Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-18-Speech-4-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000518.7.4-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I am delighted to have been able to work with Mrs Buitenweg. She has done an excellent and inclusive job producing a balanced text, which usefully strengthens the Commission’s hand. This proposed directive is a landmark for Europe. It is right that Europe should be legislating to guarantee the fundamental right to dignity, irrespective of ethnicity, and not to suffer discrimination. It is also timely for Europe to legislate now with the alarming rise in the Far Right and racist violence.
I want to highlight a few aspects of the text. Firstly, the very significant inclusion of indirect and institutional racism, and amendments have strengthened that aspect. Secondly, the specific inclusion of housing, health and other public authority functions, including policing. This is not interference in national responsibilities, but an assertion that the non-discriminatory delivery of these services is a European concern.
Thirdly, the inclusion via Amendments Nos 15 and 29 of disguised race discrimination. My Group is not favourable to the inclusion of religion or belief in the scope of this directive because that needs much more thought. However, we believe unequal treatment should be caught if it only pretends to be based on religion or nationality but is, in fact, race discrimination pure and simple.
Fourthly, the inclusion, as has already been mentioned, of incitement or pressure to discriminate – that is very important. Fifthly, the role of the European Union Monitoring Centre in assisting the Commission in monitoring the implementation of this directive – and I hope the Commission will welcome that. Sixthly, although my Group understands the thinking behind Amendment No 38, the fact that it includes private clubs or associations is rather problematical. To give you an example: I represent London and it could mean a problem for Caribbean people getting together to reminisce about life in the Caribbean in the 1950s if some white people were excluded. I think that Amendment No 38 is not well drafted.
Lastly, on the adjustment of the burden of proof, and I am borrowing Mr Oostlander’s phrase here, because he is quite correct to refer to it as ‘sharing’ or a ‘distribution’ of the burden of proof. I am rather sorry that the Socialist Group insist on calling it a
of the burden of proof because that is slightly misleading. It applies to the limited circumstances of equal opportunities law which is civil or administrative law. My Group agrees that since the employer authority has most of the information, it must prove there has been no breach of equal treatment once the complainant has demonstrated a
case.
Finally, there will be more heat than light from some speakers today and I am afraid I might include Mr Helmer of whose remarks I had a foretaste last night on the way back from the delightful asparagus dinner."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"l"1
"prima facie prima facie"1
"reversa"1
"reversa reversa"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples