse the conclusions of her report and the recommendations in the draft resolution. Neo-Nazism is a serious phenomenon, which is sometimes kept underground and sometimes brought to light by political parties that spread its ideology. We acknowledge that there is a clear need for a democratic consensus among European political leaders, as proposed by our rapporteur, to counter and isolate extremist xenophobic and neo-Nazi movements and parties. I strongly believe that we in the Chamber should be the first to embark on the promotion of such a democratic consensus.

Dear colleagues, we must be aware of the danger represented by irredentist behaviour by those who aggressively promote the changing of European borders. Using the protection of minorities as an excuse to annexe territory by force reminds us of the actions of the Nazi regime at the beginning of the Second World War. It is regrettable that such an attitude persists in the 21st century, especially in a year of commemoration. On the occasion of the centenary of the First World War, we should pay tribute to victims who lost their lives and avoid the mistakes of the generation which followed that cataclysm.

We should prevent all xenophobic acts and violence against people who belong to national minorities, and we must ensure them adequate protection according to international and European standards. That is the best response to those who try to use minorities for their own undeclared, but obvious, illegitimate territorial interests.

Finally, the European Parliament reconfirmed, in its 2009 resolution on the European conscience and totalitarianism, its united stand against totalitarian rule from any ideological background. Furthermore, the European Parliament strongly condemned all crimes against humanity committed by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and it emphasised that Europe will not be united unless it recognises the common legacy of Nazism, Stalinism and fascist and communist regimes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Stroe. I call Ms Karapetyan.

Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – I thank the rapporteur for raising an important and dangerous issue that has the potential to grow into a serious disaster, and I support the report. Neo-Nazism includes several problems to which we must pay attention, including extremism, xenophobia and hate speech, which is widely used especially among the young generation. That is the fault of all of society.

In the draft resolution, the Assembly calls on member States to take action to reduce hate speech and hate crime, including the implementation of a comprehensive legal framework to deal with those problems. The Assembly urges national parliaments to ensure that no public funding is allocated to parties that promote hate speech and hate crime.

The constant growth of xenophobia, intolerance and hate speech and the precarious situation of the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in Azerbaijan are the subject of serious concern. Ethnic profiling and hostile rhetoric from the authorities and the media against national minorities have established a climate of intolerance in Azerbaijan. Even more worrying is the fact that the Azerbaijani political elite orchestrate propaganda that encourages hatred and xenophobia, according to a report in 2011 by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and other international reports. Despite that deplorable finding, President Aliyev continues to proclaim, as he has done recently in the Assembly, that fundamental freedoms are respected in his country.

With regard to freedom of conscience and religion, in Resolution 1917 the Assembly called on the Azerbaijani authorities to revise the law on freedom of religion to take into account the concerns expressed by the Venice Commission, to improve and facilitate registration procedures for minority religious groups.

Contrary to the priorities of the Azerbaijani chairmanship, the country refuses to improve the situation on the ground or to match domestic legislation with international conventions to fight discrimination. Even worse, while talking about tolerance here in the Assembly, Azerbaijan continues to glorify the murderer Ramil Safarov. Harassment of ethnic minorities and their advocates, such as the chief editors of “Tolyshi Sado”, is common. Azerbaijani writer Akram Aylisli, who was ostracised for his work testifying to solidarity among peoples, was forced to leave the country, while his books were burned. That is not a myth; it is reality. The myth is the thousands of Armenians living in Azerbaijan, when the official number is only 300. What are those things, if not examples of xenophobia and hate crime? What can we call them? In brief, they are neo-Nazism, with all the associated xenophobia, extremism, hate crime and hate speech.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Karapetyan. I call Ms Rawert.

      Ms RAWERT (Germany)* – This report comes at an opportune moment. I support the calls for a European day for the victims of hate crime. The 11 murders committed by the so-called National Socialist Underground in Germany between 2000 and 2006 have shown how dangerous neo-Nazis are. The group was discovered in 2011 only by chance, and I apologise to the victims’ families for the fact that our State was so blind for so long. The same goes for the employees of private security firms who abused asylum seekers. We will pursue those employees.

Victims of neo-Nazis tend to be those on the left, such as the homeless, homosexuals and people with disabilities, who are subject to targeted hatred. Neo-Nazis, whose philosophy is anti-Semitic, ethno-centric, homophobic, transphobic and chauvinist, have connections with popular right-wing parties. I am concerned that larger-scale right-wing parties prepare the way for extremist ones. They deliberately stoke prejudices about alleged inequalities in society to the detriment of the groups affected, and they encourage violent crimes motivated by difference on the part of the victims. Necessary action must be taken, and the perpetrators of such crimes must be prosecuted. The police need greater inter-cultural competence, and civil society should be more active in the fight against extreme right-wing action. I support all the calls that have been made today to strengthen civil society, because that will promote democracy. We have a programme in Germany, which I support, to promote democracy and take action against violence and right-wing extremism. I look forward to being able to call 22 July the official European day for victims of violent extremism.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Rawert. I call Mr Sobolev.

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I thank the rapporteur for the important proposals that she has set before the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Assembly. It is important that we understand when neo-Nazist movements are supported by the State and when they are not. I simply want to explain the main figures and outline the facts. In 2013, during the so-called Russian marches, we saw neo-Nazi symbols all over Moscow and Russia’s largest cities. That was merely the start of a policy aimed at protecting the big Russian nation against Ukraine, the Caucasus and other nations.

We only know the facts from analyses provided by organisations that survey what the Russians are doing. These are the horrible figures for 2013: more than 45 people of different nationalities have been killed and more than 200 people of different nationalities have been wounded during neo-Nazi marches throughout Russia.

      What did the Russian State do in this situation? It decided to use neo-Nazi organisations against Ukraine. Who were the first separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine? We only have to look at where neo-Nazism is most extensive. The first separatists were Russian neo-Nazis who have supported such movements in Russia. They began to spread the ideology in Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as Odessa and other regions in Ukraine. For us to answer the question, we only have to ask which State began to support such neo-Nazi movements. One of the leaders of the State Duma, Mr Zhirinovsky, who has threatened pregnant women in the Caucasus, talks of Ukrainians having no nation, culture or language. On such a subject, we need to know not only our history, but the reality of our times.

      One of the amendments mentions the Waffen SS and other such divisions, but I propose that we include the whole list of organisations that supported the Nazi movement in fascist Germany, such as the Russians and others appointed by General Vlasov and other famous Nazi organisations.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sobolev. I call Ms Guţu.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The report on neo-Nazism is very topical. It is a difficult subject, with many different dimensions. For example, we usually think in terms of extreme right-wing parties, even though in principle the original National Socialist ideology was on the left. I congratulate Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin on taking up the subject. The draft resolution is very convincing, and I support it.

      The atrocities of fascism and Nazism – the Holocaust – must never be repeated. Humanity must ensure that we do not go through a historical loop and return to similar crimes. We must not forget that the victory in the Second World War over fascism and Nazism was thanks to the landing of the allied armies in Normandy, and we have recently celebrated its 70th anniversary. It is a question of interpretation as to who played the determining role in the victory over fascism, which is a problem in post-Soviet countries.

      At the same time, let us not forget that the period between the two wars was one of blossoming and peace for some former socialist republics. However, that was interrupted by Soviet occupations that resulted in deportation and organised famine, leaving very painful consequences to this day. That is why in some former USSR countries, including mine, there is a conflict over historical memories and about how to interpret recent history. Reconciliation is necessary to avoid confrontations with manifestations of hatred and xenophobia.

      The report states: “The basis and constant reference point for the neo-Nazi scene is historical National Socialism with its characteristic ideological elements of racism, anti-Semitism, social Darwinism, chauvinism and anti-pluralism.” Let me remind you that such elements are not only characteristic of neo-fascist groups and parties. In the Republic of Moldova, the intelligence services have put down a non-governmental organisation called Antifa. It was supposedly an organisation to combat fascism, but it had in fact participated in extremist activities, such as mass disorder, hate speech and xenophobia. Its roots and source of financing are to be found in the east, as was mentioned by the previous speaker; the money it received from the east has been identified. I very much regret that one member of our Assembly, the rapporteur for the Monitoring Committee on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Albania, is one of the people who inspired and organised this NGO. He organised a provocative demonstration in front of the Ukrainian embassy in Moldova in the middle of Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine.

The Russian authorities basically allege that those involved in what is happening in Ukraine are all neo-fascists. They have even identified NATO as a neo-fascist organisation. Let us therefore be careful, because the draft resolution could be manipulated and used for propaganda purposes. However, I support the draft resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Guţu. I do not see Mr Nikoloski in the Chamber, so I call Mr Saar.

Mr SAAR (Estonia) – I thank Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin for her comprehensive work as the rapporteur on a phenomenon as painful as neo-Nazism. I cannot praise the report enough for its correct analysis, but what I most welcome are the complex measures to help get young people lost to this wrong and cruel ideology out of neo-Nazi movements. The report is well balanced, and also includes measures to protect victims of neo-Nazism. It encourages people to speak up and counteract the perception of impunity. Needless to say, such initiatives take a lot of courage.

      We have to acknowledge that neo-Nazism is a pan-European phenomenon, and that we can all do something about it. The report presents examples of good practice, and provides recommendations from prevention to education and awareness-raising, as well as making timely reactions to signs of radicalisation. As the report states, “the focus should be on prevention, through education and awareness raising.”

      I totally agree with the rapporteur that we should focus on the present and the future, so I call on everyone to support her in rejecting Amendment 2. The amendment, which follows Olga Kazakova’s opinion, would involve us in an endless discussion about the past. I understand Russian peoples’ feelings about World War Two, but the report is not the place to tear open old wounds and start a fight with the shadows of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and so on. That is not the purpose of the report, so let us support the rapporteur and follow the words of the title in relation to “Counteraction to manifestations of neo-Nazism”.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Saar. I call Ms El Ouafi from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Ms EL OUAFI (Morocco)* – I am very pleased that we are having this exchange of views on an issue that affects us all. As European citizens and as immigrants who share your land and air, we are very conscious of the recent history of attacks on human rights, and we share in the spirit of multiculturalism.

      I congratulate the rapporteur on and thank her for the very relevant recommendations in the draft resolution. I want to share some of my thoughts about the issue. First, countering manifestations of neo-Nazism means that we need to work in an effective way in the sphere of education. As an immigrant in Italy, I became aware that not much has been done in the European Union in the sphere of education to stress that diversification of European societies through immigration can be a very positive thing and should not be perceived as a threat or a danger. There needs to be a global, civil and humanistic approach to that issue.

      I say these things as a Moroccan, and my country has two main characteristics in this regard. We have a carefully designed immigration policy that tries to deal with the challenges of multiculturalism and pluralism, to ensure that all groups respect one another, and to instil tolerance in our society. Taking advantage of the richness that immigration provides – it is an important issue for us as well, because we have immigrants in other countries – means that we need to apply humanistic values. Unfortunately, whenever reference is made to Islam, it is done in a reductionist way. National policies concerning Islam become a sort of game of ping-pong, of which the extreme right takes advantage to foment instability.

      To condemn racism is of course a very positive thing, but it needs to be done through concrete measures.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Pashayeva.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this very important report. The increase in racism, hatred and intolerance should seriously trouble us. Member States should not ignore this problem and must strengthen their efforts to prevent it. To that end, the younger generation should be educated in a spirit of tolerance and respect towards human beings irrespective of their various ethnicity, religion, gender and social status. Unfortunately, in some countries, the statements of politicians and information given in the media condition the growth of negative attitudes.

      I am a citizen of a country that is suffering from such problems. To enable a better understanding of the implications of intolerance and racism, I would like to draw your attention to the recent history of my country. Because of the intolerance and hatred generated by the Armenian education system and mass media, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were forcibly deported from Armenia in 1988. Afterwards, having occupied 20% of Azerbaijani territories, Armenian armed forces murdered over 20 000 Azerbaijanis and perpetrated genocide in Khojaly. Consequently, 1 million Azerbaijanis have been living the life of refugees and IDPs, and by ignoring Council of Europe Resolution 1416, Armenia prevents their returning to their homes.

      Instead of ensuring the implementation of the resolution, some of our Armenian colleagues provide the Parliamentary Assembly with disinformation. If you visit Azerbaijan, you can meet thousands of Azerbaijani citizens of Armenian ethnicity and talk to them. However, in Armenia there are no Azerbaijanis because they have all been expelled. The Armenian Church in Azerbaijan remains untouchable, but in Armenia all religious and cultural monuments, and even cemeteries, belonging to Azerbaijanis have been destroyed. Armenia is destroying cultural, religious and historical monuments belonging to Azerbaijanis in occupied Azerbaijani territories, and we have a lot of photo and video materials in this regard.

      Hasan Hasanov, Shahbaz Guliyev and Dilgam Ahmadov were taken prisoner by Armenia in August. Inhuman acts were committed that contradict international rules. Hasan Hasanov was savagely killed, and Shahbaz Guliyev and Dilgam Ahmadov are being tortured. A man whose homeland has been under Armenian occupation for over 20 years and who went to see his home was subjected to inhuman acts. Dilgam Ahmadov and Shahbaz Guliyev are still in captivity.

      I support the rapporteur and her report and I call on member States to focus much more on the issues raised in it. However, I would like to emphasise one issue. It is very important to amend the sentence set out in paragraph 7.3 by adding the word “Islamophobia”, so that it reads: "other forms of racism, hatred, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia”, because Islamophobia is a form of racism.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Tzavaras.

      Mr TZAVARAS (Greece)* – Today, more than ever, we need to think about the famous statement that history teaches how to avoid situations that have caused injury in the past. When such situations are repeated, we need to be prepared to face them. Europeans have yet to learn such lessons, and that is why today we are witnessing this upsurge of neo-Nazism. It is a movement that has historical roots which led to a tragedy, a nightmare, the effects of which we are still feeling.

      We must deal with two issues. First, we must work on our collective historical memory. If we lose it, we will be susceptible to all manner of dangers, because we will be incapable of discerning the return of this evil and all that goes with it. We must be aware of the early warning signs of fascism and of what led up to the Second World War – all the developments in Nazi Germany prior to its outbreak. We must be aware of what led to the fall of Weimar democracy, the most liberal democracy at that time. We must keep these memories alive. That is why saying that 22 July should be the day against hatred and Nazism is perhaps not the best idea, because it would not give us the opportunity to remember all the historical facts. We need to counter neo-Nazism with all the available means. We need to bear in mind that the most banal man or woman can commit the most serious crimes. They are incapable of discerning between good and evil. Such problems, if not nipped in the bud, can destroy democracy. We need dialogue on issues such as modern-day prosperity. It is one of the reasons why the man and woman on the street are open to being influenced by these early seeds of neo-Nazism. We need to act, to deal with these issues.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Giannakaki.

      Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)* – I too congratulate the rapporteur on her report. Neo-Nazism is a bomb waiting to go off – a bomb that would destroy our democracies. I come from a country that fought against Nazism and had more victims during the Second World War than our neighbours. The 2012 elections suddenly led to neo-Nazis entering the Greek Parliament as Members and Deputies. The head of the party is today imprisoned under the criminal code. Extremism has to be tackled at an early stage, so that it can be prevented. It has to be tackled at the stage of people’s initial understanding. We have to change the minds and hearts of individuals. We are European parliamentarians on European soil. We must fight for a better education system that can provide young people with the tools to combat this scourge.

The rise of neo-Nazism is not just related to the economic crisis, and it is a mistake in political thinking to believe that. Otherwise, how do we explain the rise of neo-Nazism in countries that have not been affected by the economic crisis? An ideological element based on xenophobia, sexism, racism and national socialism forms the vanguard of this movement, and the only way to combat it is through education.

We also need to take into account the fact that these neo-Nazis are perpetrating criminal acts. They need to be punished as crimes, because there is nothing good or righteous about them. Unfortunately, in Greece we recently had the sad anniversary of the death of Pavlos Fyssas, who was a young anti-fascist. Of course, Golden Dawn was responsible for that death, but it was not Golden Dawn alone; there was a whole mentality that led to it. There had been other attacks against homosexuals and other vulnerable groups, but the Government did not have the ears to hear. In the end, it was forced to hear.

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Mr Cozmanciuc.

Mr COZMANCIUC (Romania) – Hate speech and hate crime are interconnected, because hate-based violence usually occurs as a result of speech inciting or encouraging violence. Individuals can become the targets of hate crime because of such characteristics as their nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability. There is an increasing need for urgent measures to be taken by Governments and society to buck the trend of growing intolerance. It is of the utmost importance that we combat hate speech. When someone uses hate speech it can inspire or incite others to partake in violent actions against other groups of people. That is why it is important to talk about hate speech when we consider hate crime.

Crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice happen in every country of Europe. Hate crime impacts human rights at three levels: the individual, the group and the societal. At the individual level, hate crime discriminates against people and strips them of their basic human dignity. At the group level, hate crimes have the potential to reverberate among followers of the perpetrator, to spark discrimination and to spread fear and intimidation. At the societal level, hate crime can jeopardise the human rights of vulnerable people.

I am concerned about how hate speech spreads online. Online hate speech is more difficult to monitor, measure and counter. We need awareness-raising measures and education to combat and prevent hate speech. Children and young people need to be taught about their civic responsibilities online and offline. It is important that citizenship and human rights education programmes consider the online dimensions of hate speech, because people do not know how to respond to it or the tools available to them through Internet platforms to try to counter it. I stress the importance of all member States implementing the proposals of the No Hate Speech Movement, which is a Council of Europe campaign that involves young people across Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Santerini, who will be the last speaker, because I will have to interrupt the speakers list.

      Ms SANTERINI (Italy) – I greatly appreciated the approach of our rapporteur in her report, “Counteraction to manifestations of neo-Nazism”. I underscore the appeal made to countries to come up with cross-cutting or cross-sectoral strategies that are not only socioeconomic, but educational and social. Prejudice, intolerance and full-blown racism are individual expressions, but they are also collective expressions—a result of the fact that society and political movements have contributed to the growth of neo-Nazism.

Often, political movements and political representatives create the figure of the enemy by pitting one group against another and by humiliating minorities. I think we have seen that here. Islam is used with a view to slinging shots at the Jewish faith, and vice versa. The Roma and other groups have been pitted against each other. We should ban the use of hate speech at a political level. We should take all measures available to us to counter the efforts of those preaching hatred and spreading it throughout Europe. Our measures targeting young people should not only be punitive; they have to be educational and preventive. We need a more creative approach, as the rapporteur suggests.

Racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Gypsyism are all different phenomena, so in the fight against them we need tailor-made strategies and policies. We have seen various forms of violence that are more or less explicit, and they end with genocide. We should remind ourselves of the hatred to which such expressions lead, but remembrance has to be contextualised. We have to understand young people’s reactions to historical developments in the light of such things as the conflict in the Middle East and migration. In the fight against neo-Nazism and hatred we need to establish networks, so I welcome the establishment of the “No Hate” parliamentary alliance. It is important that we take action at a political level, but we have to look into the new forms that expressions of hatred take among young people, particularly online. Young people have inherited a democratic Europe, and it is up to us to ensure that it remains democratic.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Now, as I said, I must 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. I remind colleagues of the new rules adopted in Resolution 2002 in the June part-session. These rules include provisions which state that the texts are to be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, rapporteur, to respond to the debate. You have five and a half minutes.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Thank you very much, Madam President.

      This has been a long debate of two and a half hours. I thank all colleagues for your very energetic contributions to this very important and necessary debate on counteracting neo-Nazism. I feel strong support from you. I feel that you agree with me that prevention by education and awareness-raising at an early age is very important. I also feel your support for the importance of helping those who get into these movements to get out through Exit’s programmes. I agree with all those who spoke about online hate speech. Combatting that is a challenge today and will be an even bigger challenge in the future. As I said, the whole of society has a responsibility to react to neo-Nazis, but we as politicians have a greater responsibility to stand in the front line to combat neo-Nazis and to defend the core values of the Council of Europe.

      My report tries to be, and I hope is, very practical and very concrete, so that we can all go home to our own countries and parliaments and ask for things in it to be done. I am thinking mainly about the need to have a national action plan and someone to co-ordinate that work. Listening to the debate, I realised that there are so many good examples and so much good practice in all our member States that must be collected and used in everyday work. There is a big challenge for all of us when we are back home and using this report. It is written to be very practical and down to earth. It should not only be about words but doing things in reality.

      I am sorry that some countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan used this very important debate as an opportunity again to raise their conflicts and disputes. I have to say that, because this might be the last time I can speak in this Assembly. I feel so sorry, because this report and debate, at least, is too important to be used in that way.

      I hope that the Assembly will vote according to the decision by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy so that the report, resolution and recommendation will keep their focus and do not turn into something else.

      I will end with a quotation that I think I used before in this Assembly, but it applies to this debate too. Martin Luther King said: “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” I remind you to bear in mind my one-liner: neo-Nazis are not to be ignored, and they should not be turned into martyrs either.

THE PRESIDENT – Does the Chairperson of the Committee, Mrs Bakoyannis, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – It has been an honour for me to chair the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy during the discussions on and adoption of Marietta’s report. It was also my pleasure to organise, in my capacity as chair of the Greek delegation, Marietta’s visit to Greece. The way she led discussions in Greece and her report demonstrate her courage, determination and political sensitivity. She has managed to deal with a politically sensitive subject without pointing fingers at any one country, convinced as much as I am personally that the rise of neo-Nazism is not a phenomenon isolated to some Council of Europe member States but rather a problem with pan-European dimensions. It can be effectively faced only through the sharing of good practice and experiences among all of us. I therefore thank Marietta for her constructive report, which is full of proposals and ideas that will surely inspire legislators and governments, as well as civil society, in so many member States facing the rise of neo-Nazi parties or movements, including my own country.

      Let me quote Marietta once more, because what she said is important for us in Greece in dealing with Golden Dawn: neo-Nazis must not be ignored, and they should not be turned into martyrs either. Thank you, Marietta – we will miss you.

THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 10 amendments have been tabled.

      The Committee has also presented a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 9 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so, Ms Bakoyannis?

      Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – Yes.

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

      We will now take the other amendments as they appear in the document distributed1. Let me remind you that speaking time on amendments is limited, as usual, to 30 seconds. I will start with Amendment 2, because Amendment 1 concerns the title, and we always take amendments pertaining to titles at the end.

      I call Ms Kazakova to support Amendment 2 on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – We are asking the Assembly to express its grave concern about Nazism expressed in any form, including the SS, the Waffen-SS, and other groups, including those mentioned by Mr Sobolev. Some very correct things have been said today about the root causes of these groups. They are being reconstituted because of poverty and despair, so why are we afraid to call a spade a spade and mention them by name? We should have the courage to vote in favour of this. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination voted in favour. It is an important amendment that means we would be telling the truth.

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

Mr SAAR (Estonia) – I am strongly against this amendment because it is absolutely ill-suited. First, the focus of the report, as it said in the summary, should be on prevention, education and awareness-raising, but this amendment brings us to fight with shadows of the past. Secondly, it is totally controversial. It tells us that surviving members of the Waffen-SS organisations, the youngest of whom are in their 90s, are building monuments and memorials and organising public demonstrations. That is total nonsense. I hope the Assembly is against it, like the rapporteur and the Committee.

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

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The amendment was rejected.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 11. I call Ms Katrivanou to support the amendment.

Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – The amendment is in line with Amendment 1, which has already been adopted. It is more coherent and exact to insert “right wing”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Ms Kazakova to support Amendment 3 on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – The committee proposes that we add this paragraph to stress the fact that any form of intolerance is unacceptable, including the actions of people in organisations practising hatred towards representatives of other people. Any such action should be condemned in public and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. The crucial idea is public condemnation, which is exactly what we are doing here in this Chamber. The report is not the end of a process, but the beginning of our fight against the terrible phenomenon of neo-Nazism.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I wish to speak against the amendment because I want us to stay focused, like I said, and avoid this long dialogue. I will not go into it, but the last part of the amendment takes us in a dangerous direction.

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

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The committee rejected it.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to amendment 6. I call Mr Denemeç to support the amendment.

Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – We support the amendment because Islamophobia is an important issue relating to neo-Nazism.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Page 8, paragraph 12 contains our definition of neo-Nazism. I am against the amendment because it might confuse people. As I said, I want a new report on anti-Semitism, and two years ago we had a report on Islamophobia, so I do not think it is appropriate to include it here.

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

      Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The committee rejected it.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 8. I call Mr Fischer to support the amendment.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – We are trying to be more precise. We want not all information, but the relevant information to be conveyed. It would be easy to agree the amendment, and we would be pleased if this fantastic report could be further enhanced.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      We come to amendment 7. I call Mr Denemeç to support the amendment.

Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – I support the amendment because xenophobic parties and ideologies challenge immigration policies and multi-ethnic society, and most of their hostility is focused on Muslim immigrants. In many cases, xenophobic racism and neo-Nazism have transformed into anti-Islamism.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I use the same argument as I used against Amendment 6, which we just rejected. I want a new report, but the amendment does not fit with our definition on page 8, so it might confuse people more than it will add anything.

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

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The committee rejected it.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to amendment 12. I call Ms Katrivanou to support the amendment.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – The amendment is aligned with Amendment 1, which has already been adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Katrivanou, Mr Hunko, Mr Kox, Mr Triantafyllos, Mr Saltouros and Ms Giannakaki, which is, in the draft resolution paragraph 8.3.6, delete the words “, prosecution and trial”; and after the word “networks”, insert the following words: “focusing on efficient exit support measures,”

I call Ms Katrivanou to support the amendment.

Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – Severe, repressive penalty measures and fast-track trials are not appropriate for juvenile crime, including crime committed by neo-Nazi juveniles. We would prefer to put in place preventive exit measures, instead of fast-track trials.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Ms Pourbaix-Lundin wishes to proposed an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in Amendment 13, to retain the words “prosecution and trial” in the draft resolution.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – The committee thinks that the words “prosecution and trial” should stay, but wishes to add “focusing on efficient exit support measures”. The second part of the amendment would therefore be taken. We believe that there should be trials for younger people, but that we should also focus on exit support measures.

THE PRESIDENT* – In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin to support her oral sub-amendment.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I think that has already been done. I think that young people could and should be prosecuted, which means they might go to a special prison or into social care. Those words should be kept in, but we agree with the last part about focusing on efficient exit support measures. That is what my report is about.

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

What is the opinion of the author of Amendment 13?

Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – We are not saying that trials should not happen; we are against fast-track trials for juveniles. Nevertheless, we accept the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour.

I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The sub-amendment is agreed to.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      I shall now put Amendment 13, as amended, to the vote.

      Amendment 13, as amended, is agreed.

I call Ms Kazakova to support Amendment 1 on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – We consider that the report should mention the concept of right-wing extremism because it, like neo-Nazism, is really a form of hatred, and it can even be worse. We are talking about groups that physically destroy other groups simply because they speak a different language. Some politicians even allow themselves to say that such groups should be bombed to smithereens with nuclear arms. It is important that we include the term “right-wing extremism” as well as neo-Nazism.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece)* – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13593, as amended.

The vote is open.

We will now move on to consider amendments to the draft recommendation contained in Document 13593.

I understand that the chair of the Political Affairs Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 10 to the draft recommendation, which was unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

Is that so, Ms Bakoyannis?

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – Yes.

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

      We turn now to the amendments, which we will consider according to the usual rules. They will be taken in the order in which they apply to the text, as printed in the list of amendments. You have 30 seconds to defend your amendment.

I call Ms Kazakova to support Amendment 4 on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – The committee is very worried about the problems faced by the people affected by the phenomena that we have listed here. We believe that we should add to neo-Nazism xenophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia and transphobia, hatred towards representatives of other people’s religions, intolerance against Roma people, migrants and national minorities. The committee voted in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Amendments have consistently been tabled to add that long list, and I have consistently said no. I do not want the list; I want to keep the focus, so of course I am against the amendment, as our committee was against it.

THE PRESIDENT* – The opinion of the committee is against.

The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13593, as amended. I remind you that we need a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.

The vote is open.

      Dear Rapporteur Marietta, it is once again with success that you leave your work here, the success not only of this report but of all that you did in this Assembly. We know that you are going to continue to work for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Thanks a lot to you on behalf of us all.

2. Change of agenda

      THE PRESIDENT* – Given the number of speakers registered for tomorrow in the debate on Georgia, as well as the high number of amendments to be considered then, I propose that we allow the agenda to be as follows. On Wednesday morning, after our debate on the OECD’s activities, we will begin our discussion on the functioning of democratic institutions in Georgia, which will continue in the afternoon. After that we will have our debate on Ukraine, which will begin at about 4.30 p.m.; hence, I also propose that the debate on the follow-up procedure initially foreseen for tomorrow afternoon be held on Thursday afternoon after consideration of the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and before our consideration of the matters pertaining to Albania.

      Would anyone like to have the floor on this proposed amendment to our agenda?

      That is not the case.

      The modification is agreed.

      I have one request for the floor from Mr Mota Amaral.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – I would like to correct my vote on the draft resolution. I suppose I voted against because I thought you were voting on the amendment to the draft recommendation. My vote is in favour, of course, as I said in my intervention during the debate.

      THE PRESIDENT – Of course. Thank you very much, Mr Mota Amaral.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next session will be at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, in line with the agenda. This afternoon, the speaking time will also be limited to three minutes.

      Thank you, Mr Thommessen, for having been so good to be with us, and for having not just attended our session but contributed to it. Thank you very much.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)


1. Counteractions to manifestations of neo-Nazism

Presentation of report, Document 13593, by Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy

Presentation of opinion, Document 13602, by Ms Kazakova, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination

Statement by Mr Olemic Thommessen, Speaker of the Norwegian Parliament

Speakers: Ms Erkal Kara (Turkey), Mr Hancock (United Kingdom), Ms Katrivanou (Greece), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Németh (Hungary), Mr Voruz (Switzerland), Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain), Mr Rzayev (Azerbaijan), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Triantafyllos (Greece), Mr Jenssen (Norway), Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan), Ms Bourzai (France), Ms Pipili (Greece), Mr Loukaides (Cyprus), Mr Shai (Israel), Ms Bokuchava (Georgia), Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Schennach (Austria), Ms Antičević Marinović (Croatia), Ms Faber-van de Klashorst (Netherlands), Mr Mayer (Austria), Mr Stroe (Romania), Ms Karapetyan (Armenia), Ms Rawert (Germany), Ms Guţu (Republic of Moldova), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Mr Saar (Estonia), Ms El Ouafi (Morocco, Partner for Democracy), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Tzavaras (Greece), Ms Giannakaki (Greece), Mr Cozmanciuc (Romania), Ms Santerini (Italy).

Amendments 9, 11, 8, 12, 13 (as amended) and 1 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13593, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 10 adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13593, as amended, adopted.

2. Change of agenda

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


ALEKSANDROV Alexey Ivanovich*

ALLAIN Brigitte

ALLAVENA Jean-Charles*

AMON Werner/MAYER Edgar

AMTSBERG Luise/Schmidt Frithjof




ARIB Khadija*

ARIEV Volodymyr


BAĞIŞ Egemen*



BALLA Taulant*

BAPT Gérard*

BARCIA DUEDRA Gerard/Bonet Perot Sílvia Eloïsa


BARREIRO José Manuel/ Pintado Ángel


BECK Marieluise/Groth Annette

BENEŠIK Ondřej/Pecková Gabriela

BENEYTO José María


BERGAMINI Deborah/Galati Giuseppe

BERISHA Sali/Bylykbashi Oerd

BERNINI Anna Maria*

BERTUZZI Maria Teresa*




BLAHA Ľuboš/Gabániová Darina


BLANCO Delia/Quintanilla Carmen

BOCKEL Jean-Marie*




BOSIĆ Mladen/Dervoz Ismeta

BRAGA António

BRASSEUR Anne/Oberweiss Marcel

BRATTI Alessandro*

BÜCHEL Gerold/Gopp Rainer

BUGNON André/Voruz Eric






CHITI Vannino*

CHIUARIU Tudor-Alexandru/ Badea Viorel Riceard

CHOPE Christopher


CHUKOLOV Desislav*

ČIGĀNE Lolita*


CIOCH Henryk


CONDE Agustín








CSÖBÖR Katalin



DECKER Armand/Maelen Dirk





DIJK Peter


DJUROVIĆ Aleksandra

DRAGASAKIS Ioannis/ Katrivanou Vasiliki


DROBINSKI-WEIß Elvira/ Rawert Mechthild


DUNDEE Alexander*





EßL Franz Leonhard


FENECH ADAMI Joseph/Bonnici Charlò

FENECHIU Cătălin Daniel

FETISOV Vyacheslav*





FLEGO Gvozden Srećko



FRÉCON Jean-Claude/Bourzai Bernadette

FRESKO-ROLFO Béatrice/Barilaro Christian

FRONC Martin

GALE Roger





GIRO Francesco Maria

GOGA Pavol*

GÓRCZYŃSKI Jarosław/ Guzowska Iwona

GORGHIU Alina Ştefania/ Nicolescu Theodor-Cătălin


GOZI Sandro/CIMBRO Eleonora

GRAAF Fred/Faber-Van De Klashorst Marjolein

GROOTE Patrick*

GROSS Andreas


GÜLPINAR Mehmet Kasim

GULYÁS Gergely/Hoffmann Rozsa

GÜR Nazmi*

GUTIÉRREZ Antonio/Xuclà Jordi


GUZENINA Maria/Pelkonen Jaana


HÄGG Carina

HAJIYEV Sabir/Fataliyeva Sevinj

HALICKI Andrzej*

HAMID Hamid*



HEER Alfred*

HENNRICH Michael/ Schockenhoff Andreas







HÜBNER Johannes*

HUNKO Andrej

HUSEYNLI Ali/Gafarova Sahiba





JACQUAT Denis/Reiss Frédéric




JAPARIDZE Tedo/Magradze Guguli

JENSEN Michael Aastrup*



JOVIČIĆ Aleksandar/Pantić Pilja Biljana


KAIKKONEN Antti/Anttila Sirkka-Liisa





KATIČ Andreja*

KAŹMIERCZAK Jan/ Zbonikowski Łukasz



KLYUEV Serhiy*

KOÇ Haluk


KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR Unnur Brá/ Níelsson Brynjar


KORODI Attila*





KOX Tiny

KRIŠTO Borjana*



LE DÉAUT Jean-Yves*


LÉONARD Christophe/Crozon Pascale

LESKAJ Valentina



LONCLE François*



LUND Jacob

MACH Trine Pertou*


MAHOUX Philippe


MARKOVÁ Soňa/Karamazov Simeon


MATEU PI Meritxell




McNAMARA Michael





MENDONÇA Ana Catarina*


MIGNON Jean-Claude

MIßFELDER Philipp*






MULIĆ Melita/Antičević MarinoviĆ Ingrid


NACHBAR Philippe*


NAGHDALYAN Hermine/Karapetyan Naira

NEACŞU Marian*





NIKOLOSKI Aleksandar*

NYKIEL Mirosława*



OEHRI Judith




OSBORNE Sandra/Crausby David

PALACIOS José Ignacio



PIPILI Foteini



PREDA Cezar Florin


PUCHE Gabino


REPS Mailis*


RIGONI Andrea*


ROSEIRA Maria de Belém*



RZAYEV Rovshan

SAAR Indrek

SANTANGELO Vincenzo/ Spadoni Maria Edera


SASI Kimmo



SCHOU Ingjerd


SCHWALLER Urs/Schneider-Schneiter Elisabeth


SEDÓ Salvador



SENIĆ Aleksandar

ŠEPIĆ Senad*












STROE Ionuţ-Marian


SYDOW Björn*



TIMCHENKO Vyacheslav*



TUDOSE Mihai/Cozmanciuc Corneliu Mugurel

TÜRKEŞ Ahmet Kutalmiş


TZAVARAS Konstantinos


VÁHALOVÁ Dana/Dobešová Ivana

VALAVANI Olga-Nantia/ Giannakaki Maria

VALEN Snorre Serigstad/ Godskesen Ingebjørg

VASILI Petrit*

VECHERKO Volodymyr*





VORONIN Vladimir*

VRIES Klaas*


VUKSANOVIĆ Draginja/Šehović Damir

WACH Piotr

WALTER Robert*


WELLMANN Karl-Georg/ Benning Sybille


WOLD Morten

WURM Gisela




ZINGERIS Emanuelis

ZIUGANOV Guennady*



Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’*

Vacant Seat, United Kingdom*


Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote









Nachman SHAI

Partners for democracy



El Mokhtar GHAMBOU




Mohamed YATIM

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)



1 The amendments are available at the document counter or on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.