Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.8.2-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, while I congratulate the rapporteurs on their work I fear that, as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so it is with this Charter.
The nations of Europe can be proud of their record on human rights; however, have they needed charters? Britain led the world in the battle to abolish slavery, but the only Charter – actually so called – which we have ever had in Britain was signed at Runnymede by King John in 1215. Of course, there are exceptions, exceptions so serious that Europe has a responsibility to do what it can to ensure that the inhumanities and atrocities of the past are never repeated. But does this Charter add to what we already have? Does it add to or replace the Convention on Human Rights to which all EU Member States and applicant states are signatories, or does it just add another judicial forum, leaving lawyers with the happy and profitable choice between the European Court and the Court of Human Rights?
Why not a simple declaration of human rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty without the need for a charter for litigation? Can fundamental rights properly be protected by a court which is already overstretched and frequently arrives at its judgments long after the events which it is judging? Does this Charter simply aim to be an expensive distributor of compensation in the dreadful fullness of time?
Ensuring fundamental human rights is the best of intentions, but a charter for litigation and bureaucracy is surely another road to another hell."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples