Brussels, 08/04/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 7 April, MEPs and national MPs expressed concern at plans to revise the framework decision on the fight against terrorism, which seeks to criminalise public provocation to commit terrorist offences. Presented by the Commission in November 2007, the legislative proposal seeks to bring the EU framework decision into line with the corresponding convention of the Council of Europe by criminalising public provocation to commit terrorist offences, as well as training and recruitment for terrorism, in the aim of preventing the radicalisation of individuals, especially on the internet (EUROPE 9536 and 9537). “The proposal does not allow the outlawed behaviour to be defined”, states Roselyne Lefrançois (PES, France), rapporteur for the text. “We need a clear formulation, a safeguard clause and provisions guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights. These ingredients are missing from the Commission's recipe”, the MEP deplored, on the occasion of a round table organised at the European Parliament in Brussels. Gilles de Kerchove, European Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, maintained for his part that the EU needed to strengthen prevention against terrorism. “The media branch of Al Qaeda communicated every three days on average in 2007”, he noted, saying: “On the internet, around 5,000 websites are helping to radicalise our young people in Europe”. Dick Marty, who chairs the subcommittee on criminal matters and combating terrorism at the Council of Europe Assembly, stressed the fact that the safeguard clause in Article 12 of the Council of Europe convention was included only in the preamble to the Commission proposal and therefore only had a declarative value. “This is unacceptable (…) governments with bad intentions could thereby criminalise all kinds of opposition”, he said. In response, Gilles de Kerchove maintained that the proposal was being unfairly criticised as, in his view, it establishes general principles and leaves it up to the member states to implement them. “The courts know the difference between incitement to murder and the expression of a political opinion,” he added. Bostjan Skrlec, representing the Slovenian Council Presidency, argued that the defence of fundamental rights was not included in the preamble to the proposal because “if it had to be cited every time in the text, its importance would thereby be diluted”. This opinion was shared by French Senator Pierre Fauchon, who believed “we must stick to general formulations and trust the judge”. The senator nonetheless expressed doubt about the concept of “public provocation” in the text. “A Koran school is not a public space, nor is a private meeting. Yet it's in those places that individuals' minds are being poisoned”, he said. (B.C.)