Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-214"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000615.9.4-214"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(
) It should not be forgotten that certain Members of this House, within their own families, may have known asylum seekers. Only sixty years ago, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, Austrians and others, persecuted by their fascist or Nazi governments, were able to benefit from the right of asylum. It was our pride and our duty. In France, our most famous asylum seeker was General de Gaulle, who was able to benefit from the right of asylum in England in order to prepare the resistance.
The main value of this report is that it wishes to unify the laws of the Member States on asylum procedure. Laws and procedures should be harmonised before the Dublin Convention and the Eurodac system are implemented.
It would be unfair to authorise only a single asylum request for the countries of the European Union, given that it does not have the same chance of success from one State to another.
In my opinion, the standards set by the report are too low. There are omissions and certain points are still unclear. Persecution is not just political or caused by the States.
Thus, persecuted Afghan women who are stoned for not wearing the chador, should without exception benefit from the right of asylum. Similarly, an Algerian journalist threatened with death by fundamentalists should be able to benefit from the right of asylum. Certain States that persecute dissidents are considered to be great democracies. This is why requests from Chechnya are not examined. In order to grant the right of asylum, the States require proof of persecution. But this is often difficult to provide, due to the persecution itself. The report remains vague on this subject.
Finally, the procedure should take account of family ties, language, cultural affinity and the colonial history of asylum seekers’ country of origin, in order to help them to cope with exile.
If there is abuse or people are turned away, it is because of the lack of coherent rules. It would be unacceptable to be suspicious and restrict this great achievement in the history of humanity, which remains the only lifeline for freedom fighters worldwide.
I abstained on Amendment No 14. The aim of this amendment is to “request that in every application of the Eurodac system, emphasis be strongly placed on data protection in order to protect asylum seekers from any abuse of the information gathered”. This amendment admittedly aims to protect data on the information gathered. But I am against the actual idea of systematically collecting information, as by Eurodac, as I am against the very idea of accelerated procedures, which can give rise to many forms of abuse."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"FR"1
"Sylla (GUE/NGL ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples