Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-18-Speech-4-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000518.7.4-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it would have been a good thing if the European Parliament had made a positive, informative and decisive contribution to the proposal for a Council directive, in line with the impetus given by the Portuguese Presidency. Unfortunately, it is not evident that that has happened. On some points, the amendments involve precise improvements to the text in question. In addition to details, I myself wish to refer to the right of collective action, legal assistance and other aspects which are already covered by Portuguese law. However, in key areas, the amendments that we are debating could potentially wreck everything. It seems that the rapporteurs and others who support them have wanted to go too far, and in their desire to do so they may seriously affect the entire proposal. There are three points that particularly worry us: the reversal of the burden of proof, which has not been clarified, and the issues of nationality and religion. Reversal of the burden of proof is already a very sensitive matter in its own right. Even so, there are areas in which it is clearly justified, but it is unacceptable that instead of applying the classic principle of
this is to be replaced by a principle of
especially when there is no explanation as to whether this reversal is to apply to criminal justice cases, and we know that there are cases in this area that can come under the criminal justice system. This would amount to a violation of the fundamental principles of our legal system and of basic rights of trial formulated in Latin, that is to say based on Roman law.
Secondly, there is the issue of nationality. We Portuguese can perhaps boast the richest mix of blood and ethnic origins in the course of history. I myself and my circle of friends have not the faintest idea of our ethnic background. We would be a real puzzle for a Nazi investigator or for the chart of ethnic origins which Baroness Ludford admired so much a few weeks ago in another report. We are familiar with the concept of racism, which has no impact on us, although we must combat it. Above all, we must firmly combat racist violence. But it is important not to confuse separate issues. In other words, ethnicity is one issue and nationality is another. If there is discrimination between a black person and a white person, or vice versa, for example if someone discriminates against a white Portuguese in favour of a black Portuguese, or against a black Portuguese in favour of a white Portuguese, this is clearly unlawful racism and should result in prosecution. However, when it comes to applying for a particular post, if a Portuguese, be he Asian, black or white, is suitable for that job, in a way that does not apply to a Zimbabwean, be he Asian, black or white, then this is not a question of racism, it is about citizenship, and this can be legitimate. The problem is that in many of the amendments these two concepts are confused, with potentially disastrous effects, particularly in areas such as public service, and even in other, unexpected areas. The other vital area is religion. We wish to make it clear that freedom of religious organisation is a fundamental civil right, which cannot be undermined, curbed or jeopardised, which would be the effect of some of the amendments before us."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples