Weaknesses of the new anti-terrorism directive, see the NGO

The European institutions agreed on the directive will form the new anti-terrorism framework in the EU. However, organisations for the protection of civil and human …
rights warned that the risks for the fundamental freedoms and rights.
One of the most important elements of the directive is to address the issue of “foreign fighters”. Thousands of european citizens have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join the Islamic State with the result that the member states as countries of origin to attempt to strengthen security measures to prevent terrorist attacks such as those of Paris, when 130 people were killed.
Therefore, the resolution criminalizing “preparatory acts”, including travel, finance, organisation and the facilitation of such travel, education, and the provision of funds for committing terrorist acts.
The incitement to terrorism and incitement of another person to participate in the preparation of terrorist acts, as for example with the supply or transfer of arms, are also defined as terrorist activities.
The same applies for the dispersion in the public discourse messages that glorify terrorist acts. Threats to commit such acts are punished equally, and also the same is the case for attacks against information systems or other actions that cause a ‘serious destabilising the fundamental political, constitutional and financial infrastructure of a country or an international organization”.
Organisations for the protection of the rights criticized the directive considering that it creates the risk of undermining fundamental rights but also for the fact that it has a disproportionate and adverse impact on certain ethnic and religious minorities.

Criminalization of public protests in?
Organisations such as Amnesty International, the European Network against Racism, the European Network of digital rights , the organization of the European Experts on Fundamental Rights , Human Rights watch, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Institutions of an Open Society all without exception have expressed concerns regarding the directive.
Warn that the excessively vague language of the text could lead to the criminalization of public protests and other peaceful acts, as well as the suppression of the exercise of freedom and expression, which are protected by international law.
The NGOS see the legislative process of transposing the directive as “extremely problematic”, as in their view, was drafted behind closed doors, without any assessment of the impact of the human rights, and no effort of engagement of civil society.
The organisations call on the EU member states to ensure that the incorporation of the directive in their national legislation includes additional safeguards so that the new framework to be in conformity with international and regional human rights obligations.
“A directive on terrorism, which has been drafted without proper consultation, and without a substantial public dialogue ends up in the worst possible outcome,” said Joe McNamee, executive director of the European network for the Digital Rights.
It also added that “it is too vague to be applied harmonised across the EU, it is overshadowed to a large extent from secrecy to public legitimacy and is very open to interpretation by governments which might seek to exploit its weaknesses.”
Anti-racist organisations were warned that discriminatory practices such as ethnic profiling. The President of ENAR, said, “being lenient in the protection of the rights of some, for the alleged benefits of a” majority, the directive is a flagrant violation of our human rights and will never arrange for values such as peace, reconciliation and social inclusion”.
Source