Speeches

Madam President, thank you very much. Democracy must be maintained and strengthened by all generations and at all times. However, we are at a time when it is not a question of maintaining or strengthening any longer. We are at a time when we need to defend and protect already won political battles that have given us security, freedom and security. The EU was built on the idea of eliminating the dark forces that spread hatred and devastation, but these forces have found their way back. We are living in a troubled time with the despot Putin and his illegal aggression against Ukraine on one side of our continent and the risk that next year Donald Trump will make a comeback as president on the other side of the Atlantic, even more aggressive than last time. At the same time, their friends – right-wing extremists and anti-democrats – are growing stronger in our Union. A democracy package is important and crucial for the people of Europe and it is important that we get it in place. Not a single penny of EU taxpayers' money can go into the pockets of rogue governments that undermine democracy. We must both support and protect civil society actors and free, independent media and journalists. But I also want to turn to colleagues here, especially colleagues in the EPP Group, which includes Swedish moderates and Christian Democrats: Can you promise to cease your cooperation with anti-democratic and far-right forces?

Mr President, women’s and girls’ cries for help sound different, but yet they’re all the same. The responses of our 27 Member States are, however, shameful. An estimated 81 100 women and girls were murdered intentionally in 2021. More than half of them were killed as a consequence of domestic violence. More than 60% of women have experienced some kind of violence on their phone or online. Every third woman over 15 in the EU is a survivor of physical or sexual violence. But these are not only figures: behind every and each number there is a person, a woman, a girl, a mother, a daughter, a nurse, a doctor, even a lawmaker. No place is safe: homes, schools, workplaces, squares, streets or social media platforms. Women and girls are continually being punchbags and shooting boards for men. Together with my co-chief-negotiator Frances Fitzgerald I am continuing the struggle to ensure that our 27 Member States understand that we must have a strong directive to combat this heinous violence. But the year is 2023, and still a majority of our Member States refuse to include the most important legislation as a part of the package – consent-based rape legislation. Since we introduced the legislation back in 2018 in Sweden, thanks to the women’s organisations such as Fatta and under the social-democratic-led government, the sentences have increased with over 75%. It is shameful that governments like those in France and Germany still refuse to understand that only ‘yes’ means ‘yes’. To the two men that right now are responsible for the decisions there – in France, President Emmanuel Macron and in Germany, Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann – I want to say this: how many more of us women must be killed before you stand on the right side of history and say only ‘yes’ means ‘yes’?

Mr President, thank you very much. Colleagues. A small area in the Middle East, completely separated from the outside world. No place for civilians to seek refuge beyond bombs and tanks. It deprives women, children, infants and the elderly, including journalists and health professionals, of their lives. The site has a name – Gaza in Palestine, the world’s largest open-air prison. The screams for help should echo in everyone's ears, including ours here in our Parliament. But the whole Swedish right – M, KD and L together with SD – and the whole European far right seem to be deaf because of their hostility towards Palestinians. Yes, Hamas and other terrorist organisations should be combated. At the same time, it must be ensured that innocent Palestinians and Israelis are saved and that Gazans are not displaced from their homes. Yesterday's agreement between Israel and Hamas is important to save civilians. However, we must never forget that even war has laws that must be respected by all parties, always. whereas the EU must provide humanitarian support, support the Palestinian Authority, end suffering and take global responsibility for a two-state solution, including by recognising Palestine; Israelis and Palestinians deserve peace and security. And finally, I want to thank HIVP Borrell and Commissioner Lenarčič for your important work. But, I also must say that I’m ashamed of Commissioner Várhelyi and his actions.

Madam President, ‘Boom! Boom! Boom! Bomb!’ at the mornings, afternoons, evenings and night. That is what the people of Gaza are hearing. That is what the children in Gaza are born into. That is what thousands have died to and more are dying as we speak. Tears have become floods and there are no words left. Hypocrisy is embodied through the silence of many of our Member States. Have we forgotten the reason of why international law exists? Because also wars have laws. Israel has, indeed, the right to defend itself against the terrorist organisation Hamas, and all the hostages must be released. But they also have an obligation to protect civilians. One crime against international law cannot be justified with another crime of international law. It is time for the EU and our Member States to wake up and defend what we claim we cherish: human rights. It is time to defend civilians. It’s time to end the bombs that are raining over Gaza and violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. No hatred against the Palestinians or Jews can ever be accepted, nor Islamophobia and anti-Semitism that are both on rise in our Union. We need to end this violence, polarisation, and we need to ensure a two-state solution through ending the occupation.

Mr President, colleagues, it has been more than two years since the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban extremists, more than two years of struggle and oppression of the Afghan people, women and girls, opposition, dissidents and anyone who dares to say democracy, rule of law or human rights. More than two years of gender apartheid. We say ‘women, life, freedom’ for the women in Iran. We should also echo the same thing for the women in Afghanistan, because gender apartheid exists in Iran as well as in Afghanistan. The UN is now reporting over 800 instances of documented human rights violations against former Afghan government officials and security forces. These violations consist of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests and torture. We call for a UN—led accountability mechanism to investigate these human rights violations, and we call for the immediate reverse of restrictions on the rights of women and girls. Enough is enough!

Colleague, first and foremost, just to have things on the right place and some things straight. There are heterosexual couples also that cannot have children. That doesn’t make them less heterosexual. My question to you is: what are you really afraid of? Are you so insecure about your sexuality or your gender identity that you are combating those that are secure about their sexuality and gender identity?

Mr President, thank you very much. Colleagues! Corruption is a threat to our democratic Europe and undermines the cohesion of our Union and the trust that is crucial for good cooperation with a focus on solutions to the many problems of our time. My spontaneous reaction when I became aware that Polish authorities acted corruptly by selling visas allowing access to the entire Schengen area was – madness. But it's not that simple. These types of actions usually take place consciously, systematically and with the acceptance of the ruling parties, in this case the right-wing conservative party Law and Justice. It is scandalous and unacceptable. The Law and Justice Party and the Members of this European Parliament are not even ashamed when they try to reduce the consequences. So we have an EU Member State that, according to witnesses, at least in one country, put out a bench outside its embassy where people can go, pay a sum of $5,000, enter their name and gain access to the entire Schengen area. The Polish party Law and Justice does not belong in government and it should be kept as far away from power as possible. Our democracy, security and cohesion are at stake through these types of actions.

Mr President, thank you very much. Colleagues! First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Noichl, for this important report. Let's be clear: Prostitution is paid rape, and rape must be criminalized whether it takes place on the street, at home or online on vile sites such as Onlyfans. How can you believe that free will is involved? How can we accept that women's and girls' bodies are treated like a piece of meat? How can organised crime feed on the suffering of women and girls? No one can convince me that it is a coincidence that over 90 percent of those in prostitution are women and girls. Many have a migrant background, and some belong to the LGBTIQ community. Instead of fighting sexism, racism and LGBTIQ-phobia, some people seem to want to banish women, immigrants, LGBTIQ people to eternal oppression. Colleagues! Survivors of this heinous violence are currently following this debate and the vote tomorrow. This Parliament has the opportunity to stand on the right side of history – on the side of survivors – by voting in favour of the report. To my wonderful friend Saga, and all the other survivors, I would like to say that there are many of us who are doing everything in our power to bring you justice and to give all women and girls the freedom and support to which we should be entitled.

Madam President, there is a lot to say about the regime of Azerbaijan and its unlawful actions in that country and beyond. Crackdowns on political opposition and civil rights activists are unacceptable. We can’t continue with business as usual with a regime that fabricates criminal investigations to suppress criticism of the authorities. It is not the first time we are raising the issue of human rights violations in Azerbaijan. The case of political economist Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu is serious, and he must immediately be released. He has been falsely and arbitrarily imprisoned since 23 July, and he has limited access to contact his family, even his lawyer. He needs to have access to health care. The inhuman treatment must end. We call therefore on the High Representative and the EEAS and the Member States to raise cases such as Gubad Ibadoghlu’s in all bilateral meetings, as well as in the negotiations of a future partnership or any other agreement with Azerbaijan. Any agreement with Azerbaijan must be conditional on the release of all political prisoners. Enough with the impunity for regimes and people that violate fundamental rights!

Madam President, thank you very much. Colleagues! If it can happen in Sweden, it can happen anywhere. These are words I've heard a lot lately. Yes, it has happened in Sweden. Right-wing extremism has normalised to the point where people like me who happen to be born outside the borders of the EU, who have dark hair and dark eyes, are told: ‘You cannot then be Swedish.’ Right-wing extremism has normalized to the point that in my beautiful Sweden, the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals, who were once decent parties, have today become right-wing Sweden Democrats' useful idiots. In 2006, when I was running for a public office for the first time at a young age, I used to receive letters home saying ‘go back to your home country’, ‘you are not Swedish’ and ‘Swedish children first’. To this day, I still receive such letters, even to Parliament's address. However, there is a difference. In 2006, all letters were anonymous. Today, in 2023, everyone proudly signs with their first name, last name, home address and even sometimes phone number. I would urge the EPP Group and the Renew Group here in the European Parliament to stop looking to the extreme right. Let decency lead, not the thirst for power! Don't make the same mistakes as Christian Democrats and Liberals. For those who have a backbone, values are not for sale.

Madam President, yesterday, I had the pleasure to meet the true leader of Belarus, the president-elect, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, when she received the Anna Lindh prize in Stockholm. The braveness she carries is seen in film. She embodies the true voice of the people of Belarus. The fraudster Lukashenko stole the elections in 2020. He oppresses dissidents and is the puppet of Putin. It is true that birds of a feather flock together because Lukashenko and Putin do, because war criminals do. The Belarusian people who support the people of Ukraine are jailed, and those who try to stop Russian rail transport through Belarus face the death penalty. There is a war taking place on our European soil. It is our duty to put an end to it. Tsikhanouskaya and all the people of Belarus must be supported and Lukashenko must be aborted from power.

Mr President, shame, shame, shame! 365 days of shamefulness have almost passed since the death of the Kurdish young girl Jina Mahsa Amini in the hands of the Iranian morality police. The world rose up then, but proper actions were absent. It is a shame that I need to reiterate what I said almost one year ago. To be silenced is to be compliant. Compliance cannot be the way forward for the international community if we truly stand for what we claim we stand, we preach and what we claim we stand for. While some actions were taken against the terrorist regime in Iran, enough was not done. The few sanctions adopted are soon expiring, but the will of the people in Iran and the will of the European people were not accommodated. We need to be frank with that. We shouted it then and we are shouting it now. Designate IRGC as a terrorist organisation now. The Swedish EU presidency refused to act, but we still hope that the Spanish presidency has more courage. The Jin, Jiyan, Azadi Movement are shouting for their freedom, but also our freedom. The regime’s oppression also reaches our citizens. The Swedish citizen Johan Floderus must be released. Mr Vice President and High Representative, will the sanctions be prolonged? Will the IRGC be designated as terrorist organisation, and will Johan Floderus be released?

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, I actually want to start by saying that I think it’s a pity that we don’t have the Council here also because it would have been important and interesting to hear their view and their plan on the way forward on this matter. With their absence, a big – and maybe even the most important – component is actually missing in the discussion to find a joint way forward. And I know that the Commissioner mentioned that there is no interest from the co-legislators, but I wouldn’t say that there is no interest from the co-legislator. There is, as we have heard here today, a big interest by the European Parliament. However, there is not sufficient trust in the Council that, if we withdraw the current proposal from 2011, there will be progress instead of deterioration, that the Council would agree on a more progressive and more transparent proposal, rather than less transparent. Of course, there was very essential work that that the Commissioner did when having the courage to take leadership in combating the horrific pandemic that hit every and each of us in here and also globally, of course. But the same courage is also needed to ensure democracy and transparency. And I agree, of course, I never contradicted my colleague In ’t Veld that democracy is the cornerstone, or transparency and access to documents is the cornerstone, in democracy. I maybe just formulated myself in another way, but it is the cornerstone stone of democracy. I would never have imagined, for example, in Sweden, where I come from, that a minister or the Prime Minister would refuse to give away or make public political, especially political, sensitive and even less sensitive information that the public, that our citizens have a right to. And imagined even less that the Prime Minister would let it go to court to decide. That shouldn’t be needed. There should be a will to show that accommodating transparency and really standing up for a fully-fledged democratic European Union is not just words but also seen in the actions. Therefore, I need to say, colleagues, I actually sent a letter to the Commission President and invited her to this debate today. But unfortunately, the Commission President is not with us, even though, of course, we are happy, Commissioner, that you are with us. But I, as rapporteur, did my best in trying to also get the Commission President so we could have an open and honest discussion, not least on the text messages she was exchanging with the chief of Pfizer. With this said, I see – and I’m happy – that there is big support for the report that myself and the co-rapporteurs have done. And I hope to see a big majority also voting in favour of it later today.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, transparency is a vital part of a democratic culture and an important tool to fight corruption. Our citizens have the right to maximum amount of transparency and, consequently, maximum amount of accessibility to public documents to ensure accountability. The last year’s historical scandal, known as Qatargate, has shown that we have a long way to go before we can ensure our citizens have their fundamental right to know under whose influence some might be – consequently, to prevent this influence. Because it is evident that we have a long way to go before a culture of transparency reaches every and each corner of the EU’s DNA. All EU institutions – European Parliament, the Council, including Member States, the Commission and the agencies – have homework to do. And in the light of the Commission President’s handling of the text messages with the Pfizer Chief Executive during COVID-19, we have a long way to go before transparency becomes the rule and by design – not the exception – and in the goodwill of decision-makers, institutions and agencies. No, it’s not the medium that matters; it is the content of the message that decides the nature of the document. I have said it before in other debates, and I want to underline it again. Regardless of if the communication is being done with text messages, emails, letter or even pigeons, it’s not the medium that decides the nature of the document; it is the content. Openness and transparency principles should govern not only the decision-making process, but also the way in which a text is drafted, and guaranteed in relation to how EU policies are implemented at all levels and how EU funds are used. It is shocking that even journalists need to conduct a big fight to access what is a fundamental right to access basic information to be able to do their job. Transparency by design is therefore the guarantee. Furthermore, access delayed is effectively access denied. Delay and unfounded refusal to disclose documents – even partially – undermine citizens’ right to scrutinise us. In a time of democratic backslide in our Union, improving our citizens’ right to scrutiny would prevent further deterioration and ensure full implementation of our own Treaties. Pulitzer said, ‘There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy’. Colleagues, secrecy is the enemy of transparency, accountability, trust and democracy. Therefore, the Council’s lack of will to progress on negotiations on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents remains the main obstacle and stone in the machinery for progress and improvement. The European Parliament adopted a first reading position on the Commission proposal in December 2011, and now is definitely the time for the Council and the Commission to also act on their side and to resume negotiations based on it with us to give our citizens wider and improved access to documents. Only words have never changed the world, but actions have. I want to also conclude with thanking my co-rapporteurs for the very efficient and productive work done on this very important matter.

Madam President, first and foremost, I want to thank the Commissioner for taking part in the discussions. I also want to say that I regret to see that some of the colleagues who took part in the debate already left. First and foremost, just to the colleague, David Lega: I just want to say, in contradiction to you, that I am able, as a Social Democrat, to love Israel and to love Palestine at the same time. That is called standing up for international law and the rule-based order. International law is universal, and it applies to all of us. And also to the colleague Mandl, who didn’t bother to stay either: there is no such thing as a ‘so-called’ Palestinian Authority. There is a Palestinian Authority. Let me also remind everyone who thinks the same that the Palestinian Authority is a product of agreement between Israel and Palestine. Who are we to undermine the effort of peace that they have tried to take? Then the claims that the EU is pumping out financial support without any conditionality – be it to the Palestinian Authority, UNWRA or anyone else – are astonishing and, of course, totally made up. Even with Israel, we have demands. Article 2 of the EU—Israel Association Agreement clearly states, ‘Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement’. I haven’t heard anybody in here saying that we should cancel the EU-Israel Association Agreement because we know that it is not good for the two-state solution. So why are we talking about dismantling the Palestinian Authority? I would not have thought that I would ever quote him, but even the Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that it is not in his interest to weaken the Palestinian Authority. And then we have MEPs in here saying that we should weaken the PA. What we do, if we weaken the Palestinian Authority and try to dismantle it, is that we abolish all kinds of possibility for a two-state solution, a peaceful two-state solution, with two democratic states living side by side in in peace, democracy and security. Colleagues, with this said, I just want to once again, as I did in the beginning, call on everybody to vote in favour of the recommendations as they are. They are negotiated, and it is a compromise from many different parts. And I want to finally say thank you to my shadow rapporteurs.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, the Palestinian people have been living under occupation for more than 50 years and deserve their freedom, as all other people. And a well-functioning Palestinian Authority with control over their territories is an integral part towards a peaceful solution on the conflict and an end to the Israeli occupation. If I asked anyone in here in our Parliament, please stand up if you would like to be treated as the Palestinian people are, expected to live a decent life under an abnormal situation, because there is nothing normal with occupation. I can promise you no one here would like to stand up. The freedom of the Palestinian people is also interlinked with the security of the Israeli people. The internationally recognised two-state solution, according to the 1967 borders with the city of Jerusalem as the capital of both states, remains the best way of bringing lasting peace, stability, security and equal rights to both people. What I just mentioned should not be controversial for anyone of us in here, because it is rooted in international law and the rule-based order that we claim we stand for in many other conflicts. But yet these recommendations seem to have created a debate above and beyond my understanding in this Chamber, in a few EU Member States with disinformation and misinformation and groundless allegations being spread. Colleagues, how controversial can it be to demand an end to corruption and human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority? How controversial can it be to demand an end to terrorist attacks by actors on both sides, Palestine and Israel? How controversial can it be to demand an end to Israeli occupation and human rights abuses? How controversial can it be to demand from Israeli authorities to stop demolition and confiscation of EU-funded projects that is supposed to go to schools for Palestinian children? And if they continue their activities, every single cent must be paid back to the European taxpayers. How controversial can it be to let the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court do their job through looking into if war crimes have been committed? How controversial can it be to have a more long-term approach instead of yearly ad hoc cooperation and support to the Palestinian Authority? Remember the last time Commissioner Várhelyi refused to pay the financial support to the PA based on groundless allegations? It even led to Palestinian people not accessing cancer treatment. In the end, it all boils down to how controversial can it be to start treating the Palestinian people as we treat the Israeli people? Or do we believe international law only applies to some? And as Orwell said, some are more equal than others. Peace must be the ultimate goal wherever conflict appears. Freedom must be the ultimate goal wherever an occupation exists. Life must be the ultimate goal, where death is ever present. If we really believe in that, it should not be controversial to vote in favour of the negotiated and compromised takes on recommendations to the Council and the Commission on the relations with the Palestinian Authority and reject any amendments. I just want to remind us all in here that we have a duty to pave the way for peace and life, not further polarisation and death. Palestinian and Israeli human rights activists and organisations are right now calling on us to adopt these important recommendations.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, to take innocent people hostage by arbitrarily detaining them and threatening them with execution is unacceptable, a violation of all kinds of rules and bases of international law. It is evident that the EU Member States, at this moment, unfortunately, do not have enough leverage to combat this practice. We cannot let ourselves be put in a situation where we pay large sums, or release terrorists, or become silent because of a lack of a strategy on countering hostage taking and blackmailing. We have all witnessed how the oppressive regimes, such as the one in Iran and others, use hostages as diplomatic tools. While some European citizens have been released through lengthy negotiations – which is important, of course, and which saved lives – our Member States, however, lack the leverage to effectively combat hostage diplomacy. I have myself recently met with a lot of the family members of hostages taken in Iran and learned about the unbelievable human suffering that the Iranians’ hostage diplomacy causes. To be silent and continue with the status quo cannot and must never be an option for us in the European Union, because these horrendous regimes are bullies: when they know that one certain behaviour is successful for them, they continue to practice the same. But I also want to say that I do believe that one of the core problems is also the lack of a joint EU foreign policy in some fields. The only way the EU can really become stronger in that, against the oppressing regimes, is when the latter know that the EU is not talking with 27 different votes on foreign policies, but rather with a joint one. Nevertheless, the EU must respond against authoritarian regimes that are using innocent human beings as a means to pressure our freedoms and human rights. I therefore think it is essential that we have a European strategy to counter hostage diplomacy and improve our cooperation to release all EU citizens and to ensure that the regimes cannot continue using this hostage diplomacy as a tool over and over again. It is only when we have a real and clear strategy jointly, and we act in cooperation with each other, that we can ensure that hostage diplomacy belongs to the past and is not used in the future.

Madam President, colleagues, it is horrible how someone can prosecute and torture minors. No one with a right mind would even think of committing such a crime. But then again, Putin is a tyrant and doesn’t see any limits. Two innocent Ukrainian minors – Tihran and Mykyta – are facing charges under the Russian regime. Born in 2006, these young boys are now confronted with up to 20 years in prison without even proper legal assistance or any kind of support. Their place is not in imprisonment; their place is in freedom. Their situation is not an isolated incident. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused the death of at least 488 Ukrainian children, more than 1 016 injured, over 19 500 deported to Russia and 3 924 reported missing. Children must never be targets. Only a barbarian treats and uses children in such a way.

Mr President, colleagues, it is unbelievable how spyware programs are being used against innocent people. Imagine a spyware program that, in secrecy, reads your messages, listens to your phone calls, collects your passwords, follows your every move, has access to your microphone – and camera for that sake – and steals information from your phone. Well, since some time back, we know that we do not need to imagine it. The spyware from the Israeli cyber—intelligence firm Pegasus is here and has been used, and that is what the recommendations in the report are very, very clearly stating. But on what grounds the license access is given, to whom it’s given and who it is being used against we have less knowledge on. Illegal and totally groundless surveillance is one of the biggest threats against our democratic European Union. It is therefore unacceptable that Pegasus and other equivalent systems are being used against civil society organisations, opposition journalists and dissidents so, unfortunately, I am not surprised that the situation is worse in Hungary and Poland. The situation is alarming to the extent that all of us MEPs were encouraged to check our phones. We need to take total control over these systems to ensure integrity and privacy.

Madam President, we were actually asking for the floor in case the Left would put forward their proposal. But since they withdraw, we will also withdraw ours and then we will come back to it during the next session.

Madam President, colleagues, I must say that I am very shocked and it is a shame that the EPP Group refused to take part in the negotiations of this very important resolution and that they have been refusing to take part in the discussion. And this while the people of Myanmar are suffering. The political situation in Myanmar brings to light how fragile democratic development is. The claws of the military are getting longer and longer and pushing deeper and deeper into the power. The dissolution of over 40 parties and arbitrary arrests of politicians are horrific. When addressing the oppressive junta regime in Myanmar our demands are clear. We condemn and reject the military junta’s illegitimate rule. We demand an immediate end to their attacks on civilians, labour unions, journalists, religious representatives and peaceful democratic protesters, including the opposition. We demand an immediate end to their air strikes and use of rape as a weapon. The international community must now stand ready with all its available political tools. We must sanction the military junta and all those affiliated with it.

Madam President, I think it’s tragic that on the extreme right side there are a bunch of men who are telling us women that the Istanbul Convention doesn’t have any effect on our lives, on saving our lives, while on this side, on the left and centre side, on the bench, we are a bunch of women and allies who are clearly saying we need to do everything that we can to save women and girls all around the Union. Have you thought about how come that you think on the extreme right side that you know best what women need?

Madam President, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. I can continue until I reach over 50 before I stop, because that’s how many women that are killed in domestic violence in Europe every week. That is how many lives that are extinguished every day. Their crime: just because they are born female. For all those women and girls and for all survivors, we have a responsibility to prevent, protect and act. It is therefore essential that the EU ratifies the Istanbul Convention, the first international tool to combat violence against women and domestic violence. I am glad that we have a majority of the Member States on board now to ratify some part of the convention. Even if I would have hoped that we would have ratified the whole convention, and I hope that we will in the near future be able to do that. There is nothing clearer remaining from the Stone Age than gender—based violence. All through history, silence has, sometimes even encouragement has, even by people in here, has been the reaction of society. Even today, even in our Union, violence against women and domestic violence is seen as a family matter by right—wing conservatives, right—wing extremists, and others with Stone Age mentality. Gender—based violence and domestic violence is no family matter. It is a matter of crime, and crime must result in consequences. It is time to end the impunity that exists. As a continuation of the important work on combating gender—based violence and domestic violence, I, together with my co—rapporteur Francis Fitzgerald, look also forward to also adopt a strong directive on the area this summer. Today, we celebrate the first steps that are taken, and tomorrow we continue taking further steps until we end this heinous violence against women and girls across our whole Union.

Madam President, colleagues, it’s essential that we ensure that all our finances are used in a correct way. No single cent should go where it shouldn’t go to and every single cent should go to the purpose. All our efforts should therefore go to ensuring this. However, I am amazed how some people in this Parliament has made it their purpose in life to spread disinformation and year after year bring the same issues up; every year, the same issues related to UNRWA and the Palestinian authorities are put on the table. Even when they have received an EU-funded independent report as the one by Georg Eckert Institute that clearly contradicts their claims, they don’t give up. I seriously wonder if they really want to see a peaceful two-state solution or they are trying to undermine it through weakening the Palestinian authorities, through freezing the support. There is, of course, a lot we should demand from the Palestinian side as well as from the Israeli side, but to weaken the Palestinian Authority will for sure not lead to a peaceful two-state solution. Colleagues, I hope we are more people in this Parliament that want to see a peaceful two—state solution than those struggling for polarisation.

Madam President, thank you very much. Putin's claws are getting longer and longer, pushing deeper and deeper. While he is currently guilty of crimes against humanity in Ukraine, he is trying to stifle opposition figures into silence in Russia. The sentencing of human rights activist Vladimir Kara-Murza and the treatment of democracy activist Alexei Navalny are disgusting. I admire the champions of democracy and human rights in the country, who stand up to a tyrant like Putin. With their lives at stake, they refuse to be silenced. But our admiration is not enough. We must also act in their defence. We must support the opposition and impose sanctions on those who constantly violate human rights and freedoms in Putin's regime. The political prisoners must be released immediately.