Oisín
11-15-2008, 03:13 PM
Proposed European arrest warrant
The most ominous cog in the EU’s machinery of repression is the European Arrest Warrant, which will come into effect when the Lisbon Treaty is implemented next year. Former Ambassador Edgar K. Selzer gave a talk on the issue during the second day of the conference. See “Freedom of Speech in the European Union — the Implications of the Lisbon Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant” (http://missioneuropakmartell.wordpress.com/ressourcen/freedom-of-speech-in-the-european-union-the-implications-of-the-lisbon-treaty-and-the-european-arrest-warrant) on the Mission Europa site for a precis of what he said.
The European Arrest Warrant (pdf format) lists 32 categories of punishable crimes over which it has jurisdiction (emphasis added):
participation in a criminal organisation,
terrorism,
trafficking in human beings,
sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
corruption,
fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests,
laundering of the proceeds of crime,
counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
computer-related crime,
environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
murder, grievous bodily injury,
illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
racism and xenophobia,
organised or armed robbery,
illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
swindling,
racketeering and extortion,
counterfeiting and piracy of products,
forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
forgery of means of payment,
illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
trafficking in stolen vehicles,
rape,
arson,
crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
sabotage.
Some of these — rape, armed robbery, murder, and so on — are the kinds of crimes that one would expect to be covered by EU-wide legal procedures.
But “racism and xenophobia”? What are they? The document doesn’t define them. It does, however, refer back to the European Commission’s Framework Decision (http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm), which has this to say about such offenses:
Racist and xenophobic behaviour must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.
This framework decision will apply to all offences committed:
within the territory of the European Union,
by an national of a Member State or for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State. To that end, the framework decision proposes criteria on how to determine the liability of a legal person.
Racism and xenophobia will mean belief in race colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining aversion to individuals.
As you can see, under the Framework Decision virtually anything said at Counterjihad Vienna 2008 is illegal and actionable under the European Arrest Warrant. If the offending speech is posted on a blog, forum, or any other kind of website, it could be construed as a “computer-related crime” (which is also not defined).
Our discussions could then become a conspiracy, and hence we are part of a “criminal organisation”. From then on many of our activities would be punishable under various other categories as listed above.
So what is the European Arrest Warrant itself? How will it be executed?
The language of the document is dense and difficult to decode. Lawyers among our readers are invited to examine all of the thirty-odd articles and see what juicy tidbits can be found. But here are a few paragraphs and clauses that caught my eye (emphasis added):
1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
2. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.
[…]
A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.
[…]
When the location of the requested person is known, the issuing judicial authority may transmit the European arrest warrant directly to the executing judicial authority. Where the arrested person does not consent to his or her surrender as referred to in Article 13, he or she shall be entitled to be heard by the executing judicial authority, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State.
[…]
1. The executing judicial authority shall decide, within the time-limits and under the conditions defined in this Framework Decision, whether the person is to be surrendered.
[…]
A European arrest warrant shall be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency.
[…]
The requested person shall be heard by a judicial authority, assisted by another person designated in accordance with the law of the Member State of the requesting court.
He or she shall be surrendered no later than 10 days after the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant.
[…]
Each Member State shall, except when it avails itself of the possibility of refusal when the transit of a national or a resident is requested for the purpose of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, permit the transit through its territory of a requested person who is being surrendered provided that it has been given information on:
(a) the identity and nationality of the person subject to the European arrest warrant;
(b) the existence of a European arrest warrant;
(c) the nature and legal classification of the offence;
(d) the description of the circumstances of the offence, including the date and place.
[…]
1. Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat of the Council that, in its relations with other Member States which have given the same notification, the consent for the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender is presumed to have been given, unless in a particular case the executing judicial authority states otherwise in its decision on surrender.
2. In any case, a person who has been surrendered to the issuing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant may, without the consent of the executing Member State, be surrendered to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for any offence committed prior to his or her surrender in the following cases…
In summary:
The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which, as we have seen, could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.
Just imagine what would happen under these new rules if an Islam-friendly prosecutor in the Netherlands were to charge a Danish cartoonist instead of a Dutch one. What’s more, once Turkey is a member of the EU, “insulting the Turkish nation” will be a crime punishable by Turkey within any member state.
Considering the recently created EU death penalty for “rebellion”, one can see that the machinery necessary for totalitarian repression is now in place within the European superstate. A truly Orwellian system is fully operational and ready to be activated on January 1, 2009.
1984 has finally arrived; it’s just a quarter-century late.
[Link] (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/slouching-towards-vienna.html)
The most ominous cog in the EU’s machinery of repression is the European Arrest Warrant, which will come into effect when the Lisbon Treaty is implemented next year. Former Ambassador Edgar K. Selzer gave a talk on the issue during the second day of the conference. See “Freedom of Speech in the European Union — the Implications of the Lisbon Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant” (http://missioneuropakmartell.wordpress.com/ressourcen/freedom-of-speech-in-the-european-union-the-implications-of-the-lisbon-treaty-and-the-european-arrest-warrant) on the Mission Europa site for a precis of what he said.
The European Arrest Warrant (pdf format) lists 32 categories of punishable crimes over which it has jurisdiction (emphasis added):
participation in a criminal organisation,
terrorism,
trafficking in human beings,
sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
corruption,
fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests,
laundering of the proceeds of crime,
counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
computer-related crime,
environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
murder, grievous bodily injury,
illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
racism and xenophobia,
organised or armed robbery,
illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
swindling,
racketeering and extortion,
counterfeiting and piracy of products,
forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
forgery of means of payment,
illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
trafficking in stolen vehicles,
rape,
arson,
crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
sabotage.
Some of these — rape, armed robbery, murder, and so on — are the kinds of crimes that one would expect to be covered by EU-wide legal procedures.
But “racism and xenophobia”? What are they? The document doesn’t define them. It does, however, refer back to the European Commission’s Framework Decision (http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm), which has this to say about such offenses:
Racist and xenophobic behaviour must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.
This framework decision will apply to all offences committed:
within the territory of the European Union,
by an national of a Member State or for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State. To that end, the framework decision proposes criteria on how to determine the liability of a legal person.
Racism and xenophobia will mean belief in race colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining aversion to individuals.
As you can see, under the Framework Decision virtually anything said at Counterjihad Vienna 2008 is illegal and actionable under the European Arrest Warrant. If the offending speech is posted on a blog, forum, or any other kind of website, it could be construed as a “computer-related crime” (which is also not defined).
Our discussions could then become a conspiracy, and hence we are part of a “criminal organisation”. From then on many of our activities would be punishable under various other categories as listed above.
So what is the European Arrest Warrant itself? How will it be executed?
The language of the document is dense and difficult to decode. Lawyers among our readers are invited to examine all of the thirty-odd articles and see what juicy tidbits can be found. But here are a few paragraphs and clauses that caught my eye (emphasis added):
1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
2. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.
[…]
A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.
[…]
When the location of the requested person is known, the issuing judicial authority may transmit the European arrest warrant directly to the executing judicial authority. Where the arrested person does not consent to his or her surrender as referred to in Article 13, he or she shall be entitled to be heard by the executing judicial authority, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State.
[…]
1. The executing judicial authority shall decide, within the time-limits and under the conditions defined in this Framework Decision, whether the person is to be surrendered.
[…]
A European arrest warrant shall be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency.
[…]
The requested person shall be heard by a judicial authority, assisted by another person designated in accordance with the law of the Member State of the requesting court.
He or she shall be surrendered no later than 10 days after the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant.
[…]
Each Member State shall, except when it avails itself of the possibility of refusal when the transit of a national or a resident is requested for the purpose of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, permit the transit through its territory of a requested person who is being surrendered provided that it has been given information on:
(a) the identity and nationality of the person subject to the European arrest warrant;
(b) the existence of a European arrest warrant;
(c) the nature and legal classification of the offence;
(d) the description of the circumstances of the offence, including the date and place.
[…]
1. Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat of the Council that, in its relations with other Member States which have given the same notification, the consent for the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender is presumed to have been given, unless in a particular case the executing judicial authority states otherwise in its decision on surrender.
2. In any case, a person who has been surrendered to the issuing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant may, without the consent of the executing Member State, be surrendered to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for any offence committed prior to his or her surrender in the following cases…
In summary:
The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which, as we have seen, could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.
Just imagine what would happen under these new rules if an Islam-friendly prosecutor in the Netherlands were to charge a Danish cartoonist instead of a Dutch one. What’s more, once Turkey is a member of the EU, “insulting the Turkish nation” will be a crime punishable by Turkey within any member state.
Considering the recently created EU death penalty for “rebellion”, one can see that the machinery necessary for totalitarian repression is now in place within the European superstate. A truly Orwellian system is fully operational and ready to be activated on January 1, 2009.
1984 has finally arrived; it’s just a quarter-century late.
[Link] (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/slouching-towards-vienna.html)