Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-185"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Discrimination and equal treatment in the workplace2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001004.8.3-185"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-04-Speech-3-1862
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 co-chair; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-01-29)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this afternoon, we are discussing two of the three Commission proposals in which anti-discrimination legislation on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty is proposed. As it happens, my group has never been in favour of including Article 13 in the Treaty, not because we condone discrimination but because we believed it was undesirable to raise this topic to European level. A great deal has already been regulated in this field, both internationally and nationally. The European Commission is rather reticent in its proposals, but from the amendments tabled by the European Parliament, it does appear that there is a desire to go a lot further: there is call for an overarching European anti-discrimination policy, whereby the policy of national States is monitored by the Commission. The idea does not appeal to me at all. Why would a centralised Europe do better than a national government, which is much closer to its citizens and enjoys a far greater degree of democracy and supporting power? A sensitive issue is the clash with other constitutional rights, such as freedom of religion and belief, and the right to respect for privacy. I have a feeling that these rights are being infringed upon by Article 4 of the Commission proposal and the amendment tabled in this respect by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Religion and belief are not separate entities. Faith is, by definition, professed within a community and, by extension, will find expression in people’s attitude to life. This is why organisations, schools and nursing homes which express a particular identity have been established by and for people who share the same belief. Managerial and executive staff will give corporate shape to this belief. Could the Commissioner explain why the Commission is not taking this on board? The amendment tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has not done a great deal to clarify matters. It appears to be putting more distance between beliefs and practical attitude to life and, as a result, institutions are even further restricted in living out and maintaining their own identities. Absolute freedom of religion is impossible, as is absolute equality. Discrimination in the sense of treating people as inferior, taunting them and putting them at a disadvantage is an evil that must be eradicated. But we must be careful that, in striving to protect the weaker members of society, legislators do not oppress other groups that hold certain minority beliefs. This would breach major guarantees in the Treaties and constitutions."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph