Setting the record straight – why I’m looking forward to exchange of views with European Parliament on my fight child sexual abuse proposal

On the 25^th of October I will be having an exchange of views with the LIBE committee on my proposal to prevent and fight child sexual abuse. The next day the LIBE committee will vote on the proposal.

I am approaching this public discussion with resolve, with transparency and with humility. And I want to explain to you why.

I am approaching this with resolve because, from a personal perspective, I have been subjected in recent weeks to insults, threats, and intimidation. Opponents of my proposal have focused on my gender, or my appearance.

The violence of their language perhaps undermines their attempts to portray themselves as the reasonable ones in this debate.

They have shown the kind of vilification on social media that I recognise from far-right extremists in the migration debate, but did not expect from privacy advocates. It includes out and out racist tweets, misogynist, and sexist abuse, because when you’re a woman in politics you must be called a “witch” and a “bitch” and worse.

Let me assure you, this only strengthens my resolve.

Secondly, I approach this with transparency because this was, is and will be only about protecting children.

It’s no surprise that at this key moment an article – published in various versions in EU media – appears, not so much criticising the content, but instead the process of how my proposal was launched.

My impression, having read the article, is that it is a series of insinuations looking for a home. It outlines a selection of meetings I had, of events I attended, or conferences I addressed. With a conspiratorial tone it attempts to create the impression of financial influence where there is none.

I know who wrote the proposal. The experts at DG Home and in my cabinet working night and day, closely with me every step of the way, in close collaboration with officials in other Commission services to ensure it protects children and all our fundamental rights. No-one else did. I was in charge of the proposal, which is backed by the entire Commission.

The headline of the article is “Who benefits?”

I can confidently say: first of all, children. Providers will be obliged to prevent abuse on their systems. If – and only if – that prevention fails could they be obliged to detect it. This detection – which has been ongoing for more than ten years – rescues children, also very young children, from ongoing rapes. If my proposal is not adopted, we face a complete ban of the detection of child sexual abuse when the temporary legislation that allows it expires next year.

No individual company or organisation will benefit. Once my proposal becomes law all providers will have to use measures to first prevent abuse, and to detect abuse if they cannot prevent it.

But no-one asks the question ‘Who benefits’ when it comes to privacy. We all benefit from privacy protection. But there are companies who benefit from selling the promise of privacy.

Few notice the discrepancy between a big tech business model based on knowing our most intimidate personal details and at the same time advertising encryption to protect our privacy.

In my home country a for-profit company selling privacy products has launched an expensive billboard campaign against my proposal with the company name and logo on full display and sent brochures to all MEPS. Yet no one asks: is that political campaigning or commercial advertising? Is there not a conflict of interest here?

The biggest digital rights NGO in Europe gets funding from the biggest tech company in the world. EDRI, the European Digital Rights NGO, publishes on its website that it receives funding from Apple. Apple was accused of moving encryption keys to China, which critics say could endanger customer data. Yet no-one asks if these are strange bedfellows, no-one assumes Apple is drafting EDRI’s speaking points.

Lastly, I approach this with humility. Because nothing I have been subjected to, no insult, no threat, can match what the survivors of child sexual abuse have gone through.

My humility at the bravery of survivors, especially those who take a public stance, is matched only by my disappointment that this article saw fit to make them a target of insinuations.

Someone who has taken this ultimate brave step, who has overcome the private trauma of abuse and then found the strength to be a public face deserves nothing but compassion and gentle respect.

They do not deserve the suggestion that they are fake, or have no agency. As children they had no agency, but now they do have agency.

I welcome all support for my proposal. Like the 150 experts in a recent letter. All the organisations and individuals who come out in support. The 520,000 people who have so far signed a petition in favour.

Or 80 per cent of Europeans who back it, according to Eurobarometer. Figures supported by a new poll released just now showing 95 per cent of Europeans say it’s important there are laws that regulate online service providers to fight child sexual abuse. 91% say providers should be required to prevent abuse. 81% support obligations to detect, report and remove child sexual abuse.

There are those who seem to suggest I should not be promoting my own proposal. If we’d accept that premise, the Commission would not be able to defend the Green Deal against climate change deniers, would not be able to defend our Ukraine policy against Russian disinformation.

I have been clear about my goal from the start. I remain committed to open communication and will continue in this vein. Full transparency is our motto and our friend. On the 25^th I will answer questions that remain.

To conclude with a last friendly irony. If we follow the money on this article, we see it was funded by the IJ4EU fund, which again is supported by the European Commission. Yet no one assumes the fund is not independent, no one assumes we held the pen in drafting the article. Well, this fairness should work both ways.

I am proud we support journalism even if it criticises us. We support accountability and transparency.

We want to protect children, to protect privacy and we must do both. That is what my proposal is about.

We will find that balance if we debate my proposal on its merits.

That is what our debate should be about.