What Christian spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The case of Algerian journalist Ihsane El Kadi is representative of journalists, online and offline publishers, media entrepreneurs who are coming under increasing pressure. They are threatened by difficult working conditions; In many countries, they are threatened with torture and murder. It is precisely for this reason that it is the task of this European Parliament to take a close look when media freedom and press freedom are threatened. Let me add one more thought: The technical innovations we have seen in recent decades, especially in recent years, the opportunities to publish, to become a journalist on the Internet, to literally share information – they have advantages, but they also have dangers, and this Parliament is not blind to dangers either. We already have the second committee on disinformation, the special committee, which must also deal with what exactly needs to be done to protect quality journalism, namely to be on the trail of those who spread conscious disinformation in order to divide society and endanger democracy. It is important for me, therefore, that we uphold fundamental rights here in this House and look with a keen eye not only at violations of fundamental rights in our Member States, but also in many countries, in our neighbouring countries and worldwide, that we are here a reminder, a defender, a defender of human rights and freedom of the press. What is happening in Algeria? The Senate has made the disclosure of sources mandatory, a new law puts many media under pressure. Funding from abroad has been severely punished. Journalists are severely oppressed and restricted in their fields of work. It is precisely for this reason that we would like to take the case of Ihsane El Kadi to Parliament and demand his immediate release.

Dear President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, One wonders at the first moment: What does the European Parliament have to do with the human rights situation in a country that is relatively far from us, apparently far from us? And yet I can tell you right away: There are two reasons that motivate me again and again to speak in the area of human rights. The first reason is: I used to work as a journalist, I worked for a newspaper, and I know what it's like to try to do your job as a journalist well, to report objectively. And there are many countries in the world where support is needed, where words of warning and a view from outside are needed to strengthen the backs of journalists in particular. This is also the case in Tajikistan and especially in the Autonomous Province, where state power simply tramples on the rules of a democratic culture. As parliamentarians, we have to take the floor here. Because we don't have any other weapons. Parliamentarians have the chance to intervene with words and as speakers. We can put a very clear focus on something. I always compare it to a headlight. Today we have the opportunity to make a difference with regard to the human rights situation for these people and to direct our spotlight of attention there. Suppressing freedom of expression, restricting democracy, persecuting political dissenters in many countries, and especially in Tajikistan today – when we talk about it today, we give these people the opportunity to make their concerns known to the public – to the general public. This is our duty as members. If people there have to take to the streets and be afraid that police violence will prevent them from expressing their opinions, then we have a duty to intervene as parliamentarians. Then we have to give them the voice they may not have. The second reason I would like to add spontaneously is the geopolitical situation. All these states in Central Asia are in the same pressure situation. Russia will put massive pressure on these states, and that is precisely why we need to keep an eye on this region. This is what, in my view, means responsibility as parliamentarians, namely to take the floor for those people who are themselves oppressed, who cannot speak even these words. As a parliamentarian, I always want to fulfil this task.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, In preparation for today, I read through last year's speeches. If you read and look at the report, the speeches of many colleagues and the analysis of the report will probably be similar today. That's bad news. This is bad news because North Macedonia has sought and implemented far-reaching reforms in many areas. I am not talking about simple legislative decisions – it is about changing the constitution to the name of the country. Nevertheless – yes, nevertheless – accession negotiations have still not been launched, and you can feel that. I have been to Skopje three times and when you talk to the people – and not just the country’s official representatives – you can feel this loss of credibility. The European Union and Europe as a whole will lose credibility in the Western Balkans if we do not send strong signals. It is precisely this loss of credibility that leads others to take advantage of this vacuum in politics: Russia, China – others will come and make offers, and then it is in our hands – as a whole, of course, also as an impact of the COVID pandemic – to act quickly now. The impressive signal of unity following Putin’s attack on Ukraine must spill over, including in a closed approach to the Western Balkans. We need these states. We need these countries by our side, we need them within the European Union. I would also like to make one thing very clear: I also understand the concerns and concerns of my Bulgarian colleagues. Here, too, I appeal to both sides, Skopje and Sofia, to find new ways here as quickly as possible, to show alternatives, how to get away from here and not to keep turning at the stand. I know these are serious and painful decisions. But I can only emphasize one thing again: Our credibility is under scrutiny. Let us make the Western Balkans a good example of how European integration can succeed!

Dear Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. As clearly and unequivocally as the second article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formulated in 1948, so clearly is our mandate here in this Parliament today. Unfortunately, we have to note that many of these rights will continue to be trampled on in 2021. It is up to us to cast our eyes there and direct our criticism there. This also applies to the human rights situation in Cameroon, and one who is particularly committed to human rights there, especially for the English-speaking minority, is Felix Agbor Nkongho. Whether as a human rights lawyer, as vice president of the African Bar Association for Central Africa or as founder of the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy for Africa: He raises his voice. He was arrested for this and released only under pressure from international associations and organizations. And he is still threatened with death for his commitment. There is now much to say about the situation in Cameroon, but I would like to mention one topic in particular: This is the abuse of military jurisdiction on civilians. This blatantly contradicts the right to a fair trial in independent courts, to which Cameroon has also committed itself. As Members of Parliament, we once again appeal today in our resolution to all state authorities, but also to the separatists in Cameroon, to observe the ceasefire, to accept the international offers of dialogue, to build federal systems, to release political prisoners and to immediately stop the threats against peaceful activists, journalists, workers' representatives, minorities, women and children. And we also call on all European institutions not to let the people of Cameroon down.