What Francisco spoke about.

Madam President, Commissioner, unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to the intolerant and if we are not prepared to defend the tolerant society from the assault of intolerance, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. These words were written by one of the greatest liberal-democratic philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper, and are found in his well-known work The Open Society and its Enemies. And that's exactly what we're talking about. Popper challenged both right-wing totalitarianism and left-wing totalitarianism. He clearly defended the primacy of liberal democracy and was aware of one thing: that the only limit that can be set is the limit on those who, being intolerant, call into question the basic and fundamental presuppositions of democratic-liberal civic coexistence. Unfortunately, today, this is happening on a large scale on digital networks, affects various segments of the population and has a particularly harmful effect on young people. The answer to this goes through two things: on the one hand, by better regulating social media, in the name of defending freedom – not in the name of atrophying freedom, as some here claim, but in the name of defending the values of freedom – and, on the other hand, by promoting critical, autonomous, free and conscious thinking in every young European. That is the path we must follow.

Madam President, Commissioner, Iran is an example of how a great people, with an extraordinary history and an exceptional cultural and artistic wealth, can be subjugated by a group of religious fanatics; a people that lives oppressed by the violence of a theocratic state, although it cherishes an undeniable desire for freedom. Not content with raping their own people, Tehran's ayatollahs have turned violence into a product that can be exported to various parts of the world. They have been doing ‑no for a long time in the Middle East and are therefore one of the main obstacles to peace in the region. And now they are committed to exporting this violence to Europe, by radicalising young people on European soil and even partnering with criminal organisations. This has a name: terrorism, international terrorism. The Iranian religious dictatorship is now probably the regime that most sponsors and promotes terrorism, because it is also convinced that its survival depends on it. We therefore believe that we can no longer hesitate. Our next step must be to put the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist groups in the European Union, as Canada and the United States have already done.

Madam President, Commissioner, Taiwan has, over the years, sought to occupy a place at the UN concert, and China seeks to make ‑la invisible at that concert, through a distorted interpretation of UN Resolution 2758 of 1971. China, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, continues its war games around the island in an increasingly ostensible effort to intimidate Taiwan. And there is one aspect that needs to be highlighted, from my point of view, which is the dignity and maturity of the Taiwanese people and authorities. They have managed to reconcile an enviable cold blood with a burning desire for freedom. It is a courageous path that can and must inspire other oppressed peoples. China, for its part, can no longer disguise how much this strategy upsets and disorients it. That alone explains the disproportionate display of the military apparatus that took place last week. The European Union must therefore stand firm in supporting Taiwan and its strategy of asserting soft sovereignty against the brute force of the Chinese Goliath. We believe that Taiwan could one day play a decisive role in promoting democratic values in that region of the world and be a key ‑ ally of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by welcoming this decision, which goes in the right direction: providing support to Ukraine through a loan backed by Russian immobilised funds. The aggressor must take full responsibility for the damage done to the Ukrainian people. Listening to this debate, it is very clear. Those on Putin's side here are not just on Russia's side, they are against the founding values of the European Union, because what really brings them closer to Putin is the rejection of our model of society and our model of organising a rule of law. What they reject is a free society. What they reject is a democratic rule of law. What they reject is a society that values individual citizenship and that values a democratic citizenship that is based on the principle of equality. And that is why there is a very clear division here. Those who come here to speak on behalf of Putin are also clearly attacking the founding principles of Europe. And this debate is a debate that establishes a very clear division in this House: between those who fight and fight for democracy and those who are truly against it.

Madam President, religious freedom is one of the foundations, one of the basic principles of European modernity. And it is based on three fundamental aspects. First, the principle of individual freedom of conscience. Second, the principle of the separation of public institutions and religious organisations – without implying that religions have no right to take their place in public life; there should be a distinction between public institutions and religious organisations. Third, the principle of equality of all before the law, regardless of the religion they pursue. But this did not fall from heaven; this was the result of various philosophical contributions and various cultural and political struggles that took place on this continent over centuries and that contributed to the emergence of such a Europe. And I want to say something. After listening to some Members of the far right here in this Parliament and the way they talk about Christian Europe and Europe that would only have made sense if I had permanently referred to their Christian origin, I came to the following conclusion: There is nothing more like an Ayatollah of Tehran in Europe than some MPs of the European far right, because what is at the basis of the speech is exactly the same, religion is that it is different, but the support and fanaticism are exactly the same.

Madam President, Ilham Tohti, Sakharov Prize 2019: He was sentenced to life imprisonment only for advocating dialogue between the Uighurs and the Han Chinese. Gulshan Abbas: He was sentenced to 20 years only for having as his sister an activist who, in the United States, denounced the persecution of the Uighurs by the Chinese regime. This is the other expression of China – not China that arouses so much admiration for its scientific and technological development, but this China that is one of the last incarnations of what was one of the greatest tragedies that marked the history of humanity in the 20th century and is perpetuated here for the 21st century: The Tragedy of Marxism-Leninism-Inspired Communism. China is still an expression that goes on in the time of this same tragedy. But this tragedy then manifests itself concretely in these absolutely dramatic situations. These two people are isolated, in prison, have difficulty having any contact with their families, probably need medical help and are in a state of total isolation. Europe cannot ignore this. It is our absolute duty from here, from the European Parliament, to say 'we are paying attention to the systematic violation of human rights in China'.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the civil war in Sudan has been treated by the international community almost as a footnote in the black book of world conflicts, despite the fact that today it is one of the deadliest conflicts. We need to be aware that this stance exposes us to criticism – and fair criticism. Today, 541 days have passed since the start of the civil war. There are tens of thousands of dead. The procession of atrocities is long: arbitrary executions, ethnic cleansing, sexual violence, torture, kidnappings, destruction of critical infrastructure. There are 10 million internally displaced people in Sudan, the highest number in the world, and several million refugees in neighbouring countries. Violence, disease and hunger are the daily lives of these people. Half of the population needs urgent assistance. I believe that the top priority at the moment must be to create the conditions for humanitarian aid to reach the suffering populations. The European Union has contributed financially to this aid, but this is little in the face of a conflict of this magnitude. In August, attempts to negotiate a U.S.-sponsored ceasefire failed. We need to keep trying. And the European Union needs to enter the field, to seek channels of dialogue between the warring forces, as well as possible regional mediators. It is also necessary to call on the UN Security Council to act and to call on the International Criminal Court to complete its investigations. Those responsible for the atrocities must not go unpunished. The international community and the European Union cannot regard Sudan as a lost case. I wish, moreover, that we could devote to Sudan a small fraction of the time, the commotion and the indignation that we have rightly devoted to other parts of the world. Africa cannot be an eternal forgotten.

Mr President, the people of Georgia are unquestionably a European people, and if there is an aspiration running through them, it is the aspiration to belong to the European Union. We must never lose sight of this aspiration, this genuine desire for freedom, democracy, separation from the Russian Federation and all that this will represents. There is not much to see of the flags of the European Union on the streets and squares of Georgia. It is further proof that the European project is not a project in decline, as some like to proclaim outside and inside the European Union. It is true that the current Georgian government has, from our point of view, made serious mistakes. It has adopted laws restricting fundamental rights and freedoms and does so, moreover, invoking traditional European values, thus contradicting the European values that underpin and underpin the European Union. But if that is true, we must also be careful to avoid certain attitudes and initiatives that could be interpreted as an attempt to interfere in the internal Georgian democratic process. The worst thing that can happen to us is precisely that – to be accused of being unduly trying to condition the freedom of the Georgian people. In any case, our solidarity with the people of Georgia is unquestionable.

Mr President, the expansionism of the Russian Federation under the leadership of tyrant Putin is not limited to military incursions and invasions. It is also committed to regional destabilisation and less and less covert interference in the functioning of European democracies. In his obsession with undermining the European project, he is now engaged in disinformation campaigns with countries with candidate status to the European Union. To Putin's great frustration, the sovereign desire of several former Soviet republics is not subservience to the Russian Federation, but integration into the European Union. Unfortunately, digital platforms today allow any autocrat to spread propaganda, forge fake accounts or spread lies as if they were true facts. But Putin rose to the parade, funding pro-Russian parties and candidates, and stirring up the spectre of war to frighten Moldovan citizens who go to the polls on the 20th to vote on joining the European Union. Let us not be deceived. This dirty game also reveals that Putin is afraid of the European project, afraid of the power of seduction and influence of the European Union. That is why we cannot leave Moldova helpless. We have an obligation to support the Moldovan people.

Madam President, Commissioner, the case of José Daniel Ferrer García is not an isolated case in Cuba. He's one of many. Many political prisoners are currently in Cuban jails. It's not new either. This has been happening for many decades. Cuba began to awaken, initially, great hope among various progressive forces around the world, but very quickly became what it still is today: a dictatorship. And there are no good dictatorships, no bad dictatorships. There are no dictatorships that should deserve any kind of welcome at the expense of others that would be completely infrequent. All dictatorships are evil and all democrats have a duty to confront these dictatorships. There are many, thousands and thousands of men and women who have fled Cuba in recent decades. They are scattered all over the world, and when we hear them, we see that their great yearning, their first yearning, is the yearning for freedom, it is the yearning for democracy. There are dramatic situations in Cuba from various points of view, but what unites all Cuban dissidents is the will to freedom, the will to be able to say what they think, the will to be able to meet with whomever they want, the will to be able to enjoy the rights enjoyed by most of the democracies in which we operate. That is why we consider it essential that the subject of Cuba be discussed here in the European Parliament. It is time to once again express our solidarity with all the dissidents, with all those who had to flee, with all those who remain in Cuba, with those who are imprisoned, with their families. The case of José Daniel Ferrer García is particularly shocking: he is in prison, his state of health is unknown, he has difficulties communicating with his own family. What we know about Cuban prisons gives rise to the greatest concern. I was just reading an interview by another dissident, Camila Rodríguez, who, two years ago, following the adoption of a new Penal Code, decided to leave Cuba in order not to be arrested and who is today also a voice of deep dissatisfaction and a voice demanding freedom outside Cuba, by Cuba, by Cubans and by Cubans. The European Union has a political dialogue and cooperation agreement with Cuba. Under this agreement, we have an obligation to monitor the issue of respect or, in this case, the lack of respect for human rights in Cuba. It is not just a right, it is a duty that the European Union has. We do not hide that we are unfavorable to the American embargo on Cuba. We consider that this decision was historically wrong and is therefore a reason for an alibi on the part of the regime itself to justify what is totally unjustifiable. And we want to maintain this political dialogue with Cuba. We have no intention of calling this political dialogue into question, but neither can we remain hostage to this political dialogue, to the point of losing the ability to censor Cuba and, above all, to monitor the development of the issue of human rights in Cuba. And the question now is: Is Cuba better or worse today than it was four or five years ago? Has there been any progress or regression in the area of respect for human rights? Are there more or less political prisoners? Has criminal law developed positively or has it developed negatively? Is the repression greater or lesser? Is freedom greater or lesser? These are the concrete questions that have to be asked in relation to Cuba, as we do in relation to any other dictatorship. That is why we believe that this debate is a useful one. It is a debate that is fully justified in time and we hope that this debate can contribute, however little its contribution, to political prisoners, to refugees, to dissidents having more hope and more will to fight for democracy and freedom in Cuba.

Mr President, the Belarusian regime has been a permanent focus of human rights abuses and geopolitical instability, not least because of its complete subservience to the Russian Federation and its expansionist plans. And it was not long ago that Belarus instrumentalised thousands of refugees, forcing them to move to the Polish border, after deliberately luring them with plane tickets and tourist visas. We have also known for years the shocking repression of those who oppose Lukashenko's dictatorial power, which seems like a new version of Soviet totalitarianism with a very bad memory. The regime's prisons are full of dissidents, who are kept there in absolutely deplorable conditions. In Belarus of 2024, it is possible to be arrested for the crimes of slander against the President or discredit of Belarus. Several prisoners cannot resist ill-treatment and lack of health care. Unsatisfied, the regime persecutes even dissidents in exile. The European Union has a duty to mobilise all its resources and mechanisms to put pressure on the regime to release political prisoners, but also to know their whereabouts and state of health, supporting their families as well as those fleeing the country. We need a tough hand against the Lukashenka regime, which also means strengthening sanctions against individuals and organisations responsible for the repression of opponents and the systematic violation of human rights.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one of the most striking images of the 20th century was the images of 1956, when the Hungarian people resisted Soviet imperialism. The most striking images were the images of Soviet tanks in Budapest brutally suppressing this extraordinary popular revolt, which was perhaps the biggest revolt that occurred against communist totalitarianism and Soviet imperialism in those years. It is therefore with great sadness, Minister, that we see today the Hungarian Government – from Hungary itself, which was also one of the first countries to shake off the Soviet yoke – holding hands with the autocrat Putin. Because that is what this is about right now, and that is what we need to assess here. This decision was made after a visit by the Prime Minister of Hungary to Moscow. There have been many public expressions of solidarity by the Hungarian Government with the Russian autocracy, and there have been many provocations by Hungary in relation to the basic principles of the rule of law, which form part of the foundations of the European Union. This is one more. And it is for this reason that it is serious and incomparable with other situations. It is not possible to draw any parallels with other behaviour in other Member States of the European Union where none of this is happening. What is serious is the process, and it is this process that must be properly evaluated and must be clearly criticised here. Because what is at stake here, in fact, is a constant accession to Russia and a permanent devaluation of our European democratic model. Hungary, when it came to the European Union, was precisely willing to join a democratic club, after having lived for so many years under a dictatorship, which we all know. Hence our great admiration, our deep admiration for the Hungarian people. The question is: How long will this be possible? How long will the European Union continue to allow this situation? It's nothing against Hungary. It is only a reparation to the government that, momentarily, is in power in Hungary.

Madam President, Commissioner, in June 2018, I was in a small Brazilian town called Pacaraima, in northern Brazil, on the border with Venezuela. There I was able to contact dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of Venezuelans who were obtaining political refugee status, because they were fleeing oppression, because they were fleeing misery, because they were fleeing a deeply repressive regime that denied the fundamental rights of the Venezuelan people. Since then, the situation has not only not improved but, unfortunately, even worsened. And we finally had this situation a few days or months ago, marked by an operation of a gigantic electoral fraud. On that, I believe, none of us have the slightest doubt in this House. In this perspective, we must clearly state our absolute solidarity with those who today, in Venezuela, represent democracy, represent the struggle for freedom, represent hope in a society where the fundamental values in which we recognize ourselves are duly valued. That is why, Commissioner, I understand that there is a concern to find a political solution to avoid a civil war in Venezuela. But, let us be under no illusions, the two parts do not mean the same thing. On the one hand, there are autocrats, or defenders of an autocracy, and on the other, there are democrats and defenders of a democracy. On the one hand, there are those who have been liberating, and on the other, there are those who have been fighting for freedom. On the one hand, there are those who have already lost the confidence of the Venezuelan people, and on the other, there are those who, at this moment, represent hope for Venezuela. Finally, I will end with this appeal. I am sorry if it is not possible to reach an understanding between the great democratic forces here in Parliament, but one thing is certain: We may be momentarily divided, but, in essence, we are all with the Venezuelan people and with democracy in Venezuela.

Mr President, Commissioner, the regulation of social media is now an absolute necessity for the preservation of our democracies. Deregulated social networks undermine the foundations of the democratic rule of law. This is now absolute evidence virtually all over the world. Europe has been at the forefront of the fight against this anarchy that some want to install on social media. It is not by chance that they want it, because it is also not by chance that we often see defenders of autocrats cynically using and invoking the principle of freedom of expression to challenge any attempt to regulate social networks. Here, as a Member of the European Parliament and from the European Parliament, I would like to salute a large democratic state, Brazil, for the way in which it has dealt with the unacceptable attack on the rules of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. I am referring to the recent litigation between the Brazilian Supreme Court and Elon Musk. Elon Musk has recently proved to be a real enemy of democracy, and the truth is that a great democratic state, Brazil, has been able to stand up to him, in the name of the values of democratic sovereignty. This is an example that we need to be aware of.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, hatred of Jews is one of the oldest and most tragic diseases in Europe. It began in the Middle Ages, in a part of the Modern Age, as a hatred of Christian religious inspiration towards that people who were seen as the deicided people. From the end of the 19th century, Jews were identified with modernity, cosmopolitanism and universalism. And then comes modern anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism led to one of the darkest moments, if not the darkest moment in human history: the Nazi holocaust, which none of us can ignore or forget. Antisemitism in contemporary Europe has long been promoted mainly by extremist, nationalist, racist and far-right discourses. But today, what we see, with great concern, is that there are other political sectors that, in the name of fighting Israel, fall too easily into a truly anti-Semitic discourse. So we have reason to be concerned. Anti-Semitism was not dead in Europe. Anti-Semitism was just dormant and is returning in force in many of our countries. We must fight it with all our might.

We must treat those who come to live in Europe exactly as we treat Europeans. Of course, if there are terrorist acts, those responsible for terrorism must be duly punished, whether they are Europeans of origin or people who have come to live in Europe. That's the big question, and that's what really sets us apart. What seems abject to me is the clear attempt, which is the basis for promoting this debate, to establish a relationship of identification between the practice of terrorism and the situation of immigration and refugees. Certainly there are immigrants and there will be refugees who promote terrorist acts. But how many Europeans, over many years, have also not committed terrorist acts? That's the big difference and that's what separates us.

Mr President, Commissioner, any terrorist act is intolerable. A terrorist act committed within the framework of a democratic state governed by the rule of law is particularly abject. No one has the slightest doubt about it. But what is equally abject is trying to instrumentalise a terrorist act in order to establish an abusive identification relationship between terrorism, immigration and refugees. That is absolutely unacceptable. Europe cannot deny its fundamental values in the name of fighting terrorism. We must fight terrorism in absolute fidelity to our democratic values and our humanist tradition. This is how we can truly fight and defeat terrorism. Terrorism, moreover, has many different origins. It must therefore be said very clearly here that this attempt – which underlies the way in which this debate has been presented – to link terrorism to immigration and refugees is a real attack on the fundamental values on which the European Union is founded.